A response to the cacophony

There’s a layer of truth to some of what Murray has said, but his shockingly exaggerated, hateful message is not intended to resolve or heal. Murray does not accept or credit my commitment or contributions to the project, and he has sought to denigrate, disenfranchise and discredit me consistently over the years… though this is obviously the loudest and most hurtful attempt.

I am totally comfortable admitting my flaws and mistakes. I have made plenty. There are some issues raised in Murray’s post that have been noted before and that I’ve accepted. I will seek to resolve these soon, because they are important to me and the project I love. Of course, resolving these issues did not require such hatefulness, but that is a property of the dysfunctional relationship on display.

Despite that relationship, I have great respect and appreciation for Murray’s contributions to GNOME, and have tried to reach out an olive branch to him on numerous occasions. It has never been received kindly. I thought that after the issues we faced earlier this year, we could settle into a quiet detente, and not bother each other. But the armistice was broken, and it was not to be.

It is clear that neither of us are in a position to productively work together.

I am unlikely to make any further comment on Murray’s attacks. I just don’t think there’s a positive resolution to aim for here.

Thanks to those who have voiced support, it means a lot to me.

Retractions?

Some folks have suggested that Murray should retract his comments. He shouldn’t. That is what he feels, that is how he chose to express it, and he is old enough to be accountable and responsible for his freedom of expression. It’s his blog. They’re his words. I created Planet GNOME as a public arena, for the community to share, and this is an entirely valid expression for it. Voltaire would be rolling in his grave!

Mental Health

Meanwhile, I don’t want to bring on the violins or anything, but I’ve written earlier in the year about my depression. Although it’s impossible to pin down any one thing that leads to an episode, contributing factors can be identified.

Sadly, in this case, Murray’s attacks on me around that time were a contributing factor to my mental stress and state of mind, and had an impact on my work in GNOME, not to mention my relationships, business, etc.

I raise this because there is a very important point to be made: Despite ongoing stigma in some communities, depression is not at all like “psychosis”. This is a very nasty association. As a school counsellor once told me, “it’s not bad, it’s just sad”. Cutesy, but you get the idea.

So if you’re reading this, and you are feeling ongoing sadness, despair, a lack motivation or satisfaction in your everyday life, ignore any stigma and please see someone about it.

I’ve been going through a very rough patch over the last few weeks — thanks again to Pia, who weathers through my storms and sleet — and I need to do the same thing, probably more so after this.

It’s the only way to help yourself, and the saddest things happen when people don’t get help.

Finally

Read the post, make up your own mind, and vote accordingly. :-)

(Oh, and happy Movember!)

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to A response to the cacophony

  1. nixternal says:

    You know what, this is exactly the type of responses I wish everyone could do, it just shows how extremely important you and your attitude are in this world. When I first read the original post that started all of this, I thought “oh wow, I can hear the FUD engines running as the FUD-train pulls out of the station.” What you did is very admirable Jeff, and even though I am a KDE person, I am glad you responded the way you did not only for yourself, but also for Gnome.

    I wish you the best as you go through your endeavors of sadness. I have enough friends and family that deal with depression on a daily basis that I know what you are going through, and I know just how tough it can be. I never understood how Pia could take you in the first place :p , but with her helping you through the storms, is a great testament to her awesomeness as well. Good luck, and if you ever need a good laugh, find me on IRC and I am sure I can poke fun somewhere :)

  2. depression is not at all like “psychosis”

    Do you sincerely believe that the use of the term “psychosis” in that post was a veiled reference to your depression?

    – Chris

  3. jdub says:

    @Chris: Sadly, it is the kind of thing that Murray has used against me in the past, and he has sought to do as much damage as possible to my composure and reputation today. It’s both a terrible thing for him to have said, and a terrible thing for me to think. That’s how desperately sad and divided this is.

  4. fraggle says:

    Hi. I don’t really contribute to Gnome much other than playing with the Gnome libraries occasionally and filing a bug once in a while. I do read planet.gnome, though. I thought it might help to offer an unbiased opinion.

    It sounds like you think this is a thing that is just between the two of you. However, several people on planet.gnome seem to have replied supporting Murray’s point of view, so this isn’t something isolated. Perhaps you should take a serious look at the way you’re behaving, just in case there is something that is driving people away. It might be something subtle; something that upsets only a small portion of or certain types of people.

    Anyway, that’s just my opinion. As a long-term Gnome user, I’d like to thank you for all the work you’ve put in. Your name is well known to me and I know that you certainly don’t become that well-known by doing nothing.

  5. A. Walton says:

    @depression.

    I’ve suffered depression, so I really feel for you, especially that it’s being used against you in such a way, and I’m sorry someone, anyone decided to take it that far. I hope it doesn’t affect you in the upcoming elections, and that you’ll not read too much into his attacks.

    Stay well so you can be elected and don’t let it bother you. And good luck!

  6. jdub says:

    @fraggle: The supporting comments were largely from people who did not have a fast turnaround time to get on Planet GNOME. I don’t hold it against them that they agreed, because I don’t believe they actually agree with all of Murray’s invective. They have no reason to, but it was convenient because they were annoyed about other issues. That’s okay.

    A couple of people who agreed with Murray genuinely don’t like me, and I’m okay with that too. Being liked by everyone is not my measure of self worth. :-)

  7. Alex M. says:

    I also have suffered from depression in the past and It can feel overwhelming and unbearable at times – but stick it out, things allways seem to get better even when you don’t expect it. I hope you get elected and can continue to do excellent work for Gnome, I think comments like Murrays are detramental to Gnome and free-software in general and hope he makes some form of apology soon.

  8. Chris Thomas says:

    Jeff,

    I really feel sorry if you’ve suffering, but where there is smoke, there is fire, what I guess we should do, is instead of saying “oh well, thats YOUR opinion, this is mine” what you should do is start to analyse whether what was said, is right or wrong.

    What murray commented on is that when an issue is brought up, you’re overly vague, evasive, put it down to “personal differences”, etc, etc. Isn’t that EXACTLY what you’ve just done here?

    I don’t see any point by point rebuttal, I don’t see any analysis, I don’t see any fighting, it’s almost like you agree with him, but can’t bring yourself to say it.

    You’re periods of absence? You’re 6 months to bring a PR release for GMAE? What about not replying to emails, what about being non-responsive. Can ANY of this be wrong? Do you have ANYTHING that says murray is wrong? Surely if you have done work on gnome, if you’ve communicated, talked, discussed, this is open source, there is an audit trail.

    Lets see where the cookies go.

    But instead of putting the truth on the table, you react in EXACTLY the way murray explains you will do, replying with the way that you have here, you’ve not explained anything, you’ve not actually reponded to anything he says and I know you’re going to reply to me in a very predictable way, that this has all been discussed before and it’ll come to nothing.

    WHERE, show me, I wanna click the links and read it, I wanna see four or five mailing list posts where I can see that YOU’RE RIGHT AND MURRAY IS WRONG.

    Saying you’ve got depression is all very well, but you know, that when you are a firefighter and you have heart problems, you can’t fight fires anymore. So, lets break this down some more.

    You’re saying that the reason for some of your actions is that you’ve got depression, ok, we’re all very sorry, seriously, I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way, but what you have to consider is that maybe your depression is causing harm to the projects you’re interested in, or involved in. There comes a point where someone calls you out, someone puts your health on the table and says, “we’re all very sorry, but your suffering, is becoming OUR suffering” and whilst we should all support those around us, to force that upon us is to do us harm as well as others.

    Should that be “ok” ?

    Your post is very apologetic, very vague and almost sounds like agreement with murray, to me, that says to me that maybe you should consider NOT running anymore, because you realise your problems are being forced onto everyone else and everyone is suffering because you refuse to face reality, that you cannot do the things you want to do, you are simply restricted by your circumstances,

    welcome to the world, please take a seat.

    chris thomas

  9. pvanhoof says:

    Jeff,

    I fully agree with your post …

    … except for the insinuation that Murray made an association from “psychosis” to your depression. I of course miss context that the both of you do have, but in my opinion didn’t Murray’s post made this association.

    ps. Given what you replied to Chris, perhaps it’s indeed the case that his intent was to make the association. He didn’t make that obvious for outsiders, though.

    Thanks for responding with the right attitude. I still hope that somehow you guys find a way to productively work together. Maybe productively work together by competing? Do define some rules for the game, though. Like that Code of Conduct that Murray wrote … :-\ (Why didn’t he try to follow his own advises?)

  10. John Stowers says:

    It is unethical to mention movember without including a photograph showing said mo’ growth :-)

  11. There is no substantial information in murrays post at all. It only reads like a personal attack. If someone has a valid concern, the first thing they should do is push an example.

    Now, I’ve only ever known Jeff Waugh to be enthusiastic, supportive and fully committed. To not support members like Jeff, putting their time and effort into supporting the project, does not help GNOME at all.

  12. Wayne Schuller says:

    Jeff,

    I am a long term Gnome user (since 99) and observer, used to be involved with bugs squad and other parts of the development of gnome.

    I remember when you came on the scene and I was a bit cynical about your involvement. I dunno why, maybe I was cynical about non-hackers taking a lead in Gnome.

    But over many years I have been very surprised and impressed at your long term support and advocacy and leadership of the project.

    In so many ways you have modeled a high level of energy and positivity for the Gnome project.

    As I read Murray’s post I was very disappointed that he was unable to deal with you directly or more constructively with his issues.

    I had already voted for you before reading this dispute.

    Keep up the good work.

    Wayne Schuller
    Melbourne, Australia.

  13. bi says:

    “A couple of people who agreed with Murray genuinely don’t like me, and I’m okay with that too. Being liked by everyone is not my measure of self worth.”

    So if X says something bad about me, it’s obviously because they have a visceral dislike of me, but if I say something bad about X, it’s obviously because X is objectively bad?

    I’m an outsider to this whole hoo-ha, but this caught my attention.

  14. jeremy says:

    Hi Jeff,

    I just wanted to share my sympathy with you. It’s very difficult to deal with depression and from my own experience it’s especially hard for other people to understand. I was recently diagnosed as bipolar after years of ups and downs. I’m not a developer, but my illness has prevented me from doing things I’ve said I’ll do as fast as I said I would.

    For what it’s worth, I’ve been a free software user for over a decade and have seen your name numerous times in the various blogs and news sites. You’ve done a lot of good work, and I’m grateful for it.

    Jeremy

  15. chris thomas says:

    Jeff,

    I see you are censoring dissent on your blog, I guess you don’t like people saying things you don’t like and using your forum to say them, unfortunately you don’t own all the blogs in the world,

    I will be dragging this out on my blog instead and I’ll attempt to make sure that everyone I can knows that YOU CENSORED a pretty much normal, non-insulting post for no reason other than what? because you don’t like people saying bad things? or people you don’t want people nailing you to the wall?

    My post was waiting for moderation last night and has now gone missing.

    dear o dear, how far we have fallen.

    chris thomas

  16. chris thomas says:

    @Andy Fitzsimon:

    if you read Murray’s blog post again, he DOES mention examples, several of them, one of them was that it took Jeff 6 months to post a PR release about GMAE and when it arrived, it was full of buzz words, non-specific text and made everyone look around because not even the people on the project knew entirely what Jeff was saying, THAT is a solid example, you can go read it up and find out, this is all on the web, no?

    If that isnt true, then lets prove otherwise, lets stop using vague language that Jeff is accused of using and start nailing the issue down, that is why this situation has gotten as bad as it is, because nobody has stopped to think that maybe we should start to use facts and less wavy, airy-fairy language.

    chris thomas

  17. Kevin Mark says:

    Gnome needs Perkypants! Murry is anti-kitten! And we need a pro-kitten candidate!

  18. Paul Whelan says:

    Geoff, an agreeable response to a most disagreeable ‘attack’.

    To refer to someone who is suffering from depression as psychotic (if that is what he was doing) is pretty low in my opinion. You might not get along with someone, you might not even like someone, hell, we’re not all going to be best mates in this life, but I don’t feel there’s any need for that sort of comment.

    As for the rest of, well I’m not qualified to comment so I won’t.

    I too suffered from depression for about 6 months during the end of last year/beginning of this and the worst part is probably not actually knowing what is going on. In my case it was the moment when I felt a pain in my left arm followed by a stabbing one in my chest that gave me a reason to visit my doctor. It was probably the most frightening experience of my life. From then on it was a case of ‘R and R’ and steadily getting back on the rails as my circumstances allowed.

    I can’t help but wonder if some of this comes from what I perceive as the very stressful lives you guys live (particularly after reading this: http://www.jonobacon.org/?p=1067). How go you lot get so much done in such a short time?

    I observe all of this as someone technically competent (more or less 25 years in IT) but in the case of Linux/Gnome/whatever nothing more than an interested user.

    The rate of change of open source software has been down to the incredible amount of time and effort invested by relatively few people.

    Surely that commitment must take it’s toll in some way?

    A last observation (please excuse the rambling), after working for so long in ‘corporate’ environments I have lost count of the amount of times I have found myself physically wincing at the content of blog posts/emails/general correspondence. I have never been particularly subtle myself but you guys make me look like a monk!!

    I guess that is what you get when so many talented/strong-willed people come together. They fight for what they believe in, sometimes with little thought for how they fight.

  19. Thanks for responding in a sane way.

    I’m more of an observer than a contributor so maybe I should not comment too much. Both of you (Jeff and Murray) have good and bad sides. I have seen some rather bad excuses presented as reasons for delaying or not doing work (but then again, I have also done that more than once). I have seen some problems blown out of proportion and personal attacks on more than one public forum (mailing lists and p.g.o). But I have also seen excellent work coming from both of you.

    I just wish that you could get along and maybe admit your own mistakes a bit faster, before being cornered (Jeff accused of lying and being poisonous, Murray asked to retract his comments and issue a public apology).

    During the elections, it is good that some people bring up problems about some candidates or state their opinion about why some candidates should or should not be elected. Murray brings up some interesting issues (I do not want to comment on the validity of these claims), but the way these points were expressed is far from what I would have expected. This is sad and I hope that the various blogs will stop propagating this flamewar. So thanks again for this sane reply.

  20. Peteris Krisjanis says:

    First, thanks for replying to Murray politely and without flame (even if he went overboard), therefore effectively ending name calling, at least in public level. Please at least iron out your personal misunderstandings, because you are both very valuable community members. You maybe will not work together, but you will at least regain each other’s respect. I know, such things don’t happen overnight, but at least try.

    About depression – I have had and still have similar problems. And I know how it impacts any commitments you have taken. So maybe there is few issues you should try to deal with, like overlook your communication style, take some responsibilities off your shoulder (I think you have similar weakness as me – trying to get in many places as you can). Be more open about your weaknesses and don’t try to respond to any criticism (I know it hurts in such emotional state, but try to keep your cool), founded or unfounded, with counter-attacks. Find a way to get along with that and deal with that.

    Cheers, man :)

    Long time gnome user/supporter/translator,
    Peter.

  21. Sam Hiser says:

    Hey, everybody!

    Look at what great software we have.

    And it’s Free.

  22. Ronald Daniels says:

    I don’t know anything about the situation or who’s wrong or right in this other than I had great respect for both of you until this incident.

    But I have to look at this objectively. Objectively, you’re more polite in your response than he was in his attack. But you have to be, since you have more authority than he does and as anyone in authority knows, they must live to higher standards or they’ll face the consequences. It’s one of the reasons why few people actually want to be leaders (they want the perks but not the restrictions).

    Personally, I feel that publicly equating psychosis with depression is just a sympathy play on your part. It might be a personal barb as you believe, *but* he didn’t make the connection directly, so he’s not trying to use that against you in the GNOME community. He mentioned a behaviour, which can be objectively refuted if it is false, and if you needed something more concrete, it’s your right to demand something other than vague accusations. I’m disappointed in you for taking the low road in using your problems against him. It’s good jujitsu, but bad leadership.

    Reflecting leadership, having a problem is irrelevant anyway. It didn’t stop Stephen Hawking from being an outstanding physicist, and it would be wrong and insulting to anyone in his position to claim that he should be judged by a lower standard on physics just because of his limitations.

    That being said, without additional help, he wouldn’t be able to be a physicist. This shouldn’t be held against him unless it interferes with his being a physicist. When it does, it’s his responsibility to make sure that he has the backup support to do what he needs to do. And if he doesn’t and let’s people down then it’s his own fault. He stated that you weren’t able to handle your responsibilities and were more a politician than a someone who did the work necessary to be president. This is either true or false. You’ve evaded answering this question, just as he evaded getting more specific.

    I know this email is cold, but there’s been too much evasiveness and emotions on both sides. In the end, all we have is polarization. Either people sympathize with you because you’re more diplomatic or they sympathize with him (because they know the old story where the wolf said “I don’t know why the sheep hate me. I love them” and that the people with less authority are affected by the people who are more, so they are obviously more angry).

    In the end, nothing is resolved.

    But can you both take the high road please?

    Stop playing to the audience and ask him, directly, what *specifically* he finds psychotic about your behaviour and where *specifically* you failed to live up to your role as leader. If he can only come up with more emotions and and vageries, then it will be in your right to ask for more specifics. If he can’t, then you’ve taken the high road and this whole thing can simply be viewed as a personality conflict, not unlike the ones that have happened in the Linux kernel. People are still able to work, they just need some willing intermediaries between the conflicting parties.

    If you don’t ask him for specifics or you don’t answer his specific concerns, then your leadership is still in question and you might very well be more a likable politician than actual GNOME advisory council leader and maybe you *should* be voted out.

  23. jdub says:

    @Ronald: The very thin layer of truth in some of the things Murray has so viciously exaggerated about will allow him to abuse people’s opinions about this forever. I’m no saint. But no one, in any community, deserves what has been done.

  24. Ronald Daniels says:

    And what specifically was done? Please reread his post with objectively (I know it’s hard to read hurtful things about ourselves, but it’s a part of maturity).

    He stated that you shouldn’t be on the board or any sort of leader because:
    1) You deal with people in paranoid psycho way and that’s destructive to the community.
    2) You hate him and the feeling is mutual.
    3) People depend on you and there’s no way around you so he’s frustrated.
    4) The GNOME board decided (including you and him) decided to ignore the problem rather than deal with it because of the bad publicity.
    4) Some specific examples (e.g. the list of modules in GNOME+requirements, etc) with some vague comment on how you obstructed it..
    5) You’re unreliable and make excuses about it.
    6) Your behavior was bizarrely evasive, irresponsible, and obstructive
    7) Ultimately, you’re nothing more than a politician (i.e. “Anyone who spends all their time on self-publicity is likely to be elected.”)

    Yes, I’ve cleaned up his emotional language, but that’s all that’s said and those a valid point (which *can* be refuted if they are false).

    Point (1) is subjective and carries no weight except for individuals that you deal with. Personally, I’ve found you to be a bit quirky at time, but in a nice sort of way, so that likely carries no weight with anyone other than Murray. His forecasting of what you’d do if you lost the election is irrelevant to the problem at hand. He doesn’t own the future, and if time will prove him right, he’ll be vindicated. If not, you’ll be. But that’s the future.

    Point (2) and (3) is something than *can* be fixed. As I’ve stated, it’s been done in the Linux kernel and other projects where two or more conflicting personalities are in play. But it demands leadership and the willingness to utilize neutral 3rd parties to act as buffers, to to delegate some responsibilities away from yourself where he depends on you. Personally, I see this as a failure of leadership.

    As for (4), everyone’s to blame for that one. Please don’t try to sweep it under the rug again or let him get off easy too. I needs to be dealt with.

    The points in (5) is easy to answer to. Either they are true or not. If they are true and you had good reasons (or had poor judgement), it’s easy to state. If not, then it’s easy to point out where you’ve been exactly the opposite or you’ve been hands off (except possibly a few minor concerns that ultimately wouldn’t have affected the deliverables).

    Points (6), (7), and (8) are vague and demand clarification because they are serious charges if they are true. What he’s stating, in effect, is that you’re in the position for your prestige and not because you want to actually contribute to GNOME. If what he’s saying is true, then you’re a good GNOME ambassidor, but not any sort of leader.

    Please move beyond Point (2) and deal with (4). Yes, you’re not perfect, but neither is he. Deal with it.

    What I see here is a fight or flight response. (Murray feels he has no choice but to start a fight and you’re trying your best to evade one through emotional jujitsu as I’ve observed). Depending on whether you’re from Germany (where the “Just get to the point and take me as I am as a person with none of this evasiveness” attitude dominate) or from the orient (where the “surround every disagreement with enough ceremony and indirectness to make the emotions of the problem go away and wisdom prevail” attitude dominate) either he’s right for being blunt (though rude) or you’re right for being diplomatic (though evasive).

    There *is* a 3rd option … **stop playing games with each** other and work things out. It’s your right to demand that he do the same. You don’t have to *like* each other, but it is possible to respect your enemies in much the same way that adversarial lawyers or generals may fight on opposite sides and hate each other’s guts and positions but still respect each other’s skill and unique dedication to their cause.

    If you can work things out, then the GNOME community will be the better for it and you’ll both save yourselves a lot of grief. If you need help from third parties like Luis Villa (which seems to be in high esteem by both of you), then get it. It will be worth the time you spend. If you need to do it in private with him so you can be completely honest, then do it. But since it’s already in the public, a joint statement like “It’s right that we’ve been sweeping this under the carpet. We were all wrong in doing this, but we’re now going to deal with this in private once and for all, and let you know the results” is the best thing for the GNOME community. But whatever you do, don’t just sweep it under the rug yet again and let it fester there (until the next time).

    Otherwise, *neither* of you deserve to be on the board and should devote your talents where you’re best suited. I’m sorry, but true leaders can’t be children.

  25. jdub says:

    Thanks to everyone who has commented.

    I’ve made my response, and made my peace with some of the truths and issues raised by Murray, in spite of his irrational hatred.

    He has made it clear that there is no opportunity for resolution here, and instead of providing constructive criticism or information for voters, Murray has unleashed a severe, offensive, personal character assassination that is unbecoming of our community (and sadly, will have quite a negative impact on it). His freedom, his choice.

    There is nothing left for me to respond to. I’ll continue my long-standing commitment and contributions to the GNOME community, and improve where I need to.

    I’m comforted by the fact that those weighing in from a distance are irrelevant, and comforted by the amount of support I’ve received from others close to the community (and in some cases, their very welcome, positive, constructive criticism). :-)

  26. Robert Devi says:

    Dear Jeff. Ronald is a bit blunt, but he does have a point. In a volunteer organization like GNOME, relationships are the only thing that hold things together. When there’s disrespectful conflict at the top, even when it’s behind closed doors, it inevitably filters down to the bottom and ultimately hurts the whole organization. Please work this out with Murray. I’m sure your conflict isn’t unique. I’m sure this isn’t the first or the last time conflict will arise when one person depends on another and has no alternative. The Linux kernel guys have one clearly defined approach, as does Ubuntu and Debian. These approaches work well for them, even though they are different. Perhaps GNOME needs to create one for itself, taking all the concerns into account.

    Could you propose that a neutral 3rd party write a GEP (I’m assuming http://developer.gnome.org/gep/gep-0.html is still being used) for precisely this situation? This cacophony might be the start of a good thing and good PR since, if successful, it can show that GNOME can work through it’s problems and become better for it.

    BTW, you might want to read “Susan Scott — Fierce Conversations”. It’s a good guide in how to approach these sorts of issues.

    Best of luck!

  27. Troy Roberts says:

    @Chris Thomas

    You sir are an ass. You comments are clearly here. If you want to be part of the prosecution, then you show the proof of then accusations made by Murry.

    I read Murry’s post and it is almost completely personal attacks. Murry is doing the accusing, he should have to prove his position.

    Jeff has responded in a mature manner to what appear (without proof) to be false accusations. Jeff’s post show a level of maturity that does not exist in Murry’s post and one wonders how such a person as Murry ever successfully wrote rules of conduct for anything.

    Troy

  28. Chris Thomas says:

    @Troy+@Jeff

    You’ll see the comments now, but they took two days to appear whereas the comments from other people, have taken mere minutes, the problem that I pointed out, was that Jeff seemed to think that brushing the issue under the carpet and not allowing people to say negative things was the way to deal with things, it was only until I pushed the issue and made it public on my blog, which has been read a great deal of times since I posted it, now all of a sudden, the comments appear.

    Maybe jeff had a change of heart on the issue of censorship.

    The facts still remain, he is up for election to the board, correct? He’s been accused of some pretty hard hitting facts, do you see ANY reply to ANY of the comments put before him? Forget HOW I said what I said, if it makes you feel any better, read Ronalds comments, do you see any reply to what HE said???

    Ronald above, gave a much cleaner posting than I did, but along the same lines, has Jeff replied to ANYTHING, even slightly???

    Apart from saying that murray is “slightly” right, the only thing Jeff has said is that he is unhappy that a grave personal attack was made on him by another community member and he thinks, for some strange reason, this is weird, and unusual.

    Someone plug Jeff’s computer back in, it’ll help him read up more on what our “community” has been doing for the last 15+ years that I’ve sat quietly at the back. Personal attacks are not new, they are not “unusual” or weird, they are every-bloody-day, Only an ubuntu follower could think that having a personal attack weighed against him was a new thing for “our community”.

    Why is it that ubuntu followers think that things that happen to them are new?

    Back to the point, Jeff has been called a catastrophic failure and instead of reacting and defending his position, he’s just sat back and said nothing, he hasn’t HELPED his situation, he’s CONDEMNED himself, he’s ALLOWING comments to fall into the public knowledge and become true, by not refuting them when he had the chance.

    You know how trademarks work right? If you had a trademark, you are forced to defend it, merely because if you do not, you lose the exclusive right to that mark, thats why when you tread even slightly on the toe’s of other people with highly valuable trademarks, they come down on your like a ton of bricks, because if they do not, they risk losing it, merely by not defending it.

    Personalities and Community worth are similar to this, if you don’t defend yourself, you’re dead meat, you will be stripped alive and left with nothing, guess what Jeff is right now?

    So, Jeff, are you going to grab this by the balls and do something, reply? Refute? Say SOMETHING that says “Murray got it wrong” ?

    talk about dead man walking.

    And to all those who think I am being cruel, well, here we are people, welcome to the world, it aint some happy place with chocolate houses and people who sing songs, it’s about proving your worth, working hard and sweating like a bastard because someone wants your hide.

    If you don’t like that, then leave, nobody forces you to be here, so here it is, Jeff.

    PUT UP OR SHUT UP, but don’t reply with one of those generic, oh-so-predictable “its a personal attack and I don’t feel like responding right now” get off your ass and do something.

    chris thomas

  29. jdub says:

    Thanks for your contribution to an issue and community you bear absolutely no relevance to whatsoever. I’m glad you’re so worked up about contributing in such a positive fashion — you’ll get far! :-)

  30. Chris Thomas says:

    The problem is jeff, that we are trying to get answers here, where are they? all you are retorting with, is more proof of what murray said

    you’re now being evasive, what you are doing, is victimising yourself, in the hope that people will rally around the wounded animal and protect it from the big bad wolf, when the wolf is only interested in a response, an answer.

    where are the answers jeff? seriously, you wanna live in the big world, lets start acting like a man and not like a frightened animal.

    So instead of replying with a REASONABLY WORTHWHILE comment, you reply attacking my interaction with the community, saying that I am not relevant, but the problem is NOT MY RELEVANCE, BUT YOURS.

    Nobody cares about how relevant I am, but people do care about how relevant YOU ARE, because people listen to you, they listen to me too, but in different circles and we don’t cross paths. But my critisism has still gone unanswered.

    Thats a really bad sign

  31. jdub says:

    You’re not bringing anything positive to this issue, and you are not relevant to it in the first place. Your criticism, irrelevant as you are and expressed this nastily, is unlikely to get the response you’re looking for. Please get worked up about something you might actually make a difference about. I do not feel any responsibility to you or your arguments whatsoever. I hope you understand why that is the case.

    You suggest that due to my connections with Ubuntu that I’m soft or have different expectations of community behaviour. I was the #3 employee at Canonical, and have been deeply committed to FLOSS and GNOME for a very long time. Criticism is not new to me, and I’m comfortable dealing with it in my own way. If you don’t like the way I’m dealing with it, then that’s fine. Tell your friend. Yell into a pillow. Your opinion is not relevant to me. Sorry.

    Choosing not to allow abuse on my website is entirely up to me, and not an issue of censorship. The comments policy on my blog is very clear. I let your comments through (from the spam pile, which I rarely check) despite your nasty attitude, because they demonstrate the kind of obligation some people feel I should have to them.

    I often tell a story about a guy who disses someone’s car, and then asks to borrow the keys: You’re doing exactly the same thing. I have no obligation to you, in any sense whatsoever, and your negative contributions do not encourage it.

    You’re welcome to keep flaming me here. Go right ahead. There is nothing about this post that I will look back upon fondly anyway.

  32. Chris Thomas says:

    dear lord, jeff, man, get a grip with yourself, I am not here to bring something positive to the issue. I am not here to flame either. Lets look at this a little more intelligently.

    1) You are accused of being evasive.

    You are in fact, evading the issue of replying to the critisism

    2) You are accused of, when pushed into a corner, replying with personal attacks instead of replying to the issue at hand

    You are in fact, doing EXACTLY this

    3) You are being accused of not being responsive to issues when placed in front of you

    You are again, doing EXACTLY this.

    How much of what murray said is wrong, from what I am seeing, murray has hit the issue straight on the head, you are a catastrophe.

    On the issue of censorship, or abuse is pretty clear, you are being abused (in your language) because you are refusing to face responsibility for things you have done, this didnt arrive at your door because you got out of the wrong side of the bed, it arrives because you are neglecting your responsibilities and hurting the gnome development process. You’re reaction to that critisism is to refuse to publish it until pushed, answer this, why did it take you two days to moderate my comments, when others took mere minutes to appear? They were on the spam pile? Give me a break, this is a “the dog ate my homework excuse” they were no more on the spam pile than any other comment, this is a blatent lie to make you look like you DIDNT try to supress what I was saying.

    As for your connection with canonical, you’re a little young in the tooth to be throwing “I’m more commited than you” comments at me, I was on the web, throwing shit at people who deserve it a good ~10 years before canonical even existed.

    Oh, something else which is a bit strange, you see, in language terms, there is a definition called “Framing”, you can look it up on wikipedia, what it means, is you define the terms of a discussion in a way which is beneficial to yourself, in basic terms anyway. People think that a discussion must always be positive, that you must only bring “positive” things to the table for discussion, the reason people like to say that, is because negative things, like critisism, tend to harm those people’s public personalities and they don’t want that, so they like to say “you are just being negative” etc etc.

    You know what jeff, in the real world, being negative is a good thing as much as being positive is. Being negative means YOU ARE ON THE END of the critisism and answering back to someone by suggesting they are being negative is in fact a defensive mechanism designed to coerce people into thinking that the person being positive, is the person worth listening to and the person being negative, isn’t worth listening to. Politicians like to use these terms (funnily enough, you are being described as one of those too). Because it victimises the attacker and makes the issue look like you are being attacked without worth.

    But the point here is jeff, that you are being attacked because you dammed well deserve it, you are not the victim here, WE ARE, you are the attacker and WE ARE the defenders, you are degrading the development of everything you touch and we are forced to defend it by pushing you out.

    I often tell a story where the attacker starts a fight and cries in pain, because of a wound inflicted upon him by the defender, he cries and screams for help from those around him, those around him, too oblivious to the situation, naturally rallies around the attacker, not knowing who attacked who, or understanding it anyway. The defender now becomes the attacker, in the eyes of those who would rally.

    So, In the eyes of the attacker, who is the attacker, in the eyes of the defender, who is the attacker and in the eyes of those who rally around to help the attacker, who is the attacker.

    Depending on who you are, depends on what your answer to those three questions will be.

    So, stop with the self-flaggation and self-victimisation, it’s pathetic.

    chris

  33. jdub says:

    Strong and committed talk from someone who is not at all relevant or involved in the issue at hand. You’re clearly a stakeholder here. Keep it coming, man!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Comments will be sent to the moderation queue.