The secret to getting anything critical of the GNOME project to the front page is to post before anyone is awake in Raleigh, North Carolina.
ooh, i smell a conspiracy theory. Could you clarify?
Another user/developer banned from GNOME's bugzilla without any warning
31–40 of 91 posts
Re: Another user/developer banned from GNOME's bugzilla without any warning
#32Well, what did you expect? GNOME's processes and communication with users exactly represents the general state of the project, it's an uninspired big pile of shit, it always has been, it always will be. And of course, if you argue against GNOME's dogmas, you will be sidetracked because of some bullshit like your tone (which IMHO was totally fine, and you even argued your case with sources, examples and all) and then…
There are clear rules on how to behave. You say it was fine, but you only judge on his version of his behaviour. He went on and on and on, various bugreports, various personal emails, etc. Eventually enough is enough. I see that you are now perfectly happy to call me a sneaky bastard. Try going to a conference and talking to me in person instead of this anonymous internet.
try behaving the way you behaved on bugzilla at a conference.
Re: Another user/developer banned from GNOME's bugzilla without any warning
#33[deleted]
Re: Another user/developer banned from GNOME's bugzilla without any warning
#34The secret to getting anything critical of the GNOME project to the front page is to post before anyone is awake in Raleigh, North Carolina.
I don't think Red Hat is THAT big of a supporter of GNOME.
Re: Another user/developer banned from GNOME's bugzilla without any warning
#35Does anyone personally know people in Red Hat's management or the GNOME foundation's board of directors?
If so, it would be a good idea to engage them and convince them to fix the problem.
Red Hat has the authority to fire the many GNOME developers they employ, and the GNOME Foundation owns the trademark and can thus ultimately remove commit rights and Bugzilla admin rights from the problematic developers.
It's clear that the issue is now so big that this is the level at which corrective action needs to be taken.
Re: Another user/developer banned from GNOME's bugzilla without any warning
#36Mostly off topic: is it just my filter bubble, or does this flavor of deep, hate-ridden flamewar only show up in OSS projects that touch end users? I mean, on the server side, the worst kind of flamewar I've seen is TJ Holowaychuk disagreeing with Rails defaulting to CoffeeScript. It got us some drama and pictures of cats. But end-user OSS? That's been a pit of hate and anger ever since Torvalds posted a kernel to so…
From my experience you are probably correct.
Flamewars are a result of touched emotions. If parts of my identity depend on the color of a desktop (e.g. because I've used it for 10 years) a color change will infuriate me and I may start a flamewar. This usually doesn't happen with server technology (most people couldn't care less about the internal workings of a server. They will never see it).
Additionally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikeshedding - server software looks far more complicated than desktop software, so many people will think they understand the topics at hand and will talk about changes in the desktop software. Greater participation increases the risk of flamewars.
Re: Another user/developer banned from GNOME's bugzilla without any warning
#37Mostly off topic: is it just my filter bubble, or does this flavor of deep, hate-ridden flamewar only show up in OSS projects that touch end users? I mean, on the server side, the worst kind of flamewar I've seen is TJ Holowaychuk disagreeing with Rails defaulting to CoffeeScript. It got us some drama and pictures of cats. But end-user OSS? That's been a pit of hate and anger ever since Torvalds posted a kernel to so…
It happens everywhere. OSS just gives you the chance to see all this in the public. It also gives end-users a way to directly communicate their pain and annoyances to developers.
Re: Another user/developer banned from GNOME's bugzilla without any warning
#38Can we edit the title to say (2011)?
The fact that you're bringing this up two years later only serves to validate Olav's viewpoint.
Re: Another user/developer banned from GNOME's bugzilla without any warning
#39Wow. I wonder what the OP would do if people treated him the same way.
"Wrong.
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=60101
2273 people starred this issue and may be notified of changes."
You are wrong. You ignored the second part of that statement: "or if they do, it's not nearly as visible as something like 'votes'." By ignoring that, it makes your declaration of "Wrong" wrong. Any assertions made by this are also "Wrong."
"In my experience however adding voting does not lead to annoying comments."
In my experience however adding voting does lead to annoying comments.
This completely proves my point, and I can now move on.
"I'm not acting in any way."
That's wrong. You have to be acting in some way. The lack of acting would mean you aren't participating in the flame war you started. Indeed, that statement is not only wrong, but makes you a liar.
Wow.
You know, it's so much easier to act like the OP. You don't have to think, or put for much effort. Just mouth off.
"And complaining about "tone" is not precisely considered a sophisticated way to engage in a discussion"
Sure, but acting like a self-entitled little bitch is much, much worse.
Go ahead, complain about my tone there.
Re: Another user/developer banned from GNOME's bugzilla without any warning
#40Felipe, I'm completely unsurprised you got banned. This post is just continuation of the behaviour you can't see. People are human. It doesn't matter if you're technically in the right, or that you think things should be some way - if you piss people off, they are going to tell you to stop pissing them off and then eventually they will do something rash. In this post you just drag out the dirty laundry again and go t…
He was talking constructively, up until the point where the admin go pissy in a way that made it impossible to be constructive.
He wasn't. He was acting the part of a self-entitle, self-centered know-it-all. Hell, if he held himself to his own standards, he'd have called himself out for being a hypocritical liar.