Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2013
On Wed Aug 28 15:47:43 2013, LeonT wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Linda Walsh via RT <
> perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote:
>
> > You can't use CPAN as a "indicator" of what code is like outside of
> > CPAN as the same constraints don't apply.
> >
>
> It's not perfect but it's the best thing we've got. If you've got any
> better ideas you're welcome to suggest them, stop pissing otherwise.
----
It's a poor indicator. To use it and not know it is a poor indicator is
pissing on users. Part of the problem is creating an environment of
those who agree with those already in power who exclude those who don't.
>
> > The opinion of what public list? The opinions of private lists do
> > not apply to the general perl-use public if the list isn't open to such.
> > It is not, and cannot be used to justify actions that are to be carried
> > out and dumped on the perl-programming public.
> >
>
> Perl5-porters, there isn't any other place where we make such decisions.
----
It's like Bush surrounding himself with Cheney and friends and
there being any wonder that he's was widely rated as the worst president
in history. If you surround yourself who only say thing you want to
hear that are said in pleasant fluffy, bland ways, you are unlikely to
get any representative sample of anyone who might disagree with you lest
the be ostracized and attacked as not a member of the group.
>
> > You (and this is specifically aimed at you Ricardo), by your
> > previous actions and how you choose to exclude people (no matter
> > "how right", you or those supporting your actions, feel they
> > were/are justified), have created a *self-approving* environment of
> > yes-men. Those who might have objected have already been labeled as
> > "unambiguously [sic] unacceptable communicators" and excised from
> > the list. If you exclude the 'outliers' from consideration in your
> > decisions, you are automatically, NOT going to get a relevant
> > sampling that represents the larger perl-using public's usage.
> >
>
> These accusations are tiresome
----
It's tiresome to have someone state truisms that exactly describe their
perception of the situation. That another group of insiders wouldn't
have that same impression is unremarkable.
> and don't make your point any more convincing. You are not
> persecuted for your opinions.
----
I am banned from the list because of the opinion I have that how I
express my opinions isn't inappropriate for the environment that was
presented nor the the trite treatment of issues brought forth.
> making this personal
> is only increasing the odds of you being banned from the bugtracker too.
----
I'm not making it personal any more than it was before when 1
person who decided to take action they thought was best for the group of
people who's opinions "mattered" , to protect them and added a personal
block (blocking a single person which is ***inherently*** personal).
> Stop being toxic.
---
Stop using vague nebulous mean nothing words. What, are you calling
toxic that would fit a normal definition of something that is
biologically injurious to health? If you go and sit on a cactus, it
will injure you, but that doesn't mean it is toxic.
> start taking responsibility for your own actions - Leon
----
I have been for some time and continue to do so, in spite of
considerable pressure to conform to group norms above all else.
If I have opinions on something, keeping them to myself is not responsible.
---
via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: rejected
https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=119493
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next