From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id 0rNcNaXSjWC0MgEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 02 May 2021 00:13:57 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id F7l6MKXSjWBudwAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 01 May 2021 22:13:57 +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 8214D2461A for ; Sun, 2 May 2021 00:13:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:51204 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcxs4-0002Jy-JQ for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 18:13:56 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46678) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcxrv-0002Jk-Ug for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 18:13:47 -0400 Received: from world.peace.net ([64.112.178.59]:58904) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcxru-0002OC-2J; Sat, 01 May 2021 18:13:47 -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 1lcxrr-0005zv-3A; Sat, 01 May 2021 18:13:43 -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: <1bbb100c34c660eaa697ae7ea9ea7ea3638c4c50.camel@student.tugraz.at> 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> Date: Sat, 01 May 2021 18:12:57 -0400 Message-ID: <87wnsije63.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=1619907237; 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=9QVqKFzQaWilmEYU4twamecWYfeErOlmAJXyOqgzFpE=; b=u4zH+RDp7g8wa9tNoNomsXlII+rPPM2P+g6DIg2oV4jSo178wm5UhqZ7CgQPJmVW5/2Vuv CxxnurJnjrhIIcABhPNtEkeOgXJIBtqXe9PMabceDxwiUXEXp3FmImyuWWRsdX51sCUBkw LZo6vFd8P+dotwLhQEYskCbO5M+WVbakvzyxSombaj0sTrw+vJjp0y9Edgii4PB9J0mdsi j/Wl2calAv6rOOGzB8/3hOXJL1+pPVgM4MTFb9NJN2NFgm20xVElRqT/mrjfydNA0S4J/f DM9FfL9e97MBRuIJtGIj+wRX0OXhrLnAPBZW5ag5s+Eoa4KFR3O3S4gtf+eFpw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1619907237; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=fPg6YhDKb6rLLEujOwgNkU7MUfMBhddntreROXn3grD8e9f2v/uj0vIhMXPDBUNFUY0rlm 45zKlxU/gF/pSCokbgUnIueYl8qr/He6m9w71oHM/ZRRQx6wtU/c4PUb4+VbY5ut6PjXv9 pGda+VQHnQHN8rqpix6K0zuIfv6u31bG5YebeyisJ1KDCfmWTEE3M72vf4pzuFPbOVIFpT wzbm7PO+c1JgfQFqOBpC3J9wWWCs2JdSPj3Sv/ws6MEYHbQRSn6+cz9hQ+2Bl0WlfnoWy+ VjeOUZOp2uU/Wuqoor+HqeUuQ/m8dQ1Bf/3VQVTHPpnqV7aHDCxJSCixY4ub3w== 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: 8214D2461A X-Spam-Score: -2.46 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: LKuXIbNlzz1k Hi Leo, Leo Prikler writes: > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 19:02 +0200 schrieb Giovanni Biscuolo: >> I also spent some time re-reading messages that Mark sent in this >> thread and, like him, I really don't understand what Mark did wrong. >>=20 >> For sure Mark /insisted/ that Raghav and L=C3=A9o did something wrong wi= th >> some commits, we can say Mark did it being /direct/ and /accusatory/ >> but we cannot really say Mark assumed bad faith from them. > He did wrong insofar as his accusatory message read as though he was > assuming bad faith Can you please point out which of my words led you to conclude that I was assuming bad faith? For what it's worth, I have *never* assumed bad faith, and I don't think I said anything to imply it either. > (or at the very least incompetence, which, if you are the party being > accused, does not sound too nice either). I pointed out facts. I did not engage in speculation beyond the facts. 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. 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. >> If you want you can consider Mark used an /harsh/ tone but this is a >> personal feeling, something one /could/ read "between the lines" even >> if actually in a written communication I find it hard to read between >> the lines, it is not something factual. Maybe Mark intended to be >> harsh, maybe not: who knows? Is /this/ (finding he was harsh) >> important? > It is definitely of some importance. I agree that it's of some importance, but it's also a fundamentally hard thing to do. I'm genuinely surprised by some of the claims being made about my messages, especially the claim that I assumed "bad faith". I didn't say anything to imply that, I didn't think it, and I still don't. Thanks for discussing this, Leo. I appreciate your feedback, even where we disagree. Regards, Mark --=20 Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about .