From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id 6GurLSUZjmA6FAAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 02 May 2021 05:14:45 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id WMs6KSUZjmCCBAAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 02 May 2021 03:14:45 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56FD01DD75 for ; Sun, 2 May 2021 05:14:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:41992 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ld2ZA-0002bX-I2 for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 23:14:44 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51670) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ld2Z1-0002bR-LX for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 23:14:35 -0400 Received: from world.peace.net ([64.112.178.59]:59474) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ld2Yz-0000j5-AY; Sat, 01 May 2021 23:14:35 -0400 Received: from mhw by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ld2Yu-0001RH-V0; Sat, 01 May 2021 23:14:29 -0400 From: Mark H Weaver To: Leo Prikler , Giovanni Biscuolo , Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes) In-Reply-To: References: <87tunz11mf.fsf@netris.org> <87y2daz13x.fsf@netris.org> <87r1j2z079.fsf@netris.org> <87a6pqypf9.fsf@netris.org> <87wnsp7yo9.fsf@gnu.org> <87v986pdej.fsf@netris.org> <874kfm75fl.fsf@biscuolo.net> <1bbb100c34c660eaa697ae7ea9ea7ea3638c4c50.camel@student.tugraz.at> <87wnsije63.fsf@netris.org> Date: Sat, 01 May 2021 23:13:41 -0400 Message-ID: <877dkhrfnj.fsf@netris.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.112.178.59; envelope-from=mhw@netris.org; helo=world.peace.net X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Guix Devel , GNU Guix maintainers Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1619925285; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=MSN8SytcBD7ylCTqKjbWOuWifDuq+uNz2N0VThQOL24=; b=UOT3kOPOz7rICqC2ui/+lNbJuDGRUxyP91cCDChOuSenrPJojS9qq7PdnCxaH9oWNqCs4g MFdVxrNYLrFn+ZghRASamFpl7N39j0a6y6O9WMUq+Y+xLp+v4EVmhh502LpJVnWJIpRIbH 31scudnwQCcPm/qwlWif91YINVcck3ks2uS/DFBJC9sx2PILF0TjZTnpTk57TNing5ejpo Z63djWxnMsDps7RzZ83AcFeaFD+YI5fHZqLd04UW06DuO1evEpQbWFSlvH1kHMdevx2xEU sF2u9AvaNxAU8ofF6XJUxkZ//HsbjEFvxwbA8vFngrV7sThlXSHprbcrqHcyaQ== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1619925285; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=ruluyXk9VBGRfsepgZN7jC8Prqre1n4PO5F8hAQ1XeZ7dYxlSInV6xFCUmnp57iJQH3APN ks17ke781Z5KKDP+9l4u5SmXCbVUJdye7TInApGP3/DObk+Cw+v0JcPJfbSRYmbcwPCh0Q oyzSQb5TP+J5LBMBgs1vpa50GzcA2zNOjMvuQ/91wh7TwzPcfbjjrK5ZhJ75nb5xgblK7a VEcPK9cblX1p3dF9GSoUWwagMYg74s1XzA4pWMkyXHc+0vgKExT+yDLCpwxtpxTJxObsjt UMkofRLwL/ESXX88hftpw2XMUFX46jzn6e7qn5SU388VAF4ogbHuZ/CNQ+rKFA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.46 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 56FD01DD75 X-Spam-Score: -2.46 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: Ijho+ZCbPYnS Hi Leo, I took the liberty of refilling the quotations in your email to make them more readable. Leo Prikler writes: > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 18:12 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver: >> Can you please point out which of my words led you to conclude that I >> was assuming bad faith? > > I am basing this on the following exchange: > > Am Montag, den 26.04.2021, 19:17 +0200 schrieb Ludovic Court=C3=A8s: >> > I feel an obligation to protect our users, and among other things >> > that means calling attention to Guix committers that are doing >> > things like pushing commits with misleading commit logs (which >> > evade proper review) and pushing "cosmetic changes" that remove >> > security fixes. >>=20 >> That you called attention on these issues is a great service to all of >> us, Mark. But I have to agree with Ricardo: the harsh accusatory tone >> towards Raghav and L=C3=A9o was not warranted; please assume good faith. >>=20 > To re-iterate, I believe you were (and are) right to call out commits > for their misleading messages, but the unique circumstances of this > thread led people to think you were assuming ill intent or something > along those lines. I asked you to point out which of *my* words led you to conclude that I was assuming bad faith, and it seems that you haven't been able to do that, nor has anyone else. Do you see the problem here? > That being said, I think it is fair to argue, that > some people read your posts as assuming bad faith from L=C3=A9o and some = did > the reverse. I can't put hard numbers to that, but given the number of > participants an existence "proof" ought to suffice. It's true that some people have gotten the mistaken impression that I assumed bad faith. The problem is that it's flat wrong. There's *nothing* to back it up, and in fact it's simply false. It's unjust to blame me for other people's bogus, evidence-free claims about what they *imagine* I assumed. >> For what it's worth, I have *never* assumed bad faith, and I don't >> think I said anything to imply it either. >>=20 >> > (or at the very least incompetence, which, if you are the party >> > being accused, does not sound too nice either). >>=20 >> I pointed out facts. I did not engage in speculation beyond the >> facts. > Well, you did fumble on those facts a little, because the true history > of the misleading commits was only discovered later. I don't think I fumbled on the facts at all. It's true that I didn't yet have _all_ of the relevant facts, but as far as I know, every fact that I presented is true. If you disagree, can you please provide a counterexample? > Either way, "just pointing out facts" is not an accurate > assessment in my opinion; facts are nothing without interpretation, > which see. I don't understand what you're getting at here. Can you please elaborate? >> Here, I think that you are making your own speculations based on the >> facts that I uncovered, and are attributing those speculations to me. >> That's unfair. Your speculations are not my responsibility. >>=20 >> Moreover, even if it were true that most people would make similar >> speculations based on the facts I exposed, that's not my >> responsibility either. >> > Here, I believe, you are wrong. If your audience is led to a certain > view due to your speech, even if it's not something you explicitly > stated, you are still the one who made them hold that view (or > reinforced it, if they already held it before and you merely made a > claim in support of their view). From an utilitarian point of view, it > is the effects of your actions, that matter. For purposes of deciding what actions one should take to achieve a certain goal, I certainly agree that what ultimately matters are the predictable effects of one's actions, and not the intent behind them. So, in that context, I agree with much of what you wrote above. However, if you mean to suggest that people should be held accountable for all effects of their actions, I must *strenuously* object. For example, if a speaker at a Black Lives Matter protest gives a speech which recounts the many unjustifiable killings of innocent black people by police, and later that day some of the people attending the protest loot small businesses, I hope that we can agree that it would be unjust to hold the speaker accountable for that. If speakers at a protest can be held accountable for the actions of every person who attends the protest, then protests would *effectively* become illegal, because the opposition can always hire infiltrators to *ensure* that someone does something illegal. In this case, if I cannot point out a "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes without being accused of insinuating that the person was acting in bad faith, then effectively it becomes unsafe for me to point out breaches such as this one. > Let it be said, that I don't condemn you for starting this thread. Not > only did it highlight an issue, that would otherwise have gone > unnoticed, I think most of the participants are now more acutely aware > of what might go wrong if they evade review. It is sad, that things > turned out the way they did, but despite what others might claim you > don't bear sole responsibility for that. Thanks for these words, Leo. Regards, Mark --=20 Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about .