<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi, <br>
<br>
cool down, people, if anything gave FOSS a bad reputation, that's
well the old pyjamas website (all broken, because "wheel must be
reinvented here"), and most of all the "terror management" that
occurred on its mailing list. <br>
Previously I had always considered open-source as a benevolent state
of mind, until I got, there, the evidence that it could also be, for
some people, an irrational and harmful cult (did you know github
were freaking evildoers ?).<br>
<br>
Blatantly the pyjs ownership change turned out to be an awkward
operation (as reactions on that ML show it), but a fork could also
have very harmfully "split" pyjs-interested people, so all in all I
don't think there was a perfect solution - dictatorships never fall
harmlessly.<br>
<br>
The egos of some might have been hurt, the legal sense of others
might have been questioned, but believe me all this fuss is pitiful
compared to the real harm that was done numerous time to willing
newcomers, on pyjs' old ML, when they weren't aware about the heavy
dogmas lying around.<br>
<br>
A demo sample (I quote it each time the suvject arises, sorry for
duplicates)<br>
<tt>------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
| Please get this absolutely clear in your head:
that | <br>
| you do not "understand" my reasoning is completely and
utterly | <br>
| irrelevant. i understand <b class="moz-txt-star"><span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>your<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>
reasoning; i'm the one making the | <br>
| decisions, that's my role to understand the pros and cons. i
make a | <br>
| decision: that's the end of
it. | <br>
| You present reasoning to me: i weight it up, against the
other | <br>
| reasoning, and i make a decision. you don't have to understand
that | <br>
| decision, you do not have to like that decision, you do not have
to | <br>
| accept that
decision. | <br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>
Ling live pyjs, <br>
++<br>
PKL<br>
<br>
<br>
</tt><br>
Le 08/05/2012 07:37, alex23 a écrit :
<blockquote
cite="mid:0976d620-3c21-43c9-885c-4822b7370228@ot8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On May 8, 1:54 pm, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Seriously, this was a remarkably ham-fisted and foolish way to "resolve"
a dispute over the direction of an open source project. That's the sort
of thing that gives open source a bad reputation.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The arrogance and sense of entitlement was so thick you could choke on
it. Here's a sampling from the circle jerk of self-justification that
flooded my inbox over the weekend:
"i did not need to consult Luke, nor would that have be productive"
No, it's generally _not_ productive to ask someone if you can steal
their project from them.
"i have retired Luke of the management duties, particularly, *above*
the source"
Who is this C Anthony Risinger asshole and in what way did he _hire_
the lead developer?
"What I have wondered is, what are effects of having the project
hostage to the whims of an individuals often illogically radical
software libre beliefs which are absolutely not up for discussion at
all with anyone."
What I'm wondering is: how is the new set up any different? Why were
Luke Leighton's philosophies/"whims" any more right or wrong than
those held by the new Gang of Dicks?
"Further more, the reason I think it's a bad idea to have this drawn
out discussion is that pretty much the main reason for this fork is
because of Luke leadership and project management decisions and
actions. To have discussions of why the fork was done would invariably
lead to quite a bit of personal attacks and petty arguments."
Apparently it's nicer to steal someone's work than be mean to them.
"I agree, Lex - this is all about moving on. This is a software
project, not a cult of personality."
Because recognising the effort of the lead developer is cult-like.
"My only quibble is with the term "fork." A fork is created when you
disagree with the technical direction of a project. That's not the
issue here. This is a reassignment of the project administration only
- a shuffling of responsibility among *current leaders* of the
community. There is no "divine right of kings" here."
My quibble is over the term "fork" too, as this is outright theft. I
don't remember the community acknowledging _any other leadership_ over
Luke Leighton's.
"I suspect Luke will be busy with other projects and not do much more
for Pyjamas/pyjs, Luke correct me if you see this and I am wrong."
How about letting the man make his own fucking decisions?
"All of you spamming the list with your unsubscribe attempts: Anthony
mentioned in a previous email that he's using mailman now"
Apparently it's the responsibility of the person who was subscribed
without their permission to find out the correct mechanism for
unsubscribing from that list.
"apparantly a bunch of people were marked as "POSTING" in the DB, but
not receiving mail (?)"
Oh I see, the sudden rush of email I received was due to an error in
the data they stole...
"Nobody wins if we spend any amount of time debating the details of
this transition, what's done is done."
Truly the justification of assholes.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>