On 9 September 2014 17:53, Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> On 9 September 2014 17:11, Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> No. Quite the contrary: I believe Debian did exactly that during
>>> Linus's Q&A, and I am quite proud of the project for doing so.
>> Aha. So, I think what you're saying is:
>> * Debian should not sanction/punish folks for their behaviour outside
>> the project, no matter how wrong-headed
> I haven't expressed any opinion on those broad principle at all, and don't
> have an opinion to express. My reaction to that statement is "mu."
According to dict, "mu" means "Your question cannot be answered
because it depends on incorrect assumptions". That doesn't seem like a
valid response, unless my assumption that you have views that anyone
else can summarise accurately is false. To be fair, that is seeming
plausible...
Anyway, ignoring the "mu" bit. You wrote previously:
> Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> writes:
> > Because Russ seems to be arguing that Debian should be sanctioning
> > Linus's behaviours in fora outside of Debian's control by banning him
> > from Debian events.
> Er, I explicitly said that I did *not* agree with that action. You're
> attributing to me the exact opposite of the position that I hold.
As far as I can see you have expressed an opinion on the topic, namely
that you disagree with Debian banning Linus from Debian events because
of his behaviour in fora outside of Debian's control.
Is that not accurate? Perhaps reading "did *not* agree" as "disagree"
is too strong; though that still seems like "the exact opposite"
position, and you did claim to hold /a/ position...
I generalised that in three ways to get from your statement to mine:
* "Linus" became "folks"
* "banning from Debian events" became "sanction/punish"
* "Linus's behaviour" became "beaviour, no matter how wrong-headed"
Are you able to correct one/some of those generalisations to a
principle that you do endorse?
>> * Debian /should/ promote courteous behaviour as being the expected
>> standard across all free software communities, by courteous and
>> well-put arguments
> Primarily we should promote this by example, not by argument. :)
argument
n 1: a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is
true; "it was a strong argument that his hypothesis was
true" [syn: {argument}, {statement}]
(Surprised that's the first definition offered by dict; it was the one
I intended though)
>> * Debian should sanction/punish folks for their behaviour within the
>> project, if it doesn't meet appropriate standards of courtesy/respect
> We should define our values and then live up to them. Sactions or
> punishments are a tool. I'm not particularly attracted to that tool over
> a host of other tools, although I wouldn't rule it out as an appropriate
> tool in some situations.
> Note that I don't consider temporary bans from mailing lists to be either
> sanctions or punishment.
sanction
n ...
2: a mechanism of social control for enforcing a society's
standards
Sanction \Sanc"tion\, n. ...
2. Anything done or said to enforce the will, law, or
authority of another; as, legal sanctions.
[1913 Webster]
Mailing list bans seem to unambiguously fit under those definitions of the word.
Punish \Pun"ish\, v. t. ...
1. To impose a penalty upon; to afflict with pain, loss, or
suffering for a crime or fault, either with or without a
view to the offender's amendment; to cause to suffer in
retribution; to chasten; as, to punish traitors with
death; a father punishes his child for willful
disobedience.
[1913 Webster]
That definition also seems reasonably descriptive.
I don't think I'm being particularly obtuse in my word choice here...
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
Please respect the privacy of this mailing list. Some posts may be declassified
3 years after posting as per http://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
Archive: file://master.debian.org/~debian/archive/debian-private/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, use the web form at <http://db.debian.org/>.
|
|
