Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from June 2001
RE: Social Reform
From: David Grove
June 12, 2001 08:31
RE: Social Reform
Message ID: BMEOIGKGMBHCLHHNLNABMEIKCCAA.email@example.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bart Lateur [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 10:48 AM
> To: Perl 6 Language Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Social Reform
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:54:13 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 05:19:26PM -0700, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
> >> I would say Simon was the one "ignoring an issue and attacking
> a person", not
> >> Vijay.
> >You are wrong. Go back through the archives. Vijay has posted four
> >messages: two of which are critical of Perl, two of which are pretty
> >heated personal attacks on me. None of those four does anything useful
> >for Perl 6.
> Well, I *have* been following the discussion. And to me, it looks indeed
> like you, Simon, were indeed attacking ME on non-technical grounds.
> Vijay just jumped in for him, like a lioness trying to protect her
Which he does from time to time, as do most of us, myself likely included.
And, when it does, it should be group-corrected. (Realize that you're doing
the same thing right now, Bart. Note, I agree with you, and I point it out
only to show how easy a trap it is to fall into.)
However, Simon can also be reasoned with, and will admit a mistake. I've
seen this in him: I've seen his heart in the right place, and I accept a bit
of foot-in-mouth from time to time from anyone.
However, I feel it would be more appropriate in this case to come to an
understanding that when such things happen, and they will happen, that we
group-correct the message, and not the messenger. If someone shows passion
underlying a message, there's usually a truth hidden in the fumbled words.
We should address the subject of passion, and not the passion itself.
We are a group of mix-and-match volunteers. We have varying interests,
varying skills, and varying passions. It is nearly impossible to say
anything with passion without getting on someone's nerves. (On the other
hand, if everything is said without passion, we end up just plain bored and
boring.) To grow as a community and a culture, we need to accept the
passion, ignore any verbal flubs, and address the underlying, pertinent
sentiments, ideas, concerns, and brainstorms.
I believe it was Richard Nixon who made a groundbreaking trip to (IIRC) some
South American country. Talks went wonderfully well, and agreements were
made, and everybody was happy. Upon leaving, however, Nixon gave his double
"peace" sign. Well, lo and behold, that sign is approximately equal to
american culture giving someone "the finger". That so insulted the people of
that country that everything that had been done and said became immediately
undone and worthless. That's a pretty silly response from a civilized nation
to a symbol the "speaker" expressed in good will.
About a year and a half ago I sincerely and lengthily complimented the
Python culture on its conduct. A couple of months ago I retracted that. They
had not achieved that final stage of group cooperation, they simply hadn't
enterd middle stage of rudeness and cliques where we are currently striving
to climb out of. If we can accomplish this, we will be the first major group
to do so in an online forum that I know of. If we can accomplish this, then
Larry is wrong about one thing: we will be breaking tremendous new ground,
and going where no language has gone before... to cooperation and acceptance
within the community from the meerest of members to the crown itself.