George Sexton wrote:
> Don't misunderstand me. I'm certainly not saying a committer shouldn't say
> "This is non-compliant and will not be addresed" or "We comply with the
> spec, and we will not be expanding the application to meet your specific
> need". These are legitimate responses.
Agreed.

> When the specification is involved,
> it would be nice to reference the relevant part of the specification.
Also agreed.

> When
> committers use emotionally charged terms with no technical basis, or just
> reject things out of hand without explanation its not fair.
To be fair, there is a technical basis 99.9% of the time but in the
past it often hasn't been explained. As stated elsewhere in this
thread, adding the explanation helps a lot.

On the subject of fairness, is it fair that someone who is too lazy to
read the spec / read the docs / etc should take up any more of the
community's time than the absolute minimum required to, for example,
mark the bug as INVALID? This isn't a view I advocate but it is one I
understand.

> This is how things should be done there is just one small flaw. Those people
> who are the worst offenders in this matter are pretty much unaffected by
> this approach. If people consistently don't respond to that approach (which
> should be first), then there needs to be some recourse. For example, a
> popular book recommends this approach to conflict resolution:
I can see the sense in this approach but ejecting someone is pretty
much impossible in an open source community. Anyone who is 'banned'
can easily get a new e-mail address and re-join. The best you could
achieve would be ignoring them. You can always set an e-mail filter ;)

You might also be interested in this thread. It was a discussion about
how to handle misbehaving members of another part of the Apache community:
http://www.mail-archive.com/community%40apache.org/index.html#04172


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to