Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/CommunityGuidelines

From: Thomas Rast <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:33:12 +0200

Ramkumar Ramachandra <[email-masked]> 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