Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.project > #11653 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-04-10 21:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2020-04-16 01:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 147 — 39 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project
Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-10 21:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-10 21:30 +0200
too many acronyms [was: Testing Discourse for Debian] Luca Filipozzi <lfilipoz@debian.org> - 2020-04-10 22:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2020-04-11 23:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-12 00:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2020-04-12 20:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 21:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-13 22:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 23:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-14 15:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 16:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 17:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 17:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-15 01:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 23:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2020-04-12 22:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 20:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 23:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 08:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-15 00:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Olek Wojnar <olek@debian.org> - 2020-04-12 03:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-12 20:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-12 21:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-12 21:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-12 22:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net> - 2020-04-13 00:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-13 01:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 01:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 02:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> - 2020-04-13 01:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-13 01:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 03:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Marcin Kulisz <kula@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 09:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-13 10:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-13 21:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 22:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 23:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-14 09:40 +0200
tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-04-14 10:30 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-14 11:10 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-14 12:20 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 18:50 +0200
[Summary] Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-14 22:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 23:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2020-04-15 00:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-15 01:00 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 17:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Ross Vandegrift <rvandegrift@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 18:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Olek Wojnar <olek@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 20:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2020-04-16 20:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 23:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-19 18:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-15 10:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-04-15 13:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-15 13:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-15 14:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 19:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 21:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 22:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-06-17 18:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-06-17 19:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-06-18 02:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-16 10:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-04-15 14:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 16:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-04-15 18:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-15 19:00 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 19:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-04-15 19:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2020-04-15 19:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-15 19:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 20:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Peter Ehlert <pb21a@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-04-15 20:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2020-04-15 20:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 21:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 21:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2020-04-15 21:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> - 2020-04-15 20:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-15 19:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-15 20:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 20:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Peter Ehlert <pb21a@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-04-15 20:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 23:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-16 23:40 +0200
[BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 00:30 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-17 00:50 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 11:20 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-17 12:00 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 12:30 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 13:50 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 16:10 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-17 14:50 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-17 15:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Brian Gupta <brian.gupta@brandorr.com> - 2020-04-15 16:20 +0200
Mandatory Communication Methods was: Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-15 16:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 17:00 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Brian Gupta <brian.gupta@brandorr.com> - 2020-04-15 21:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2020-04-15 17:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2020-04-15 19:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 21:10 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-15 00:50 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-15 00:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2020-04-14 00:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-14 10:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-14 12:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-14 14:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 11:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 14:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 15:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 16:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 10:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 11:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 12:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 13:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 13:30 +0200
"From" at beginning of line gets escaped (was: Re: Testing Discourse for Debian) Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 16:50 +0200
Re: "From" at beginning of line gets escaped (was: Re: Testing Discourse for Debian) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 17:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 13:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 16:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2020-05-03 21:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-05-04 13:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-05-04 13:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 15:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 15:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 22:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 16:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Alternate interactions Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-13 21:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Alternate interactions Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-13 21:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Alternate interactions Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 22:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-13 02:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 22:40 +0200
Discourse usability Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 22:30 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 22:50 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li> - 2020-04-14 01:10 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Abhijith PA <abhijith@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 21:30 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-17 10:00 +0200
alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-19 19:00 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-20 08:20 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-20 14:10 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-20 14:20 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-21 01:50 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-21 17:20 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-23 17:20 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 15:50 +0200
Re: Discourse usability MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> - 2020-04-24 18:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> - 2020-04-14 16:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> - 2020-04-16 01:00 +0200
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 20:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVVgJ-4Hx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11798 |
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 02:12:21 PM Dan Purgert wrote: > I read it as "oh what was that old thing on the internet ..." and took > it that you were trying to think of "Godwin's Law", but couldn't come up > with the name in the midst of writing the email. That is exactly right -- getting old is a b___! > Perhaps I was mistaken in that regard (given the responses you've > received). > > > (I probably dug myself in deeper :-( > > Probably - but at least you did apologize to all, and tried explaining > your case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Ehlert <pb21a@sdi-baja.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 20:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVV74-4DX-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11789 |
On 4/15/20 10:02 AM, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > I sincerely apologize to anybody I offended. See (or don't see) below. > > On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:49:56 AM Holger Levsen wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:22:29AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: >>> This must be one of those days when I feel the need to respond to more >>> emails than I usually do. >> but why? > Do you really expect an answer? Hard to explain -- I guess the > misinterpretation of one of my earlier comments led me to feel the need to try > to explain myself. > > Apology (or attempt at explanation) is still further below. > >>> (2) maybe bringing systemd into a discussion is (should be considered) >>> something just as disrepectful (harmful) as bringing Hitler into a >>> discussion. >> i'm disgusted and not sure how I should comment on comparing a free >> software tool with someone who's actions lead to the death of millions of >> people and the holocaust. > > I sincerely apologize! I never intended my comment to express any approval of > Hitler or a comparison of systemd to Hitler. no problem here. your humor is understood. some folks are ultra sensitive on various subjects/words. It's a cultural thing I believe. I try to ignore them. > > > I don't know if I can explain or if an explanation would help. Without really > thinking about the actions of Hitler, I was just trying to suggest that > bringing up an off-topic subject that provokes controversy (like systemd) might > signal the end of useful conversation about a subject, something like bringing > up a different off-topic subject (Hitler) has in the past signaled the end of > useful conversation on other subjects. > > To me, the idea of bringing up Hitler in a conversation is crazy / humorous, > even though his actions are far from humorous. > > (I probably dug myself in deeper :-( > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-16 23:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zWjVM-3ti-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11789 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Le mercredi 15 avril 2020 à 13:02:53-0400, rhkramer@gmail.com a écrit :
> I sincerely apologize to anybody I offended. See (or don't see) below.
>
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:49:56 AM Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:22:29AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > > This must be one of those days when I feel the need to respond to more
> > > emails than I usually do.
> >
> > but why?
>
> Do you really expect an answer? Hard to explain -- I guess the
> misinterpretation of one of my earlier comments led me to feel the need to try
> to explain myself.
>
> Apology (or attempt at explanation) is still further below.
>
> >
> > > (2) maybe bringing systemd into a discussion is (should be considered)
> > > something just as disrepectful (harmful) as bringing Hitler into a
> > > discussion.
> >
> > i'm disgusted and not sure how I should comment on comparing a free
> > software tool with someone who's actions lead to the death of millions of
> > people and the holocaust.
>
>
> I sincerely apologize! I never intended my comment to express any approval of
> Hitler or a comparison of systemd to Hitler.
>
> I don't know if I can explain or if an explanation would help. Without really
> thinking about the actions of Hitler, I was just trying to suggest that
> bringing up an off-topic subject that provokes controversy (like systemd) might
> signal the end of useful conversation about a subject, something like bringing
> up a different off-topic subject (Hitler) has in the past signaled the end of
> useful conversation on other subjects.
>
> To me, the idea of bringing up Hitler in a conversation is crazy / humorous,
> even though his actions are far from humorous.
>
> (I probably dug myself in deeper :-(
Hi,
I'm contacting you both publicly (via debian-project@) and privately (on
your GMail address) in the name of the Community Team following this
subthread.
As you seem perfectly aware of, bringing Adolf Hitler or nazism in a
public conversation on -project as a (maybe caricatural) way of
comparison is not good. Apologizing, is a good thing, but trying to
explain oneself in such a situation is doing yourself and your apologies
wrong.
Not because one can't explain themselves at any time, but because it
makes your apologies look like a pretense to justify what you said instead
of making your apologies look like sincere ones. Especially when the
issue lies on a touchy thing like references to the Holocaust.
You replied further, in particular to a mail from Felix, in particular
in private, and it seems that your discussion is neither sane nor
helping to descalate things. Felix claims to feel threatened by some of
your messages, and you seem to feel that your private discussion, if it
occurred, was not good.
In that regard, and because this part of the thread is just harmful to
many readers and to the Debian Project, we'd like to ask you if you
could:
1. Not contact Felix in private anymore regarding this subject.
2. Not reply to any mail regarding this part of the thread, neither in
public nor in private, to anyone.
In the same time, we ask the members of the list to do the same and let
this part of the discussion cool down without adding any more comment.
Thank you, and thank everyone else for that.
If you feel the need to discuss about this situation, my mailbox is
open.
With best regards,
--
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-16 23:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zWkoN-3Dm-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11819 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 4:58:08 PM EDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: ... > Hi, > > I'm contacting you both publicly (via debian-project@) and privately (on > your GMail address) in the name of the Community Team following this > subthread. Sigh. To quote from the recent DPL delegation for your team: > * To work with teams responsible for communications channels within > the community such as listmasters, the owner of the Bug Tracking > System, administrators of Debian Planet and others to provide > advice; where desired by these teams, helping to deal with > contentious and difficult issues that impact the community. and > This delegation grants no explicit power to the Community Team to > enforce decisions; the power granted by this delegation is advisory. > However, other teams may work with the Community Team as they choose > and may allow the community team to have power within their channels. > As an example, at the time of this delegation, some community team > members are involved in list moderation. Within the rules established > by listmaster for the use of this moderation power, it is appropriate > for community team members to use such power in furtherance of the > Community Team mission. Are you a listmaster? According to https://www.debian.org/intro/organization you are not. Assuming that's the case, I think you're out of line. If there's a problem on a Debian list, it's the listmaster's role to address it. I'm further assuming that if the listmasters had asked the Community Team to take an active role in policing Debian lists, they would have mentioned it. I've been skeptical about this delegation, but come on! Can't you even last two days without going outside your mandate? Scott K
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-17 00:30 +0200 |
| Subject | [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) |
| Message-ID | <zWlbb-495-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11821 |
Le 16 avril 2020 23:17:46 GMT+02:00, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> a écrit : >On Thursday, April 16, 2020 4:58:08 PM EDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >... >> Hi, >> >> I'm contacting you both publicly (via debian-project@) and privately >(on >> your GMail address) in the name of the Community Team following this >> subthread. > >Sigh. > >To quote from the recent DPL delegation for your team: > >> * To work with teams responsible for communications channels within >> the community such as listmasters, the owner of the Bug Tracking >> System, administrators of Debian Planet and others to provide >> advice; where desired by these teams, helping to deal with >> contentious and difficult issues that impact the community. > >and > >> This delegation grants no explicit power to the Community Team to >> enforce decisions; the power granted by this delegation is advisory. >> However, other teams may work with the Community Team as they choose >> and may allow the community team to have power within their channels. >> As an example, at the time of this delegation, some community team >> members are involved in list moderation. Within the rules >established >> by listmaster for the use of this moderation power, it is appropriate >> for community team members to use such power in furtherance of the >> Community Team mission. > >Are you a listmaster? According to >https://www.debian.org/intro/organization >you are not. Assuming that's the case, I think you're out of line. If > >there's a problem on a Debian list, it's the listmaster's role to >address it. >I'm further assuming that if the listmasters had asked the Community >Team to >take an active role in policing Debian lists, they would have mentioned >it. > >I've been skeptical about this delegation, but come on! Can't you even >last >two days without going outside your mandate? > >Scott K I have the feeling that maybe some basic concepts are not clear to you, so I'll state these here to avoid a rinse and repeat process. The Community Team is just a (now delegated) group of Developers where people know that they can find some advice and that will try to find solutions to Community Issues, eg by working with other teams when it is relevant. But no one has to be part of a team to ask some things out. Anyone is free to ask someone to do something, eg not posting anymore about a sadly remembered historical person on a list. You are free to ask, I'm free to ask, even a listmaster is free to ask. What I can't do is force someone to not post anymore on a list, and I'm currently not doing so. And, indeed, only a listmaster (or list moderators, as it became a thing now) can and I'd rather keep it that way. What I'm doing here is asking someone to stop posting about something, and I'm not crossing any line by doing that, otherwise this line has been so much crossed in the past years it doesn't exist anymore. What I'm implying by stating that it is an official CT request is that we have been contacted or prompted to do something and that we will consider asking, eg the listmasters, some advice or opinions should the matter continue. In some way it's a bit like when you see someone in the but putting his shoes on the seat in front of them. You don't wait to feel entitled by being a transportation officer to ask nicely the person to remove thein feet from the seat. Because we are a community of people, we have a right to expect others to understand what we ask of them without being some sort of police officer. With best regards, -- PEB (from my phone)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-17 00:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) |
| Message-ID | <zWluy-4h1-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11822 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 6:22:32 PM EDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > Le 16 avril 2020 23:17:46 GMT+02:00, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> a écrit : > >On Thursday, April 16, 2020 4:58:08 PM EDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > >... > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm contacting you both publicly (via debian-project@) and privately > >(on > >> your GMail address) in the name of the Community Team following this > >> subthread. > > > >Sigh. > > > >To quote from the recent DPL delegation for your team: > >> * To work with teams responsible for communications channels within > >> the community such as listmasters, the owner of the Bug Tracking > >> System, administrators of Debian Planet and others to provide > >> advice; where desired by these teams, helping to deal with > >> contentious and difficult issues that impact the community. > > > >and > > > >> This delegation grants no explicit power to the Community Team to > >> enforce decisions; the power granted by this delegation is advisory. > >> However, other teams may work with the Community Team as they choose > >> and may allow the community team to have power within their channels. > >> As an example, at the time of this delegation, some community team > >> members are involved in list moderation. Within the rules > > > >established > > > >> by listmaster for the use of this moderation power, it is appropriate > >> for community team members to use such power in furtherance of the > >> Community Team mission. > > > >Are you a listmaster? According to > >https://www.debian.org/intro/organization > >you are not. Assuming that's the case, I think you're out of line. If > > > >there's a problem on a Debian list, it's the listmaster's role to > >address it. > >I'm further assuming that if the listmasters had asked the Community > >Team to > >take an active role in policing Debian lists, they would have mentioned > >it. > > > >I've been skeptical about this delegation, but come on! Can't you even > >last > >two days without going outside your mandate? > > > >Scott K > > I have the feeling that maybe some basic concepts are not clear to you, so > I'll state these here to avoid a rinse and repeat process. > > The Community Team is just a (now delegated) group of Developers where > people know that they can find some advice and that will try to find > solutions to Community Issues, eg by working with other teams when it is > relevant. > > But no one has to be part of a team to ask some things out. Anyone is free > to ask someone to do something, eg not posting anymore about a sadly > remembered historical person on a list. You are free to ask, I'm free to > ask, even a listmaster is free to ask. > > What I can't do is force someone to not post anymore on a list, and I'm > currently not doing so. And, indeed, only a listmaster (or list moderators, > as it became a thing now) can and I'd rather keep it that way. > > What I'm doing here is asking someone to stop posting about something, and > I'm not crossing any line by doing that, otherwise this line has been so > much crossed in the past years it doesn't exist anymore. > > What I'm implying by stating that it is an official CT request is that we > have been contacted or prompted to do something and that we will consider > asking, eg the listmasters, some advice or opinions should the matter > continue. > > In some way it's a bit like when you see someone in the but putting his > shoes on the seat in front of them. You don't wait to feel entitled by > being a transportation officer to ask nicely the person to remove thein > feet from the seat. > > Because we are a community of people, we have a right to expect others to > understand what we ask of them without being some sort of police officer. > > With best regards, When you say you are acting "in the name of the Community Team", you don't get to claim you're just like everyone else. I agree that any project member (or list participant for that matter) can and should take steps to improve the tone of the list. That's not what you did. You invoked the power of your delegated authority (whatever it might be) to give your act special weight. While you may not have the power to ban people directly, based on the delegation your team's recommendations regarding interpretation of the CoC do get special consideration. If we're all equal, some of us are more equal than others. It you'd left off the part I quoted and said everything else you said, I'd have had no objection. I'd have thought you were going a bit overboard, but not enough for me to question it. As a DD, I'm required to subscribe to d-d-a. As a package maintainer I'm required to receive non-spam emails from the BTS. As an FTP Team member there are certain communication requirements. I'm about --><--- this close to just dumping everything else because it's too draining. Scott K
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-17 11:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) |
| Message-ID | <zWvke-26p-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11823 |
Le jeudi 16 avril 2020 à 18:39:06-0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit : > When you say you are acting "in the name of the Community Team", you don't get > to claim you're just like everyone else. I agree that any project member (or > list participant for that matter) can and should take steps to improve the > tone of the list. That's not what you did. You invoked the power of your > delegated authority (whatever it might be) to give your act special weight. Let me quote myself: > > What I'm implying by stating that it is an official CT request is that we > > have been contacted or prompted to do something and that we will consider > > asking, eg the listmasters, some advice or opinions should the matter > > continue. As said, the weight I'm giving to my act is perfectly in the scope of our delegation: we will act upon this should the matter persist. You seem to forget that it's already what we did before being delegated, and, if that could make you more comfortable, my email to this list wouldn't have been different from a single bit if we weren't delegated. Actually, the other members of the CT can confirm that, but I was the one pressing that we would not need a delegation, and that if we did intend to be delegated, I was expecting no power from this delegation, and no specific rights to get someone out of any part of the project apart from the rights we have as standard Developers or members of these parts of the project. I actually stand by my point, and I would not be fine with having any specific leverage on any core team (DAM, Listmasters, DSA or other). To me this team's leverage is words, and the trust we'll build with these core teams, nothing more. > While you may not have the power to ban people directly, based on the > delegation your team's recommendations regarding interpretation of the CoC do > get special consideration. If we're all equal, some of us are more equal than > others. Indeed, because it's our job to remind the CoC and try to have it respected. And it's regarding this job that I intervened. I'm happy that we agree on this and therefore don't really understand how you could have thought that I was going out of line. > It you'd left off the part I quoted and said everything else you said, I'd have > had no objection. I'd have thought you were going a bit overboard, but not > enough for me to question it. I'm quite concerned that you could think that a member of the Community Team is going overboard when asking people to not continue discussing about Hitler additions in a conversation on a list, because he would need to be a listmaster to do so. > As a DD, I'm required to subscribe to d-d-a. As a package maintainer I'm > required to receive non-spam emails from the BTS. As an FTP Team member there > are certain communication requirements. I'm about --><--- this close to just > dumping everything else because it's too draining. I'm sorry if you feel the requirement for social interactions as a draining thing, and I would really like to have some solutions to offer you about that, but I have no real clue about how to help. Yet I don't think that seeing some people trying to have a saner community and better discussions on public lists should be draining at all. If it is, I'm sorry, and I'd be happy to discuss with you about how we could do the same job in a manner that would make you more confortable. I hope that you understand why I sent this initial email, why I stand by it, and why it's important. And of course, should the listmasters think that the way we acted is excessive, we'd be glad to speak with them about that, and to have them define the frame in which we should act on lists. With best regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-17 12:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) |
| Message-ID | <zWvWV-2k0-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11826 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:07:04AM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: [...] > As said, the weight I'm giving to my act is perfectly in the scope of > our delegation: we will act upon this should the matter persist. I have no qualms with you intervening here. I think before you intervended there were enough people around here making clear that the Hitler metaphor was inappropriate. It seems that the poster in question accepted that. Whatever happened in private and behind the scenes I can't assess, so I'll shut up there. My mail address is in the open, I'm willing to listen. [...] > Indeed, because it's our job to remind the CoC and try to have it > respected. And it's regarding this job that I intervened. I'm happy > that we agree on this and therefore don't really understand how you > could have thought that I was going out of line. I do have an issue with the tone you chose. Actually I'm a bit horrified by it. In a situation which seemed to be on the way to deescalation, you chose a tone which contributed to escalation (I'm not assuming intention, but I see the effects). Perhaps we can agree on a couple of things, will we? - Hitler is off-topic here. It used to be a meme in Usenet times, but it wasn't a good idea then and we're glad we don't need that - If someone obviously apologizes in public, by all means, take his/her word for it. Yeah, people lie sometimes (I know *I* do), but don't assume a lie unless you have strong evidence for it Thanks & cheers -- tomás
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-17 12:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) |
| Message-ID | <zWwpY-2JG-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11827 |
Le vendredi 17 avril 2020 à 11:47:36+0200, tomas@tuxteam.de a écrit : > > Indeed, because it's our job to remind the CoC and try to have it > > respected. And it's regarding this job that I intervened. I'm happy > > that we agree on this and therefore don't really understand how you > > could have thought that I was going out of line. > > I do have an issue with the tone you chose. Actually I'm a bit > horrified by it. In a situation which seemed to be on the way > to deescalation, you chose a tone which contributed to escalation > (I'm not assuming intention, but I see the effects). It escalated because some people have doubts regarding the CT and its delegation, not because of the topic itself. Regarding the current state of the subthread, it's unclear whether it was descalating, and as we got some demands to help, we did think that sending an email was apprioriate here. If you're horrified by my tone, I'm happy to discuss about it, either there, or, preferably (as this subsubthread is becoming longer that it should have) in private, via the community@debian.org alias. I'd be glad to understand and find a way to make it less horrifying for the next times, as there will sadly be next times. Cheers, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-17 13:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) |
| Message-ID | <zWxFn-3pS-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11827 |
Le Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:47:36AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de a écrit : > > - If someone obviously apologizes in public, by all means, > take his/her word for it. Yeah, people lie sometimes (I > know *I* do), but don't assume a lie unless you have > strong evidence for it Hi Tomás I found it great that the Community team reminded that the best apologies are brief and do not get into explanations. I think that it does not question the honesty of the apology. Learning to apologise is actually difficult (we do not want more opportunities to train, don't we), and I think that we also should learn that there is nothing wrong in receiving such advice, even in public like here. Have a nice week-end, Charles -- Charles Plessy Akano, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-17 16:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) |
| Message-ID | <zWzQR-4UI-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11827 |
Some private discussion with Thomas made me understand why he felt ill-at-ease with my email, and I do think it requires a clarification, as I actually screwed up my phrasing. I wrote Le jeudi 16 avril 2020 à 22:58:08+0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue a écrit¬: > As you seem perfectly aware of, bringing Adolf Hitler or nazism in a > public conversation on -project as a (maybe caricatural) way of > comparison is not good. Apologizing, is a good thing, but trying to > explain oneself in such a situation is doing yourself and your apologies > wrong. >• > Not because one can't explain themselves at any time, but because it > makes your apologies look like a pretense to justify what you said instead > of making your apologies look like sincere ones. Especially when the > issue lies on a touchy thing like references to the Holocaust. The second paragraph is misphrased. While it aims at reminding that some people could believe that "apologies + explaination = no apology + explaination", and could feel that such excuses are not sincere, I personally do believe that this was not the case here and thus believe that your apologies were sincere. I'm sorry that my mistake may have led you to feel otherwise here. With best regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-17 14:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) |
| Message-ID | <zWyBr-3Zj-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11826 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Friday, April 17, 2020 5:07:04 AM EDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > Le jeudi 16 avril 2020 à 18:39:06-0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit : > > When you say you are acting "in the name of the Community Team", you don't > > get to claim you're just like everyone else. I agree that any project > > member (or list participant for that matter) can and should take steps to > > improve the tone of the list. That's not what you did. You invoked the > > power of your delegated authority (whatever it might be) to give your act > > special weight. > Let me quote myself: > > > What I'm implying by stating that it is an official CT request is that > > > we > > > have been contacted or prompted to do something and that we will > > > consider > > > asking, eg the listmasters, some advice or opinions should the matter > > > continue. > > As said, the weight I'm giving to my act is perfectly in the scope of > our delegation: we will act upon this should the matter persist. > > You seem to forget that it's already what we did before being delegated, > and, if that could make you more comfortable, my email to this list > wouldn't have been different from a single bit if we weren't delegated. That was before the team had specific boundaries to it's role defined. They've been defined now. The team should respect them and I do not believe you are. > Actually, the other members of the CT can confirm that, but I was the > one pressing that we would not need a delegation, and that if we did > intend to be delegated, I was expecting no power from this delegation, > and no specific rights to get someone out of any part of the project > apart from the rights we have as standard Developers or members of these > parts of the project. > > I actually stand by my point, and I would not be fine with having any > specific leverage on any core team (DAM, Listmasters, DSA or other). To > me this team's leverage is words, and the trust we'll build with these > core teams, nothing more. Delegation isn't just about what you can do as a team. It also sets the boundaries of the team's scope. As far as the words go, I think it's pretty horrible to jump in after a thread is over and publicly shame someone for doing the apology wrong. > > While you may not have the power to ban people directly, based on the > > delegation your team's recommendations regarding interpretation of the CoC > > do get special consideration. If we're all equal, some of us are more > > equal than others. > > Indeed, because it's our job to remind the CoC and try to have it > respected. And it's regarding this job that I intervened. I'm happy > that we agree on this and therefore don't really understand how you > could have thought that I was going out of line. No. We don't agree at all. You can't have it both ways. Either since you said you were acting as a team member, you were claiming a special role (inappropriately so in my opinion) or you have no special role (which is what you claimed) It can't be both. I was probably being to subtle in my language. Here's a more direct explanation so it won't be missed: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/all-animals-are-equal--but-some-animals-are-more-equal-than-others > > It you'd left off the part I quoted and said everything else you said, I'd > > have had no objection. I'd have thought you were going a bit overboard, > > but not enough for me to question it. > > I'm quite concerned that you could think that a member of the Community > Team is going overboard when asking people to not continue discussing > about Hitler additions in a conversation on a list, because he would > need to be a listmaster to do so. I feel like you are intentionally twisting my words, but I will assume good faith and work on the assumption that I'm wrong and we are just communicating poorly. My objection has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. My objection has to do with the Community Team exceeding it's delegation when it's less than 48 hours old. I've already said, I don't think it takes a listmaster. Anyone can do it. My objection is you claiming that since you're a member of a team with no delegated powers you have a special power. The overboard part is that the email you were replying to was an apology for being out of line. The writer had already recognized that they'd made a mistake. While the apology may not have been the best one ever constructed, the situation was over. You would have been perfectly in line in my opinion if you had done two things differently: 1. Left out the bit about your authority as a member of the community team. 2. Replied to the original message, not the apology. > > As a DD, I'm required to subscribe to d-d-a. As a package maintainer I'm > > required to receive non-spam emails from the BTS. As an FTP Team member > > there are certain communication requirements. I'm about --><--- this > > close to just dumping everything else because it's too draining. > > I'm sorry if you feel the requirement for social interactions as a > draining thing, and I would really like to have some solutions to offer > you about that, but I have no real clue about how to help. Yet I don't > think that seeing some people trying to have a saner community and > better discussions on public lists should be draining at all. If it is, > I'm sorry, and I'd be happy to discuss with you about how we could do > the same job in a manner that would make you more confortable. Once I again, I feel like you are twisting my words, but, although it's honestly getting strained, I'll assume this is more miscommunication. I did not say and I do not find social interaction draining. I find the actions of the Community Team and it's predecessor draining. I don't think your email was a step towards a saner community. It was rather the opposite. If I were to use your communication style here I would say, "I agree you have no clue", but that would be wrong, so I won't. Perhaps that idea gives you a better understanding of how I feel you are twisting my words. As long as you stick to solving actual problems and not publicly shaming people about wording their apology poorly, I think we'll be fine. As long as you stick to your delegation when claiming to act in the name of the Community Team, I think we'll be fine. It is strange, but true that now that there is a delegation text that says what the team's role is there are things you can (and should) do as an individual that the team can't. > I hope that you understand why I sent this initial email, why I stand by > it, and why it's important. I don't. I hope you understand why I think it's important that this abuse not go unanswered. > And of course, should the listmasters think that the way we acted is > excessive, we'd be glad to speak with them about that, and to have them > define the frame in which we should act on lists. That's not how it works. Once again, back to the text of the delegation: > > However, other teams may work with the Community Team as they choose > > and may allow the community team to have power within their channels. Your claim is that you get to assert whatever power you want and it's up to other teams to tell you to stop. That is precisely the opposite of what the delegation says. I believe you were wrong and I believe your claims to the contrary confirm it. Scott K
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-17 15:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) |
| Message-ID | <zWz4t-4oF-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11830 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:37:48AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: Scott, I think we both agree that the reaction to the apology was unnecessarily harsh, but this: > I feel like you are intentionally twisting my words, is not helping. > but I will assume good > faith and work on the assumption that I'm wrong and we are just communicating > poorly. If you want to assume good faith, the "intentionally" rhethoric up there is superfluous. I'm taking this off-list (Pierre-Elliott proposed that, and I think he's right: this thread is already a monster thread and bound to do more harm than good). My wish - assume good intentions on all sides - do really assume good intentions. Cheers & over -- tomás
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian Gupta <brian.gupta@brandorr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 16:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVR3s-2eQ-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11773 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 7:48 AM Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 07:22:53AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > > Would you be willing to list out which points it is from the given > > "cons" category which you see as positives? > > > > I'd really rather not at this stage, as I'm already seemingly having to > spend time talking about how Discourse is set up, rather than what I was > trying to do. I don't want to end up in a big debate on where "requires > account" or "distributed moderation based on trust levels" sits. > > The point of this Discourse instance is to try and see if there is > interest in moving to it rather than smartlists for community > discussions. If there is sufficient interest, we can then find a group > of people who want to consider these tradeoffs and who are willing to > help with the way categories are organised, for example. > > If there is sufficient pushback, I'll delete the instance, move on with > my life, and conclude that no one in Debian can possibly try and > innovate or do new things unless it is either: > * 100% optional for people, or > * made completely compatable with the old way of doing things > > Apologies if the frustration is showing, but hopefully you can see where > this is coming from. Neil, Do we have to start by making it a mandatory switch? I don't feel consensus to move to discourse will be impossible in the long term but it's normal for human beings to resist change, especially during a time of otherwise great stress. How do you feel about making discourse.debian.org, and making it a fully supported tool, that's fully backed up, and available as an alternative for new lists? He can have another discussion later about migrating existing lists. Brian > Neil
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 16:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Mandatory Communication Methods was: Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVRwu-2oT-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11780 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 10:12:21 AM EDT Brian Gupta wrote: ... > Do we have to start by making it a mandatory switch? I don't feel consensus > to move to discourse will be impossible in the long term but it's normal > for human beings to resist change, especially during a time of otherwise > great stress. To focus on just this one point: There's no such thing as a mandatory switch. The only 'mandatory' communication mechanism for Debian Developers is the d-d-a mailing list (and that's not enforced). This will attract users or it won't, but there's no forcing volunteers to use it, so whatever your worries about this, that needn't be one of them. Scott K
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 17:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVRG9-2s6-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11780 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi Brian, On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:12:21AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote: > Do we have to start by making it a mandatory switch? I don't feel consensus to > move to discourse will be impossible in the long term but it's normal for human > beings to resist change, especially during a time of otherwise great stress. > I think we're miles away from making it a mandatory switch! In fact, I explictly stated this in my initial email: > What about the mailing lists? > This may or may not be a replacement for any particular list. I suspect > there are some thet would benefit greatly from having Discourse be the > primary interaction, and other places where this would be less suitable. > > Be specific! > Ok... I think debian-user, debian-vote and possibly debian-project would > be better off in Discourse. I think debian-devel-announce should stay as > an email list (for now). However, I am not suddenly proposing that we shut > those lists down. The aim of this exercise is to see if Discourse would > work well for us. The whole point of this is to evaluate if Discourse would work for Debian at all, rather than if it should be the primary communication platform. I think that discussion is very different. > How do you feel about making discourse.debian.org, and making it a fully > supported tool, that's fully backed up, and available as an alternative for new > lists? He can have another discussion later about migrating existing lists. > Personally, I think that would be fantastic, and the idea behind this initial call for testing is to determine if I should be spending my time, and aiming for a discourse.debian.org instance, or if there is no appetite for that. Neil --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian Gupta <brian.gupta@brandorr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 21:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVWcN-5hl-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11784 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:50 AM Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> wrote: > > Hi Brian, > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:12:21AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote: > > Do we have to start by making it a mandatory switch? I don't feel consensus to > > move to discourse will be impossible in the long term but it's normal for human > > beings to resist change, especially during a time of otherwise great stress. > > > > I think we're miles away from making it a mandatory switch! In fact, I > explictly stated this in my initial email: > > What about the mailing lists? > > This may or may not be a replacement for any particular list. I suspect > > there are some thet would benefit greatly from having Discourse be the > > primary interaction, and other places where this would be less suitable. > > > > Be specific! > > Ok... I think debian-user, debian-vote and possibly debian-project would > > be better off in Discourse. I think debian-devel-announce should stay as > > an email list (for now). However, I am not suddenly proposing that we shut > > those lists down. The aim of this exercise is to see if Discourse would > > work well for us. > > The whole point of this is to evaluate if Discourse would work for > Debian at all, rather than if it should be the primary communication > platform. I think that discussion is very different. > > > How do you feel about making discourse.debian.org, and making it a fully > > supported tool, that's fully backed up, and available as an alternative for new > > lists? He can have another discussion later about migrating existing lists. > > > > Personally, I think that would be fantastic, and the idea behind this > initial call for testing is to determine if I should be spending my > time, and aiming for a discourse.debian.org instance, or if there is no > appetite for that. I suspect that if we can table migrating existing lists, then we can probably reach a short term consensus to stand up such an instance, assuming there are volunteers to care and feed it. (My assumption is that migration of existing lists would be on a per list basis, and require an internal consensus among the list participants.) Cheers, Brian > Neil > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 17:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVRPP-2KK-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11780 |
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 7:16 AM Brian Gupta <brian.gupta@brandorr.com> wrote: > > How do you feel about making discourse.debian.org ... available as > an alternative for new lists? [We] can have another discussion later > about migrating existing lists. Yay, thanks for speaking up for a compromise!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 19:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zVU1k-40P-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11773 |
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 5:48 AM Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 07:22:53AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > > Would you be willing to list out which points it is from the given > > "cons" category which you see as positives? > > <snip> > The point of this Discourse instance is to try and see if there is > interest in moving to it rather than smartlists for community > discussions. If there is sufficient interest, we can then find a group > of people who want to consider these tradeoffs and who are willing to > help with the way categories are organised, for example. <snip> If I had a vote, I would vote to move this discussion to a test Discourse instance, since that will eliminate a lot of the confirmation bias (in favor of mailing lists), as well as force people to become familiar with the software before making a judgement. AIUI, Discourse is intended to be a way of turning questions/discussions into documentation without requiring a bunch of extra work (which is the reason for some of the features people are calling out, like allowing edits to another user's comments). If our goal is to have something exactly like a mailing list, we are wasting our time. Also, privacy concerns keep coming up... For me, the mailing lists are actually much more concerning wrt privacy than having Discourse track me internally. I can take back or re-word a comment on that platform. Having discussions in the public record forever is daunting. To me, my comments are a lot more sensitive than my habits -- and the current system doesn't give me _any_ control over past comments. My email headers are stored online, publicly, forever when I use the Debian lists. We get a lot of posts from people who don't understand the implications of that, and everyone involved in this discussion has already decided to accept that trade-off. -- Eldon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-16 21:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zWi3E-2h2-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11773 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
❦ 15 avril 2020 12:45 +01, Neil McGovern:
>> Would you be willing to list out which points it is from the given
>> "cons" category which you see as positives?
>
> I'd really rather not at this stage, as I'm already seemingly having to
> spend time talking about how Discourse is set up, rather than what I was
> trying to do. I don't want to end up in a big debate on where "requires
> account" or "distributed moderation based on trust levels" sits.
>
> The point of this Discourse instance is to try and see if there is
> interest in moving to it rather than smartlists for community
> discussions. If there is sufficient interest, we can then find a group
> of people who want to consider these tradeoffs and who are willing to
> help with the way categories are organised, for example.
>
> If there is sufficient pushback, I'll delete the instance, move on with
> my life, and conclude that no one in Debian can possibly try and
> innovate or do new things unless it is either:
> * 100% optional for people, or
> * made completely compatable with the old way of doing things
>
> Apologies if the frustration is showing, but hopefully you can see where
> this is coming from.
Many thanks for trying to push things forward!
For me, Discourse is not as pleasant as mailing list, but there was a
lot of efforts put into making mails almost as transparent as possible.
For me, it would be quite acceptable if quoting on the web interface
would be translated with the usual quoting mechanism (">") instead of
the markup used by discourse ("[quote]").
On the con list, I agree that requiring to signup is different on how we
manage our mailing lists, but it seems an acceptable tradeoff.
So, in summary, I would find quite acceptable to switch to Discourse
(and would likely contribute a patch for the quoting translation). It
would help fix some of the problems we have (notably moderation, but
also the policy "do not copy me unless I say so") and we may be able to
attract people who did not grow with mailing lists.
We have a long tradition on being unable to run any constructive debate
because we are unable to differentiate between a minority or a majority.
I did not follow the whole debate because it was mostly the same people
saying again and again the same things. A classic way in our mailing
lists to stall any debate.
--
Use self-identifying input. Allow defaults. Echo both on output.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project
csiph-web