[haiku-development] Re: Banning Barrett
- From: "Adrien Destugues" <pulkomandy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:44:36 +0000
Since the topic here is me vs waddlesplash I will make some examples for
future readers, to know
also my vision.
You and waddlesplash.
Can someone explain what happened, if not a difference of treatment?
I have another set of discussions with jua, where him asked me to revert some
stuff and we
discussed about enqueue lateness if being good or not. Let leave alone,
again, if I actually
behaved differently in the earlier post about media_format, I actually tried
to reimplement what he
suggested. Only to find out that it actually was the cause of the "increasing
latency" problem.
Then, I wrote an email in the dev mailing lists about that, I didn't receive
any reply. Sorry, it's
time consuming to find all the evidence, but if someone has doubts please ask
me and I will provide
links.
You and Jua.
So I don't think the problem was to actually ask to revert it right? So I
don't see why Stephan
accused me of being unpolite, just for asking to fix or revert something that
clearly had problems.
You and Stephan.
Now I want to defend myself on a few things that I read earlier. Before all,
I'd like to thanks
DeadYak for being a so unfriendly person with me, I still remember when in
2008 I asked about
helping with vision, and I still remember it's astonishing and net reply
"no". He actually made
really little technical points during his reviews, most of them were actually
about style or
control flow. So I don't really see where him had all those "aggressive
discussions" with me. Yes,
sometimes I'm challenging, but my impression is that him just don't accept if
I ask for more
explanations about those (basically little relevant) comments.
You and DeadYak.
Relating humdinger, as said I asked him sorry. But I want to restate another
time that when the
haiku-web discussion happened he had called me "social inept" in the public
#haiku IRC, and yes I
was really upset.
You and humdinger.
So that's problems with at least 5 members of the project, not counting myself.
I want to add, that the impression of people not understand what I'm doing
has been always there
for me. I could find various PulkoMandy's (and probably some other people)
montly reports where the
description of what I'm doing is quite incorrect.
I do what I can. I consider you responsible for the lack of understanding. The
review process is here
precisely for that: people ask silly questions about your code, sometimes it
will be "oh god I had
completely missed that" and you fix something, and most often it is "no, the
code is correct and you did
not read it carefully enough".
You missed the point of this important aspect of code review. It helps both
catching problems in the
code, and, more importantly, making sure there are always at least two people
who know each line of
code: the one who wrote it, and the one who review it. When trying to review
your code, you assume you
are under attack and react aggressively to any comment. I'm not alone to say
this. By doing this,
you have first made several people not review your code at all, and then
eventually chose to completely
bypass the review process (and you are not alone doing this, I keep asking
waddlesplash to not push things
directly to the repo as well. I would have loved to learn more about xhci by
reviewing his code).
You have also removed yourself from the mailing lists where all matters are
normally discussed. Then
you come back complaining that you did not get notice of what happens here.
The same happens for the people at the Inc. that
should have reviewed my work during my contract, some of them admitted
understanding too little of
my work to actually judge it. Sometimes I think people comment about unuseful
details, losing the
whole image of what I'm doing.
It's your responsibility to convey the big picture. We already discussed this,
but maybe you forgot
already. You clearly have the big picture of what you do in your mind, but you
do not take the time
to document it. As a result, minor details are the only thing apparent in your
work. So, of course
people will focus on that. For me it is a communication issue on your side. I
don't like that you put
the problem on me for being inaccurate in my reports. What I write is what I
could understand from the
code and commit messages, if you did not make these comprehendable for other
people, that's your fault,
not mine. Also, I'm doing these reports because everyone else sucks at
communicating about their work,
so someone has to do something. It can't be perfect, if people would send me a
little summary at the
end of a month of work or after merging a series of patches, I would have less
work to do and the reports
would be more accurate.
I think I'd have a lot of stuff to say, but I'm probably going to bore
people, I will end that it's
obvious the partial judgment received here.
"I'm not going to say anything, and then complain people don't listen to me".
Please, I took the time to explain my point of view. I sent several mails
explaining it
and the problems I see. It would be the minimum of respect to say everything
from your side,
as well, then I hope people can make an enlightened decision with all cards in
hand. Otherwise,
to me it looks like you are sabotaging your own defense and will then complain
that you were banned
without a chance to explain yourself (yes, my turn to play conspiracy
theories...). I want this
decision to be taken in all fairness to everyone.
At least two persons contacted me privately saying that
they don't see a reason to ban me. One of them was actually interested in
working in a metadata
layer for Haiku, he is scared now and he decided to not contribute to Haiku
because he may be
banned.
Hi, people who fear being banned! This is a reminder that this is not due to
technical disagreements,
but about the way of working. You can join the discussion and give your
opinion. If you think Barrett
should stay, please speak up.
Also, this is very exceptional. It happened once in 18 years, and maybe a
second time now. It is very
unlikely to happen again, I hope.
With stippi that seems to be a -1 and my vote (which again it still counts)
it seems the poll
reverted the other way around. So now how you want to solve this issue? I ask
that the ban is
removed.
I find it strange that you are allowed to vote on your own ban, however. What
kind of democracy is that?
In any case, to be completely fair we need way more than 3-5 votes for the
decision to be solid. So,
all commiters should voice their opinion here before a decision is made. Doing
it after only 36 yours
and with 2.5 votes is clearly not right (as was already mentionned several
times).
--
Adrien.
Other related posts:
