Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Just another Perl shrine
 
PerlMonks  

Re^6: Losing faith in CPAN - unresponsive module authors (problems)

by tye (Cardinal)
on Jun 28, 2008 at 23:47 UTC ( #694556=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^5: Losing faith in CPAN - unresponsive module authors (ownership--)
in thread Losing faith in CPAN - unresponsive module authors

I'm not sure where your hostility to me is coming from.

I disagreed, often stongly, with many of the points you made. I'm sorry you chose to interpret it as personal hostility. If you don't see where the strong disagreement is coming from, then point out those areas so I can try explaining them to you differently.

PAUSE certainly supports more than one person being able to give out permissions to a module.

Ah, well that is good news. As I was writing my reply I visited PAUSE and was offered the following choices:

  • 2.1 Pass primary maintainership status to somebody else (giving it up at the same time)
  • 2.2 Give up primary maintainership status (without transfering it)
  • 3.1 Make somebody else co-maintainer
  • 3.2 Remove co-maintainer
  • 4.1 Give up co-maintainership status

And 2.1 certainly quite strongly implies that I can't arrange for two people to have the power to give out co-maintainer status. So is this just a matter of more red tape? I have to make a personal appeal each time I want to do this?

If you need that for your project, we can set that up.

No, thanks. I've just about got my work-around set up already.

We can't fix any of the problems you don't report to us.

Please see my recent description of many problems. It is the thing you interpretted as personal hostility. *shrug*

- tye        


Comment on Re^6: Losing faith in CPAN - unresponsive module authors (problems)
Re^7: Losing faith in CPAN - unresponsive module authors (problems)
by Arunbear (Parson) on Sep 14, 2008 at 12:47 UTC

    I've seen (and felt) the hostility too.

    For example, there was a chatterbox discussion about encodings some weeks ago in which ambrus felt that you were flaming him (and you denied that charge).

    A few weeks before that there was a discussion about Javascript in which jdporter felt that you were “twisting his arm”.

    Back in April, I asked in the CB why the polls were no longer being refreshed. Your response was “tye does not recall seeing any poll suggestions from Arunbear”. You know fully well that there was no shortage of poll suggestions. There was no reason for me to make a new poll suggestion – it would have just gone into storage along with all the others. My question was a prelude to offering to help with posting polls since that is what was not happening. But you chose to have a go at me instead of having a useful discussion.

    Then there was a time when you created a bogus consideration and as it was being voted on you remarked “Heh. So few passed the intelligence test.”

    Going back in time further, I once mentioned in the CB that I didn't understand the purpose of one of the links in the editor's nodelet. Your response was “Just because you don't have sufficient imagination, it doesn't mean that there isn't a purpose.” I then asked you to explain the purpose, but you ignored me. Your response was not only unhelpful but also particularly insulting as I had already stated that I didn't understand the what that link was meant for.

    You also post quite a few replies to other monks that have a condescending tone (and I'm not aware of any other senior monk who does that). Being civil costs you nothing. To be un-civil requires additional effort and you seem prepared to make that effort despite describing yourself as “lazy”.

    If you're at work and a colleague mentions that they don't understand the purpose of feature X, then what do you do? Do you insult them? Do you ignore them? To most people that kind of behaviour would be considered unprofessional.

    Why do you have a lower standard for relating to colleagues at Perlmonks compared to work? On the other hand you remarked last week that “I wanted to smack Josh and Dave because ...” (because their design wasn't to your liking), so it may be that you are abusive to people at work too (but some how I doubt that because people in the workplace have a certain amount of legal protection from bullying and harassment).

    So what justifies your un-civility? Do you think (as your “intelligence test” remark suggests) that you are better than everyone else? Or does being chief administrator (hence accountable to nobody) give you some kind of licence to be abusive?

      Anyway, that is way more than enough on this topic.

      - tye        

        Did you tell the person who told you these results that they were being uncivil?
        I didn't vote on the false considerations, and I've never taken an IQ test. It's not the administering of the test or the telling of the results that I find uncivil but I do think it would be inappropriate for the person running the test to derive amusement at the expense of those who didn't pass.
        So does your timidness to deal with perceived slights when they happen and with whom they happened make you feel you have license to collect your laundry list of perceived wrongs and post them in public?
        That was an error of judgement on my part and I apologize for doing that and also for misjudging your intent. My timidness is a result of enduring years of violence which included attempts on my life and being beaten for not understanding the lesson being taught in class. I have a persistent fear of being harmed and this makes it daunting for me to confront what looks like a hostile action. Certain patterns of words do aggravate my fears and I've sometimes found your comments disconcerting, even menacing. So far I've not been able eliminate the fears even with professional help (but I've not given up yet).
        I'm not perfect and I sometimes get annoyed and I'm not always as polite as I might like to be, so I wouldn't be surprised if I'd identified a specific action attributed to you and called that "stupid" even though I realize that doing so would be somewhat rude (not as rude as calling you "stupid", or as doing any number of things that are all-too-common in an internet "flame").

        The civility I referred to is something more than normal civility (I couldn't think of a better word for it). I somehow expected that those among the senior monks and gods especially should be 'super civil' and never give in to an annoyance for example. But many thanks for sharing that and for your other explanations. I believe that there is now hope of being free of this particular apprehension at least.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://694556]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-07-25 23:29 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (175 votes), past polls