Mail archive

Re: [alpine-devel] a discourse on the troubles of being an alpine developer these days

From: Timo Teras <>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 09:03:05 +0300

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 22:05:55 +0200
Natanael Copa <> wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 02:57:57 -0500
> William Pitcock <> wrote:
> > Natanael in his role as the person who founded the project quickly
> > stepped in to apologize, but, yet again, no sanction has occurred
> > because of it. History repeats itself: the core team is too
> > cowardly to actually sanction the behaviour.
> I talked with him. He actually came to me immediatly after, realizing
> it was a mistake. I didn't think there was need for any sanctions.

It would be good to try to communicate that privately to all involved
parties. It's easy to assume things went without any attention.
Preferable the offender should reconcile the offended one.

But it also goes the other way. Even if we are offended by someone, we
should not offend them back or ask / except for sanctions in case it's
not a repeat offender. If people learn from their communication
mistakes, it's much bigger win than punishing them.

Being friendly means we also forgive offensive talk (when they realize
the mistake - not when they repeatedly do so). And yes, this requires
humility from all of us, especially those who are long timers here. We
get criticism, and we need to be able to take it.

> > One of the solutions proposed, in part, to curb the behaviour of
> > that particular clique was a Code of Conduct. Instead, they
> > hijacked the process of authoring a Code of Conduct by jumping out
> > in front of it by being the first to propose text for a Code of
> > Conduct:
> >
> >
> He submitted a Code of Conduct because I asked him to do so.
> Unfortunally it came at a time when I didn't have time (or energy) to
> comment on it.

While this serves probably as a good training to learn code of conduct,
it is also problematic, or at least can appear to be so for others.

In Finnish this would be called:
Pukki kaalimaan vartijana – ‘a goat guarding a cabbage patch’.

Meaning: Giving a task to someone with a conflict of interest.

Then again if the exact same message would have come from ncopa, I
guess all would have been happy. So it's good to remember to focus on
the message and not the messenger.

For me, hijack would involve changing the intent and/or content. This
did not happen. The message just came from someone not having freedom of
speech in the area, so I understand it may have offended some.
However, it's also shows greater friendliness when we do accept this
kind of notes - as long as the content is in line (which is the case

As said, we've grown a lot recently, and arrival of "people
incompatibilities" was inevitable. We were not really prepared for it.
Hopefully we don't need to spend time resolving them. I really hope
we don't need formal "court" for handling these.

But perhaps, it's time to make some procedure. Mostly to signal that
repeat offenders are not tolerated, and to not give the appearance if


Received on Tue Aug 01 2017 - 09:03:05 UTC