Subject: Re: Understanding #:substitutable? and #55231

From: Maxime Devos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 22:49:37 +0100

On 9/02/2025 21:04, John Kehayias wrote:
> Hi Maxime and everyone,
>
> (As a I hope neutral bystander that knows nothing about nor has any
> particular opinions about the ZFS topic but felt it necessary for
> general "good Guix community" to chime in.)
>
> I understand tone and all of that is difficult in these communications,
> and we all have differing language familiarity/interpretations. And we
> can all have strong opinions. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt
> here, but I do want to (very politely I hope) course correct for this to
> stay a good environment for all to discuss.
>
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 08:46 PM, Maxime Devos wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>    * their slander(*) (see: Mason Loring Bliss) (also, to a much lesser
>> extent, right now you - I don't think this quoting out
>> context+misinterpretation _technically_ counts as slander, but it's
>> something bad nonetheless)
> This is not productive to say the least. Let's please all refrain from
> such escalation. Certainly point out when you disagree or ask for
> evidence in discussions, but this is taking us off track.

It _is_ on track. I replied to someone making a negative remark about my 
behaviour, and defended myself.

If defending oneself is a form of 'off track', then 'off track' is a 
good thing to do.

>>    * their rudeness (see: raid5atemyhomework) (also Mason Loring Bliss,
>> since slander is rude)
>>    * their hypocrisy as a group (see: they claim it can be fine because
>> of non-binary distribution, but they never change Guix to _make_ the ZFS
>> stuff non-binary)
>>    * repeating _old_ information as an argument/counter-argument, even
>> though it has already been made and replied to, without providing more
>> explanation or another interpretation (see: Mason Loring Bliss. Maybe
>> others, but in particular I recall Mason Loring Bliss doing this).
>>
>> (*) In ordinary sense, without distinguishing between exact forms of
>> defamation, and not evaluating whether illegal or legal.
> Also, please be mindful that these are different people in the current
> thread. Many of the people from the older ZFS threads don't seem to be
> active on Guix, at least publicly. In any event, please be aware this is
> a wide group on guix-devel with many opinions. Let's keep from
> generalizations as much as possible.

Please be aware that I mentioned in the parentheses who.

Do note, that I didn't mention other people from the ZFS discussion.

>> Sometimes, being dismissive, is a perfectly reasonable response. As long
>> as it's for the right reasons, well-founded, and with evidence.
>>
>> Also, the 'dismissiveness to [others with different viewpoint]' is the
>> other way around (see: previous points).
>>
> If one feels that they are saying the same things and it is not going
> anywhere new, I would encourage them to simply let the discussion
> continue without them for others that may be finding this useful and
> productive towards a path forward. Previous objections have been noted
> and are available in this thread and previous issue discussions.

This is, again, a mischaracterisation. Just, like, look at the ZFS 
discussion, and in particular my response to Mason Loring Bliss' slander.

And there, I did let the discussion continue, and we did talk about new 
things (except Mason Loring Bliss, who suddenly jumped in with slander, 
and as basis mentioned old arguments ... in the form of a link, that has 
been discussed already, without further interpretation). It's not an 
exact fit, but if there's anything you need to give this advice to, it's 
them, not me.

> I hope guix-devel will continue to be a great place to discuss all
> things Guix, whether in strong agreement, disagreement, or anywhere in
> between. Tough discussions are welcome, but please keep this from
> derailing further.

It's not a great place. Every so often I have to defend myself against 
false insinuations and sometimes people conveniently ignore previously 
mentioned issues.

I wasn't doing any derailing. It was:

* (for old stuff) Mason Loring Bliss (and sort-of raid5atemyhomework, 
but derailing isn't quite the right word there since they started with 
the metaphorical rails) (maybe others, but those I recall in particular)
* (recently) you and Morgan Arnold with false insinuations

Like, if you a going to criticize someone's defense, at least bother to 
look up their evidence ... (the posts by Mason Loring Bliss and 
raid5atemyhomework are easy to find and speak for theirselves).

If the act of defending oneself against an accusation is, intrinsically, 
a form of derailing, then derailing sometimes is a good thing.

Having to ever so often defend myself, is one of the reasons I avoid 
Guix nowadays.

With all due respect,
Maxime Devos