You are viewing jspaleta

entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Jef"I am the pusher robot"Spaleta - Public discourse is important.
ramblings of the self-elected Fedora party whip
jspaleta
jspaleta
Share
Public discourse is important.
When you or your employees make vague statements about being prejudiced against in the activities of a multi-vendor project, and those allegations are being made in public forums...but you and your employees refuse to provide evidence of those allegations in those public forums... I am not amused.

And when I publicly challenge you to provide such evidence and you give me information in private email but do not give me permission to rebroadcast that information... I am angered. This sort of back channel "persuasion" does not get to the heart of the problem. Because well, I am not the heart of the problem. I may be your PR problem..but that's not the real problem. Convincing me of the righteousness of your opinion doesn't help solve the underlying problem. If your hurt feelings are substantiated by the evidence, having that information stop with me..and preventing me using that evidence to start _fixing_ the actual problem is not in your best interests. When such back channel information sharing is occurs I view it as manipulative.

I don't have a problem if someone takes a discussion with me private because they feel they need the space that a private email discussion provides to focus without sidebar comments or commentary. But when the discussion is over I fully expect to be able to republish a private conversation in its entirety. It's only through publicly disclosed discourse that people can be held accountable for what they say, including myself.

Good day,

-jef
Comments
From: (Anonymous) Date: March 7th, 2011 05:11 pm (UTC) (Link)

Topic typo

Oh, I'd make sure to fix that typo in your topic right quick. Funny, though

Cheers,

Clint
From: (Anonymous) Date: March 7th, 2011 06:21 pm (UTC) (Link)
Hmmm. A Linux-related company that makes grandiose public statements about how everyone else isn't doing it "right" unlike this "community-oriented" (yeah right) company, but then cries about how unfair it is when this company gets criticized (and even tries to thwart the criticism non-transparently)? The MO perfectly fits one particular company. Let me guess: You're talking about Canonical?
From: (Anonymous) Date: March 7th, 2011 10:08 pm (UTC) (Link)
I think that you can find the story on bkuhn blog :

http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/03/05/open-core-slur.html
jspaleta From: jspaleta Date: March 7th, 2011 10:14 pm (UTC) (Link)
Just to be clear, I am not referring to anything written in or referenced by bkuhn's blog post. I am commenting on an entirely different set of communications.

-jef
From: shermann [launchpad.net] Date: March 14th, 2011 07:58 pm (UTC) (Link)

which are?

@Jef: I'm curious....

Regards,

jspaleta From: jspaleta Date: March 14th, 2011 08:18 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: which are?

That's the thing of it. If I had permission to republish the conversation in question I'd have no need to write the blog post at all.

So because the person who decided to respond to a public blog comment via private email (unsolicited private email I might add) won't give me permission to publish the conversation I have to make a choice.

I can either leak information against their wishes and have them claim I am acting in bad faith or I can refrain from publishing the conversation in question...even as I watch them to continue to selectively misrepresent private email conversations..an activity the person in question would call a bad faith action if I followed their own pattern of behaviour.

And even telling people that I received an email from this person was construed as bad faith as I have come to find out. I did not expect that. So the small effort I did make to use the information I had been given was considered a bad faith action.

What is even weirder is that the conversation I'm referring to is not the first private email conversation with the person in question. I have in the past been put in the same situation where the very same person took a conversation private and I requested permission to republish the full email exchange for accountability reasons. In the previous email exchange the person agreed and I have the full (but brief) email conversation published in my people.fedoraproject.org web space.

Now I would have thought that the first conversation would have set a precedent for our email interactions and would have set a standard of expected behaviour. I commented on a blog, the person sends me an email response to the blog.. I requested to be able to republish the full email exchange..and this time my request was denied. I've been nothing but forthright in my desire to limit private discourse for accountability reasons. And the other person seems to be intent on having a discussion entirely devoid of accountability.

-jef
From: shermann [launchpad.net] Date: March 15th, 2011 09:28 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: which are?

Got it :)
7 comments or Leave a comment
profile
Jef Spaleta
User: jspaleta
Name: Jef Spaleta
calendar
Back March 2012
123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
page summary
Anonymous Topic typo
Anonymous (no subject) [+5]
tags