4 ms·

You’re exhausted by the file picker thing? Please, they’re just refusing to do it out of spite.

md8z 5y ago
Out of spite for what? It's open source, nobody owes each other anything. Please don't assume bad faith and please do not take it personal if someone declined a feature request. You may also want to see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29176890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29176890
- em-bee 5y ago
  why is the parent comment being downvoted? regardless of what should have happened in the development, it is not helpful to assume bad faith when your desired outcome is not achived. that is exactly what the gnome dev post did and what caused the system76 maintainer to stop contributing. assuming bad faith is the underlying core issue for this whole topic.
  - _0tsb 5y ago
    When is it appropriate to assume bad faith? I feel like just never assuming bad faith ever completely decouples people/organizations from the consequences of their actions.
    - md8z 5y ago
      Well in my opinion, it is never appropriate here, because it is against the HN guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." To me it is not intellectually rewarding to have a conversation talking about how someone else is a jerk or talking about how we want to make someone else suffer. Especially if the "action" you're trying to punish someone for (i.e. doing bug triage) is something that is a completely normal part of any open source project. I've noticed that once the conversation gets into that mode, it seems fairly impossible to have any kind of constructive dialogue. I just want to talk about technical stuff related to these desktops. It's really exhausting and hard to do that when every comment thread devolves into the airing of grievances against some developer based on some comments that were made years ago. I mean, come on, we are a smart bunch, we can do better than this. Edit: And I think what you've said is really dangerous, I have to ask you to please stop that line of thinking. You are talking about making people suffer for something that you acknowledge is just an assumption. If you know that there is bad faith happening then that's a different story, you would flag it and then the moderators here will usually ban the person if they keep doing it. But you didn't say that you knew it was happening, you said it was an assumption. I hope you can see how that's not fair to anybody, I don't think you would want to be punished for people making untrue assumptions about you either.
      - _0tsb 5y ago
        Do we have to assume that facebook is acting in good faith, in the best interests of user privacy? Or do we take their past actions into account? >"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." It seems to me that that is setting the standards of discourse for people on the platform, and isn't intended to apply to large businesses, even if those large businesses mostly get their money from sponsorship and donations. >You are talking about making people suffer for something that you acknowledge is just an assumption. I think suffer is a bit of an exaggeration, I'm talking about warning people that a particular platform is user-hostile. Gnome (the organization) has a long history of behavior that I find unpleasant, and expecting me not to tell people about that or to pretend it didn't happen is asking far too much. Gnome is responsible for Gnome's bad reputation, maybe that's something they can fix though if they fix the behavior that's causing this bad reputation. It's the whole "freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences" thing all over again. Gnome can make whatever bad decisions they want, but they don't get to be free from criticism for those decisions.
        md8z 5y ago
        I am not going to comment on facebook because I have basically no relevant first hand experience with them. I also am not going to speculate with you based on second hand accounts we might have read in the news. Sorry. You'll have to ask those questions to somebody else who is able to answer them. "and isn't intended to apply to large businesses" This makes no sense to me, GNOME is not a large business. "I think suffer is a bit of an exaggeration" You were saying before that they should face consequences. I was just quoting you here, if you didn't mean you wanted them to suffer backlash for some actions then please explain otherwise. "expecting me not to tell people about that or to pretend it didn't happen is asking far too much." I never said I expected you to do any of this, you are making false assumptions. Please stop, you may want to go re-read my previous comments. "Gnome is responsible for Gnome's bad reputation ... Gnome can make whatever bad decisions they want, but they don't get to be free from criticism for those decisions" This also is vague and makes no sense to me. What bad reputation? What behavior? What bad decisions? What criticism? Who are you referring to when you say GNOME? The foundation? The designers? The maintainers? All of the above? That's at least hundreds of people, many of them volunteers, so are you saying they all make bad decisions all the time every day about everything? Please be more specific than this, remember that GNOME is not a company, it is a large and loosely connected open source project with lots of people who have differing opinions. This is again why I really advise that you not take this angle when you're trying to discuss this, when you do this it is extremely difficult to figure out what you're actually talking about and what problem needs to be addressed. If you want to take this in a productive direction then please, don't even bother answering the questions I asked above, and just mention your specific complaint so we can re-start from the beginning. Also please try to avoid making platitudes and generalizations, and please avoid saying things that have already been said multiple times, that is not an interesting conversation. I'm trying to help you here so you don't have to feel the need to keep repeating yourself, I'm sure that you can also acknowledge that it is not ideal when you have to do that.

md8z 5y ago

Out of spite for what? It's open source, nobody owes each other anything. Please don't assume bad faith and please do not take it personal if someone declined a feature request. You may also want to see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29176890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29176890

em-bee 5y ago
why is the parent comment being downvoted? regardless of what should have happened in the development, it is not helpful to assume bad faith when your desired outcome is not achived. that is exactly what the gnome dev post did and what caused the system76 maintainer to stop contributing. assuming bad faith is the underlying core issue for this whole topic.
- _0tsb 5y ago
  When is it appropriate to assume bad faith? I feel like just never assuming bad faith ever completely decouples people/organizations from the consequences of their actions.
  - md8z 5y ago
    Well in my opinion, it is never appropriate here, because it is against the HN guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." To me it is not intellectually rewarding to have a conversation talking about how someone else is a jerk or talking about how we want to make someone else suffer. Especially if the "action" you're trying to punish someone for (i.e. doing bug triage) is something that is a completely normal part of any open source project. I've noticed that once the conversation gets into that mode, it seems fairly impossible to have any kind of constructive dialogue. I just want to talk about technical stuff related to these desktops. It's really exhausting and hard to do that when every comment thread devolves into the airing of grievances against some developer based on some comments that were made years ago. I mean, come on, we are a smart bunch, we can do better than this. Edit: And I think what you've said is really dangerous, I have to ask you to please stop that line of thinking. You are talking about making people suffer for something that you acknowledge is just an assumption. If you know that there is bad faith happening then that's a different story, you would flag it and then the moderators here will usually ban the person if they keep doing it. But you didn't say that you knew it was happening, you said it was an assumption. I hope you can see how that's not fair to anybody, I don't think you would want to be punished for people making untrue assumptions about you either.
    - _0tsb 5y ago
      Do we have to assume that facebook is acting in good faith, in the best interests of user privacy? Or do we take their past actions into account? >"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." It seems to me that that is setting the standards of discourse for people on the platform, and isn't intended to apply to large businesses, even if those large businesses mostly get their money from sponsorship and donations. >You are talking about making people suffer for something that you acknowledge is just an assumption. I think suffer is a bit of an exaggeration, I'm talking about warning people that a particular platform is user-hostile. Gnome (the organization) has a long history of behavior that I find unpleasant, and expecting me not to tell people about that or to pretend it didn't happen is asking far too much. Gnome is responsible for Gnome's bad reputation, maybe that's something they can fix though if they fix the behavior that's causing this bad reputation. It's the whole "freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences" thing all over again. Gnome can make whatever bad decisions they want, but they don't get to be free from criticism for those decisions.
      - md8z 5y ago
        I am not going to comment on facebook because I have basically no relevant first hand experience with them. I also am not going to speculate with you based on second hand accounts we might have read in the news. Sorry. You'll have to ask those questions to somebody else who is able to answer them. "and isn't intended to apply to large businesses" This makes no sense to me, GNOME is not a large business. "I think suffer is a bit of an exaggeration" You were saying before that they should face consequences. I was just quoting you here, if you didn't mean you wanted them to suffer backlash for some actions then please explain otherwise. "expecting me not to tell people about that or to pretend it didn't happen is asking far too much." I never said I expected you to do any of this, you are making false assumptions. Please stop, you may want to go re-read my previous comments. "Gnome is responsible for Gnome's bad reputation ... Gnome can make whatever bad decisions they want, but they don't get to be free from criticism for those decisions" This also is vague and makes no sense to me. What bad reputation? What behavior? What bad decisions? What criticism? Who are you referring to when you say GNOME? The foundation? The designers? The maintainers? All of the above? That's at least hundreds of people, many of them volunteers, so are you saying they all make bad decisions all the time every day about everything? Please be more specific than this, remember that GNOME is not a company, it is a large and loosely connected open source project with lots of people who have differing opinions. This is again why I really advise that you not take this angle when you're trying to discuss this, when you do this it is extremely difficult to figure out what you're actually talking about and what problem needs to be addressed. If you want to take this in a productive direction then please, don't even bother answering the questions I asked above, and just mention your specific complaint so we can re-start from the beginning. Also please try to avoid making platitudes and generalizations, and please avoid saying things that have already been said multiple times, that is not an interesting conversation. I'm trying to help you here so you don't have to feel the need to keep repeating yourself, I'm sure that you can also acknowledge that it is not ideal when you have to do that.