3 ms·

> I think that comes under excusing abuse by saying it's inevitable that someone will do it. Sorry, a former user talking respectfully about the shortcomings o

> I think that comes under excusing abuse by saying it's inevitable that someone will do it. Sorry, a former user talking respectfully about the shortcomings of your software project is not "abuse." However, I do agree with the general thrust Of your comment that it was unwise for Luke to continue to use Elm. For all the reasons he outlines in his post, there are many similarly situated developers who would also do well to avoid it. Luke's post is a public service to let people know that the situation in the Elm project is not very healthy if your needs don't match exactly those envisioned by the core maintainer group.

jlokier 7y ago
> Sorry, a former user talking respectfully about the shortcomings of your software project is not "abuse." I do not agree that Luke's article fits that description. Luke's post talks not only about the software project, but also about Evan personally. It's not direct but that doesn't matter. (You cannot make something respectful just by phrasing it indirectly.) He moralises and talks about Evan personally, by implying strongly that Evan does not live up to obligations that Luke has decided Evan has to others, with the additional twist that it doesn't matter if that implies a free-labour obligation. That was avoidable. Luke could have framed his discussion about how Elm is not suitable to his needs and why others should be aware, in an actually respectful way that did not frame it as a set of obligations Evan was failing to satisfy. But he did not. Talking about obligations is not always disrespectful, but in this case I think it was. If you have been on the receiving end of that sort of thing in a public situation, you may or may not have experienced that it can entrain a mass of many people's responses to an overwhelmingly stressful degree, depending on how people collectively respond to it. People who write such things may not care about that, but these days they have no excuse for being unaware of the possibility. (I don't want to devalue the word "abuse" by overusing it; and for example I wouldn't vote to remove someone from a group I ran for what was written this time, but if it kept happening over and over then eventually I would because I have seen what can happen if action is never taken).

jlokier 7y ago

> Sorry, a former user talking respectfully about the shortcomings of your software project is not "abuse." I do not agree that Luke's article fits that description. Luke's post talks not only about the software project, but also about Evan personally. It's not direct but that doesn't matter. (You cannot make something respectful just by phrasing it indirectly.) He moralises and talks about Evan personally, by implying strongly that Evan does not live up to obligations that Luke has decided Evan has to others, with the additional twist that it doesn't matter if that implies a free-labour obligation. That was avoidable. Luke could have framed his discussion about how Elm is not suitable to his needs and why others should be aware, in an actually respectful way that did not frame it as a set of obligations Evan was failing to satisfy. But he did not. Talking about obligations is not always disrespectful, but in this case I think it was. If you have been on the receiving end of that sort of thing in a public situation, you may or may not have experienced that it can entrain a mass of many people's responses to an overwhelmingly stressful degree, depending on how people collectively respond to it. People who write such things may not care about that, but these days they have no excuse for being unaware of the possibility. (I don't want to devalue the word "abuse" by overusing it; and for example I wouldn't vote to remove someone from a group I ran for what was written this time, but if it kept happening over and over then eventually I would because I have seen what can happen if action is never taken).