always assume good faith

[Ewout ter Haar]

I have two points about this discussion:

1. Agreed that one particular "procedure" is not the point. But there is no
one correct way every free software community should work. Many times I
have the feeling people invoke "this is the way free software works and you
shouldn't question it". The point is that every stakeholder must be heard,
that everybody feels they are working toward a common goal and that there
is some kind of conflict resolution. I think Colivre should assume the
responsibility of a neutral referee and that Rodrigo is doing a good job
(although the paid work that Colivre really does makes a neutral point of
view more difficult, or at least it colors the perception.)

2. I think we should stop having this english forum, and admit that the
only contributors express themselves much better in Portuguese.  Sure, it's
the "free software" way to have a dev list in english, free software is a
global thing, etc., but my feeling is that is hurts communication more than
that it helps some non-Portuguese developer. But maybe there are really
such developers here, in that case, forget about this suggestion.

Ewout

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Leandro Nunes <leandronunes at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Just for the record.
>
> Terceiro got what I was trying to say.
> The quotes has it's purpose.
>
> Secret Agenda? It's a conspiration theory?  :)
>
> Ana.
>
> "People do not not follow this procedure for bad faith, because they want
> to do something without others noticing, but they do it because they are in
> a hurry, they forget, or other reasons the person has had"
>
> The main point what I am trying to say is: If most people NEVER follow the
> procedure it's because the procedure doesn't WORKS. It doesn't reflect the
> reality. Free software community doesn't works like some people think it
> should work.
> That is my point.
>
> Even that people who proposed the procedure doesn't follow it. This is I
> was trying to demonstrate.
> EITA was not the only one who agree with the procedure ofcourse, but
> Daniel (works for EITA) is the only one who claims for it everytime and He
> uses this procedure as argumentation for everything he think that is not
> good in Noosfero.
>
> The PROCEDURE is not a BIBLE.
>
> See some message's titles sent by Daniel I got from this list:
>     - "AI3031 - new feature in core without discussion in the list"
>     - "Was AI2928 discussed in the list?"
>
> There are many others but I don't want to waste more time with this.
>
> Everybody could criticize something, but not based on "religion".
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.softwarelivre.org/pipermail/noosfero-dev/attachments/20140618/f483cfff/attachment.html>