5 ms·

While communication may not have been handled perfectly, this is an annoyed, entitled, entirely unnecessary tract. Tellingly, it never appears to be the ones w

by hrbf 4y ago

While communication may not have been handled perfectly, this is an annoyed, entitled, entirely unnecessary tract. Tellingly, it never appears to be the ones who do the actual work who throw such tantrums. And how about just extending the benefit of the doubt instead of immediately feeding the outrage machine?

rapnie 4y ago
> Tellingly, it never appears to be the ones who do the actual work who throw such tantrums. And how do you know that, if I may ask?
- aliqot 4y ago
  - maxbond 4y ago
    This is just a feeling you have, which you're asserting as fact. It's a thought terminating cliche that's employed to dismiss a group of people without having to listen to them.
wiseowise 4y ago
> And how about just extending the benefit of the doubt instead of immediately feeding the outrage machine? You give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.
maxbond 4y ago
You can't slander them by saying they're throwing a tantrum, without even talking about what parts of the document you're referring to or why it is you feel that way, and then decry how they're not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. That is pearl clutching. Writing them to resolve this issue in good faith, is giving them the benefit of the doubt.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  Talk about "feeding the outrage machine". The irony is thick in this thread wirh people who are outraged by "outrage culture", without being specific (trademarks and website, and the broken promise on community ownership of these assets). Even the current top comment complains in the abstract - people have become what they hate as they fight the culture wars.
- ianbutler 4y ago
  Outsider opinion: So I think the entire doc as a first step in supposed good communication is in bad faith. Bringing this out into the public, and being on the front page of HN makes it seem like a stunt, and for pressure, not a good faith plea. I feel like a private conversation between the concerned parties should have happened first, and if it did that should have been mentioned. If that didn't work then maybe make it public for pressure, and then fork (and or consider legal action to get the trademarks if there's grounds idk not a lawyer). If people's idea of good first step communication is to create a public letter with accusatory undertones and get it plastered places, I don't want to work with those people. They went from 0mph to 120mph way too quickly.
  - rapnie 4y ago
    > I feel like a private conversation between the concerned parties should have happened first With a dispersed community that used to work in public, against the company owners who secretly prepared this since at least March this year (likely longer) and not even informed their own maintainers properly in the private channel they have for that.
    - ianbutler 4y ago
      So I think saying it's all of the community is a little generous, it's like 20 people who've signed, and yes even then. A private conversation should have happened. As an outsider, that's a hearsay situation to me so forgive me if I don't outright trust the intentions of the small group of people who put out this letter, I don't know anything about them. And if the situation actually is as nefarious as you say it is, with communication having broken down, the letter should have called that out directly instead of being wishy washy. If people feel that strongly about it not being a mistake, time to use strong language and lay out all the facts.
mariusor 4y ago
> Tellingly, it never appears to be the ones who do the actual work who throw such tantrums. I recognize at least 2 names in the top five as devs that I personally collaborated with in order to add features to Gitea.

by hrbf 4y ago

rapnie 4y ago

> Tellingly, it never appears to be the ones who do the actual work who throw such tantrums. And how do you know that, if I may ask?

aliqot 4y ago
- maxbond 4y ago
  This is just a feeling you have, which you're asserting as fact. It's a thought terminating cliche that's employed to dismiss a group of people without having to listen to them.

wiseowise 4y ago

> And how about just extending the benefit of the doubt instead of immediately feeding the outrage machine? You give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.

maxbond 4y ago

You can't slander them by saying they're throwing a tantrum, without even talking about what parts of the document you're referring to or why it is you feel that way, and then decry how they're not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. That is pearl clutching. Writing them to resolve this issue in good faith, is giving them the benefit of the doubt.

sangnoir 4y ago
Talk about "feeding the outrage machine". The irony is thick in this thread wirh people who are outraged by "outrage culture", without being specific (trademarks and website, and the broken promise on community ownership of these assets). Even the current top comment complains in the abstract - people have become what they hate as they fight the culture wars.
ianbutler 4y ago
Outsider opinion: So I think the entire doc as a first step in supposed good communication is in bad faith. Bringing this out into the public, and being on the front page of HN makes it seem like a stunt, and for pressure, not a good faith plea. I feel like a private conversation between the concerned parties should have happened first, and if it did that should have been mentioned. If that didn't work then maybe make it public for pressure, and then fork (and or consider legal action to get the trademarks if there's grounds idk not a lawyer). If people's idea of good first step communication is to create a public letter with accusatory undertones and get it plastered places, I don't want to work with those people. They went from 0mph to 120mph way too quickly.
- rapnie 4y ago
  > I feel like a private conversation between the concerned parties should have happened first With a dispersed community that used to work in public, against the company owners who secretly prepared this since at least March this year (likely longer) and not even informed their own maintainers properly in the private channel they have for that.
  - ianbutler 4y ago
    So I think saying it's all of the community is a little generous, it's like 20 people who've signed, and yes even then. A private conversation should have happened. As an outsider, that's a hearsay situation to me so forgive me if I don't outright trust the intentions of the small group of people who put out this letter, I don't know anything about them. And if the situation actually is as nefarious as you say it is, with communication having broken down, the letter should have called that out directly instead of being wishy washy. If people feel that strongly about it not being a mistake, time to use strong language and lay out all the facts.

mariusor 4y ago

> Tellingly, it never appears to be the ones who do the actual work who throw such tantrums. I recognize at least 2 names in the top five as devs that I personally collaborated with in order to add features to Gitea.