On 7/15/2019 4:51 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
In my opinion, the problem we saw that sparked much of this discussion
was twofold:
a) By describing the actions as stupid, this carried a (unwanted)
implication that those carrying out the action were stupid. Only
stupid people do stupid things, but even clever people can make
serious errors.
b) Rather than call out that choice of words but answer the essential
points, the organisation chose instead to chastise the sender publicly
and leave the points unanswered - unwittingly shutting down the
discussion.
Put another way, the sender's choice of words added nothing useful to
the discussion, and in fact dissuaded some from offering their own
opinions. The response to it had much the same effect. And of course,
the response to that escalated further.. And so on.
I really hate to restart this, but what I said was that the "result" was
"a stupidity". Language is important. The proximate actions that
finally caused the result are mostly still unexplained. As I explained
in the second email in the chain, there's enough blame to go around to
all of us and I happily take the label of "stupid" for not paying more
attention and not pushing back earlier especially after the RFC++ bof.
In any event, what word or words would you use to describe the avoidable
result of losing before time our world-class RSE? My guess is that any
characterization that you make that's at least half correct and doesn't
preclude human causes or contributions for the result can be molded,
twisted or otherwise imputed as being an insult to someone. And lest
you misunderstand - that's a rhetorical comment, not an actual demand
for set of words.
Thanks by the way for noticing (b).
Later, Mike
