From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/CommunityGuidelines Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:33:12 +0200 Message-ID: <87li6g969j.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net> References: <51B6AA7F.1060505@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Michael Haggerty , Git List , Junio C Hamano , Jonathan Nieder , "A Large Angry SCM" To: Ramkumar Ramachandra X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 11 14:33:21 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UmNlH-0005LT-RN for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:33:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753090Ab3FKMdQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:33:16 -0400 Received: from edge10.ethz.ch ([82.130.75.186]:55479 "EHLO edge10.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752504Ab3FKMdP (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:33:15 -0400 Received: from CAS11.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.211) by edge10.ethz.ch (82.130.75.186) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:33:11 +0200 Received: from linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net.ethz.ch (129.132.153.233) by CAS11.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.211) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:33:12 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Ramkumar Ramachandra's message of "Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:15:12 +0530") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) X-Originating-IP: [129.132.153.233] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > Michael Haggerty wrote: >> Thank you for drafting a proposed CommunityGuidelines document; I think >> such a document would be helpful. But I don't like the overall flavor >> of your proposal; frankly, it sounds to me more like >> >> Documentation/GuidelinesForCommunityToBendOverBackwardsToLiveWithFCsProvocations > > It has nothing to do with Felipe. I've merely documented repeating > patterns in fire threads as violations, in an attempt to avoid fires. > I have not worked forward from axioms to derive "transcendentally > desirable behavior", but rather backwards from a disaster to derive > "patterns that have been shown to lead to large fires". Why? Because > it's easier to derive unambiguous statements using my approach; as I > will show shortly, there are various problems with your arguments. > > What gives you the impression that I documented everyone else's > violations, but not Felipe's? ;) It has become clear, also in discussion on IRC, that your preferred approach is to fight the fires, attempting to extinguish flames as they happen. My approach -- and in my perception also that preferred by most of the regulars who have spoken in this whole mess -- is that since there is a fire hazard, it would be more effective firefighting to just remove the hazard, thus preventing future fires. I infer that in your view, there is an inalienable right for the fire hazard to remain part of the community that you are not willing to give up. I for one no longer have such qualms in this instance. -- Thomas Rast trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch