I think that is the most fair assessment of the situation that I have read today. On Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 1:48 PM Connor Behan via aur-general < aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 1:06 PM Daniel Capella <polycitizen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 5:02 PM Adam Levy <theadamlevy+archlinux@gmail.com> wrote:
Being curt and direct is against the code of conduct?
It seems to me that these three rules in particular are relevant in
On 2018-10-30 01:23 PM, Adam Levy via aur-general wrote: this
case and were not respected: "Respect other users", "Do not flame" and "Be responsible".
-- Best, polyzen
The only rule there that strikes me as potentially having been violated is "respect other users". But I think that cuts both ways in this case to be perfectly honest. It could be argued that Konstantin did not respect the existing TUs initial responses to his questions. But that's debatable.
The main point that I am interested in making is that this initial claim of bullying and violent communication was overblown and inaccurate.
Hot-button words like "bullying" and "violence" are being used as a rhetorical crutch.
However, I think the initial accusation of "whining" and telling "bald-faced lies" was also inappropriate. An average AUR packager might not realize that TUs routinely take over packages made by others and move them to [community]. Claiming that a package "is broken" instead of "causes orphan dependencies" also sounds like an honest mistake. And I can't blame a user for not knowing enough about the bug wrangler's workflow to tell which mailing list actions will make a difference.
In theory, this can be resolved with an RTFM. But when this realization means that one will have to completely change his approach to developing and packaging software for a larger community, some frustration is understandable.