Mailing List Code of Conduct
|
View:
New views
7 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
Mailing List Code of Conduct
by Paul Cager-5
::
Rate this Message:
Please have a look at the Mailing List Code of Conduct below, which comes
into effect immediately. The aim of the Code is to make the JavaCC project a congenial place in which to work. We all make errors of judgement from time to time, but repeated or severe breaches of the code may result in your posts being moderated. PLEASE DO ========= - Post on subjects that might be of interest to the JavaCC community. - Be courteous. Be respectful when disagreeing with someone. Disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour and poor manners. - Respect the charters of each list, as described on https://javacc.dev.java.net/servlets/ProjectMailingListList PLEASE DON'T ============ - Swear. - Insult. - Be abusive, or launch personal attacks. - Troll. Trolling is the act of making comments intended to provoke an angry response from others Thanks, Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Mailing List Code of Conduct
by Jonathan Revusky-3
::
Rate this Message:
Paul Cager wrote:
> Please have a look at the Mailing List Code of Conduct below, which comes > into effect immediately. The aim of the Code is to make the JavaCC project > a congenial place in which to work. A more congenial place in which to... WORK????? Well, c'mon. It's basically fair to say that no work is taking place in the JavaCC project. People can say that's me being inflammatory, but it's just true. If you exclude whitespace diffs, nobody has committed any code (or documentation either) since at least January of this year. And you can trace back further than that to see quite clearly that in its 5 year history as an open source project, it has never really been active development-wise. But anyway, regarding your code of conduct, it's not a bad idea in and of itself, but what you are putting up here is very hard to take seriously. For example, to mention swearing as a major no-no and not make any mention of lying (and all the related kinds of dishonest behavior) strikes me as reflecting a completely distorted sense of priorities. > > We all make errors of judgement from time to time, but repeated or severe > breaches of the code may result in your posts being moderated. > > PLEASE DO > ========= > > - Post on subjects that might be of interest to the JavaCC > community. If you trace back to the origin thread-wise of the recent blowup, the beginning was when I posted this: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.javacc.user/1220 I had earlier posted similar messages, for example, the following: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.javacc.user/1141 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.javacc.user/1155 Dale Anson (and later others) claimed that these messages had no place on the javacc list. The messages are technically focussed posts about progress being made in ongoing work on the javacc codebase. A close collaborator of mine who saw this commented that this was one of the more pitiful things he'd ever seen, people claiming that somebody writing about actual work on the code was off-topic on an open source discussion list. Just pathetic... Now, I perceive all this stuff, telling me that posts that are obviously on-topic are off-topic to be a form of harassment and there are obviously elements of bad-faithed behavior. For example, Dale Anson makes what must be a willfully dishonest argument in which he likens the posts I link above to a situation of somebody spamming the list with penis enlargement ads: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.javacc.user/1224 An incredible argument to be making and obviously very provocative, both because it is ludicrous and transparently dishonest. Actually, I think that the above-linked post by Dale Anson surely corresponds to point 3 of your code of conduct. Obviously, somebody is liable to get quite annoyed if he writes a technical article and what he writes is likened to penis enlargement spam... it seems both dishonest and deliberately provocative, which are the key elements of troll behavior. So, frankly, if people started with this kind of nonsense in a place I have some control, I would tell them where to get off pretty much immediately. Anyway, that is my view on that. What is yours? In any case, you say "post on subjects that might be of interest to the JavaCC community". It was claimed that my posts on KawaDD development (which is really just further work on the JavaCC codebase) were inappropriate. My view (and I know very well it is not just my opinion) is that this claim is ludicrous. What is your view on that? Now that you are working up a code of conduct (it obviously needs quite a bit more work) I think you need to post a clarification on that point -- since, concretely speaking, this is the origin of the blowup. I may ask for clarification on some other points, but that will be separately because I don't want this message to get too long. > > - Be courteous. Be respectful when disagreeing with someone. > Disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour and poor > manners. Well, this completely begs the question. You respectfully disagree with somebody when the other person is behaving in good faith. If the other person in the discussion is not behaving in good faith, and it's really quite blatant, then what? I mean, c'mon, look, you've written a code of conduct in which being rude is a no-no, swearing is a big no-no, but you say nothing about lying, and generally, about bad-faithed behavior. So, it's like, suppose someone engages in lies, even malicious lies, i.e. slander, and the person to whom this is directed responds to them sharply, even swearing. Taking your code of conduct literally, it would seem that in this case, the problem is the rudeness and swearing of the other person, not the behavior of the person telling the malicious lies. Anyway, I make some comments above and, specifically, ask for clarification on a concrete instance or two. It seems that, since you took it on yourself to write this code of conduct, you ought to be willing to clarify your view on these specific cases. Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ KawaDD Parser Generator, http://code.google.com/p/kawadd > > - Respect the charters of each list, as described on > https://javacc.dev.java.net/servlets/ProjectMailingListList > > PLEASE DON'T > ============ > > - Swear. > > - Insult. > > - Be abusive, or launch personal attacks. > > - Troll. Trolling is the act of making comments intended to > provoke an angry response from others > > Thanks, > Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Re: Mailing List Code of Conduct
by Paul Cager-5
::
Rate this Message:
Jonathan Revusky wrote:
[...] > But anyway, regarding your code of conduct, it's not a bad idea in and > of itself, but what you are putting up here is very hard to take > seriously. For example, to mention swearing as a major no-no and not > make any mention of lying (and all the related kinds of dishonest > behavior) strikes me as reflecting a completely distorted sense of > priorities. I never intended the code of conduct to list _all_ of the things you shouldn't do (which would probably be impossible, anyway). For instance I have not mentioned spam. I did not intend to imply that behaviours not explicitly mentioned in the code of conduct are less important. I can fairly easily judge when someone is swearing; deciding when someone is lying is much more subjective. If there was some infallible way of detecting lies a "no lying" rule would certainly make sense. [...] > If you trace back to the origin thread-wise of the recent blowup, the > beginning was when I posted this: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.javacc.user/1220 [...] > Anyway, that is my view on that. What is yours? For what it is worth, my opinion is that occasional announcements about KawaDD are on-topic in the JavaCC list. I read them myself. But I suspect that some people (including myself) become annoyed because your announcements so often contain a "sting in the tail" that leads to a flame war. One message is easy to skip over; 20 or 30 of them become annoying. That's just my personal view, of course, which I think is what you wanted. [...] > Well, this completely begs the question. You respectfully disagree with > somebody when the other person is behaving in good faith. If the other > person in the discussion is not behaving in good faith, and it's really > quite blatant, then what? I wasn't sure if you wanted my opinion on this, or if it was a rhetorical question. If I was certain someone was acting in bad faith, I would say something like "I believe you are acting in bad faith, so I'm not prepared to continue this conversation". If it wasn't already clear, I'd probably point out why I thought the person was acting in bad faith. > So, it's like, suppose > someone engages in lies, even malicious lies, i.e. slander, and the > person to whom this is directed responds to them sharply, even swearing. > Taking your code of conduct literally, it would seem that in this case, > the problem is the rudeness and swearing of the other person, not the > behavior of the person telling the malicious lies. I think I covered the lack of a "no lying" rule above. Hope that helps, Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Mailing List Code of Conduct
by Jonathan Revusky-3
::
Rate this Message:
Paul Cager wrote:
> Jonathan Revusky wrote: > > [...] > >> But anyway, regarding your code of conduct, it's not a bad idea in and >> of itself, but what you are putting up here is very hard to take >> seriously. For example, to mention swearing as a major no-no and not >> make any mention of lying (and all the related kinds of dishonest >> behavior) strikes me as reflecting a completely distorted sense of >> priorities. > > I never intended the code of conduct to list _all_ of the things you > shouldn't do (which would probably be impossible, anyway). Well, I'm not talking about listing in detail every last behavior. I'm talking about an entire class of behavior that should be unacceptable that's unmentioned -- basically behavior that is lacking in good faith. > For instance I have not mentioned spam. But that's just silly. Spam is irrelevant. Spam is something that bots do. You're obviously addressing interaction between real people. > I did not intend to imply that behaviours not > explicitly mentioned in the code of conduct are less important. <LOL> Methinks you're starting to talk like a politican or something. You write a code of conduct and it should at least cover, say, the major classes of conduct that you think are wrong. It's surprising that the whole category of behaviors where people behave in bad faith just isn't mentioned. > > I can fairly easily judge when someone is swearing; Really? I'm not sure how easy it is. I suppose to say STFU or RTFM using the acronym is not swearing -- or is it? But if you write it out longhand, then what? But swearing is mostly a red herring. I mean, an open source project is not some kind of pansified high society tea party. I mean if somebody asks my opinion about some product and I say it's "shit", and that's really basically my honest opinion is that swearing? The real problem, what really can't be accepted in an open source project is bad-faithed behavior and that is strikingly the one thing that you just omit. > deciding when > someone is lying is much more subjective. If there was some infallible > way of detecting lies a "no lying" rule would certainly make sense. It's hard to see your point. Speech that is rude or insulting or disrespectful is at least as subjective a question and you do mention those. The thing about lying specifically is that lying is not just saying something that's not true, it's knowingly saying something that's not true. The desire to deceive is central. A somewhat silly example that I think does illustrate the point nevertheless is if I wrote a post in which I state that the capital city of the U.K. is Liverpool. How does anybody know whether there I honestly believe that this is the case, i.e. maybe I am misinformed and I am saying this in good faith. Okay, fine, extend benefit of the doubt. But people jump in and point me to enough indisputable references that say the capital of the U.K. is London. Shortly afterwards, I write another post in which I say the capital of the U.K. is Liverpool. So I mean to say, if I didn't know it the first time, fine, I just didn't know, but when people correct me and I keep saying it, there's clearly bad faith. Actually, now that I think about it more, a no lying rule makes more sense than a no rudeness or no insulting rule. The speaker does basically know whether he's lying or not. He does not, generally know whether his behavior would be considered rude or insulting or not. That depends basically on the reaction of other people, which is beyond one's control. > > [...] > >> If you trace back to the origin thread-wise of the recent blowup, the >> beginning was when I posted this: >> >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.javacc.user/1220 > > [...] > >> Anyway, that is my view on that. What is yours? > > For what it is worth, my opinion is that occasional announcements about > KawaDD are on-topic in the JavaCC list. I read them myself. Well, people were attacking me claiming that they weren't. Why didn't you make your position clear? > But I > suspect that some people (including myself) become annoyed because your > announcements so often contain a "sting in the tail" that leads to a > flame war. Well, first of all, Dale Anson et al were not complaining about any "sting in the tail". They simply took the position that technical posts about work on the JavaCC codebase were not welcome. Now, for all of the attempt to nuance things, it's clear that you disagree with those people. Yet you remained silent. If you had taken a forthright stand on this at that point and said that the announcements on KawaDD development were obviously on-topic, then that would have shut down these yahoos and there would be no flamewar. And clearly, the moment Dale Anson likened my posts to the penis enlargement spam, it should have been 100% clear that he wasn't really speaking in good faith. (Though, I grant that bad faith is not mentioned or even alluded to in your "code of conduct". However, I think your code of conduct clearly needs some work.) Now, as for this "sting in the tail" stuff, nobody has taken any issue with anything I have said on factual grounds. That's clear enough. There's enough hostility towards me that if anybody could really sink their teeth into anything on the grounds of it being false, they would. So, really, it's tacitly accepted that everything I say is true. It really is. So when you say that my comments in whatever instance cause a flamewar, what you're really saying is that the truth here is so abhorrent that it's inflammatory. So then what, finally, are you going to have a code of conduct that, at least, when properly analyzed, specifies that telling the truth is bad behavior, yet makes no mention of lying being a problem? Such a code of conduct is laughable, is it not? > One message is easy to skip over; 20 or 30 of them become > annoying. When I posted the message that I posted that started off everything, there had been about 5 weeks since the previous one. So, okay, this is a concrete example of "Liverpool is the capital of the U.K." You are at least implying that I was mass spamming messages. I am correcting you and pointing out that the previous 2 KawaDD announcements were 5 weeks apart. So, if at a later point, you again imply that the issue is me mass spamming such messages, it will be quite clear that your discourse is not in good faith. Right now, yes, you get the benefit of the doubt. You see the concept, right? You're getting it? You see, these are really the basic rules that have to be followed. The swearing is mostly a red herring. Again, as for respectful disagreement, as you mention, this must presuppose that the people involved are all engaging in the discussion in good faith. If people aren't engaging in good-faithed discussion all of this talk about respectful disagreement just totally begs the question. It is of course absurd to be claiming that you are owed all kinds of respect if your behavior is simply not respectable. > That's just my personal view, of course, which I think is what > you wanted. Well, look, you're trying to burn the candle on both ends. "That's just my personal view", i.e. that's not official in any way and you're not imposing that on anybody else. However, you just posted a "code of conduct" and announced that it was effective immediately. That sounds official. I think if you are going to take on a role of moral authority, posting codes of conduct, you have to take a position on this and other things. Now, up until this point, you simply have not done that. Anyway, what is the status of ownership of the project. I was given to understand (and I think everybody else who read it was) that you, Tom Copeland and Sreeni were to become co-owners of the project. I don't see that reflected on the project main page. My honest sense of things is that Sreeni has left the project. Out of curiosity, I traced back to the last point that he did anything in CVS. His last CVS commit (fairly trivial little fix) was on 1 April, 2006. > > [...] > > >> Well, this completely begs the question. You respectfully disagree >> with somebody when the other person is behaving in good faith. If the >> other person in the discussion is not behaving in good faith, and it's >> really quite blatant, then what? > > I wasn't sure if you wanted my opinion on this, or if it was a > rhetorical question. The question was not rhetorical. Why would you think that? > If I was certain someone was acting in bad faith, I > would say something like "I believe you are acting in bad faith, so I'm > not prepared to continue this conversation". If it wasn't already clear, > I'd probably point out why I thought the person was acting in bad faith. Okay, now maybe we're getting somewhere. I take it that people acting in bad faith bothers you. It certainly bothers me very very much. Still it's odd that in creating a code of conduct, you create a framework that glosses over the whole concept. In your opinion, was Sreeni acting in good faith in the discussion in which the following messages occurred? http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.javacc.user/1072 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.javacc.user/1079 The above question, BTW, is NOT a rhetorical question. You can nuance things as you wish, but this is, I note, a question that admits a yes/no answer. > >> So, it's like, suppose someone engages in lies, even malicious lies, >> i.e. slander, and the person to whom this is directed responds to them >> sharply, even swearing. Taking your code of conduct literally, it >> would seem that in this case, the problem is the rudeness and swearing >> of the other person, not the behavior of the person telling the >> malicious lies. > > I think I covered the lack of a "no lying" rule above. But that is exactly the problem. There is no "no lying" rule. Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ KawaDD Parser Generator, http://code.google.com/p/kawadd > > Hope that helps, > Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Re: Mailing List Code of Conduct
by Paul Cager-5
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for your reply. Much of your message deals with the lack of a "no-lying" rule, so let me respond to that first. When I was drafting the Code of Conduct I had a look at what other free software projects had in place. The closest match to a "no-lying" rule I found was in the OpenDocument Fellowship's CoC (http://opendocumentfellowship.com/about_us/code_of_conduct) and Gentoo's CoC (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/coc.xml) which prohibits: "Constantly purveying misinformation despite repeated warnings." My gut feeling is that such clauses have little pragmatic benefit, which is why I don't see the need for one in our CoC. But it is clear that you regard such a clause as vital, and so we should take that into account. I'll discuss it with Tom and Sreeni and see if we can come to a consesus. For the record, my view is that such a clause would do no harm and since it is considered vital by [at least] one project member, we should include it (even if I don't like it myself). Of course we should not accuse one another of lying unless we are absolutely *certain* of our accusations. I have responded to some of your other points below. Jonathan Revusky wrote: > Paul Cager wrote: >> Jonathan Revusky wrote: [...] >> But I suspect that some people (including myself) become annoyed >> because your announcements so often contain a "sting in the tail" that >> leads to a flame war. > > Well, first of all, Dale Anson et al were not complaining about any > "sting in the tail". They simply took the position that technical posts > about work on the JavaCC codebase were not welcome. Now, for all of the > attempt to nuance things, it's clear that you disagree with those > people. Yet you remained silent. If you had taken a forthright stand on > this at that point and said that the announcements on KawaDD development > were obviously on-topic, then that would have shut down these yahoos and > there would be no flamewar. Just to be clear, my personal view is that occasional announcements about KawaDD on the users (or dev) list are OK. But the content of such announcements must follow the CoC (I mean in the future of course - I'm not trying to retrospectively apply the CoC to old posts). I imagine you will want an "official" view, rather than my personal one, so I'll write to Tom and Sreeni and see if we can come to a consensus. By the way, I think describing people as "yahoos" is counter-productive. [...] >> One message is easy to skip over; 20 or 30 of them become annoying. > > When I posted the message that I posted that started off everything, > there had been about 5 weeks since the previous one. So, okay, this is a > concrete example of "Liverpool is the capital of the U.K." You are at > least implying that I was mass spamming messages. I am correcting you > and pointing out that the previous 2 KawaDD announcements were 5 weeks > apart. So, if at a later point, you again imply that the issue is me > mass spamming such messages, it will be quite clear that your discourse > is not in good faith. Right now, yes, you get the benefit of the doubt. I think you have misinterpreted what I said (possibly I didn't make myself unambiguously clear). I stated that your announcements often seem to lead to a flame war. That's where the 20 or 30 messages come from. [...] >> That's just my personal view, of course, which I think is what you >> wanted. > > Well, look, you're trying to burn the candle on both ends. "That's just > my personal view", i.e. that's not official in any way and you're not > imposing that on anybody else. However, you just posted a "code of > conduct" and announced that it was effective immediately. That sounds > official. I'm glad you raised this subject. Sreeni, Tom and I talked about the need for a CoC. I then wrote a draft, the other 2 suggested improvements to it and then we all agreed on the version that I posted to the list. In that respect I am happy to present the CoC as an "official" JavaCC announcement. But you asked for *my* view on the subject, so I made it clear that was what I was giving. Thanks, Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
Re: Mailing List Code of Conduct
by Jonathan Revusky-3
::
Rate this Message:
Paul Cager wrote:
> Hi Jonathan, > > Thanks for your reply. > > Much of your message deals with the lack of a "no-lying" rule, so let me > respond to that first. > > When I was drafting the Code of Conduct I had a look at what other free > software projects had in place. The closest match to a "no-lying" rule I > found was in the OpenDocument Fellowship's CoC > (http://opendocumentfellowship.com/about_us/code_of_conduct) and Gentoo's > CoC (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/coc.xml) which prohibits: > > "Constantly purveying misinformation despite repeated warnings." > > My gut feeling is that such clauses have little pragmatic benefit, which > is why I don't see the need for one in our CoC. But it is clear that you > regard such a clause as vital, Hold on. Don't edit anything in your CoC specifically for me. To me, the thing is a big joke. I don't take it seriously anyway. My POV is that the behavior of many people on this list, including yours frankly, is so far beyond the pale of what should be acceptable that the idea of you guys elaborating a "Code of Conduct" is something I find laughable. For one thing, it doesn't really seem to be something very objective. It seems to me that, whether it was conscious or not, the CoC is basically directed at me. Hence the inclusion of swearing and the absence of anything relating to the obligation to discuss things in good faith. Or, for example, this "Laughing Man" stuff, saying nasty personal things to somebody and not even signing your name to it. I mean, if you're going to say that certain behaviors are unacceptable, IMO that should definitely be one. But the real question would be what has to change if your goal is to have a worthwhile project. JavaCC is not really a worthwhile project. Don't get me wrong. The basic tool is okay, it's very useful, but it's basically not more useful now than it was 5 years ago. The fact of the matter is that this open source project was set up 5 years ago, and it has added fairly close to zero value in that time period. > and so we should take that into account. > I'll discuss it with Tom and Sreeni and see if we can come to a consesus. You didn't answer the question I posed on whether you and Tom had been made co-owners. It seems that you weren't. And also... when are you going to just accept the fact that Sreeni has left the project? > > For the record, my view is that such a clause would do no harm and since > it is considered vital by [at least] one project member, I'm not a project member. But look, the swearing business is fundamentally silly. If you actually want to have a real, productive open source community (this is not one and never has been) then it doesn't particularly matter if somebody happens to say "shit", or "fuck" or "arsehole" once in a while. It really just doesn't matter that much. All of this affectation of "Oh, that is so shocking, I have never heard such language" is utterly dishonest and phony and I think everybody really knows that. Okay, I could concede that it's better if people don't use 4-letter words, at least not too much, but it obviously doesn't matter that much. The whole thing has a prissy, affected feel to it that kind of makes me cringe frankly. OTOH, the bad faith issue is central. If people are incapable of debating issues in good faith, then you cannot have any technical progress. It's next to impossible. You didn't answer my question. So I'll ask it again: In your opinion, was Sreeni acting in good faith in the discussion in which the following messages occurred? http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.javacc.user/1072 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.javacc.user/1079 > we should include > it (even if I don't like it myself). Of course we should not accuse one > another of lying unless we are absolutely *certain* of our accusations. No, the accusation should not be made frivolously, but what does that have to do with outlining that behaving in good faith should part of the code of conduct? > > I have responded to some of your other points below. > > Jonathan Revusky wrote: > > >> Paul Cager wrote: >>> Jonathan Revusky wrote: > > [...] > >>> But I suspect that some people (including myself) become annoyed >>> because your announcements so often contain a "sting in the tail" that >>> leads to a flame war. >> Well, first of all, Dale Anson et al were not complaining about any >> "sting in the tail". They simply took the position that technical posts >> about work on the JavaCC codebase were not welcome. Now, for all of the >> attempt to nuance things, it's clear that you disagree with those >> people. Yet you remained silent. If you had taken a forthright stand on >> this at that point and said that the announcements on KawaDD development >> were obviously on-topic, then that would have shut down these yahoos and >> there would be no flamewar. > > Just to be clear, my personal view is that occasional announcements about > KawaDD on the users (or dev) list are OK. But the content of such > announcements must follow the CoC (I mean in the future of course - I'm > not trying to retrospectively apply the CoC to old posts). Well, I'm pretty sure the announcements clearly followed your CoC. Any discourse of mine that didn't follow the CoC was in response to provocations subsequent to the initial announcement I made. > > I imagine you will want an "official" view, rather than my personal one, > so I'll write to Tom and Sreeni and see if we can come to a consensus. Well, what are you going to discuss after that, whether the capital of the U.K. is London or not? I mean, is it possible that you guys are going to confer and seriously draw the conclusion that posting updates about ongoing development of the actual *code* is off-topic on a list that is about open source development????? As I said, one of my close collaborators saw that and thought that the yahoos involved in that were the most pitiful people he'd seen in an OSS community. But you don't really get it. I don't really care for an official view anyway. I will keep making the announcements periodically regardless. To say that these posts are off-topic is patently absurd. Basically, I don't recognize the legitimacy of your CoC or the group comprising you, Tom, and Sreeni, to formulate any CoC. You're really, at least in the open source context, a group of morally bankrupt individuals. My real view is that you're illegitimately squatting on a public property, which is effectively what a well known open source project like this is (the copyright is Sun Microsystems, but obviously Sun made it available so that a community would form that would actually develop the thing and you guys haven't done that.) > > By the way, I think describing people as "yahoos" is counter-productive. <shrug> What would you call these people? I don't call them yahoos in private. In private correspondence on this, I have referred to them variously as assholes, idiots, sometimes as shit-eating bastards. But anyway, if you really have the goal of getting development going (I don't think you do but it's the benefit of the doubt game) then you should hardly care about offending the yahoos. These people will never contribute anything anyway. They're just troublemakers. It is a completely misplaced concern IMO that I refer to them as yahoos or worse. It really doesn't matter. > > [...] > >>> One message is easy to skip over; 20 or 30 of them become annoying. >> When I posted the message that I posted that started off everything, >> there had been about 5 weeks since the previous one. So, okay, this is a >> concrete example of "Liverpool is the capital of the U.K." You are at >> least implying that I was mass spamming messages. I am correcting you >> and pointing out that the previous 2 KawaDD announcements were 5 weeks >> apart. So, if at a later point, you again imply that the issue is me >> mass spamming such messages, it will be quite clear that your discourse >> is not in good faith. Right now, yes, you get the benefit of the doubt. > > I think you have misinterpreted what I said (possibly I didn't make myself > unambiguously clear). I stated that your announcements often seem to lead > to a flame war. Well, I already addressed that point. If my making a series of factual statements in this community is inflammatory, it's just because this is a sick community. The little boy who says the emperor is not wearing any clothes is saying something inflammatory but it's because it's a hypocritical society (and this is a case where the little boy hasn't the learned rules yet), It's based on pretending -- so, you know, the emperor is actually wearing clothes, the current president of the United States is not really an idiot, the yahoos here aren't really yahoos.... > That's where the 20 or 30 messages come from. Well, if the chain of cause and effect is (1) me making a legitimate post, and then (2) others attacking me for making a legitimate post, and (3) me responding to those attacks, then you should probably intervene at point (2), where the other people -- you know, the yahoos -- are attacking me for what is obviously a legitimate on-topic post. > > [...] > >>> That's just my personal view, of course, which I think is what you >>> wanted. >> Well, look, you're trying to burn the candle on both ends. "That's just >> my personal view", i.e. that's not official in any way and you're not >> imposing that on anybody else. However, you just posted a "code of >> conduct" and announced that it was effective immediately. That sounds >> official. > > I'm glad you raised this subject. > > Sreeni, Tom and I talked about the need for a CoC. I then wrote a draft, > the other 2 suggested improvements to it and then we all agreed on the > version that I posted to the list. In that respect I am happy to present > the CoC as an "official" JavaCC announcement. As I said, I don't recognize the legitimacy of any of it. I mean, on the face of it, it's kind of okay, but really it's silly. I mean, to be talking about respectful disagreement in a context where it is blatantly obvious that a lot of people don't behave in good faith is to completely miss the point. > > But you asked for *my* view on the subject, so I made it clear that was > what I was giving. <sigh> Okay, it is your view that posting updates about actual development work on the JavaCC codebase is on-topic. However, you entertain the possibility that Tom and/or Sreeni thinks that posting such information is off-topic. So tell me, if one or the other or both of them claims that such posts are off-topic, would this affect your respect for them? Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ KawaDD Parser Generator, http://code.google.com/p/kawadd > > Thanks, > Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@... |
|
|
|
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's 
| Free Forum Powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
