From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id SD14Jf2JjWAstwAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 01 May 2021 19:03:57 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id YNMjIf2JjWA4CQAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 01 May 2021 17:03:57 +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 C737A1555C for ; Sat, 1 May 2021 19:03:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:55098 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lct23-0003GW-Te for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 13:03:55 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41142) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lct1J-0003GO-S4 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 13:03:10 -0400 Received: from ns13.heimat.it ([46.4.214.66]:46240) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lct1G-0002Oy-6h; Sat, 01 May 2021 13:03:09 -0400 Received: from localhost (ip6-localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns13.heimat.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 613493021B9; Sat, 1 May 2021 17:03:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at ns13.heimat.it Received: from ns13.heimat.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ns13.heimat.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xlAIcjcj5yLK; Sat, 1 May 2021 17:03:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bourrache.mug.xelera.it (unknown [93.56.171.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ns13.heimat.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B41483021B7; Sat, 1 May 2021 17:03:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from roquette.mug.biscuolo.net (roquette [10.38.2.14]) by bourrache.mug.xelera.it (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E715E7ED12; Sat, 1 May 2021 19:02:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: (nullmailer pid 15380 invoked by uid 1000); Sat, 01 May 2021 17:02:54 -0000 From: Giovanni Biscuolo To: Mark H Weaver , 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: <87v986pdej.fsf@netris.org> Organization: Xelera.eu 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> Date: Sat, 01 May 2021 19:02:54 +0200 Message-ID: <874kfm75fl.fsf@biscuolo.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=46.4.214.66; envelope-from=g@xelera.eu; helo=ns13.heimat.it 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=1619888636; 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:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post; bh=Vs28Q7x0KXpxqpCoGMDclTk5LTzZdUJqt4eGrkFmiM8=; b=QxBKDKjLI4hyJ5P0iUMrfTR0odxvreesR+Sy+urWOQDhyhRakP70U1lwWIPSgx3OfzbOAc WVFhgR53S1tXCaH9Uyq4+xeJFiKudNwBBt2PRtFc21Vet0xxDpQYj+OdByT9YStM8Px+t8 Rr/3EyARab8rmTKcTscn7i7smtdu5ex7yxF546OxiONBs7Jw3GC66WMMWIPFxDcu6hdRq+ DmlcTT2sqrnU7s+o8dSAo2mmhl55bYVrZ/dvh5g3Lzm4Fc8CoqRPwbNDaw/zZmV50W/ML7 KAznxWbJFYocuGHtQnx8ZhNDjB4oLPIjIZ6NGrV0eGLnQpJw1gl2csa6PFVB0Q== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1619888636; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=p1gPnIIvVDJg6U4zHRGeV/uLRf1c/JSE/YLIMDWXIg4osL8DEfU34a1HF2V4Qx2fJWfLSh fX09Oaw5NsgUDqXwbVhWfwms+E/H+KJTvg3SxRL0KAW2LcsJnYBVfRs+ybDtnJHrTGzDut ClvLFoGgcW5dadystWGr3tnpq/w3n34l4KS8yxyWwZ15lQi9wIj/LP2l2GurtahbVqTtfI BAFH8ol2dr2I5XO6GBN4dC1hamumr9vjDzG6xkBU/HfM7wLbf2NpvMcsj2IsNif7OCZBSM rQmaoFVCwRjKCvvvDrkIHWyEHHMKAZ/kh5Zo2bFmNMdME0AfRJLggvgE1I2hEw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=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: -4.56 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: C737A1555C X-Spam-Score: -4.56 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: HoeC4Yo0r37M --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Mark and Ludovic, please forgive me if I'm going forward with this thread but, after some hesitation, I decided to write this message because I /feel/ we could do better in dealing with issues like this one. Please when you'll read "you" consider it a /generic you/ ("you the reader") not Mark, Ludovic or any specific person; please also consider that "we" is a /plurali maiestatis/ :-D Mark H Weaver writes: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: [...] >> 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. > > I'm sorry if this comes off as obtuse, but having now re-read all of my > messages in this thread, I honestly do not see what I did wrong here. > I will need some help to understand. 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. For sure Mark /insisted/ that Raghav and L=C3=A9o did something wrong with some commits, we can say Mark did it being /direct/ and /accusatory/ but we cannot really say Mark assumed bad faith from them. 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? As I said above, at most Mark communication should be considered /direct/ and /accusatory/, I say this considering statements like this: =C2=ABL=C3=A9o Le Bouter [...] bears primary responsibility for these mista= kes.=C2=BB =C2=ABI would very much like to hear an explanation from L=C3=A9o about how= this happened.=C2=BB =C2=ABNonetheless, you (Raghav) also bear some responsibility=C2=BB =C2=ABblatantly [1] misleading commit log [...] Most of the changes above a= re not mentioned in the commit log at all, and of course the summary line is extremely misleading.=C2=BB So: Mark gave responsibilities and complained "loudly" about misleading commits, giving precise explanations of the reasons for how bad he considered the situation, from his point of view (the point of view of a person with competence /and/ previous commints in the domain he was analyzing). You can agree or disagree with him, but /now/ this is not the point. You can call it /accusation/, I call it /asking for responsibility/. You can call it /harsh/, I call it /direct/. Is it really important to find a proper definition for words used by Mark? Is it important to define if some word was proper or improper to in this context? In my opinion we should refrain questioning language here (I mean in Guix mailing lists), especially questioning (perceived) "tone"; /unless/ containing accusations of bad faith or insults, we should be forgiving /each other/ on how people choose how to use [2] language. If we question language usage we risk to shame people for improper use of language and this is bad in my opinion because we risk to isolate or alienate people who - for whatever reason they choose - use direct (or harsh, or accusatory) language to express controversial ideas or report issues, never intending to offend really no one: please respect people /also/ if you find they improperly use language. [...] > It would be very helpful if you could point out specific messages or > quotes of mine to illustrate your criticisms, and to clearly explain > what's wrong with them. I'm not trying to be obstructionist here. I > honestly don't understand, and I cannot improve without understanding. Also, if I overlooked, misinterpreted or missed something please tell me so I can also improve. Thanks! Giovanni. [1] in a way that is very obvious and intentional, when this is a bad thing (from Cambridge Dictionary). [2] or misuse, in case of not native (or not so good) english speakers =2D-=20 Giovanni Biscuolo Xelera IT Infrastructures --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJABAEBCgAqFiEERcxjuFJYydVfNLI5030Op87MORIFAmCNib4MHGdAeGVsZXJh LmV1AAoJENN9DqfOzDkShL4P/3Ucexzvv4FRfveWzs6Z+yswVBQmT7WApkIxw/sX K2QPlWiraQbHz693nbxry+o+dG+U7Q6ABe1aA+lAIDHwlYfO1Gm3iMWagV4Va+YS 58hGQv1GfNrPZ8CTF+Gmgy4WBlcw6kyRDWih4UUBeeD1+asOtkaqYhoczGswAx+y UnBl2lLECwLS4mbbAQUTwEDt09bCaeuqf29jmyiJzfQhxGutawlGA7tHpqpgmN8r 4kRz/JUyUbRvCkSGg4OFFdTFgNSKujFsnkEY3DZX/HADVatGqRA8OXCblHHun+SD 6zEfQt3SSZWP+9RIjC8asMdixMP4v6dEurqYhczpi3Zdj0PuN36oZ0UMoV3NDEQT kLNBQXPD44JFO8UAXFnpCZFYEbKEHioeFEYAWZqrLIbPRmjVprotXEzLxZqdCbGy oOEjg3eUw4M1Se9uXktdj/XSidd0B8BZCUSQPUS1TxzGGWBkD2oTW00jmqECW2vJ GJw21j9MDabzXw5WbstW5EmW5UCV8BsEeh6rXJyTPPodHsenfagBXmp3t4PFvTG2 6n53Zxzqa108HTOVYPXJoiu0mo9JuIobfjCpvqdOGLEwmRfVXRjjrDl4GLoPagvc X9nJKWHrpGMIrq9ufK1tQq45aSHPYCad7O9gn6OnSmCmaq0hBjgQ1nKxdlKtEqF+ FMfk =1H87 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--