FESCo Meeting Minutes (2015-03-04)

[Chris Murphy]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
>> When someone says a compulsory password quality policy is actionable,
>> they are telling me my judgement cannot be trusted for my own device,
>> without respect to context. And yet I see other OS's, distros, mobile
>> devices, none of which have such a requirement or are yet even more
>> permissive, and that makes me distrust these proponents. A gap in
>> trust has formed, and widens as proponents don't even acknowledge such
>> concerns and push for the change violating myriad long standing
>> expectations in the relationship between user, device and OS. But I
>> must comply if I depend on the GUI installer, and this abrogation
>> constitutes a misfeasance. That makes me mad because it's unfair.
>>
>> I challenge you to find a single flaw in that sequence.
>>
>
> There are multiple ways. I could go to the extreme and say your first
> questionable judgement was that you used a distribution and allowed others
> to decide for you what packages were in the core, which versions, which
> compiler options. Coming in at the end and saying 'woah this is takes away
> my rights from my device.' is really closing the doors after the barn.
> However that would just make take the argument to the next Godwin level and
> waste a lot of electrons.

Except, you just did. You didn't actually refrain.

You've just put forth the "take it or leave it" argument, that
supposes no one can have any significant criticism once they've
clicked a download button. This is incompatible with the Fedora
mission statements of community, collaboration, improvement, and
shared action.

> I could go with the paternalistic dad route and remind you life ain't fair
> and the world doesn't revolve around you. However the image of you stamping
> your feet while using big words like misfeasance makes me giggle... so I
> can't use that.

Except you just did, and included a snide ad hominem attack as a bonus.


> I could go with that the gap you say exists occurred because you and every
> other person took to it as an extreme insult and didn't try to start a
> conversation.

False. The change (non-)discussion occurred on anaconda-devel@ where
sapid concerns and questions were posted, and ignored. At least once
the concerns were repeated, not by me, with a fine point made that
they were being repeated, and that was also ignored without comment.
At least one bug was filed, professionally stated, non-accusatory, and
it was closed as notabug twice.

The proper venues to explore the merit of the change, and its UX
impact, were discarded from the outset. This was not decided by
opponents of the change, who didn't even exist in any form until it
was a change in fact.


> And then accused the part of not listening after basically
> insulting their work in the first place.

Anachronistic. Feedback was never solicited in the first place.
Feedback was given. Feedback was ignored. Then there were some
aggressive criticisms.


>They may have brought a dead cat to
> the party, you took a piss in their beer and told them to drink up. And I am
> saying this coming from the point that I agreed with the general reasons you
> guys brought up but your entire approach has peeved me off.

I reject that my statements warrant such a strong analogy, but I'll go with it:

The difference is, I don't deny taking a piss in the guest's beer.
Meanwhile, the guest denies they brought a dead cat to the party, and
that it's uncouth to have done so.


-- 
Chris Murphy