Thank you.
I am replying off-list because I do not want to create even more flaming.
I'm not a dev. Just a user in terms of gentoo. I'm subscribed to the
list since I need all the info I can get. And gentoo has definitely come
a long way in the last few weeks. First that 8-Day-Flame about saving
Dolphins in gentoo-user, now the dev-war.
It's nice to see someone pick up a good point and express it.
thanks
Paul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Dear list,
Why not simply naming the "formal logic rules" for the "official venue where
developers (and ex-developers and users) can talk out their disagreements"
to be:
1. Anyone who is impolite get's kicked off.
2. Anyone who repeatedly and seemingly on purpose tries to harm the discussion
will be kicked off.
Impolite: Do, under _no_ circumstances, use a word MTV would have to mute, or
that your grandmother (hopefully) wouldnt want to hear you say ;-)
Repeatedly: We are humans, we make faults.
Seemingly: If this wouldnt be part of the rule, there would be endless debates
on wether it was on purpose or not.
On purpose: We are humans, we make faults, it has to be premeditation or so
Kicked off: There is a group of twelve zillion people who just ban those
people from the list, or rather, their email-adresses.
harming a discussion: a list of things that can be considered harmfull should
be set up. sth like "pointing out things that are not relevent" (like
statements the consist of no more than "i do not like that idea"), or trying
to shift the issue to sth different, like "oh and besides, you often have
typos" and so on...sth that does, in no way, help finding a solution is to be
considered harmfull in the above sense.
I also suggest banning those people from posting only.
Plus is suggest banning to be longer. a 2hr ban wont prevent flaming, but will
look funny, and is alot of work. (if this was meant seariously)
Banning someone for a week, a month, and finally forever are more reasonable
time frames i think...
I think those rules would ensure people sit back before replying, and think
before they write.
There simply is no need to flame, get impolite, or harm a discussion, thus i
find being as strict as this is okay.
How do you think to politicians discuss problems in parliament? Call each
other fuckhead if hundrets are watching, screaming through the room while
throwing chairs and tables? I doubt it.
Things are similar here: We are _alot_ of people and discuss.
Certain rules of civilized discussion, that what's usually taught in
elementary school, need to be followed here, too. Only that the issue isn't
that someone can cut someone else off...
If anyone comes up with that the progress of politicians is too slow:
It is slow, because they do break one of the above rules, and because they do
often search for solutions where there is no objectively clear winner,
because the want to keep their power, have personal interests, and so on.
And - would you honestly think politicians would get _more_ productive, if
they started slandering each other?
Yet, here things are somewhat different:
Code is more secure, or faster, or smaller, or in another way "better" than
other code, depending on what the most important thing is for this piece of
code.
And a documentation is more or less understandable for the avg. user / dev, or
is more correct, and thus simply is better.
Here, i feel like we do not fail because we cannot find the solution that's
best for most of us, but we fail because of personal problems. And those
could easily be adressed by the above rules, as they in a way - as alot of
what is to be considered "polite" does - 'remove' a part of our personality
from the actual progress of discussing, since emotions are suppressed.
Shortening discussions to their functional part is sth that would help to
adress this issue, and on the other hand people could still become
("cyber")friends since there is IRC and private discussions need to go on
anyway.
At least, different personalities are what the current thing is all about, as
far as i know about it, which (luckily?) isnt that much.
Bryan Østergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Somehow a lot of people seems to think banning is the only possible
solution. I tend to think that's a horrible idea myself and most of
devrel backs me up on that.
Of course it is a horrible idea, but isnt it better than seeing someone
constantly insulting people, instead of being productive, functional,
objective or at least polite?
At the moment I feel like there is no real reason _not_ to insult anyone, for
those who like to do so, which has to be changed or values will be lost
completely. It can even be fun to get rid of aggressions collected throughout
the week at once, yet the gym is the correct place to do so, not this list.
Sincerely,
Daniel
P.S.: I know I did not read the complete thread, yet I am physically ill at
the moment, not able to read it all. [ <-- fuel your f
