Org Community

Org Community

[Scott Randby]

Last September, I attended a talk given by the lead developers of a
prominent free software project. One of the developers spoke about the
importance of maintaining a friendly community that does not drive
people away. In particular, the developer emphasized that the
community is more important than the code.

The org community has been wonderful since I've started using org. My
questions on even the most basic matters have been answered with
respect and clarity. Even though I'm a mere user of org, I've never
hesitated to participate in a discussion on the mailing list.

However, I am concerned about the future of org. There is one
individual who is poisoning the atmosphere by engaging in unfair and
unfounded name calling that simply should not be included in messages
to this list. Now this person wants to take some of their
contributions out of org. The developer of the talk I attended called
this tactic "hostage taking" and said that it is better for the
community to let hostage takers go their own way. The project and
community are more important than the code. The code can be written by
others, or the community can decide to go in a different
direction. Giving in to hostage takers leads to more hostage taking
and the decline of the project.

Many of the users of org find it to be irreplaceable. We don't want to
see org fall apart because of dissension in the community. I'm not
saying that we shouldn't have dissent and disagreement. No, those are
essential for a vigorous and healthy project. It is hateful and
untruthful personal attacks that we should not accept no matter how
significant the code contributions of those making the attacks.

Scott Randby

Re: Org Community

[James Harkins]

Scott Randby <srandby <at> gmail.com> writes:

> However, I am concerned about the future of org. There is one
> individual who is poisoning the atmosphere by engaging in unfair and
> unfounded name calling that simply should not be included in messages
> to this list. Now this person wants to take some of their
> contributions out of org. The developer of the talk I attended called
> this tactic "hostage taking" and said that it is better for the
> community to let hostage takers go their own way. The project and
> community are more important than the code. The code can be written by
> others, or the community can decide to go in a different
> direction. Giving in to hostage takers leads to more hostage taking
> and the decline of the project.

I'm inclined to agree with this.

I don't feel like hesitating to name names. Jambunathan: Whatever offense was 
done to you, it remains true that ego-validation often (perhaps even usually) 
does not go along with accomplishing goals. I would like to be sympathetic to 
the injustice you feel. This is difficult when your approach to the problem 
is to hold your ego to be more important than the goal.

So what is the point here? If the point is to have well-functioning HTML, ODT 
and freemind exporters (and, secondarily, to enjoy knowing that you made, or 
helped to make, that happen), I think that's a worthy goal which the org 
community should support. If this is your goal, surely it can't be lost on 
you that your actions are impeding that goal.

If, on the other hand, your goal is to prove that you are an Important Person 
(and secondarily to contribute to org), then your actions are consistent with 
that goal. However, I think the org community would not be well-served by 
catering to your ego demands.

I contribute code and documentation to SuperCollider (an audio programming 
language). When I check in new content, I consider it a way to thank other 
developers who wrote code that I'm glad I didn't have to write myself. I 
don't expect credit and I don't expect my contributions to be inviolable 
entities that nobody should touch. It's not about ownership. It's about 
making a software environment that works better for people. The org community 
functions on the same principle, and I think it's correct that this community 
should not cave in to a diva's temper tantrums.

hjh

Re: Org Community

[Ivan Kanis]

March, 10 at 13:01 Scott Randby wrote:

> However, I am concerned about the future of org. There is one
> individual who is poisoning the atmosphere by engaging in unfair and
> unfounded name calling that simply should not be included in messages
> to this list.

I think we should ignore him. I have wasted 30mn of my life reading his
posts.

He might be manic and will probably be embarrassed by his posts when he
cools down.

> Now this person wants to take some of their contributions out of org.

Wishful thinking. Since his code made it to emacs he has signed FSF
paperwork. IANAL but I don't think it belongs to him anymore.
-- 
Quantum dynamics are affecting the transistors
    -- BOFH excuse #70

I am listening to "ZZ Top - La Grange".

Re: Org Community

[Samuel Wales]

Thank you for writing that, Scott.

On 3/10/13, Scott Randby <srandby@gmail.com> wrote:
> Last September, I attended a talk given by the lead developers of a
> prominent free software project. One of the developers spoke about the
> importance of maintaining a friendly community that does not drive
> people away. In particular, the developer emphasized that the
> community is more important than the code.
>
> The org community has been wonderful since I've started using org. My
> questions on even the most basic matters have been answered with
> respect and clarity. Even though I'm a mere user of org, I've never
> hesitated to participate in a discussion on the mailing list.
>
> However, I am concerned about the future of org. There is one
> individual who is poisoning the atmosphere by engaging in unfair and
> unfounded name calling that simply should not be included in messages
> to this list. Now this person wants to take some of their
> contributions out of org. The developer of the talk I attended called
> this tactic "hostage taking" and said that it is better for the
> community to let hostage takers go their own way. The project and
> community are more important than the code. The code can be written by
> others, or the community can decide to go in a different
> direction. Giving in to hostage takers leads to more hostage taking
> and the decline of the project.
>
> Many of the users of org find it to be irreplaceable. We don't want to
> see org fall apart because of dissension in the community. I'm not
> saying that we shouldn't have dissent and disagreement. No, those are
> essential for a vigorous and healthy project. It is hateful and
> untruthful personal attacks that we should not accept no matter how
> significant the code contributions of those making the attacks.
>
> Scott Randby
>
>


-- 
The Kafka Pandemic: http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com

The disease DOES progress.  MANY people have died from it.  It attacks
MANY body systems.  ANYBODY can get it.  There is NO hope without
activist action.  This means YOU.

Re: Org Community

[Loyall, David]

FWIW, I believe that the org-mode community should do what we can to oblige Jambunathan's request, even if/when we're not legally required to do so.  I think that we should do the same for any human who wants to withdraw from an endeavor.  (Don't each of you feel that your code is a part of you?)

Supposing that the group agrees that the code should be removed somehow, then at that point we can think about the most orderly way to do it.  What happens, technically, if we mark it all as deprecated?

I hope this helps,
Dave Loyall

-----Original Message-----
From: emacs-orgmode-bounces+david.loyall=nebraska.gov@gnu.org [mailto:emacs-orgmode-bounces+david.loyall=nebraska.gov@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Scott Randby
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:02 PM
To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: [O] Org Community

Last September, I attended a talk given by the lead developers of a prominent free software project. One of the developers spoke about the importance of maintaining a friendly community that does not drive people away. In particular, the developer emphasized that the community is more important than the code.

The org community has been wonderful since I've started using org. My questions on even the most basic matters have been answered with respect and clarity. Even though I'm a mere user of org, I've never hesitated to participate in a discussion on the mailing list.

However, I am concerned about the future of org. There is one individual who is poisoning the atmosphere by engaging in unfair and unfounded name calling that simply should not be included in messages to this list. Now this person wants to take some of their contributions out of org. The developer of the talk I attended called this tactic "hostage taking" and said that it is better for the community to let hostage takers go their own way. The project and community are more important than the code. The code can be written by others, or the community can decide to go in a different direction. Giving in to hostage takers leads to more hostage taking and the decline of the project.

Many of the users of org find it to be irreplaceable. We don't want to see org fall apart because of dissension in the community. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have dissent and disagreement. No, those are essential for a vigorous and healthy project. It is hateful and untruthful personal attacks that we should not accept no matter how significant the code contributions of those making the attacks.

Scott Randby

Re: Org Community

[François Pinard]

"Loyall, David" <david.loyall@nebraska.gov> writes:

> the org-mode community should do what we can to oblige Jambunathan's
> request, even if/when we're not legally required to do so.

I read you, but no, not in this case.

> (Don't each of you feel that your code is a part of you?)

Yes, of course.  However, when I put my own code under the GPL, and make
my projects forkable, I really, really mean it.  It did happen that I
was not fully happy with the consequences, but not enough to kill my own
generosity.  If I ever change my mind, well, too late, and that's OK.  I
may act differently for the later code I'll write, but what is already
given is well given.  I might have been someone else when I gave it,
before I changed.  But as I'm not that another guy anymore, I should not
claim anything about that previous me.  Unless I'm pretty rotten, in
which case I'm not even worth being listened to.

> Supposing that the group agrees that the code should be removed
> somehow,

The only reason to remove code owned by the community would be that it
is not pleasurable enough to maintain, then consequently gets obsolete
and useless.  If nobody cares about the code, it's a different story.

François

P.S. I only once advocated for the withdrawal of an FSF assignment, and
I even got the related papers destroyed at the FSF headquarters.  The
related code was not so widely distributed that the withdrawal would
really hurt people, and the requester was deeply polite and human in his
way to explain his motivations.  He was also well aware of the meaning
of his previous commitment.  So, it has been a pleasure for me, and
everybody I contacted, to help.  It was human on every side.

Here, as far as humanity and politeness is concerned, one side is surely
missing.  Let's not spoil anymore time at that level, it would be a waste.

Re: Org Community

[J. David Boyd]

"Loyall, David" <david.loyall@nebraska.gov> writes:

> FWIW, I believe that the org-mode community should do what we can to
> oblige Jambunathan's request, even if/when we're not legally required
> to do so.  I think that we should do the same for any human who wants
> to withdraw from an endeavor.  (Don't each of you feel that your code
> is a part of you?)
>
> Supposing that the group agrees that the code should be removed
> somehow, then at that point we can think about the most orderly way to
> do it.  What happens, technically, if we mark it all as deprecated?
>

I look at it this way.   If I helped build a house for Habitat for
Humanity, then a while later decided I didn't like what they stand for,
do I have the right to go take out the beams I nailed into the
structure?

Dave

Re: Org Community

[François Pinard]

Scott Randby <srandby@gmail.com> writes:

> There is one individual who is poisoning the atmosphere by engaging in
> unfair and unfounded name calling that simply should not be included
> in messages to this list.

The Internet wisdom (I mean, years of accumulated experience by lots of
people) suggests that we completely ignore those who troll.  This
requires that we educate us, between ourselves, to ignore such people.
They are fed by those who cannot resist replying to them.  If none do,
they usually disappear within a few months -- or a few years :-).  Kill
files (in email readers) are useful for ignoring poisoning people.

> Now this person wants to take some of their contributions out of
> org.

This is in such circumstances that clear FSF assignments prove useful.
I've seen this scenario repeating for other software, here and there,
for years (I've been around for quite a while).  People have opinions,
that's OK.  But when their way does not lead anymore, some of them
attempt destruction, more or less progressively, by all means possible,
psychological and technical.

They only have the power we give them.  When we get moved enough to
reply, we give them power.  Best is to ignore them, and learn to stay
completely calm inside.  See they are sick, do not get affected.  Do
not even attempt to heal them.

If you do not have enough means of self-control and just cannot resist,
then feed them privately, to spare the rest of the community.

François