[EuroPython] Work on Call for Participation for EuroPython 2015 has started

[Hynek Schlawack]

>>> I'm not criticising the current organisers.
>> FWIW, my original reply didn't go to you either.
>
> Your original reply went to the list. When you presumably did reply 
> directly
> to me at one point, I got two separate messages: one to me and one via 
> the
> list. What was that all about? Do we have to wait for two messages 
> from you -
> one public, one private - to have permission to respond?

That was an accident (because this list doesn’t set an Reply-To 
header) and the mails were identical.

> If you want to criticise people in public for what they have said and 
> to
> misrepresent their position, you have to accept that other people will 
> have
> something to say about it.

I don’t. I was referring to you saying that *you* are not criticizing 
the current organizers.  My original reply was to an e-mail that clearly 
did, suggesting measures I don’t agree with for goals I consider 
wrong.  Which I explained why.

>> The mail *I* replied to said it would be a good thing *for the 
>> conference*
>> to get smaller because we could fly in people from South America and 
>> those
>> people are more interesting anyway.
> Since the record of what people said is public - and yes, I actually 
> quoted
> your mail in response to Jacob's mail - people can make up their own 
> minds
> about what was really meant, which I seriously doubt is what you are 
> claiming.

If Jacob meant meant something else than I understood in 
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/europython/2014-February/008275.html 
he can feel free to correct me.  I’d also like to point out that at no 
point I criticized people, only concrete ideas that were expressed.  I 
won’t let you push me in a mud fight I didn’t start.

>> That are *completely* different concerns from what you're bringing up 
>> and I
>> find it highly irritating to be confronted with pot metaphors based 
>> on that
>> derailment.
> What's a "pot metaphor" here exactly?

I mixed you up with John who replied in the same spirit 
(https://mail.python.org/pipermail/europython/2014-February/008285.html). 
  Apologies.

> Why might someone sensibly advocate a
> limit on attendees without having some kind of "elitist" agenda? Oh, 
> that's
> right, I already explained why: a $100/person loss on a thousand 
> person
> conference is pretty convincing; maybe it really does have something 
> to do
> with that after all.
>
> This kind of thing is what irritates me hugely about the so-called 
> Python
> community and why, as I've explained to a few people before now, I've 
> diverted
> a lot of my time to other initiatives instead. You have people who 
> have made
> substantial investments of their own time and resources into 
> establishing
> something that benefits others, and what you often get in response is 
> sniping
> about some hidden agenda or how people could have done more or better.
>
> It's like the mainstream subculture around Python has made some kind 
> of virtue
> out of getting people to work for free so that people can pretend to 
> be those
> people's boss and think they have the right to demand things from 
> them. This
> pervades the so-called community from top to bottom and in almost 
> every
> regard. Whereas other initiatives and communities offer appreciation 
> for any
> contribution, with a "thank you" for having done anything at all, the 
> apparent
> norm in the Python scene is to tell people that they didn't do enough 
> or that
> what they did was inferior to what should have been done, or that it 
> wasn't
> licensed according to "community expectations" (where they get to sell 
> your
> work in a binary and send you the bug reports), replacing "thank" with 
> another
> word of choice, in effect.
>
> Christian wrote that "ANY organization having volunteers work for them 
> should
> be extremely humble for having anyone spend their spare time for 
> them."
>
> Well, without accusing any organisation of anything, I think the 
> so-called
> community as a whole should re-evaluate how it treats people who offer 
> their
> time and resources to benefit everyone else.

At this point I can only assume malice from your side since you – 
again – completely ignored what I wrote and just keep bringing up your 
pet reasons – whose validity I *never* disputed. That wouldn’t be 
that bad if you wouldn’t pretend all the time that I’m arguing 
against them while pushing some own egoistic agenda bare any gratitude.

I’m not going to re-iterate my email once more because you apparently 
don’t want to comprehend the point I was trying to make whatever your 
personal reasons are.  Everyone can just read the archives and make 
their own picture of this.  For reference, my original response that can 
be found at 
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/europython/2014-February/008277.html . 
  Don’t expect any further replies for me, I don’t have time for 
such kind of unconstructive behavior.