[haiku-development] Re: Banning Barrett
- From: waddlesplash <waddlesplash@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Haiku Development ML <haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:50:40 -0400
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:08 PM Dario Casalinuovo <b.vitruvio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi, I will start saying that I actually vote -1 on my ban. If you don't
consider my vote as valid you are going against democracy rules.
Your vote isn't valid at this point because kallisti5 closed the vote
and removed your commit access. Had you showed up before, then we
would have actually had to decide whether the person in question
during a ban vote can vote on themselves; but you did not...
Also I will mention that I realized very late what has been going on,
Yes, because you were not subscribed to this mailing list until
yesterday, having unsubscribed over a year (2 years?) ago.
That shows to the rest of us that you don't really care about the
technical discussions and votes that happen on this list, and instead
prefer to "just commit code," which really isn't an acceptable way to
participate in the community of developers.
and I received a partial judgment, people was very fast to decide this time
without leaving any time for me to reply.
You were on IRC and the forums during the time where the vote was
occurring, I believe? So you had time to reply; you just did not
happen to notice it since you were not subscribed to this mailing
list. We aren't really responsible for making sure every developer
learns about every thread on this list; and we don't have any rules
that developers being voted on need to be "formally notified" as
usually they are just subscribed to this list and will notice in the
normal course of events. You did not; I'm not sure why we need to make
a different rule just because of this.
Further, 36 hours is a perfectly normal amount of time for our voting
process. I seem to recall commit access votes that lasted only about
this long, accumulating 10 or so +1s with nothing but positive
comments, and nobody could even imagine any negative comments, and so
the vote was just ended and access granted.
This actually shows how things are handled differently with me.
I don't believe that to be the case in a substantial sense; but let's
suppose that they are. ... And? Different people are handled
differently. I don't expect to be treated with the same deal of
respect that others who have been on the development team for far
longer and know far more than I do are, even.
Let me clarify that I never spoke myself about conspiracy theories.
I don't have them handy right now, but if you are going to press this
point, I will go and locate emails where you essentially accuse the
Inc. of colluding or being biased against you, with no basis to accuse
them of this of course. I don't know what that would be besides a
conspiracy theory.
Did anyone ask waddlesplash to take action?
I don't recall anyone doing so specifically, but if they had and I
missed it, I'm sorry about that. As you can see, it's been
occasionally the case that I will commit erroneous code, and am
typically quick to fix or revert it (and these days, more questionable
commits I push through Gerrit first); so that would be an exception.
Then, it happens that after a month, waddlesplash continue to commit other
related fixes, still ignoring the suggestions, still with unneeded memsets.
Let leave apart that as already stated, I'd have appreciated waddlesplash
pointing me at that issue (at that moment mail notifications weren't enabled
and I just could not know). If it was me, you all would have contested my
behaviour, ignoring people and so on.
Can someone explain what happened, if not a difference of treatment?
I suppose it is possible that I missed an email or a reply on Gerrit
to the list; but it certainly is the case that I virtually never miss
an email sent to me personally, and if one catches me while I'm on
IRC, I certainly never miss that either. So if you thought I was to
blame for the way things were originally proceeding there, and you
thought I was "ignoring" you, did you do anything about this? I can't
help fix what I don't know about.
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.
It isn't that you asked for the revert, but the manner in which it was
asked. While it is true that you had improved at least somewhat
recently, previously in requests to revert or fix things you came off
as extremely abrasive.
I found that often people comment on my code without actually reading it. I
remember at least a discussion with Jua, where I forgot that under 64 bit
adds are not atomic and then fixed it. Then he replied that the code was
still broken, and I replied "Did you read the code?".
I don't know the context, but that sounds not so polite to me ... "How
so?" or "In what way?" would be a much less aggressive response to a
statement that code one wrote is broken.
I had another similar discussion recently with waddlesplash where he
challenged BMetaData, he actually didn't read the code and I had a debate
with him for 20 mins for nothing.
I seem to recall that at the end of that time I just essentially gave
up, because you were not seeing my points and I was failing to
understand your perspective.
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.
PulkoMandy is not an expert on everything; sometimes his descriptions
of certain things are mildly imprecise. That's been true of his
descriptions of some of my work. But ultimately it doesn't matter; the
real distinctions in these cases is largely irrelevant to end-users,
and whatever "downside" there is to such imprecisions is probably less
than the time it would take to edit the post and fix them, so I
usually don't.
Regardless, what is your point here? That you knew others were
misunderstanding you and you did nothing...? How does that help your
case?
I didn't ask sorry to waddlesplash because I don't think (and today there's
the proof) he had any intention to fix things with me. And you can see from
latest months discussions, I really tried to be polite with him.
Allow me to explain myself once again.
Someone on the forums made a vague reference to your work improving
the media kit, i.e. in the context of fixing quality and the like. I
replied stating that this was not correct, you were presently doing
long-term refactors and new APIs, not fixing bugs. Was that incorrect
in any way? Your reply to this message was to accuse me of "putting
s*** on [your] work." Again, how did I do that?
I agree that my poking at you to work on bugs was perhaps a little
aggressive and I should improve that. However I'd also like to note,
same as in my reply to kallisti5 above, that there is a general
frustration that *every change* made to the media subsystems not by
you winds up in an incredibly abrasive and long e-mail conflict over
how "correct" it is or not. media_format changes are one example of
this; there are others from the past few years, and as a result very
few developers want to spend the time to (1) learn about the kit and
then fix whatever the bug is, and then (2) get yelled at on the
mailing list for doing it "incorrectly", and have it take 5-10 emails
before the real problem is finally understood.
Further, I note that of the 6 developers you mentioned in your email,
3 have essentially resigned to avoid speaking to you at nearly all
costs at this point. How is that not evidence of a larger problem.
Now, with all that being said, which I think vindicates me more than
it does you: I *did* attempt to apologize! From
https://echelog.com/logs/browse/haiku/1552258800:
[20:07:19] <Barrett> waddlesplash, I formally invite you to stop
provoking me everywhere, everytime
[20:07:31] <Barrett> this is the last time I say that
[20:07:38] <Barrett> "Not really, he’s working on a bunch of
refactoring that isn’t affecting functionality. All the long-standing
bugs are still there, untouched…"
[20:07:47] <Barrett> this is his forum post about my work
[20:08:12] <waddlesplash> is anything I said false?
[20:08:25] <Barrett> totally
[20:08:34] <Barrett> stop talking of my work, referring to me, naming
me everywhere
[20:08:49] <Barrett> thank you.
[20:08:59] <waddlesplash> everywhere? by my count I have done so ... 3
times in the past 3-4 months I think
[20:09:20] <waddlesplash> 2 of said times were about USB audio causing
crashes in Media server on the past week
[20:09:38] <Barrett> I already said what I had to say, I try to be
calm with you, but you continue provoking me
[20:09:54] <Barrett> I am not going to consider you a goodwill person,
toward myself
[20:10:14] <Barrett> so I ask you formally to don't name myself
anymore, in any situation, even for development reports.
[20:10:16] <Barrett> Thank You.
[20:10:39] <waddlesplash> look, I'm sorry, I'll stop mentioning you needlessly
[20:10:50] <Barrett> I will not accept your excuses.
[20:11:11] <waddlesplash> that was an apology, not an excuse...?
[20:11:42] <waddlesplash> but, uh, you can't just say "well I stopped
being angry at you, now you must stop being angry at me" and expect
that to be the end of animosity
I stand by my final comment in that exchange: simply stating "I no
longer have a grudge against you" is not enough; this does not excuse
offenses against justice. At this point I don't think either of us
could adequately judge who offended who in what instance over our
interactions in the last year or half-year, but that does not mean
they do not exist.
-waddlesplash
Other related posts:
