Hello, Am 04.11.2010 15:59, schrieb Eguchi Satoshi:
I don't understand the meaning of the word "banning" in this case clearly... If this word means that the administrator of the website, the MLs, and the repositories will be switched from Jorge to someone, I don't mind. But if the word means that he will be banned from *** all MLs *** in haiku.org, I would like everyone to allow him to say something at least in the haiku-i18n-jp ML.
as some other people have already suggested, I also don't believe that banning someone is technically possible or effective. I also don't believe that especially someone like Jorge, who has contributed a lot to the project, should be "banned". It is unthankful.
There is however a specific problem here. It is notable that even though disagreement and discussion are rather common on the Haiku communication channels, there must be something special about the disagreements involving Jorge. There is no other example of banning someone being discussed, except when Jorge himself proposed other people to be banned.
I think the specific problem is difficult to grasp and I can only try to explain it truthfully, but as someone who has clashed with Jorge, my description may be tainted. There is no doubt that as long as there is no disagreement, collaborating with Jorge is very fruitful and things get done. I have no doubt that this is the side of Jorge that you have got to know. The problem is when friction and disagreements with him develop. When you get involved in a discussion with Jorge, he has the strong tendency to mostly ignore your arguments and repeat his own arguments, possibly reworded, asserting that your continued disagreement stems from not understanding his arguments. Naturally, such a discussion style results in long-winded email threads that repeat themselves in content. This is simply a drain on the projects resources and energy. And that is the sole problem against which an open, community driven project such as Haiku needs to protect itself. Progress in the project depends on people spending their free time productively, not by discussing or reading discussions that have don't come to a conclusion. This is why banning is even discussed, to prevent the drain on resources with no output. Naturally the problem is not that disagreement exists and that discussions happen. It's when things go nowhere and when there are many past examples of this happening and it involves a certain individual each time.
Of course if you don't get to see this side of Jorge, and collaboration is effective and fruitful for you, by all means, get stuff done together with Jorge! IMHO there should not be any technical hurdle put up by the project which prevents this fruitful collaboration for you!
Since in my opinion the specific problem we try to prevent is drain on resources, we should simply not contribute to this problem ourselves, i.e. not let ourselves get involved in discussions with Jorge. There is no example known to me where Jorge has repeatedly send unprovoked emails about the same subject. In other words, discussions are based on Jorge replying to other people, discussions stop as soon as people stop replying to Jorge's emails. This suggests a simple solution to the problem. There are many examples where Jorge has given useful and valid input, so I fail to see how banning Jorge is the sane approach. I also don't believe the calling of names is necessary, like using descriptions such as "trolling". That is unnecessary, IMHO unjustified, and only contributes to the problem by being provocative.
Best regards, -Stephan
