John De Goes indefinitely barred from participating in Typelevel projects
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: John De Goes indefinitely barred from participating in Typelevel projects
#2So, I have just read the post.
And I don't want to be that guy, but why is this on the FP?
edit : I will rephrase : why is this interesting?
Re: John De Goes indefinitely barred from participating in Typelevel projects
#3How was this whole thing written without using the verb "sealioning"?
Re: John De Goes indefinitely barred from participating in Typelevel projects
#4So, I have just read the post. And I don't want to be that guy, but why is this on the FP? edit : I will rephrase : why is this interesting?
More generally, why would something that starts “We are contacting you privately“ be posted here?
Re: John De Goes indefinitely barred from participating in Typelevel projects
#5How was this whole thing written without using the verb "sealioning"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
because the authors appear to be trying (and succeeding) at striking a more mature tone.
Re: John De Goes indefinitely barred from participating in Typelevel projects
#6So, I have just read the post. And I don't want to be that guy, but why is this on the FP? edit : I will rephrase : why is this interesting?
Even worse, I've skimmed the discussions that precipitated the ban. I don't even understand why the ban was applied.
It's not as if the person couldn't take "no" for an answer; the administrators seem unable to give the person a definite "no" at all. Then they applied the "nuclear option" when they got exhausted, and made a public spectacle of the whole matter.
What a weird way to run a project.
Re: John De Goes indefinitely barred from participating in Typelevel projects
#7So, I have just read the post. And I don't want to be that guy, but why is this on the FP? edit : I will rephrase : why is this interesting?
Why would mountain climbers be interested in reading about other climbers making mistakes and falling?
I imagine that some here have concerns and insecurities about how their comments and communication may likewise be interpreted, or misinterpreted. I suspect there is a not uncommon fear of unwittingly ending up in a similar situation.
Re: John De Goes indefinitely barred from participating in Typelevel projects
#8So, I have just read the post. And I don't want to be that guy, but why is this on the FP? edit : I will rephrase : why is this interesting?
Even worse, I've skimmed the discussions that precipitated the ban. I don't even understand why the ban was applied. It's not as if the person couldn't take "no" for an answer; the administrators seem unable to give the person a definite "no" at all. Then they applied the "nuclear option" when they got exhausted, and made a public spectacle of the whole matter . What a weird way to run a project.
This is an emerging cautionary tale for open source maintainers - don't take a multi-year source of feedback intent on improving your project and find three times their feedback was discussed and retroactively call that tiring and ban the person privately as publicly as possible.
Re: John De Goes indefinitely barred from participating in Typelevel projects
#9So, I have just read the post. And I don't want to be that guy, but why is this on the FP? edit : I will rephrase : why is this interesting?
Even worse, I've skimmed the discussions that precipitated the ban. I don't even understand why the ban was applied. It's not as if the person couldn't take "no" for an answer; the administrators seem unable to give the person a definite "no" at all. Then they applied the "nuclear option" when they got exhausted, and made a public spectacle of the whole matter . What a weird way to run a project.
It is strange, and there must be some context that's left assumed and unstated. This ban document, even in conjunction with the linked examples, doesn't persuade me. If this is their best case I'm left scratching my head. (I understand that I'm not the target audience.)
Re: John De Goes indefinitely barred from participating in Typelevel projects
#10How was this whole thing written without using the verb "sealioning"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
It is not a well known term, confirmed by your need to define it. Obscure slang should not be used in sincere formal criticism of an individual's behaviour.
Additionally, the post is attempting to minimally justify the banning while assuming good-faith. It is not trying to denounce and condemn John De Goes.