On Wed, 9 May 2012 13:01:19 -0400 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie> wrote: > > The important thing is to maintain a generosity towards others and not to > > be drawn into argument with them about the pros and cons of their/our > > choices. The situation is likely to proceed to one of two directions: > > either the codebases and the features start to diverge dramatically, in > > which case they move away and any other product becomes sufficiently > > different that there need be no conflict, or there is some for of > > reconcilliation/amalgamation, in which case all have to work together, so > > the less aggravation that has arisen before that, the better. > > > > It is a generous thing to be able to agree to differ. > > > > But what about when their preference is that you don't exist at all? > For example, when a LO leader comes onto the Apache list and says that > he would like us to fail and that he wants to "put us out of our > misery", then do we treat that as a mere "difference of opinion"? I'm > happy to be generous when it is a matter of taste, Coke versus Pepsi > or whatever. But when someone is denying our right to exist and > taking active steps to cause our votes to fail, etc., then I think > that is something else. > > We're called on to be generous and professional. We're not called on > to be martyrs. > > -Rob You simply reply "You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong!" and walk away. If he is obstructive/agressive on list, he should be banned. -- Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie>
