No, GNOME doesn’t want user feedback; how I argued in favor of voting in bugzilla, and got banned as a result

I have long been an advocate for listening to the users (see this old thread in in GNOME’s ml), and through the years I have discussed over and over with GNOME developers why it’s important to listen to your users, and why they are barely doing it.

However, that hasn’t prevented me to cooperate in their bugzilla, I have filed bug reports, participated in discussions, also fixed bugs, and I even maintain one component; gst-openmax. You can check yourself here, or for a few interesting ones: 629349, 640859, 640665, 650724, 655361, 480858, 623473, 630910, 598771, 535074, 534975, 548776, 340375.

Yet, because of a couple of comments in bug #629161 (Support voting in GNOME Bugzilla), and without any warning, I got banned. But of course, they deleted the evidence, so you can’t see it.

The official response

Anyway, let’s leave the ban pending, and concentrate on the real issue: why are votes not enabled? This is what you can find from GNOME’s site:

Voting would give the impression that your vote would make someone fix the bug faster. That is almost always not the case. As this gives a false impression, voting usually creates a lot of extra comments because of that (eg ‘this bug has XXX amounts of votes and still not fixed’) and just frustates users.

A better way to get a bug fixed faster is to either:

  • Provide a patch, or
  • Look, review and test the patches provided by other contributors. Especially the reviewing part takes a lot of time and developers will really appreciate people who say if a patch does or does not fix the bug for them. Reviewing the patch (looking for potential problems / good code style / etc) is even better.

Note: If you want to express interest in a bug, just CC yourself (and leave the comment field empty). The developer can easily see if a lot of people have cc’ed themselves, without causing the bad voting side-effects.

Voting would give the impression that your vote would make someone fix the bug faster.

No, it wouldn’t. That’s a miss-conception, there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary, as Tim Janik pointed in his blog post, both GitHub and Google Code offer voting methods, but not only that, Mozilla Firefox, KDE, Mediawiki, WineHQ do too.

Let’s take a quick look at the most voted bugs in some projects: Chromium Issue 60101: webRequest extension API (2264 stars), Wine Bug 421 – Implement a DIB engine (161 votes). Do you see anybody having the impression that the bug should be fixed fast as GNOME people suggest? No.

That’s because it’s not true, people assume that a bug with a lot of votes should have a high priority, that’s a completely different thing; speed != priority.

As this gives a false impression, voting usually creates a lot of extra comments because of that (eg ‘this bug has XXX amounts of votes and still not fixed’) and just frustates users.

Again not true, and backed up by a lot of evidence. People don’t complain if a bug is not fixed in a timely manner, they complain if it affects many people, and developers give to it no importance. But if they did their job properly, that would not happen, in my experience, just setting the right priority but explaining that it’s not that easy to implement is enough. Additionally, I set milestones based important bugs fixed, this way users know that 1.2 won’t be released until the bug they care about is fixed, so they know there’s no point in raising attention to it.

But even assuming what they said was true, the amount of annoyance the complains would generate is overcome by the value provided by knowing which bugs are really important.

If you want to express interest in a bug, just CC yourself (and leave the comment field empty)

That’s not what the CC field is for, therefore people would not use it for that, defeating the purpose. Plus, you can’t sort bugs by number of people in CC.

That’s it. It was easy to debunk wasn’t it?

The bug

Let’s go now to the bug in question; bug #629161. A bunch of GNOME developers (Tim Janik, Jürg Billeter, Sandy Armstrong, Travis Reitter, Javier Jardón, Gabriel Burt) made it clear that they would want this for their components, yet nothing happens. There’s basically only arguments in favor, nobody is arguing against.

So, now you have refuted arguments from their official position, and an enhancement request to allow voting in some components. Why wouldn’t they just allow it, if anything, just to see how things go? At the end of the day it’s the maintainers of the components that would decide if voting has been beneficial, or not. One can only speculate, but I assume the reason is political; if you enable voting for some components, people would automatically assume that the other components don’t want to hear feedback from users (which might very well be the case).

In anyway, it won’t happen–not for certain components, not as a trial, not ever. There’s no real reasons against, and it doesn’t matter how many arguments are put forward. Strange, huh?

The ban

These comments were deleted, so I’m providing them in full so you can judge by yourself, also, because there’s no public hearing or any way one can defend itself against arbitrary bans.

--- Comment 14 Felipe Contreras 2011-09-08 23:24:33 UTC

(In reply to comment #5)
> Google's star approach is nice because the user does not see how many other
> folks starred the issue (or if they do, it's not nearly as visible as something
> like "votes").

Wrong.

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=60101

2273 people starred this issue and may be notified of changes.

(In reply to comment #12)
> The argument that users will be disappointed that bugs with high numbers of
> votes are not being fixed has been raised here, and also previously on Bug
> 390454.  My counter-argument to this is: so what?  Every other bug tracker I
> use (KDE, Novell, SeaMonkey, OpenOffice.org, MediaWiki) allows users to both
> make and view votes.  Yes, occasionally some users complain that bugs haven't
> been fixed.  No, this hasn't resulted in planes falling out of the sky, all
> development work ceasing, etc.  Such unhelpful comments are thankfully rare,
> and either get ignored, or else someone politely reminds the poster of bug
> tracker and free software development etiquette.

Exactly. The value of the information gathered by this outweighs tremendously
against the small possible annoyances. In my experience however adding voting
does not lead to annoying comments.

In my own project hosted in Google code I always make it clear when a feature
is extremely popular but it's difficult to implement, I just say that, and the
users seem to understand, that if it's not fixed in a certain period of time,
it doesn't mean that nobody cares, it just means it's not that easy.

Now, if this was actually *tried* for some period of time, and *then* it turned
out that there was indeed too many of these comments I would understand, but
that's not the case.

The decision is based on pure speculation.

I say something is not true, and I provide evidence that shows that’s the case. Then I say the decision is based on speculation, which is true, and the only way to know for sure is to give it a try. Is that too bad? According to Olav is it bad enough to warrant a ban:

--- Comment 15 Olav Vitters [bugzilla.gnome.org developer] 2011-09-10 03:46:00 UTC

(In reply to comment #14)
> The decision is based on pure speculation.

Please just stop the way you're acting. Just because I see things differently
doesn't make it ok to behave like this on Google Plus, desktop-devel-list,
here, etc.

Olav says I should stop with the way I’m acting, without specifying what is that “way”. First of all, notice that there’s no threat of a ban at this point. Also, notice that I don’t know what exactly I’m supposed to stop doing. So…

--- Comment 16 Felipe Contreras 2011-09-10 12:34:24 UTC

(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > The decision is based on pure speculation.
> 
> Please just stop the way you're acting. Just because I see things differently
> doesn't make it ok to behave like this on Google Plus, desktop-devel-list,
> here, etc.

I'm not acting in any way. Here's the definition of speculation:

 * to think, meditate or reflect on a subject; to deliberate or cogitate
 * to make an inference based on inconclusive evidence; to surmise or
conjecture

That is what you are doing. If you don't like how it sounds, then don't do it.

The only way you can know for sure what would happen if you enable voting, is
to enable voting, and see.

Right? If somebody is speculating, what’s wrong with saying “you are speculating”, if you want people to say you are speculating, then don’t speculate. Like a cheater that is complaining about people calling him cheater.

--- Comment 17 Olav Vitters [bugzilla.gnome.org developer] 2011-09-10 13:22:55 UTC

To put it in other words: I don't like the way you're behaving.

For example:

(In reply to comment #16)
> That is what you are doing. If you don't like how it sounds, then don't do it.

Stating things in above way, just don't. I'm not talking about arguments you're
trying to make. It is about the way you phrase them.

More concretely: My objection is not about not like "speculation", it is the
tone of your messages and the way you phrase those things. To more it comes
acrosss as trying to "tick me off". This is the last I'll say on this matter on
this bug, getting offtopic.

Oh! So it’s the tone? Well, we could debate whether there’s a nicer way to transmit the message I want to convey, but why linger on such lowly things? Olav certainly seems to have moved on and don’t want to discuss about this.

Note that at this point there’s still no warning about what would happen if I continue this behavior, that until the last comment wasn’t clarified, and in my opinion, it should never be an issue in the discussion.

--- Comment 18 Felipe Contreras 2011-09-10 14:06:06 UTC

(In reply to comment #17)
> This is the last I'll say on this matter on this bug, getting offtopic.

Exactly, this has nothing to do with the subject.

And complaining about "tone" is not precisely considered a sophisticated way to
engage in a discussion:

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg

According to Paul Graham responding to tone is “a weak form of disagreement”, so I try to make it more delicate by saying it’s “not precisely a sophisticated way to engage in a discussion”.

BANG. Without any other comment or notification, I got banned. I didn’t notice until weeks later when I couldn’t login to GNOME bugzilla with this message:

Bug 629161 -- continue behaviour after various requests to change it
If you believe your account should be restored, please send email to bugmaster@gnome.org explaining why.

What? I go to that bug report and I don’t see anything (my comments were deleted), so I ask personally Andre Klappler to fetch the comments for me, and at the same time I contact the bugmasters.

After I got the comments and analyzed them I proceeded to build my defense (attached at the end); I actually never used a wrong tone. Olav’s problem was not with the tone, but with what I was actually saying, which was not flattering for him or GNOME, but actually true. I went into detail through those comments, and there was not nicer way of saying it.

In fact, I even proposed a compromise, I would not make any comment that criticizes GNOME, because apparently, that’s not allowed.

But, not surprisingly I got no response, except from Andre Klapper, who said he didn’t even read my defense:

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Andre Klapper wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 15:20 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Of course not, you are only interested in patting each other in the
>> back, and self-congratulate yourselves. You are not interested in a
>> fair trial.
>
> It's exactly this style that makes me not interested in discussing
> anything with you currently.
> I stopped reading here, not interested in the rest.

So, no fair trial, banned with no warning, with reasons that are not true. That’s justice in GNOME’s world.

So that’s why

Perhaps it should be clear now why is it that the GNOME project doesn’t listen to it’s users, doesn’t allow voting in bugzilla, doesn’t allow a user survey (I’ll explain that in another blog post), ideastorm, or anything that gives the user masses the ability to speak.

GNOME is an autocratic oligarchy; it’s a club of like-minded people which only allows like-minded people. It a group that is both pompous and self-congratulatory; patting each other on the back is an obligation. You should not rock the boat, criticize the status quo, be confrontational, or deviate from the norm. They are never wrong, or do lowly things, and their design is dogma.

As I found out, to suggest that a GNOME member is speculating is such an extreme offense, that one should be shunned forever, never to poison GNOME’s precious ears, regardless of years of contributions (in my case since 2005).

Good riddance.

Defense

Since not Olav, nor anybody else presented any case, I'm going to
infer it from this:
---
Bug 629161 -- continue behaviour after various requests to change it
---

What is that behavior? Using phrasing and tone that are not in the
liking of Olav. How many instances? Presumably two, comment #14, and
comment #16. How many requests were done to change it? Presumably two,
comment #15, and comment #17.

First of all, at this point it should be clear, that in no point in
time any ban warning was issued. In fact, at no point in  time any
repercussions where stated. Having participated in countless online
discussions, I thought saying "I don't like your tone" meant only
that. Many people dislike the tone of other people, but most people
don't have the power, or the indecency, to block somebody's comments
just because they don't like them.

Now, did the accused change his tone after the second request to
change it? Well, lets look at comment #18.

What is the tone of this comment? How could this comment transmit the
same idea, but with a tone in the liking of Olav?

If you go to the page http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html, on the
section "Responding to Tone", the description is "this is still a weak
form of disagreement". So, stating that the site says so, is merely
stating a fact, not engaging in any form of inflammatory rhetoric. But
instead, I tried to choose more "subtle words", and changed "a weak
form of disagreement" to "not precisely sophisticated".

So no, there's nothing wrong with the tone of this comment. What Olav
didn't seem to like, was the content of the message which diminished
his position. There is no way I could have made that point in a way
that Olav would have lied it. So his "request" in comment #17 doesn't
apply, thus the "second warning" was never enforced.

Not to mention that at this point it seems more that Olav doesn't want
to discuss the merits of tone, and thus he is willing to let go of his
request. A person who was willing to improve discussions would have
been willing to continue the discussion about merits of tone in a
private manner. Or at the very least Olav should have made it clear
that regardless of the importance, it's something that is not
tolerated and warrant a ban. He didn't do any of such things.

But if you look closely at comment #17:

This is not a second request, it's a *clarification* on the first request.

And it points out to a line in comment #16:
---
That is what you are doing. If you don't like how it sounds, then don't do it.
---

Is this tone bad? What could be done to this message to improve the
tone? The point being made is that things are what things are;
speculating is speculating, and there's nothing wrong with pointing
out what is happening, instead, one should focus on avoiding doing it,
rather than preventing people from pointing it out.

So, there's really not much that can be done to change the tone of
this message without changing its meaning as well.

So, again, Olav was not concerned with the tone as he claimed, but he
was concerned about what was being said.

And finally, the line that started everything in comment #12:
---
The decision is based on pure speculation.
---

We ask again, is this tone bad? How can you say the same thing in a
better tone? There are not many ways.

So, yet again, Olav was concerned about what was being said, not the tone.

In conclusion:

1) There was no law, no warning, effectively no way in which I could
know what was going to happen.
2) There were no various requests to change the behavior, only one,
explained in two parts, because the first one was not clear enough.
3) The complaint about tone is unsubstantiated, the real problem is
pointing out things that put GNOME in a bad light.
About these ads

54 thoughts on “No, GNOME doesn’t want user feedback; how I argued in favor of voting in bugzilla, and got banned as a result

  1. Wow, I’m really sad to hear all this….
    I hope they really do start some “genuine” reforms WRT their internal processes soon.
    It can’t be good for them in the longer-term, if they reamin so rigid/elitest.

  2. Gnome is actually one of the reasons I use OSX now as my desktop…I’ve ran into simliar behavior like this on many occasions…

  3. Having read only this post and the bugreport i can easily understand the problem. The Gnome problem. I don’t believe Cannonical/Ubuntu really wanted to start developing Unity. I believe they had to. Really had to. Splitting of development resources is expencive, but cheaper than dying slowly.

    I’ve used Gnome for years, but I fail to see it’s potential and therefore believe Gnome are becoming obsolete.

    You being banned for THAT explains the need for Unity and why Gnome lost track of the future.

  4. I’m able to state my opinions without a negative tone, it is real easy. For example:
    “Wow, this Olav character really appears to be a little bitch.”
    Again, this is me having total control of my tone.

  5. Pingback: Links 24/9/2011: Linux 3.1 RC7, Plasma Active OS | Techrights

  6. No voting, banning people, what’s next? Spying? Torture? Wearing ridiculous glasses? GNOME seems to be well on its way to a self-obsessed dictatorship. Pity.

  7. You must be pretty successful in real-life relationships. Do you also bring up Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement when someone in RL tells you they don’t like your tone? Does it work?

  8. @Claudio

    According to your logic, one shouldn’t point out when someone commits a fallacy simply because it happens in real life. Well isn’t that brilliant.

  9. “Please just stop the way you’re acting.”

    I would consider that a warning, given that you know full well that Olav is a Bugzilla admin and moderator.

  10. The point at wasn’t and needed ti directly addressed was:

    — Comment 17 Olav Vitters [bugzilla.gnome.org developer] 2011-09-10 13:22:55 UTC
    “it comes acrosss as trying to “tick me off”.”

    A comment like “I don’t like your tone.” strikes me as a bit personal. The same sentiment might be applied ‘I don’t like Txt Spk’. That is even if you ignore the obvious contradiction of Text and Speech. To labour this a little more, some people express themselves differently to the way one or another of us might like.

    In short @FelipeC your whole appeal was presented on the wrong basis in my opinion.

    At no point did Olav try to express how your comments were offensive or re-frame them into a more acceptable form.

    I would like to ask though, was your discussion with Olav better for this outcome rather than a ambiguous “Thank you for your comment, we’ll pass it on the appropriate team.” and then nothing else happens?

  11. @Claudio This is not a personal relationship, which is why people should not take criticism personally. If you want that, watch a soap opera. I thought the objective was to build somenthing good, not hold hands and sing kumaya.

    @Philip No, I did not know Olav was a bugmaster, and why would that matter? Plenty of people can have multiple roles, and when they switch roles, they make it clear. Like on IRC, when people switch to op mode, similarly a good bug master would have said; as a bugmaster, I officially warn you, continue this behavior and I will ban you.

    I have never been banned in bz before, I have never banned anyone, or witnessed a ban. So how am I supposed to know it would happen like that? If I were to design the ban process, I would put a requirement for a personal email warn, at least for accounts that are not clear bots.

  12. I’m not getting into an argument with you, because you’re always right. I could only ever lose.

  13. If you think that people don’t have the right to get pissed off at your smartass attitude, well, here you have one of many proofs that you are wrong. Even in the most technical of the debates, there are people behind these and people have limits. Maybe you don’t have them, but well, we already know you are one of a kind.

  14. +Philip That would be level 1 in Graham’s disagreement scale, you can still do worst, try calling names. You are welcome in this blog if you ever decide to engage in a discusion seriously.

    +Claudio Who said anything like that? You are confused my friend, people certainly have the right to get pissed, they can also ban me throw insults, or do whatever they hell they want, that’s called freedom of expression.

    But *banning*, without warning, and for a reson different than the one stated is *unjust*.

    Of course I have limits, and I participate quite succesfully in other communites. Some people appreciate the value of a different point of view, and frankness, even if the conversation gets heated. It’s certainly better than shutting people up and missing possibly valuable feedback.

    But who cares? GNOME is perfect and they don’t need to listen to criticism.

  15. +Huanie I don’t think anythink in that bug report would lead to anything. What really pisses me off is that I can’t access the acount anymore, not even to check my saved searches.

    I still have patches on the process of merging. Er, *had*.

  16. @FelipeC

    My guess is that you still care about Gnome and your contribution to Gnome. This leaves the question, do you actually want to have your account reactivated?

    For what it’s worth, if I were Olav, what would have annoyed me was the suggestion of speculation being the form of the decision making process, because despite your research and evidence; without direct access meeting minutes or being there you can’t conclusively prove the process of how the decision was made. But that is my take on things and Olav did state…

    > More concretely: My objection is not about not like “speculation”,

    That sentence had me really confused for a while but think I’ve got it figured out now. If you are wanting your account back, then I’d suggest understanding the original disagreement is important otherwise, move on.

    Alternatively, if you still require access but don’t wish to negotiate the admin, cheat. Register a new email address, create a new account and manage the account to realize a set of achievable goals. This isn’t an exam, in real life cheating is a perfectly acceptable means of completing a task.

  17. +Huanle No, I don’t care abut the GNOME project, but I do care about some components that are not GNOME-specific. So yes, I would like my account to be reactivated, that’s why I proposed the bugmasters to re-activate it with the promise to not ever say a comment there that might be remotely considered criticism. They didn’t even bothered reading.

    without direct access meeting minutes or being there you can’t conclusively prove the process of how the decision was made

    It doesn’t matter how the decision was made, until they enable it for a trial (which they haven’t), any conclusion is speculation; you can’t never know for sure what would happen.

    I’d suggest understanding the original disagreement is important otherwise, move on

    I tried to explain the whole situation in my “defense”, but they didn’t even bother to read it. I don’t think they want to understand or analyze the situation. They are always right by definition.

  18. @FelipeC

    > It doesn’t matter how the decision was made, until they enable it for a trial (which they haven’t), any conclusion is speculation; you can’t never know for sure what would happen.

    My comment wasn’t about what would happen but a speculation about what had happened. I agree that the only way to know for sure is a trial coupled consumer research. The problem is that as individuals we find it very easy to imagine my idea is best. The risk of research proving you wrong can be very threatening. The exception is probably those who test their ideas for a living.

    > I tried to explain the whole situation in my “defense”, but they didn’t even bother to read it. I don’t think they want to understand or analyze the situation. They are always right by definition.

    It looks like you wrote an impassioned cover letter.

    >> Of course not, you are only interested in patting each other in the
    >> back, and self-congratulate yourselves. You are not interested in a
    >> fair trial.

    Here you are making two accusations about them and it appears probably true but that doesn’t help you. Information like this should be used to inform your actions not them.

    It is clear that you are a committed contributor and equally clear that they are idiots, not always right. Pre-emptually jumping conclusions is childish. Therefore when thinking about this you should think of yourself as having to manage children. Short sentences, to the point and avoiding distractions. Each communication should be byte sized dealing with one topic at time. Avoid emotive topics completely, this might be difficult due to their seeming irrationality.

    When you write your next appeal, I suggest thinking about it like a project with a specification, clear goals and a plan for implementation.

    Another thing to remember is that they are possibly dealing with thousands of contributors and users through their bz and they want to put as little work into each person as possible. That means using the lowest value judgements to arrive at a conclusion.

  19. I agree with the bug team. When it is unpleasant to discuss anything with someone, then that person is doing more harm than good. It is very unpleasant to have a disagreement with you. Therefore, you are doing more harm than good.

    You learn a lot about someone when you disagree with them – are they looking for a solution to a problem, or are they focussed on the problem? Are they respecting and listening to what others are saying? Are they focussed on positions, or on interests?

    I would encourage you to consider these questions the next time you feel that someone isn’t hearing you, that you need to repeat and reinforce your position, or that there is some clan who refuses to take your needs into account because of some personality flaw on their part.

    Dave.

  20. @Dave Neary

    Could you please explain “It is very unpleasant to have a disagreement with you.”, what exactly was said that’s so unpleasant or have you had previous discussions with @FelipeC that made you uncomfortable? Unpleasantness is subjective, I’d greatly appreciate another point of view.

    I ask because so far, I haven’t read anything here more disturbing than an evidence based logical progression followed by a set of conclusions.

    Thanks.

  21. Hi @Huanle_Tian,

    I don’t want to get into a long debate about it. You’re right, it is in some sense subjective. The examples in Felipe’s own post point at a number of mailing list threads and bugs where we have gone beyone debate and discussion and into argument – at that point, the forum in question (either mailing list of bugzilla) becomes less useful to those not directly involved in the argument, and I know from personal experience that being in arguments (as opposed to debates) does not make me happy, it makes me angry & frustrated.

    Dave.

  22. I stopped reading your response exactly after your first wrong assumption and accusation, as your communication style in the last months on GNOME’s mailing lists, in Bugzilla and on Google Plus has created the impression in me that it’s not worth to continue reading just to get more wrong accusations.
    It’s easy to create a selfulfilling prophecy by being aggressive and then complaining that people acted as a reaction to that aggressiveness. That’s how it looks like.

    Another example is your answer to Christian (another GNOME bugmaster)’s email.
    Christian hadn’t been involved at all before and answered to you with a rather friendly “Apparently from what I can tell so far, your choice of phrases and expressions (the “tone”) appals different people.”
    That was obviously a summary of his *perception*, not his own opinion.
    Your response? “I don’t think you are open to explore possible improvements in communication.” So you tell people for no particular reason that they are limited (“not open”).
    This represents fairly well your behavioral pattern that I’ve experienced so far.

    With regard to generalizations: It’s not “justice in the GNOME world”. We are individuals, and we build up impressions over the time of the people we communicate and deal with.
    I’d give you the same response in any other open-source community that I am part of if you behaved like you did in the last time, as it simply reflects my impressions and conclusions on dealing with potentially poisonous people.

    andre (one of GNOME’s bugmasters)

  23. +Dave Neary

    I agree with the bug team. When it is unpleasant to discuss anything with someone, then that person is doing more harm than good. It is very unpleasant to have a disagreement with you. Therefore, you are doing more harm than good.

    I challenge you to find these instances where I am doing more harm than good.

    I have possibly hundreds of comments on bugzilla, plus patches, and I used to maintain one component (I guess not any more). And for one comment I get banned.

    Of course you would agree with the bug team, because you trust them blindly, you have not bothered to look at the evidence, so of couse you would not see the lack of evidence to back up your claim that I do more harm than god.

    tl;dr: show some examples for your claim (there are none)

    Plus, do you think if a guy says the Earth revolves around the Sun but says so in a way that looks as if everybody else is wrong is doing more harm than good? There’s a reason why other points of view are valued, and there’s a reason why complaining against tone is considered a low form of discussion. Your assumption that unpleasant conversations do more harm than good is baseless.

    I don’t want to get into a long debate about it.

    Of course not, because you would then need to spend time looking for evidence for your claims, and since there isn’t, you would end up looking bad. Wait a second, GNOME people never look bad, you would rather say you don’t have time to look for evidence.

    +Andre Klapper

    I stopped reading your response exactly after your first wrong assumption and accusation

    I assumed you would not give me a fair trial, and you didn’t, so my assumption was right.

    as your communication style in the last months on GNOME’s mailing lists, in Bugzilla and on Google Plus has created the impression in me that it’s not worth to continue reading just to get more wrong accusations.

    You can’t ban somebody in bugzilla for something they said in Google+. Be just and present evidence for these issues in bugzilla.

    “I don’t think you are open to explore possible improvements in communication.” So you tell people for no particular reason that they are limited (“not open”).

    By you, I meant you guys, not him. And again, as it turns out no discussion
    about exploring possible improvements on communication happened, thus, again, I
    was right.

    With regard to generalizations: It’s not “justice in the GNOME world”. We are individuals, and we build up impressions over the time of the people we communicate and deal with.

    All it takes is one person to give me a fair trial, and GNOME as a team would have been just, but not a single person did that, therefore as a team, you are being unjust. You can make as many excuses as you want, but a lack of a trial is unjust.

    Again, imagine a judge saying; I don’t like the tone of the defendant; guilty, no appeal, just go away, I don’t have time for this.

  24. +Andre Klapper Oh, and I’m not going to let you put my comment out of context. I think my whole response to Christian is perfectly sensible:

    I participate in other communities where tone is not an issue, or at
    least people don’t get banned because of it. I would be willing to
    discuss the benefits and disadvantages of fixating on tone, but I
    don’t think you are open to explore possible improvements in
    communication.

    I believe the only option forward is what I already proposed in my
    defense; in bugzilla, I promise to avoid saying anything that might be
    remotely considered a criticism to GNOME, it’s principles, practices,
    or beliefs, because apparently suggesting that GNOME is less than
    perfect is offensive in some peoples’ views. It’s a shame that open
    and honest communication is despised, but the fact that a simple word
    such as *speculation* is considered offensive leads to no other
    conclusion.

  25. @andre klapper

    > I stopped reading your response exactly after your first wrong assumption and accusation, as your communication style in the last months on GNOME’s mailing lists, in Bugzilla and on Google Plus has created the impression in me that it’s not worth to continue reading just to get more wrong accusations.

    Have you been receiving complains for months?

    Did you review @FelipeC’s comments for how many months back?

    How did you come to the conclusion that you’ve needed to confront @FelipeC and then have taken a months to do so?

    How are the Gnome Bugmasters organized?

    Any organization whether it is a community project or a small business or corporation is bound to encounter personal conflicts. I would be surprised if this is the first time you or your colleagues have needed to mediate over a disagreement. This time it seems to be a direct conflict between you (GNOME’s bugmasters) and @FelipeC.

    The vast majority of organisations have a clear set or rules about what is acceptable behaviour and closely defined procedures for what will happen when those rules are broken. Those that don’t have such rules and procedures are normally immature in their nature and by that I mean, not having been establish for a long period of time.

    My impression of this situation is a direct failure of the Gnome Bugmastsers as a whole to find an appropriate and proportional response to this conflict. No rules of conduct have been sited as being broken that is other than the vague use of the word ‘tone’ or phrase ‘communication style’, neither has there been any recognisable procedure followed with a view to resolving this conflict.

    > With regard to generalizations: It’s not “justice in the GNOME world”. We are individuals, and we build up impressions over the time of the people we communicate and deal with.
    I’d give you the same response in any other open-source community that I am part of if you behaved like you did in the last time, as it simply reflects my impressions and conclusions on dealing with potentially poisonous people.

    You are each individuals, I am an individual and so is @FelipeC, you are however a group of individuals who represent Gnome. Individuality however does not excuse you in this matter. As a group you are in a privileged position of responsibility and that responsibility is to all the users of the Gnome Bugzilla and that requires more tolerance and more patience and more care to be taken by you when moderating comments. Exercising authority is not a means to deal with difficult situations and hope that they’ll go away.

    I’d like to draw your attention to these statements, “we build up impressions over the time of the people we communicate and deal with” and “as it simply reflects my impressions and conclusions on dealing with potentially poisonous people”. You begin by building ‘impressions’ followed by ‘conclusions’ and ending in a subjective and irrational personal opinion. Suggesting to me that you’re saying “We let only the people we like use our services.”

    This is an example of juvenile unprofessional behaviour which is offensive to everyone who is interested and or excited by open-source/free/community projects. I hope you stop to consider this as it reflects badly on all of us.

    I apologize to @FelipeC, I’m sticking my nose in where I shouldn’t.

    I shouldn’t have labelled the Gnome Bugmasters as ‘idiots’, that was just name calling. For that I apologize, we each have failings.

  26. @Felipe:

    > And for one comment I get banned.

    Repeating the same wrong statement again and again does not make it more true. You were not banned for one comment only.

    As long as only you define what “fair” means things won’t change, I’m afraid. You’re not interested in “fair” communication either (wuth my definition of “fair”). Plus see my comment about selfulfilling prophecies – as you knew before anyway and maybe even wanted this result it was easy for you to get there.

    > You can’t ban somebody in bugzilla for something they said in Google+.

    I think I could ban somebody in Bugzilla for stuff he said in Bugzilla && on mailing lists && in Google+, except for split personalities maybe. :)

  27. @Huanle_Tian

    > How are the Gnome Bugmasters organized?

    Technical maintenance and admins are more or less 4 people. Similar to release-team there’s no “election” or something similar, but I guess the Board could intervene if things went terribly wrong.
    If you want to know specific stuff I’d recommend to ask on gnome-bugsquad@ mailing list.

    > a clear set or rules about what is acceptable behaviour

    That’s probably https://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct

    > “We let only the people we like use our services.”

    That’s not what I think – actually I disagree with quite some people in GNOME on random things. Still I can work together very well with them, as disagreement is expressed in a respectful way, even if discussions are heated sometimes. Hence I’d rather say “We let only people that are respectful use our services.”

    > I shouldn’t have labelled the Gnome Bugmasters as ‘idiots’

    Hehe, really no problem. Everybody rants from time to time, and even better if it actually triggers some changes. However if you rant *all of the time*, it gets boring, annoying and non-constructive as it slows down work of others, and at some point, after a warning, patience is simply over.

  28. +Andre Klapper

    Repeating the same wrong statement again and again does not make it more true. You were not banned for one comment only.

    Did you even bother to read my defense? Both comment #14 and #16 where issued before Olav explained the problem. So, presumably I was banned because of comment #18, which is the only one that happened afterwards. But of course, there’s nothing wrong with the tone of comment #18, which means the reason is wrong, plus there wasn’t even a warning.

    Or do you think it’s fair to count the offenses before they were known to be offenses?

    As you knew before anyway and maybe even wanted this result it was easy for you to get there.

    That’s a red-herring. If I say, “I bet you will punch me in the face”, and then you do, that doesn’t invalidate what you did, you have free will and could have avoided to punch me.

    Same with the trial, even if I said you wouldn’t give me one, if you wanted to be fair, you still would have given me one.

    No trial is no trial, and that’s unfair.

    I think I could ban somebody in Bugzilla for stuff he said in Bugzilla && on mailing lists && in Google+, except for split personalities maybe.

    You can, but that would be unfair. Like firing someone for having too many parking tickets.

    We let only people that are respectful use our services.

    And how is that not a personal opinion? Where are the proofs that I was indeed disrespectful? Why is it that you don’t need a trial to determine that?

  29. @andre klapper

    > Technical maintenance and admins are more or less 4 people.

    I asked because I’m interested to understand how your procedures are observed in circumstances such as these.

    Next I’d like to re-iterate my question about the longevity and frequency of objections?

    and then, indeed what it was that prompted the confrontation?

    CodeOfConduct
    There is missing from this document a list of responses. Procedures should outline a how a breach of the code of conduct will be investigated and the consequences.

    I would like to suggest that if a service user A comes into conflict with Bugmaster 3, then should either one feel the need to report a breach of the code of conduct a different Bugmaster is selected to investigate and mediate. Wherein reference is made to procedures and the code of conduct.

    I imagine in the case that there are two users in conflict then the above outline already comes into action.

    A ban as a consequence of an action, should be a last resort and be issued in conjunction with a very clear explanation for the ban. Exceptions being vulgarity or a very clear and deliberate person defamation.

    Though, the code of conduct document itself proclaims that it isn’t a legal document. At some point to remain valid and useful it must be accepted as benchmark for behaviour.

    With that in mind I’d like to draw your attention to “avoid aggressive or vague responses” using the term “tone” is vague.

    Then, “If something seems outrageous, check that you did not misinterpret it. Ask for clarification, but do not assume the worst.” again my impression is that something has been misinterpreted. Clarifications was not given and the worst was assumed.

    On a further positive note, it is commendable that you’re still listening, this is very important. Also, @FelipeC, I believe is passionate about these matters. These two important points should not be ignored.

    A point of note, communication style is a very difficult and treacherous topic to explore.

    @FelipeC, the implication is that you’ve offended a number of people on various occasions. I suggest understanding how they came to be offended will provide you with more effective presentation skills.

    @Everyone
    > I’d rather say “We let only people that are respectful use our services.”
    Here is a question for you. Imagine I spotted grammatical error in a comment above. Pointing out that error is either disrespectful because the use of language is not the topic of this discussion or helpful because at some time in the future that distinction might be useful to you. So which is it? The grammatical error at this time might seem trivial to you now. And what’s more I shouldn’t boast, my grammar is terrible anyway.

    By the way I am a tedious pedant.

  30. +Huanle Clearly, your suggestions would not be heard, because they are not interested in fairness, only in feeling good about themselves, and improving their banning procedures would imply they are not perfect, and they are not interested in accepting that. Why would they?

    As it was expected, once it becomes obvious that they did something wrong, they stop responding.

  31. @Huanle_Tian

    > Imagine I spotted grammatical error in a comment above. Pointing out that error is either disrespectful because the use of language is not the topic of this discussion or helpful because at some time in the future that distinction might be useful to you. So which is it?

    I don’t see how grammatical errors in Bugzilla comments are something relevant, sorry. Most people don’t care about totally correct spelling as software life is more about getting work done. If anybody feels like correcting anybody’s English spelling they can certainly do so off-list (private email)…

  32. +aklapper Some people don’t care about tone as software life is more about getting work done. If somebody feels like correcting anybody’s tone, they can certainly do so off-list.

    Off-topic is off-topic. I didn’t start with off-topic comments.

    And why don’t you reply? Where are those “repeated instances” you were talking about? Can’t you find them? Maybe they only exist in your imagination. You would have found that out in a trial, if you wanted to be fair, that is.

  33. Felipec!
    You should join the KDE program team!
    It is much more pleasant and anyway KDE is far more advanced and interesting than Gnome.

  34. +ex Gnome lover

    I do appreciate the KDE community, but unfortunately I don’t really find the KDE desktop usable for me, maybe things will change. Xfce works fine for me :)

  35. @aklapper

    I gave that example because it is not as simple as a direct slur. The issue is that by offering a grammatical correction the inference is that it may be insulting. Some people are passionate about languages (specifically here natural languages) and that might motivate a response.

    I can find a whole statement completely and utterly confusing because of one little error, that though is not a criticism of the author but a fact that I have that difficulty. This has meant on many occasions I’ve sought clarification, even where it has turned out none was necessary (that’s the most annoying).

    In the context of this discussion, how would I send you a private email? Perhaps even more difficult how would you email me?

    @FelipeC

    To be honest, I prefer KDE. I’m not sure if Gnome works on my PC at the moment. Some times when I really break things I resort to using Windows (Please excuse while wash my mouth out with soap). The fortunately, Gnome, KDE and Xfce are all community orientated and if you share your likes and dislikes with the KDE community perhaps they are able to adapt.

    Technical complexity as side for the moment, philosophically I don’t think it would be very difficult for either project to adopt a feature from another project if it was so desirable.

  36. +Andre What an elegant way to end a discussion; claim that the other side is not listening without any explanation.

    Anybody can do that, stop with the cheap tricks. If you want your claim to be taken seriously, substantiate it. What exactly am I not listening to? I have replied to each and every one of your arguments.

    You are the one that has stopped replying, you are the one that is not engaging in the conversation, you are the one that is not listening.

    Again, imagine a court of law where the judge says; the defendant is not listening, therefore he is guilty, the court is adjourned, and no; you don’t get a chance to appeal my decision.

    Very just.

  37. @Andre & @FelipeC

    The impasse here seems to me, to be that you are both of the opinion that the other doesn’t listen while not accepting or acknowledging any part of the others point of view. In that you’re both equally guilty.

    @Andre It would be helpful if you could describe FelipeC’s experience, play devils advocate for a moment and see how much FelipeC agrees.

    @FeliceC I have a task for you also, think of a time when you’ve found someone’s comments to appear to be directed at you personally and how you responded, then review this whole post, comments and all. Your objective is to try to appreciate how your conversational opponent might have taken what you’ve said personally. Give examples where possible and alternatives that you think wouldn’t come across as so offensive.

    I think if you could each acknowledge even a small fault in this matter, you would soon find a resolution. This is an emotive topic as neither of you believes the other is being fair.

    @FelipeC Sometimes, despite our best intentions people take offence at what we have to say whether or not you acknowledge that I don’t know.
    Each time I’ve put something to you, which you might either agree with or (in my opinion) effectively contradicts your argument or point of view then you don’t respond this is frustrating because I’m left with three options:

    1) You agreed so you didn’t respond,

    2) You felt my position challenged your perception of how others might see you so you didn’t respond (you were offended)

    3) You didn’t agree and just can’t be bothered to answer me.

    Afterwards I am left wondering which of those options to choose, is there another that I haven’t thought of. This is very frustrating because I could ask for your comment but I’m not sure you’ll answer. This is my experience, a direct question; what do you think?

    @Andre I’ve already told you of the changes which need to be made to the Bug Masters policies and guidance. This is something you should take back to the other Bug Masters to discuss with them and your stakeholders. At the end of the day you need to meet the needs of a lot of people and that’s not easy but you’re not alone either. Please take my comments on board and back to your colleagues, change can be a good thing.

    This discussion is an example of the ‘Soft Sciences’ at work wherein there is no precise right or wrong. From my point of view including this comment, this discussion is forty one comments and one blog post long, I can only imagine that you’re both mature adults. You are more than capable of rational objective judgement.

    Light hearted disagreement over something that is inconsequential can be fun, this is neither of those things. I only question if either of you will read this.

    To go complete off topic here (reader beware). I am telling everyone, you included, I now have an N9!

  38. +Huanle

    The impasse here seems to me, to be that you are both of the opinion that the other doesn’t listen while not accepting or acknowledging any part of the others point of view. In that you’re both equally guilty.

    But I am still here commenting. How can he be listening more than me, if the doesn’t say a word?

    Your objective is to try to appreciate how your conversational opponent might have taken what you’ve said personally

    I will defer again to Paul Graham’s document How to Disagree in which he explains why concentrating on tone, taking things personally, etc. is a lower form of discussion. People should concentrate on the ball, if they can’t do that, I don’t want to discuss with them.

    Also, here is nice wisdom from Linux’s document on management style:

    Similarly, don’t be too polite or subtle about things. Politeness easily ends up going overboard and hiding the problem, and as they say, “On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle”. Use a big blunt object to hammer the point in, because you can’t really depend on people getting your point otherwise.

    https://plus.google.com/108736516888538655285/posts/Ri6rem9pB6Z

    Yes, I agree that my comments might come across as too blunt, but really, I don’t have the time or the patience to find less abrasive alternatives to what I want to say. Some people can handle it, some people can’t. I’d rather stick with the people that can handle honesty and frankness.

    However, this has nothing to do with my ban. I already agreed not to criticize GNOME in their bugzilla, because clearly, we have a difference in opinion about what is effective communication. That’s fine.

    What is not fine is to ignore my request, not give me a fair trial, and then said I’m not listening; not listening to what? We disagree, there’s nothing wrong with that, and I’m not going to do what they don’t want me to do. What’s the problem? They are just being assholes.

    Each time I’ve put something to you, which you might either agree with or (in my opinion) effectively contradicts your argument or point of view then you don’t respond this is frustrating because I’m left with three options:

    I don’t recall not answering something that you asked me. If you say something and I agree, I don’t see any reason to reply… It’s GNOME guys that should do it.

    They are the ones ignoring you, me, and then saying *I* am the one not listening, without even explaining what it is that I am not listening.

    I don’t see exactly what you would want me to do… Isn’t my proposal to don’t criticize GNOME in bugzilla (which I have done for years now with one minor exception) enough?

  39. @FelipeC

    What I’d suggest that you do is acknowledge their point of view. Which I think you have in part at least by admitting you’re some what blunt.

    To be honest your proposal not to criticize GNOME in bugzilla, comes across as a little condescending to me, though I don’t think that’s what you intend.

    You’ve said,

    “I don’t recall not answering something that you asked me. If you say something and I agree, I don’t see any reason to reply…”

    You have answered all my questions, I wouldn’t suggest otherwise but these are questions.

    Sometimes though people need external validation, partly just to feel good about themselves and partly because it shows their message was successfully received. What if you misinterpret what I’ve said to mean something else and I won’t know, that will mean I’ve got to be extremely precise and explicit when talking to you.

    “Yes, I agree that my comments might come across as too blunt”

    Then you go on to qualify that statement which helps me understand your point of view on the topic. Then I can identify, if at all, there is still an issue which I disagree with you about which with further discuss we can address. You don’t have to spell it out all the time, a yes or no will suffice most of the time.

    It seems the GNOME Bugmasters aren’t happy to agree to disagree. When you’re saying that you’re not going to do what they want you to do, are they looking for an apology?

    I’ve looked at Paul Graham’s document How to Disagree and this I’d say has reached DH4. Counterargument.

    Andrea appears to listen to the extent of responding occasionally but I don’t know about acting on what’s been discussed here. At least Andrea isn’t the original protagonist who banned you so therein is one small element of fairness.

    Again Andrea hasn’t put forward a response to my suggestions about changes to the GNOME Bugzilla procedural changes, so in that way we don’t know if Andrea is listening either. This is the importance of external validation. I might be right about the procedures but GNOME may have reasons for not following them or Andrea may not be in a position to address these changes, we don’t know.

    Andrea say’s you’re not listening, then perhaps a simple list of the issues which the GNOME Bug masters would like to raise would be in order.

    Listening is about showing you understand, not just putting forward a contrary position. This is my point of view at least.

    If GNOME don’t listen then that’s their lose.

  40. +Huanle

    What I’d suggest that you do is acknowledge their point of view. Which I think you have in part at least by admitting you’re some what blunt.

    That’s not their point of view. Their point of view is that one should be nice and subtle all the time. I think they are wrong, they think I am wrong, that’s fine, we disagree, nothing wrong with that.

    To be honest your proposal not to criticize GNOME in bugzilla, comes across as a little condescending to me, though I don’t think that’s what you intend.

    It doesn’t matter if it’s condescending or not, it is practical and it’s a good middle ground. What else do they want? Flowers? A poem?

    I might be right about the procedures but GNOME may have reasons for not following them or Andrea may not be in a position to address these changes, we don’t know.

    I can make a guess; he thinks people like me (honest and frank, or blunt and abrasive) are a pest, and it’s much easier to just ban them without explanation than try to explain the obvious (which according to them is that people must be “nice”). That’s why he is right now doing something that makes him feel good, rather than take a good introspective look at what he is doing.

    If you think there’s something I haven’t expressed yet, feel free to ask.

    Regarding your proposals; I would say they are fine, but this is not the medium to propose them. It would be nice if Andre was listening, would be proactive, and push them forward. However, I don’t think he will, so you should push this to some GNOME mailing list if you really want it done.

    Or maybe I’m wrong, and Andre will do it, but considering his lack of response, I doubt that.

  41. @FelipeC

    There’s nothing wrong with not agreeing.

    Not criticizing them, also ignores the disagreement that would be distasteful to me. I agree though you made the attempt to try to find that middle ground. As for the question of what else do they want? “Not much” would be my answer, may be to them this is how they meet their quota of bad guys, like night club bouncers.

    Another thought, their problem might not have been what you said, be it tone or a critique of GNOME, maybe it is that as we see other people we see ourselves and sometimes we’re rather ugly.

    You say, “he is right now doing something” how do you know? You’ve made a guess at his motivations and now you’re asserting what his actions are. This is different from everything else you’ve said. Why do you take that leap to the point of saying he’s doing ‘X’ which isn’t good rather than ‘Y’ which is good. You’re not commenting on what he’s said or done rather what you suggest he’s doing about which you’re then expressing an opinion. How would you describe the sentiment in your statement?

    With regard to my proposals, Andrea has read them. I posted them here as much for his benefit as yours and mine. If GNOME wants to improve then that is up to them. If I wanted to improve the world, I’d have a secret underground volcano lair.

    Given Andrea’s lack of response today, I’d say give him a little time yet. This blog post has been dormant on and off for weeks now. Maybe he’ll check back soon. Though, given his comment about giving up, I wouldn’t hold out hope. With regard to his adopting my proposals, they can only help him.

  42. You’re not commenting on what he’s said or done rather what you suggest he’s doing about which you’re then expressing an opinion.

    That’s my guess, I don’t see any evidence to the contrary. Maybe I’m wrong, but it doesn’t really matter, he seems to be willingly ignoring the issue, so it doesn’t matter why, it’s bad.

  43. Hopefully Andre will respond and if he does I apologise for my spelling mistake above! I lost track of all those letters, sorry. I’ve only now spotted that little letter ‘a’ where it shoudn’t be!

    Again, at the end of the day it is for Andre to make use of this experience the lessons which it brings with it. @FelipeC, you said what you can, as have I. If Andre does respond and hopefully overlooks my error (for the direct purpose of this discussion) then he’ll be able to address where or what he perceives to be in contention.

    @FelipeC You’re right about some things and I hope you’re wrong about some others. We’ll just have to wait and see.

  44. The need to be right drives people away. It doesn’t matter if you are or not. Reading this post (which is just an extension of you’re need to be right) I can completely understand them banning you. It sounds like you’re causing more trouble then you are contributing, obviously in some people’s mind, enough to warrant cutting their losses for the good of the overall project.

    I don’t know you, you may be a great person, but you may want to take a good look at your actions, without the “I am right” filter. We all have to pick our battles, sometimes, tho we may be right, we’ve got to let it slide.

  45. And this is why I don’t miss gnome, or Linux in general.

    Feels a bit too much like showing up to a starwars party with a trekkie shirt on.

    There’s too much real work needing to be done to have petty nerdwars stand in the way of progress.

  46. The need to be right drives people away. It doesn’t matter if you are or not. Reading this post (which is just an extension of you’re need to be right) I can completely understand them banning you.

    If a project doesn’t care if a person is right or wrong, I think that says a lot about where the project is going to end up.

    I don’t know you, you may be a great person, but you may want to take a good look at your actions, without the “I am right” filter.

    I act like I am right when I believe I am right, and I don’t when I don’t. If anybody has any problem with that, they have the problem.

    Sometimes I act like I am right, and it turns out I was wrong, so I admit that, like any sane person would do. But I try to avoid that, more often than not I accept I’m not sure, but when I think I’m right, I’m not going to lie.

  47. Maybe now you’ve learned that going balls deep, bull’s horns in front and shout out your disagreement to someone who has the power to ignore and even dismiss you isn’t the best idea.

    This is very trivial imo. You are right when you say you didn’t actually say anything wrong or false. But even before you came up with Olav’s argument on your tone, I felt your tone was unpleasing to me. It just feels like “I know what you should do, don’t argue and do it”. I KNOW it might not feel like this to you, but it is obviously the way it seems to me, and seemed to Olav.

    And the way the other guy replied to your defense just seems to prove me right. This is probably not the first time. You’re probably the one that stands out fighting the world on each thing you disagree with. This might feel like a good idea to you but this is exhausting to anyone else.

    I’ve been through this kind of behavior and still face issue regarding this now and then, a lot less that before, when I couldn’t realize this. Tone IS important. You are not fighting people in a trial everyday, they are co-workers, boss, friends, family.

    Saying your comments couldn’t be phrased in a NICER way just proves it again: You did the perfect thing: “ain’t nobody gonna tell me I’m not mastering the art of discussing.”

    Well Sir, you are definitely perfectible in this area. And btw, this whole blog is out of context. You were there since 2005. This is definitely not the first problem you’ve had with this GNOME crew. The way Keppler or something replied is proving me right again, he was tired of your tone before reading. It wasn’t what you were saying, just the overconfidence we can feel in every phrasing.

    PS: I don’t know any of those people, I’m only giving my opinion on this because I’ve faced the same shit before, and work hard almost all the time to get better at this… for at least 5 years :)

  48. MichaelDK,

    Olav’s attitude is _exactly_ why I abandoned Gnome entirely after over 10 years as an avid user. I saw the same type of asinine behavior he’s exhibiting here when they broke Evolution several years back for over five months.

    Bug reports, etc, led to no resolution. After years of working fine, some arrogant “developer” decided their own goals with the project mattered more than people being able to USE their work.

    Seems telling that the most broad distributions of “Linux” are now android, which scrapped almost all the userland BS found in the Gnome and KDE projects and redid from scratch everything of consequence.

  49. Maybe now you’ve learned that going balls deep, bull’s horns in front and shout out your disagreement to someone who has the power to ignore and even dismiss you isn’t the best idea.

    What other way is there to address issues? Inefficient ones I suppose.

    I’m not interested in a software project that is not interested in addressing their issues “balls deep”.

    And the way the other guy replied to your defense just seems to prove me right. This is probably not the first time.

    Bullshit. Somebody else said it, it must be true! The sun obviously orbited around the Earth, yet such assumption was wrong.

    You haven’t been proved at all. Show me exactly where is the evidence that misbehaved in another GNOME bug. You have no evidence, you have no proof, you only have assumptions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s