From: Thomas Rast Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:33:12 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/CommunityGuidelines Message-ID: <87li6g969j.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net> In-Reply-To: Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > Michael Haggerty wrote: >> Thank you for drafting a proposed CommunityGuidelines document; I think >> such a document would be helpful. But I don't like the overall flavor >> of your proposal; frankly, it sounds to me more like >> >> Documentation/GuidelinesForCommunityToBendOverBackwardsToLiveWithFCsProvocations > > It has nothing to do with Felipe. I've merely documented repeating > patterns in fire threads as violations, in an attempt to avoid fires. > I have not worked forward from axioms to derive "transcendentally > desirable behavior", but rather backwards from a disaster to derive > "patterns that have been shown to lead to large fires". Why? Because > it's easier to derive unambiguous statements using my approach; as I > will show shortly, there are various problems with your arguments. > > What gives you the impression that I documented everyone else's > violations, but not Felipe's? ;) It has become clear, also in discussion on IRC, that your preferred approach is to fight the fires, attempting to extinguish flames as they happen. My approach -- and in my perception also that preferred by most of the regulars who have spoken in this whole mess -- is that since there is a fire hazard, it would be more effective firefighting to just remove the hazard, thus preventing future fires. I infer that in your view, there is an inalienable right for the fire hazard to remain part of the community that you are not willing to give up. I for one no longer have such qualms in this instance. -- Thomas Rast trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch