Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/04/20/08:25:52
[Follow-ups set to cygwin@, since the arbitrary banning of maintainers, or
anyone else for that matter, from Cygwin mailing lists is most certainly of
grave concern to the Cygwin community at large.]
> From: Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:12 AM
> To: cygwin-talk AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: A banner day
>
> Tonight, it occurred to me that I have banned three people in
> the course of my tenure as admin for the cygwin mailing list.
> All of them repeatedly ignored my request to stop sending
> off-topic messages in one form or another. Usually, these
> people just couldn't stop sending personal details of their
> lives but there was, IIRC, one person who was somewhat abusive.
>
> I gave each of these people 3 or 4 warnings before blocking
> them and, when I did block them, it was with a sick feeling
> in my heart even though I felt it was necessary. Two of
> those people are back today and sending email to cygwin lists
> with no problem.
>
> Usually when I block someone, I block them from all of the
> cygwin lists.
> But, tonight, I have chosen to only block Gary R. Van Sickle
> from the cygwin-apps list. Maybe when I wake up tomorrow, I
> will conclude that this was a big mistake because, after all,
> Gary does sometimes provide useful technical feedback.
>
> Tonight, however, it just seems to make sense that, in
> fairness to other people who have been banned, there was no
> reason to have to suffer with someone who repeatedly and
> determinedly breaks the mailing list rules.
>
> I have refrained from this action for a long time because I
> knew that it would seem like a non-objective personal
> response and, again, maybe when I wake up tomorrow it will
> seem like that to me again. But, we'll see...
>
> Anyway, if anyone has a problem with my decision, feel free
> to send me private email (me+cygwin-apps at cgf dot cx) to
> discuss it. I promise to listen calmly and respond
> rationally as long as you don't use the words "no personal
> offense intended". I'll even listen if you think I need to
> block myself from all cygwin lists since I know I'm no saint.
> That's another thing that has kept my finger away from the
> "ban" button for so long...
>
> cgf
Let me see if I have the order of events straight here:
1. You reply to one of my posts on cygwin-apps@ suggesting that the thread
be moved to a more appropriate list
[http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-04/msg00109.html]. You however
neglect to change the followups accordingly [ibid., "Reply-to: cygwin-apps
at cygwin dot com"].
2. I reply to your reply
[http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-04/msg00112.html], but take care to
in fact set the followups properly, so that the thread will indeed get moved
to the more-appropriate list, i.e. cygwin-talk@ [ibid., "Reply-to:
<cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>"].
3. You then reply to that reply - but not in the cygwin-talk@ list which I
had redirected the thread to. Rather, you bring the thread /back/ into
cygwin-apps@, only to inform me that you are /banning/ me from that mailing
list [http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-04/msg00113.html] for doing the
very thing YOU should have done in the previous message! Furthermore, you
have also changed the followups of the thread /back/ to cygwin-apps@ [ibid.,
"Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com"]!
4. You then post an announcement to cygwin-apps@ that, due to your decision
to ban me from cygwin-apps@, I have been, by definition, relieved of my
voluntary duties as mutt maintainer
[http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2006-04/msg00115.html] and a new one is
required. A minor point: one would think such a call would also go out to
cygwin@.
5. Finally, you post the above to, of all places, /cygwin-talk@/.
Do I have the sequence of events correct? I took considerable pains to get
the facts laid out as accurately and precisely as possible, but if I have
somehow made an error in the above I emplore you Mr. Faylor or anyone else
to correct this chronology.
Wow. I have to admit, I'm having an especially hard time getting my mind
around #3 there. What sort of thought process sees me redirecting a thread
to a more appropriate venue, decides to ban me from the orginal list for
doing so, and /then/ proceeds to redirect the conversation /right back to
where, by the agreement of both parties, it didn't belong/?
Beyond that, how is that /not/ the very transgression you baselessly accuse
/me/ of, only worse seeing as you had to manually do all that
"misthreading"? And yet, you are not content to merely accuse, but
immediately pass summary judgement upon?!
I shall make no comment regarding your statement about "block[ing] myself
from all cygwin lists since I know I'm no saint". It is irrelevant to the
issue at hand what value your posting presence may or may not provide to
others on these venues. What this bizarre action of yours clearly does
however call into serious question is your fitness to serve in any offical
capacity concerning these mailing lists and the membership thereof.
--
Gary R. Van Sickle
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -