[Fwd: Re: [Bug 495391] [NEW] Not clear if CoC applies only to official Ubuntu Members or also to community in general]

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:07:25 +0100 (CET)
"Amedee Van Gasse (ub)" <amedee-ubuntu at amedee.be> wrote:

> You should add that to the bug report.
> 
I was just headed over to launchpad to sign up when the response from
Mr. Shuttleworth came in.  It seems that the problem is being solved
as we type.  That shows that one person /can/ make a difference
whether signed up on launchpad or not, I suppose. 
> 
> The proper procedure for getting things fixed that are wrong or
> incomplete, is to create a bug report on Launchpad and add all
> relevant information.
> Keep the bug report up-to-date until the problem is fixed, either by
> you accepting the current state of things, or by a change of the
> documentation.
> 
> If the bug report comes to a certain resolution and you do not agree,
> and you have good arguments to disagree, then it is your moral duty
> to add your objections to the bug report.

Perhaps.  I'll have to examine that position further.
> 
> If you do not respond to a certain resolution, it is considered as
> your agreement with the solution.
> 
That's an incorrect consideration as I might be dead or incapacitated.
Heck, I might just be very busy with real Life.  I may have given up on
convincing anybody.  Lack of response cannot prove a positive position.
> 
> I have made one big mistake: I created the bug report for you. You
> should have done it yourself. Why didn't you? At least you could have
> subscribed to the bug report. By not subscribing, you show a lack of
> interest.

I think that, before deciding it was an actual bug (I'm still not
convinced; bugs exist only in /software/, IIANM) some discussion was
warranted, don't you?  How can we know a problem really exists without
discussion?
> 
> I don't want to be rude, but all this talk on the mailing lists isn't
> productive. If you don't do what you are supposed to do to fix a
> problem, then you have no reason to complain.

You aren't being rude, you have your own position.  OTOH, the
discussion must have been productive as it has led directly to a
solution.  Then there's the fact that one /always/ has a reason to
complain!
> 
> For the record, Cybe, your arguments are purely semantical,

And that semantics is the basis upon which lawyers make fantastic
amounts of money.  It /can't/ be dismissed easily.

> and in
> that context I think that you are right. However semantics isn't
> everything, and when people drag out their dictionary like you do, it
> usually means that they ran out of other good arguments. 

Defining the terms with which we communicate is never a bad idea.
Without those definitions we can never hope to arrive at clear
understandings of what others mean.  Without that clear understanding
everyone is a stranger to everyone else and, therefore, suspiciously
dangerous.  That's not good in an international list.

>If you
> continue this on the lists without a constructive contribution to the
> bug report, I will see that as a sign of bad faith.

I hope such is not the case.  I am only continuing it in /good/ faith
that it will work out for the best in the end (as it seems to be doing,
my membership on launchpad notwithstanding).
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Amedee Van Gasse
> (not feeling comfortable discussing non-technical stuff in a foreign
> language)

Just because it doesn't concern the coding or working of the code in
Ubuntu doesn't mean that it isn't technical.  
(and here I must drag out the dictionary to illustrate my point)

From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:
4: of or relating to or requiring special knowledge to be
         understood; "technical terminology"; "a technical report";
         "technical language" [syn: {technical}, {expert}]

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
When Windows are opened the bugs come in.
	Winduhs