Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      06 Feb 2003 15:44:46 -0800
From:      swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen)
To:        chat@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: dillon@'s commit bit: I object
Message-ID:  <l9n0l9c6tt.0l9@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20030206005639.V40993@12-234-22-23.pyvrag.nggov.pbz>
References:  <20030205171407.A15358@freebie.xs4all.nl> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0302051056020.97117-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <20030205190345.GD42936@roark.gnf.org> <20030205140726.407e150a.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <3E41CFED.45413F33@kuzbass.ru> <20030206005639.V40993@12-234-22-23.pyvrag.nggov.pbz>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> writes:

> [Please respect reply-to chat@freebsd.org, thanks]
...
> Unfortunately, for a number of complex reasons, some of which have been
> described publicly, and some of which are not appropriate to describe
> publicly, the core team decided that it's no longer appropriate for Matt
> to have this access to the cvs tree.

Doug, your "reply-to" request makes you sound like a write-only chatter.
Assuming that you're not, I'll respect your request, though I started to
send it only to you to save the thread another message.  You made good
points and I don't disagree with the quote, but the tone of your message
leads me to make these related comments:

You surely understand how the silence about some of the reasons causes
problems; maybe it's unavoidable, but it probably had worse consequences
than more openness would have.  But ends don't always justify means, and
I won't mention it further.

But the "end" of having non-hostile mailing lists and CVS logs might
not justify the "means" of having people work under the threat of loss
of privileges, based on judgements about whether they are polite enough,
especially with suspicions of imperfect objectiveness in the absence of
clear standards.

Several core members have made it quite clear on -chat that the
threshold reason that Matt lost his priviledge was that he was too
impolite.  Granted, this judgement has been put in core's hands, and
their action was "legal" in the "FreeBSD legal system".  But many people
are complaining that the politeness threshold of individual core members
and of the group are wrong, with some complainers finding it very wrong.
(I've had my own encounter with this threshold and found it very wrong.)
It need not be something to take personally; it's just a belief that
FreeBSD would be better off with a (much?) looser attitude on the part
of the Politeness Police.  People are just trying to influence core's,
and others', attitudes; elections aren't the only way to do that.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l9n0l9c6tt.0l9>