[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Questions

From: Gregory Casamento
Subject: Re: Questions
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 05:23:12 -0500

Dr. Schaller,

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 5:07 AM, H. Nikolaus Schaller <address@hidden> wrote:
Hi Greg,

Am 06.03.2016 um 10:51 schrieb Gregory Casamento <address@hidden>:

Dr. Schaller,

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 4:09 AM, H. Nikolaus Schaller <address@hidden> wrote:

> Am 05.03.2016 um 19:31 schrieb Liam Proven <address@hidden>:
> On 1 March 2016 at 20:20, Xavier Brochard <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Oh please, stop abusing yourself.
>> This is not the first complain against your posts.
> I would like to record that I am now receiving personal, off-list,
> abusive messages from Mr O'Leary now, who appears to be trying to
> upset me with personal vitriolic attacks.
> He is failing, but list members of a more sensitive disposition should
> be warned, and I felt that the list moderators should know about this.

I'd suggest to rename this list to cuddle-gnustep ;) And ban every discussion.

​LOL, very funny.   The purpose of the list is, obviously, to foster discussion. (Shall I keep stating the obvious?)   It is not reasonable to expect that everyone will always agree.

Looks as if you didn't follow all the details of the discussions.

Some persons stated that they will leave the list because they don't like discussions.
And the "warning of participants with more sensitive disposition" and indirect call for
moderators I was citing above, is essentially the same direction. To stop discussion...

Hence my pointed proposal :)

I got that and I certainly was following. :)  

I'm just speaking of the issue, as I see it, from a slightly different perspective.  I think it is absolutely the wrong approach to leave the list simply because there is a heated argument.  Quite the contrary is true.... a heated argument is when you're needed the most. 

​Disruptive conversations are a necessity to progress since they force people to think about what it is they are doing.  On a side note: I have also often heard people express the idea that if you have a comment you should also be willing to help fix whatever you're commenting on.   While it would be nice if this were always the case it is not good practice to exclude the opinions of those who either don't have the skill or the time to contribute, but who want to USE the platform for their projects.  It would be a terrible mistake not to listen to them.

I also saw the calls for moderator intervention.  One of the most loathsome things about being maintainer is that I am, occasionally, called in to shut things down when things get unruly, but this puts me in the position you mentioned in your previous post regarding freedom of speech.   I don't want to be seen as cutting off someone's access to the list simply because what they say upsets me or one of the leads.  When there is a healthy exchange of ideas it's good... even when it is somewhat upsetting.

What I want is a new open list where free speech is possible and nobody risks
being pilloried because of expressing opinions that a majority does not like
or does not want to hear. Without this openness it is usually driving any
discussion into personal attacks (I don't know who did throw the first stone
this time).

​I do my best not to stop any discussions unless it has legal consequences (as discussed with Maxthon Chan's ban about a year ago regarding decompiled methods from Cocoa).

Yes, this is an obvious situation.

​Indeed.  I like clear cut situations. ;)​
  No one shall ever be banned from this list for having a difference of opinion with anyone.  Abusive behavior is an exception to this, as is following people off list and making personal attacks.​

IMHO personal attacks usually have two opponents. It is sometimes very difficult to find out who did throw the first stone. Some people already see it as a personal attack if their arguments are not listened to. Then, they try to reformulate and put more and more push into being understood. And after a while they are called penetrant etc. which is of course a comment about the person and no longer their intention and they start to defend by addressing the other persons. But who was first? Who is guilty?

​Indeed... this is the main reason I also do not intervene when this happens as, sometimes, the person who is calling me in to do so may be equally guilty.
I am still interested to find out about the goals (or if there are any) of this project
by following such discussions. And to be able to decide if I should start to invest
more time for this project or even less.

​I think the "mission statement" needs to be clear, but I believe it's enough to say that this project started out as an effort to bring OpenStep to a myriad of platforms.  Now that OpenStep has evolved into Cocoa I believe

GNUstep's mission is extended to one of bringing the ease of Cocoa development to as many platforms as possible.

That is something I can agree with and find it attractive.

​I'm glad, then maybe we should change the website to reflect something similar.
  This mission includes the idea of a "porting environment" if we were only that we would not have ProjectCenter and Gorm.

I have been discussing with Ivan the idea of a "reference platform" for GNUstep.  That is to say a platform which is tuned to give the user the best possible experience with the framework.  Think along the lines of NeXTSTEP/Mach or OPENSTEP/Mach vs. OpenStep for Solaris or OpenStep Enterprise for Windows (OSE).

It's not as complex as some are trying to make it.

Gregory Casamento

BR and happy coding,


Gregory Casamento
GNUstep Lead Developer / OLC, Principal Consultant
http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]