GNOME ponders its code of conduct [LWN.net]

GNOME ponders its code of conduct

Posted Dec 17, 2009 9:25 UTC (Thu) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]

Yeah Lefty really does not get the FOSS community.

It is just a fact that we have two groups, open source people that think open source is superior in many ways and the best development model and then we have free software people that will not use proprietary software for reasons RMS points out.
Lefty hates free software people although they serve a very important purpose in our community.
Who else is going to use and improve unfinished buggy and inferior software just because it is their believe that everything else is no option?
When that software becomes featurefull and usable the OSS people will gladly use it, which is OK, but then don't attack the free software people for their believe in free software.

And besides I personally think he really is an unpleasant fella on a crusade and if PGO needs moderation it is his posts (which also include false anti Android propaganda and Access spam)

GNOME ponders its code of conduct

Posted Dec 17, 2009 12:06 UTC (Thu) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]

He was hurt in the past and then turned into this anti-anti boycott person. Since then Lefty's communications are precisely what the Gnome CoC says you shouldn't do. "Be respectful and considerate, Be patient and generous, Assume people mean well, Try to be concise." But say Respectful the rules, Free Software, FSF, GNU, etc. in front of him and he will explode.

But that is also the hard part. Clearly something went wrong with the communication in the past. Someone's feelings were hurt really badly. Now what? Just tell them "be the bigger person", follow these rules of respect for each other even though you feel others weren't following them in the past when talking to or about you? Could you do that?

GNOME ponders its code of conduct

Posted Dec 17, 2009 18:07 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

I ran into Lefty at a community summit out here a while back, and his emotional state was really high. He explained his beef with RMS with a cry in his voice, I kid you not. When I was less than sympathetic, he practically ran out of the room in tears.

Now, I am no stranger to getting emotional about things. But I've learned that it doesn't generally help me win the argument.

He really needs to focus on ACCESS, which, IMO, is a sinking ship. RMS isn't the big problem in front of him.

GNOME ponders its code of conduct

Posted Dec 19, 2009 18:20 UTC (Sat) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link]

Sigh. It's the holiday season, and while I'm not sure what Bruce is
attempting to accomplish with an otherwise content-free personal
attack like this, let me try to be charitable.

When I went to the Community Leadership Summit, I fell into a
conversation with Kirrily Robert, Dave Neary and several others about the
events at GCDS. Bruce joined us, at which point it became impossible for
anyone else to manage to complete a sentence without being interrupted.

Bruce explained to usat us, actuallyat some significant length, that Mr.
Stallman has undiagnosed Asperger's Syndrome, that he was "incapable of
apologizing", and that the order-of-magnitude lower level of participation
by women in community-based software development versus proprietary
wasn't indicative of any sort of a problem at all.

These are pretty much the same statements he made here on LWN when
the discussion here turned to Stallman's GCDS keynote. They earned him
some significant criticism here, and they served him no better at the
Leadership Summit.

Since the conversation had turned at that point into a lecture from Bruce,
and one which was becoming increasingly unrewarding, Ialong with
Kirrily, Dave and several of the others who had been in conversationgave
up and left the room to seek more worthwhile pursuits. No one "ran", no
one was "in tears".

If I'm passionate about attempting to point out and address the problems
that I see in our community, like sexism, like attempts at imposed "group
think", I don't apologize for that. It's unfortunate thatrather than
responding to the issues themselvesothers are as passionate in
"attacking the messenger" to shame and harass those who do see these
things as problems into silence and sweep such issues under the rug.

GNOME ponders its code of conduct

Posted Dec 20, 2009 0:53 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

David, I am really really sorry, but most of what you are relating is from the online conversation at LWN, not our personal conversation at the summit. I fear that you are confabulating. I am sorry and horrified.

And you are writing for a site called boycott-boycott-novell???

IMO very sincerely it isn't healthy. Take a break.

I am on a PDA-only connection for now and will not engage in this further, but anyway I have said all I should ever say about this. I hope you find a way out of it.

Bruce

GNOME ponders its code of conduct

Posted Dec 19, 2009 23:44 UTC (Sat) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link]

While that's a nice polemical effort to turn the discussion away from the
issue and onto a free-form attack on me personally, it makes little sense,
at least unless Philip van Hoof, who was the first (but far from the last) to
raise objections to RMS' "suggestions", is also part of this conspiracy you
feel you see.

In any case, your use of the term "jihad" is both accurate and inappropriate
here. I'm sure any Muslim readers will be kind enough to attribute your
(mis)use of it in this context to ignorance rather than bigotry, as do I.

This is not about Richard Stallman, except insofar as he's the one who's
attempted to impose his version of "approved group think" on Planet
GNOME; I'd have been equally averse to such a suggestion no matter from
whom it came. I'm in favor of freedom of expression, and dislike attempts
to exercise prior restraint on me or on the other contributors to the Planet.

Again, I'm far from unique in this reaction.

(Aren't we overdue for a revision of Godwin's Law...?)