Everyone has a different opinion and perspective. Almost everyone has been communicating politely. Trying to use other folks opinions or “ideas” as a rationale to act the way you do is no excuse. You make things personal. I’m also fond of the IETF model but it doesn’t work if the list is dominated by expletives, personal attacks, talk of mediation and conflict resolution. That is unnecessary for cooperative development.
Your ideas on the other hand stand on their own merit. This talk of “conflict resolution and mediation”, however, is completely unnecessary. Folk are not deciding whether or not they like ideas based on who proposed them.
No swearing from now on. PLEASE.
> On 11/11/2018, at 10:46 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lk...@lkcl.net
> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 8:00 AM Bruce Hoult <bruce...@sifive.com
>>> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lk...@lkcl.net
>>> so the question to ask is not "how* come you are civilised and
>>> capable of staying within the bounds of technical discussion on other
>>> forums: the real question is, what's different about *these* forums?
>> In the last few hours I've seen you being adversarial with not only
>> Alex Bradbury,
> if you look carefully, alex was trying to be reasonable, and play a
> mediatorial role... except if you look carefully at the advice given
> on crhnq, a mediator needs to respect *both* sides, and relay (reflect
> back) the position of *both* parties.
> regrettably, he didn't do that, and unfortunately, all it did was
> make it look he wasn't listening to what i'm saying. as i was
> writing, i was thinking, "damn, damn damn, i really like alex, how the
> hell can i make this look any better, so it doesn't reflect badly on
> him?" and, sadly, as he (you, hello, yes, sorry to be talking _about_
> you, alex) hadn't summarised and acknowledged both perspectives as a
> mediator normally would, there really wasn't a way to do that.
>> but also Nick Kossifidis
> if you look carefully at what nick's writing, he made good points
> from the field in which he has experience.. unfortunately he laced it
> with hyperbolic adversarial questions that were very carefully
> designed to ridicule rather than critique not only the proposal that i
> made, they were also very very carefully crafted to ridicule me, as a
> person, as well.
> you'll notice that he dodged the positive aspects that were supported
> by other people's constructive input, and focussed on generating as
> much negativity as he could, through the use of what can only be
> termed "hysteria" questions, hoping to assign them to me (without my
> consent) and use them rhetorically for the purposes of ridicule.
> the initial (thinly-veiled) adversarial attacks that he launched were
> sufficiently over the top that someone else had to step in, and hint
> that he was going a little too far. nick made a conscious choice to
> ignore those hints.
> the question here i have to ask, is, can you see that that's what
> nick did, and, if you can, why do you feel that it's acceptable
> behaviour on a technical forum?
>> (who you for unknown reason persist in addressing as "Mick"),
> sorry, nick: small high-resolution screen here, and i run the
> brightness way down and the room lights off, most of the time.
>> and Tommy Murphy.
> tommy, bless him, i know he's trying to help. you may be confusing
> the pain that i am experiencing through having to deal with the
> ongoing bullying and expressing that, and thus interpreting my
> responses to him as "this must be an attack on tommy". categorically
> and absolutely it is not.
>> And adopting a derisory tone with others such as Ron Minnich.
> what?? not at all! ron makes a lot of sense, and i've said so quite
> clearly!! what on *earth* gave you the impression that i've been
> "derisory" with ron?? i've made it quite clear that the points he's
> made about being able to operate fully in M-Mode are good ones!
>> There's a common thread here.
> there is, indeed. the challenge is, then, if the opportunity to
> attack arises, if someone appears to be vulnerable, in pain, or
> appears to not be knowledgeable, is for people to step up to the plate
> and *not* react in a derisory fashion, *not* attack or denigrate them,
> make them feel so unwelcome and so despised that it actually
> deteriorates their physical health.
> you know i speak my mind, and i made a decision 20 years ago to speak
> truth, even when it's uncomfortable truth. that's what people face
> here, and i know they don't like it.
> i told you: ethical's a bitch. truth, awareness, love and creativity
> aren't "nice", they're damn uncomfortable, and dealing with this is so
> hurtful it's *literally* making me physically ill.
> yet... i have a goal to achieve, the target's been set, to create a
> completely libre, open and freely-available 3D-capable processor, and
> to *develop* it in a truly libre and open fashion, and i am not going
> to go away until that goal is achieved.
> so, we have at least two more years of this. that's the reality.
> so, we can use these forums for the benefit of RISC-V, or not. which
> is it going to be?
> we can work together, to improve RISC-V and make a conscious decision
> to make the forums a welcoming place... or we can turn it into a
> hate-filled forum where students, corporate employees and researchers
> treat it - and RISC-V - as an absolute "No Go Zone", and psychology
> researchers use the public archives in case-studies over the next
> couple of decades, on how open communities go into denial when faced
> with challenges.
> that's what we're looking at, here. it's up to everyone to make a
> conscious decision which direction they want to go.
>> These people don't talk to each other in the manner in which you reply to them.
> people don't talk to me on comp.arch or libre-riscv-dev in the manner
> in which they reply to me on here. why?
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RISC-V SW Dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sw-dev+un...@groups.riscv.org
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msgid/sw-dev/CAPweEDwKwf4iF%2BE5sqV6wdB4%3DT%3D1rR8cAKH-Kb9g5cYmXtVtPg%40mail.gmail.com