I've been incredibly tolerant of being abused on this issue for 3 weeks now, but the now-constant flood of people coming forward to say that I'm not respecting the mailman community is too funny. It breaks the bounds of reality.
*I* did one thing. I pointed out an issue that *EVERYONE* knows about, even the non-technical news media. I asked that something be done soon. I wrote my post clearly and politely.
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2008-March/019804.html
Did I receive a respectful response addressing these issues from anyone who writes code for the project?
Yes: Mark Sapiro wrote me a respectful reply on March 5.
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2008-March/019807.html
But that reply only negated my suggestions, with no solutions proposed.
I attempted to respond to the insults and derision I received in most of the replies with honest, straightforward answers. Even when the questions were hopelessly supercilious and rude.
At this time there has been more effort spent writing me back saying that I'm not respecting the community than it would have taken to write patches to fix the problem. I've certainly wasted more time here than I did writing my patches and testing them in the first place.
I respected the community by coming here and trying to address the issue, rather than simply blacklisting Mailman sites. I respected the community by replying to everyone who replied to me, rather than ignoring the posts filled with derision or technical nonsense. Perhaps that was a mistake.
I had a nice dinner with a number of people last night on this topic, and not a single person (all of whom witnessed this thread) felt that trying to address this issue here was producing any results.
So I am done. Keep your derision to yourself, and keep wasting time telling people how they should respect you rather than solve the problem.
I am right now updating our AUP documentation to mention that Mailman is explicitly banned unless the person provides documentation of the configuration/patches they have applied to prevent backscatter. I am notifying the known mailman sites within our network. We are done with this issue.
-- Jo Rhett Net Consonance ... net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
On Thursday 27 March 2008 18:12, Jo Rhett wrote:
I respected the community by coming here and trying to address the issue, rather than simply blacklisting Mailman sites. I respected the community by replying to everyone who replied to me, rather than ignoring the posts filled with derision or technical nonsense. Perhaps that was a mistake.
I very much support your point of trying to get Mailman into even better defaults. I do also support the people that you come across in a negative, agressive way.
It's a pity that you do not see how your tone and way of responding can come across agressive and demanding, and how that makes your actual point fade to the background. Even how much I support your point I got quickly fed up with your conversation style when I received 14 (!) messages by you in just one day on this topic. Some restraint and reflection would be welcome, I guess...
bye, Thijs Kinkhorst Debian Mailman Maintainer
Jo Rhett wrote:
At this time there has been more effort spent writing me back saying that I'm not respecting the community than it would have taken to write patches to fix the problem. I've certainly wasted more time here than I did writing my patches and testing them in the first place.
Are you aware that not once in the "before next release:" thread is there any mention that you have patches? Perhaps this has been mentioned before, and I missed it, but I would be interested in seeing them.
-- Mark Sapiro mark@msapiro.net The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mar 27, 2008, at 1:12 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
I've been incredibly tolerant of being abused on this issue for 3
weeks now, but the now-constant flood of people coming forward to say that
I'm not respecting the mailman community is too funny. It breaks the
bounds of reality.*I* did one thing. I pointed out an issue that *EVERYONE* knows
about, even the non-technical news media. I asked that something be done
soon. I wrote my post clearly and politely.http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2008-March/019804.html
Did I receive a respectful response addressing these issues from
anyone who writes code for the project?Yes: Mark Sapiro wrote me a respectful reply on March 5.
I'd have been shocked if that wasn't the case.
I had a nice dinner with a number of people last night on this topic, and not a single person (all of whom witnessed this thread) felt that trying to address this issue here was producing any results.
So I am done. Keep your derision to yourself, and keep wasting time telling people how they should respect you rather than solve the
problem.I am right now updating our AUP documentation to mention that
Mailman is explicitly banned unless the person provides documentation of the configuration/patches they have applied to prevent backscatter. I am notifying the known mailman sites within our network. We are done
with this issue.
I'm sorry that it had to come to this for you, but suffice to say that
the issue /will/ be addressed, though maybe not as timely or in the
manner that you would like to see. I think our position is entirely
consistent with overall good project management principles, which have
to weigh conflicting requirements and make reasoned compromises.
Such is the nature of all-volunteer open source projects, and of
course forks are always possible. Today, they can be as constructive
and collaborative as Bazaar branches make possible.
Cheers,
- -Barry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAkf+incACgkQ2YZpQepbvXH5kwCeNc2OWEEzjkeGGhWFDBvNZxiz D68Anjci56WNCjseTByw6Thx1oLJa+kQ =8SpO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (4)
-
Barry Warsaw -
Jo Rhett -
Mark Sapiro -
Thijs Kinkhorst