From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q3621wd8112921 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 21:01:58 -0500 Received: from x.digitalelves.com (x.digitalelves.com [209.98.77.55]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Y70Aq6S6Zhwv3puO (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from macpro00.x.thebarn.com (c-66-41-26-220.hsd1.mn.comcast.net [66.41.26.220]) (authenticated bits=0) by x.digitalelves.com (8.14.5/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3621tjL011046 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 21:01:56 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from cattelan@digitalelves.com) Message-ID: <4F7E4E93.6050803@digitalelves.com> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 21:01:55 -0500 From: Russell Cattelan MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: repeated abuses of the XFS list References: <20350.11825.59139.309447@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK> <4F7E30FA.3010404@thebarn.com> <20350.14023.770391.715110@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK> <4F7E3C57.3030103@thebarn.com> In-Reply-To: <4F7E3C57.3030103@thebarn.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com Sorry for what appears to be an off topic posts. These emails were part of a non-xfs related conversation that was forwarded to list by Peter Grandi. While I did write these emails I did not sent them to the list. If any additional emails on this topic show up they will not have come directly from me. -Russell On 4/5/12 7:44 PM, Russell Cattelan wrote: > Well I'm afraid I'm going to respectfully disagree. > I don't have the full story of everything that happened > but none of the post you pointed out are totally off topic. > There seems to be some question about what you have said previously > about XFS, which to me would seem on topic. > > I have forwarded your email to Christoph and the other prominent members > of the XFS team and if they feel further action is warranted we > can revisit the issue. Based on what you have sent I do > not feel there is grounds for action. > > -Russell > > > On 4/5/12 7:20 PM, Peter Grandi wrote: >>> You must be joking! I'm not about to ban one of the most >>> knowledgeable and productive xfs developers from the email >>> list. >> >> Well, if one of these guys post offtopic and malicious rants, I >> guess that his being an XFS developer should not matter. >> >> With being an XFS developer comes also some responsibility to >> maintain a technical and professional tone in the XFS mailing >> list, and not to abuse his position. Same for the others. >> >>> I see nothing particularly offensive about these posts. >> >> They personal attacks about competence and character. They are >> pure flames, and because they are coordinated they seem to be >> mobbing. >> >> To me, you seem to be expliciting endorsing the use of the XFS >> mailing list to publish "ad hominem" attacks and mobbing. >> >>> I can understand you may upset about what Christoph said but >>> he has every right to state his opinions on things no matter >>> how much you disagree. >> >> But his opinions are on offtopic "things": the topic of the XFS >> mailing list is XFS, not people's competence or character, or >> rants/attacks on people. >> >> Some of the links I have sent you contain no technical content, >> purely personal attacks. How can this be legitimate XFS content? >> >> I think that it is your responsbility to ensure that posts are >> kept ontopic, and you assume responsibility for their content >> otherwise. > > > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs