From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 108575 invoked by alias); 8 May 2018 20:34:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 108261 invoked by uid 89); 8 May 2018 20:34:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=remind, winning, counted, professional X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Message-ID: <1525811658.7567.834.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal. From: Torvald Riegel To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar , Jonathan Nieder , DJ Delorie , libc-alpha@sourceware.org Date: Tue, 08 May 2018 20:34:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: References: <20180507235151.GC10348@aiede.svl.corp.google.com> <26d9590f-6e2f-8039-005f-a433b0ac8bfd@gotplt.org> <1525796705.7567.757.camel@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00326.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 14:50 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On May 8, 2018, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 03:30 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> Of course he had > >> every right to feel extremely insulted for having had his explicit > >> request (early objection) completely ignored, regardless of his position > >> in the GNU project. If he behaved badly, consider he was reacting to > >> incredible insult. What excuse did the community have for its > >> incredibly insulting behavior? > > > Really??? Is it now an "incredible insult" if community consensus > > considers but does not agree with your opinion? > > No, that's not the insulting part. > > The insulting part is seeing (and posting as part of the patch) the "Do > not remove", not asking him or even letting him know, and putting the > change in despite the "Do not remove" objection, as if it wasn't even > there. Not as if his opinion was like anyone else's, but as if it > didn't even count. You don't know that it was disregarded. Because in case if was counted, the outcome would have been the same. Claiming ownership to a 26-year old piece of code in a project that one doesn't contribute to anymore, and saying that every change is an insult, is a little funny from a copyleft perspective, don't you think? :) > > It was a completely professional discussion, he didn't win according to > > community consensus rules, that's it. > > "He didn't win" would be almost funny, if this were a game. You realize one also uses "win" in the context of discussions or arguments? Like in "win a completely professional discussion", to remind you of the first part of my sentence? > Not just > because the debate is still underway, Look at the numbers. You can of course think there's still a chance for a major change in opinions, but that seems very unlikely to me. > but mainly because he wasn't even > invited to the game before it was first misregarded as over. Not every situation in life is like a coin toss, where you have an always fair chance of winning (ie, 50%). That does not mean the discussion is unfair.