On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 09:24, Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 17. 10. 19 15:17, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 4:33 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 17. 10. 19 2:27, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >>> So, literally every word of this is wrong. The negative feedback is > >>> not "overwhelming". It is approximately four noisy individuals, all of > >>> whom have expressed zero interest in understanding the actual > >>> situation that they are trying to "fix" by endlessly insulting the > >>> people working on the problem. Demoralizing the people who can dig us > >>> out of this situation is an unwise strategy. > >> > >> Let me make this clear: I have a technical opinion (default modular streams are > >> the wrong thing to do). If we are not considering that opinion, because it > >> insults the people who have implemented the technical thing, we are making it > >> personal. > >> > >> Everybody, please keep the discussion technical (that applies to both "sides" here). > >> > > > > Apologies for the tone here. That was out of line. I need to stop > > replying when I'm tired. And I wasn't thinking of you, Miro, when I > > wrote this. Your feedback hasn't been "negative", it's been > > "constructive" (in the way I think of things). > > I appreciate you are trying to follow up on everything here. It must be very > frustrating and I am sorry that my proposal has caused it. > > What bothers me ATM is that while the discussion is long and painful, it no > longer moves anywhere :( > > IMHO Everybody have already said all their arguments at least twice. I wonder > how to move forward. When conversations loop like this, then the problem isn't what is being stated.. it is the emotional problems which are being glossed over. You can't just say 'let us keep this technical' because I expect everyone thinks they are.. even when they aren't. Looking at the tone and 'feelings' of what is being said, it looks like the '4 noisy individuals' feel angry, and possibly betrayed and lied to. They feel betrayed because several of them tried to point out that pretty much every issue we ran into with libgit2, rust, java, and other items were going to happen. And the answers they got were 'stop impeding progress' to 'no people won't do those things because they should know better', or 'if it happens we will come up with the policies to make sure it doesn't again'. I am not saying they expressed their concerns in a way that made people want to listen to them, but the core of the issues of 'if you want to do this you need to assume people are going to be jackasses 30% of the time, idiots 30% of the time, do what is assumed 30%, and angels 10%. Write the policies and tools to meet that.' They feel lied to, because things have changed and the changes were not what they expected. Maybe it is their expectations of what Fedora was and what Fedora is are different. To some we are dropping things which they feel strongly attached to, and we are basically telling them to move on or move out. If I don't want modularity.. I can't not have it. If I want i386, I can't have it. If I want various packages which were there before.. but are dead/gone.. I can't have it. If I came here with an idea about an OS dedicated to Freedom, Friends, First, and Features.. and found either that my Features are gone.. or that I also have to share the OS with the projects sponsor's decisions.. that all causes anger. In any case, when things start cycling, a community needs to start engaging in some sort of counseling to sort out the underlying emotions which aren't getting addressed. -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
