Stepping down from the IRC team

[Martin Meredith]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 06:59:38PM +1000, Melissa Draper wrote:
> But anyway, the incident is as follows: Someone had added "foo is Foo"
> factoid to Ubottu's database and when it was discovered, that person was
> asked to in future make more useful factoids that have actual
> information such as a description and/or url, not just an expanded
> acronym. The advice was greeted with childish mock obedience by way of
> defiance.

Ok, well without naming names, you've obviously pointed me out as the person
being referred to here. ("This is what sparked off the incident").

I generally wouldn't reply to this, but seeing as you seem to be making
assumptions on my behalf, let me explain.

The factoid mentioned above, was in fact "nbr" - as I'd noticed that on a couple
of occasions, people had tried, and failed to call this factoid, as they were
unsure what the abreviation meant.  The factoid I added explained the
abbreviation.

Whether this was "useless" or not, as proclaimed, is a different matter. I
didn't think it was.

The "childish mock obedience" was the following line

 * Mez snaps to attention

Which is where I left the conversation.

In fact, this was not "the straw that broke the camels back" for me. An earlier
incident was.  I'd previously already drafted the email I'd sent to the team,
after being ostracized for expressing my opinion to someone. 

nhandler had come to #ubuntu-ops requesting that a ban be removed from a
channel.  Him being the person that had placed the ban, I said that he should
feel free to remove it.

In my opinion, any person that places a ban in a channel, should have the right
to remove it.  Is that wrong?  I don't think so.

Melissa, I'd request that in future, you don't speak out with regards to
someone's private thoughts, or put words into their mouth that they haven't said
unless that person is you.  You're likely to get it wrong.  You do not know how
I think.

> Now, to say this sort of behaviour is out of character for the
> individual would be a stretch as there have been various incidents of
> varying nature over the years. This person has been in the ops team for
> quite a while now, and despite private conversations, has not improved.
> In the opinion of many on the team, this person should have been removed
> long ago.

Melissa, I'd appreciate if those people who believe that I should have been
removed long ago would speak for themselves.  I can take it (as you've made very
VERY clear in private previously) that you are one of the people who think along
these lines.

I also know of one other person, who I mentioned in my first email, who thinks
that way.  This is because that person, as I've already mentioned, at one point
made subtle threats towards me.  "Don't rely on your @ubuntu.com email, as if I
have anything to do with it, you won't keep it for long"

I urge everyone who holds the opinion that I should have been removed from the
IRC team long ago, to speak up now.  Let it be known to the world.  I'm not
asking for a reason, just a show of hands.

If it can be proved that I am/was the problem, I'll happily bugger off back
where I came from, and leave you in peace for eternity.

> Why was this person not removed from the ops team? Because it would have
> been bemoaned as a personal attack. Geek Social Fallacy #1: Ostracizers
> Are Evil.

I'm pretty sure that if there was a valid reason for me to be removed from the IRC
team, that while I may have decided it was a personal attack, that that wouldn't
have mattered, and my rights would have been revoked if deemed neccesary.

Plus, the simple fact is, I'm actually a pretty reasonable guy.  I listen to
people, I understand, I take things on board.

But, I am also who I am.  If it's the case that who I am doesn't fit into the
Ubuntu Philosophy, then hey, that's who I am.  I'll happily accept that fact.