Mailing-List: contact infrastructure-dev-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of santiago.gala@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.92.168 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=jshkrB0ANVKgLmOA9THlnvHIGACplbDj74YRbuHSLD+L9FTXKncOt1pY2FOxmvwh+cnrmNBUJKOBDXd9PvBL8xFM0/Hp5fxlmoK8qpiVtbyaabifK9buxrt2hCl/BvENE2yKjUBMQvHSyoJX/FwZ3f9YbrDNwSAE+8LDrsjZCcs=
Subject: Re: Stop responding to insults (Was: Stop flaming (Was: Best
	Practices so far?))
From: Santiago Gala <santiago.gala@gmail.com>
To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <882021.73271.qm@web54409.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <882021.73271.qm@web54409.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 08:34:47 +0200
Message-Id: <1209969287.10595.144.camel@marlow>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I wanted to add, before keeping with it, my puzzling because it looks
like it is my proportionate response to personal, derogatory words that
get flamed or criticized as a good strategy, but I have not seen a
single message (barred a generic one calling for "return to civil
discourse") that is not aimed at me. What happens with the sentences,
that are only "flaming" when returned, but not when originally received?
Please, think a bit about it, people. The more I think about it, the
more I read it as a pure power play, where the real content of the
discourse is not seen as important except by myself and the few others
supporting this. As I said, I am a bit of an asperger, so I need to use
my rational tools to understand social relationships, when they go
further than one on one.


El dom, 04-05-2008 a las 17:54 -0700, Joe Schaefer escribió:
> --- Santiago Gala <santiago.gala@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Switched the title, sorry but I need the semantic
> > precision.
> 
> I've read what you've written, and I'd like to suggest
> a different model for engagement here that doesn't
> involve street punks and pack animals.
> 

﻿The model is recognized by me, not used by me. I use techniques to deal
with it.

Please apply the ideas yourself. I won't recognize this model is being
applied until disagreement can be expressed without resource to personal
disqualification. While personally derogatory words are used quickly,
basically after the first response to FUD, I'll take it as ﻿ bullying
(as in "browbeat: discourage or frighten with threats or a domineering
manner; intimidate") and apply the technique I'm applying right now.
Which seems to be working, BTW.

Or are you suggesting that I should take the insults and keep thankful
because I got some (negative) attention from the powers? This does not
work for me.

> If you feel someone has insulted you personally,
> simply point out that that was uncalled for and
> to remind each other that we are all friends and
> colleagues here.
> 

Been there, done that, useless. It repeats soon, with stronger personal
references. Noting it has not been enough: you need to show what
happened in different terms. And I think returning the insult, gently
and noting that it is such return, has been helpful and will be more
helpful in the future. I don't have time right now to rehearse the
private archives, but I referenced I would start using this strategy
about coping with personal insults some time ago, probably in January or
so.

I got a comment from another channel that Gandhi was non-violent. I
claim that what I'm doing, i.e. keeping my position and resisting in the
same terms that I'm challenged, is precisely passive resistance. While
taking the insults and pointing it out would not work to stop it. Enough
time there, only escalation seen as a result. The kernel of Gandhi
action was to signal clearly the conflict so that it didn't remain
underground.

> There is nothing wrong with disagreement about
> policy and its implementation, but picking apart
> each other's points in order to engage in argument
> is not exactly the friendly conduct which typifies 
> dialog at the ASF IMO.  When the President of the
> foundation tells us his thoughts on any particular

Rephrased as: "when the President of the foundation tells me I should
stop to 'whine and blather on'"... which is factually precise...

Should I really say thank you to this sentence? No. I thank his factual
statements, not his insults. I disagree with his factual statements,
which earns me more personal insults. This is the dynamics I have been
seen for months, this is the one I react to.

I'm not the kind of person that tolerates this. I have been seeing this
going on for months. My first comments about my use of the strategy I
have been consistently applying are in (private) messages in some other
lists a number of months ago. I have keep doing that consistently. And I
have keep seeing zero acknowledgment of awareness or will to change
this. In spite of some sporadic call for civil discourse from other
Board members.

> subject, the only appropriate response is to say
> thank you, and perhaps noting your disagreement with
> his remarks.

I just noted that "﻿I read the whining and blather on your side.", which
prompted the next "explosion", not by him, it was you. I did it just to
show the power of his derogatory words, and to show you (as in all of
you) that I'm "keeping my emotional position" and standing here. I still
see my sentence as true: having to jump into FUD and personal insult is
an indication of a weak position, so I actually see the deliberate
repetition of things that nobody asked for and the reference to "whine
and blather", which shows weakness of discourse and the need to jump
into personal disqualification, as whining and blathering, if you allow
me the meta-pun with the quotes. I still see his sentence as false: I
don't think asking for partial, qualified removal of arbitrary protocol
restrictions is "whine" or "blather". We have been presenting use cases
justifying the use of the tools at question. I can't understand how
asking for the unimpeded use of the subversion protocol, lifting
restrictions from a small number of machines/users is "whining" or how
claiming that git's client side tools are much better than subversion's
is "blathering".

I agree we are all friends, this is one of the reasons why I should not
tolerate uncivil and personally derogatory language. Mutual respect
should be the base of any human relationship. And descending into
disqualification is not sane and will not make the friendship last for
long.

Regards
Santiago

-- 
Santiago Gala
http://memojo.com/~sgala/blog/