My response to wolfen69's open letter thread...

[MisterGaribaldi]

Link: Jail: An open letter to the Ubuntu Community

My apologies if this isn't quite the correct process for a dispute, but I have never done this before.

It is my understanding that a couple other UF members complained about this post, stating that it was insulting, and that it therefore was jailed, and I received an infraction, on those grounds. That's fine, I have no objection to someone exercising their free will, and it was never my intention to be insulting.

If I caused offense, then absolutely I apologize for that. But I do not and will not apologize for expressing my own views, and I take considerable exception to the notion that I can't safely take issue with someone else's point of view or an element of their reasoning, and do so without fear that I will be reprimanded for it.

wolfen69 had said, in part, and I quote, "I'm really disappointed by the ubuntu's community's reaction to unity. Believe me, I could have handled that by itself, but everything I am going through, + dissent from the masses is too much for my brain."

The first part of this statement, that he was disappointed by the community's reaction to Unity, is strictly written as a personal opinion, and I have no objection to it. However, the second part, in which he states that "dissent from the masses" was just too much for him to accept, is what gives me a great deal of concern. First off, since when have we the members of UF become "the masses"? And are we thus now beholden to Canonical or Mark Shuttleworth? Are they our rulers? And since when have we, the Linux community, ever had or ever recognized any ruler?

As I pointed out in my post, the Linux community has always been about choice and the freedom to make such choices, and this (amongst other things) is reflected in such things as different desktop environments and different licensing schemes (Apache, BSD, GPL, etc.) We do not march -- or, at least, the last time I checked we didn't -- to ANYBODY's banner. We don't even march or salute to the banners of the two people who, arguably, are the most significant movers and shakers of the entire community, RMS and Linus Torvalds. And if we don't recognize them as our rightful rulers, then where in God's name does someone like Mark Shuttleworth stand?

wolfen69 has the absolute right to feel however he sees fit to feel, but when he posts it in a PUBLIC message forum, surely we the people have some right to comment on it, or express concerns over it. Don't we? If not, then on some level are we not basically saying this whole thing is a sham?

Ok, I've said my piece. I await the consideration and response of UF admins.

Thank you for your time.

[CharlesA]

Moved to RC.

For the admins:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1986789

[bodhi.zazen]

Link: Jail: An open letter to the Ubuntu Community

My apologies if this isn't quite the correct process for a dispute, but I have never done this before.

It is my understanding that a couple other UF members complained about this post, stating that it was insulting, and that it therefore was jailed, and I received an infraction, on those grounds. That's fine, I have no objection to someone exercising their free will, and it was never my intention to be insulting.

If I caused offense, then absolutely I apologize for that. But I do not and will not apologize for expressing my own views, and I take considerable exception to the notion that I can't safely take issue with someone else's point of view or an element of their reasoning, and do so without fear that I will be reprimanded for it.

wolfen69 had said, in part, and I quote, "I'm really disappointed by the ubuntu's community's reaction to unity. Believe me, I could have handled that by itself, but everything I am going through, + dissent from the masses is too much for my brain."

The first part of this statement, that he was disappointed by the community's reaction to Unity, is strictly written as a personal opinion, and I have no objection to it. However, the second part, in which he states that "dissent from the masses" was just too much for him to accept, is what gives me a great deal of concern. First off, since when have we the members of UF become "the masses"? And are we thus now beholden to Canonical or Mark Shuttleworth? Are they our rulers? And since when have we, the Linux community, ever had or ever recognized any ruler?

As I pointed out in my post, the Linux community has always been about choice and the freedom to make such choices, and this (amongst other things) is reflected in such things as different desktop environments and different licensing schemes (Apache, BSD, GPL, etc.) We do not march -- or, at least, the last time I checked we didn't -- to ANYBODY's banner. We don't even march or salute to the banners of the two people who, arguably, are the most significant movers and shakers of the entire community, RMS and Linus Torvalds. And if we don't recognize them as our rightful rulers, then where in God's name does someone like Mark Shuttleworth stand?

wolfen69 has the absolute right to feel however he sees fit to feel, but when he posts it in a PUBLIC message forum, surely we the people have some right to comment on it, or express concerns over it. Don't we? If not, then on some level are we not basically saying this whole thing is a sham?

Ok, I've said my piece. I await the consideration and response of UF admins.

Thank you for your time.

First thank you for your thoughtful post, I appreciate the effort.

After reviewing the post, at least 2 admins thought it was not worthy of an infraction.

However, some people in the community found it offensive.

My guess is that the statement

Your tone almost sounds fanatical, not unlike Apple fanboys who believe to object to anything Apple or Steve Jobs promotes and puts out is de facto heresy. That is not healthy.

was what set people off.

I tend to agree with you in that fanaticism is counter productive.

I am going to reverse the infraction and ask you to understand that while these words are true, they tend to feed the flames of trolling.

Your post without this statement was fine.

I do not really have a solution as these debates often get heated, but I do not think your statement was a violation of the CoC.

[MisterGaribaldi]

I thank you and the other admins here who reviewed this matter.

I will certainly take what has been said here under advisement and be mindful of feelings and the potential for flamewars.

Can someone please mark this as "Solved"?

Thanks again!

Mike