You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com> on 2013/02/02 16:12:02 UTC
Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Rob Weir <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> -1
>>>>>
>>>>> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious
>>>>> repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right.
>>>>
>>>> Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! A full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask the committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this together. OK.
>>>
>>> IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over
>>> one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it
>>> because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together,
>>> right?
>>
>> Nope. It's universally uncool to revert someone else's commit. You
>> raised the -1, let *them* do the revert, after you've provided
>> convincing rationale to the community...
>
> Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar
> circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong
> then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right
> and did not act quickly.
I'm not sure what to say. By "uncool" I meant, it's socially
unacceptable around here (the ASF) and, yet, your not only ok with
that but you'd "do it again". The timeliness wasn't as grave as you
intimate - some reasonable time could have been allowed. Please don't
revert other's commits in the future...
--tim
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Andre Fischer <aw...@gmail.com>.
Everything has been said in this thread, Godwin´s law has been invoked.
Unless new information is injected, I ask you let it go and stop this
thread.
Regards,
Andre
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
<an...@pitonyak.org> wrote:
> If content is noticed and there is concern that there may be legal
> ramifications, it seems reasonable that the content would be immediately
> modified before review, which is what was done.
>
> So if I seem something that is wrong, should I fix it, or should I ask the
> person that made the initial error to fix it? Are there specific guidelines
> for this? Off hand, your comments lead me to believe that I should not
If there is a fire, put it out. Don't wait to discuss it. But
immediately after you put out the fire explain what you did and why.
If it is not a fire, then generally:
1) If you think the change is non-controversial, then JFDI.
2) If you think the change is controversial, then post the proposal to
the list and look for lazy consensus. That means waiting a while to
see if anyone objects.
Note: Reverting someone's recent commit is almost guaranteed to be
controversial, so you don't want to do that unless you think it is a
fire. But be prepared to take some heat in that case, since some who
never saw the fire will be saying, "WTF!? That antisocial bastard
just sprayed water all over the place!"
> modify existing content, I should always have the initial committer do it.
No, please. Let's not set up exclusive domains of ownership. You
should feel empowered to make changes in any area where you are
technically competent, regardless of who else has worked in that area.
Of course, in some areas we should have respect and deference for
those with greater expertise in the area, and we would naturally want
to review significant changes with them on the list. For example,
although I can (and may) change the download scripts, I would not want
to do that without getting review by Marcus. It is the expertise I
respect, but that is different than a claim of control over an area.
> Note that I have stuck pretty close to this so far -- so now you know one
> reason that I have not modified any of our existing documentation; our
> process does not allow for modifications reviewable by the initial creator.
>
I don't think you need to be that restrictive. Everything works best
if many volunteers feel empowered to improve the work of others.
> I don't have a good handle on which country hosts the Apache servers, but I
> have mostly dealt with servers in the USA. I can barely comment on the laws
> in the USA (where I live), much less those outside the USA. I do know that
> in the USA, some content may not be referenced (such as a link to download
> pirated software) that is perfectly fine to reference on a server in another
> country. If this is done, however, there is precedent to hold the site owner
> liable for content posted by another.
>
> I have no idea what the ramifications are for claiming trademark when you
> don't have it, but based on what I know about Rob, I have an expectation
> that he is far more in tune with this than I (even if he does not live in
> the USA).
>
I do live in the US, in Massachusetts.
Regards,
-Rob
> --
> Andrew Pitonyak
> My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
> Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
>
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>.
If content is noticed and there is concern that there may be legal
ramifications, it seems reasonable that the content would be immediately
modified before review, which is what was done.
So if I seem something that is wrong, should I fix it, or should I ask
the person that made the initial error to fix it? Are there specific
guidelines for this? Off hand, your comments lead me to believe that I
should not modify existing content, I should always have the initial
committer do it. Note that I have stuck pretty close to this so far --
so now you know one reason that I have not modified any of our existing
documentation; our process does not allow for modifications reviewable
by the initial creator.
I don't have a good handle on which country hosts the Apache servers,
but I have mostly dealt with servers in the USA. I can barely comment on
the laws in the USA (where I live), much less those outside the USA. I
do know that in the USA, some content may not be referenced (such as a
link to download pirated software) that is perfectly fine to reference
on a server in another country. If this is done, however, there is
precedent to hold the site owner liable for content posted by another.
I have no idea what the ramifications are for claiming trademark when
you don't have it, but based on what I know about Rob, I have an
expectation that he is far more in tune with this than I (even if he
does not live in the USA).
--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Rob Weir <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious
>>>>>>> repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! A full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask the committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this together. OK.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over
>>>>> one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it
>>>>> because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together,
>>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>> Nope. It's universally uncool to revert someone else's commit. You
>>>> raised the -1, let *them* do the revert, after you've provided
>>>> convincing rationale to the community...
>>>
>>> Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar
>>> circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong
>>> then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right
>>> and did not act quickly.
>>
>> I'm not sure what to say. By "uncool" I meant, it's socially
>> unacceptable around here (the ASF) and, yet, your not only ok with
>> that but you'd "do it again". The timeliness wasn't as grave as you
>> intimate - some reasonable time could have been allowed. Please don't
>> revert other's commits in the future...
>>
>
> Obviously I believed that time was critical here. You may disagree.
> That's fine. But I hope you would agree that there are some things
> where time is critical, and that those with knowledge in the area,
> rather than bystanders, are the ones to make that call.
>
Just to be explicit here, since the impact of this choice seems to
have escaped several on this list, I have serious concerns about
claiming a registered trademark invalidly. With patents, for
example, it is illegal to claim a patent on something unless you
actually have one [1]. The US government shares part of the fines
with those who detect and report these kinds of things. So there are
lawyers who go around trying to find such things, even if they are
innocent mistakes, and report them, as their business model [2]. This
is true even if done innocently and temporarily, e.g., remaining stock
of a product that claims a patent after the patent has expired.
I want to be absolutely sure that we don't call into a similar
situation with trademark clams. I don't know if I am right or wrong
here. But I did my research and I think I'm right. So I'm putting
the legal protection of the ASF ahead of concerns about egos.
Regards,
-Rob
[1] http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-29
[2] http://patentlaw.jmbm.com/2011/06/patent-false-marking-claims-pr.html
> -Rob
>
>> --tim
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Rob Weir <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious
>>>>>> repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! A full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask the committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this together. OK.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over
>>>> one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it
>>>> because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together,
>>>> right?
>>>
>>> Nope. It's universally uncool to revert someone else's commit. You
>>> raised the -1, let *them* do the revert, after you've provided
>>> convincing rationale to the community...
>>
>> Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar
>> circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong
>> then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right
>> and did not act quickly.
>
> I'm not sure what to say. By "uncool" I meant, it's socially
> unacceptable around here (the ASF) and, yet, your not only ok with
> that but you'd "do it again". The timeliness wasn't as grave as you
> intimate - some reasonable time could have been allowed. Please don't
> revert other's commits in the future...
>
Obviously I believed that time was critical here. You may disagree.
That's fine. But I hope you would agree that there are some things
where time is critical, and that those with knowledge in the area,
rather than bystanders, are the ones to make that call.
-Rob
> --tim
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>________________________________
>>> Da: Andrea Pescetti
>> ...
>>>
>>>Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>> This tempest in a teapot is not about
>>>> a wayward revert as you did not completely
>>>> back out the commit- you just patched it.
>>>
>>>Exactly. It is rather clear from here:
>>>
>>>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?r1=1419051&r2=1441659&diff_format=h
>>>Dave adds a link to the OpenOffice.org site and includes a (R) too, but the reason for the commit was to add the link (see log).
>>>
>>>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?r1=1441659&r2=1441662&diff_format=h
>>>Rob does not change the link, but removes the (R) over legal concerns and informs the list.
>>>
>>>I don't see anything bad here.
>>
>> I don't see a big issue around the partial revert but I do see an attitude problem.
>> We are building a community every day and everyone, especially PMC members,
>> are expected to be politically correct and give other participants space and respect.
>>
>> So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really urgent please
>> take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying:
>>
>> "Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for now and we can discuss
>> this issue with legal@."
>>
>
> Actually, I did explain this in the BZ issue for this item, and I did
> this **two weeks ago**:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624
>
I also objected for the same reasons on the dev list on January 15th:
http://markmail.org/message/7listvk74bp2tlcb
So I raised legal objections to this change twice, and also expressed
a -1 on the change (my right as a committer) until we had legal review
on this. David went forward and made the change despite these
repeated objections, with no attempt to respond to them. Perhaps he
missed the notes?
This is not acceptable. Again, in similar circumstances I would not
hesitate, not for a second, to do the same.
Regards,
-Rob
>> These bullying in the lines of "I reverted it .. and I will do it again" is NOT acceptable.
>>
>
> I say again, I would do exactly the same thing in similar circumstances.
>
> -Rob
>
>> I hate to say this but our mentors warned us exactly about this type of situation[1].
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>> [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q52kFL8zVoM
>>
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Andre Fischer <aw...@gmail.com>.
Am 03.02.2013 03:33, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
>
>
>
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>> Da: Rob Weir
> ...
>>> So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really
>> urgent please
>>> take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying:
>>>
>>> "Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for
>> now and we can discuss
>>> this issue with legal@."
>>>
>> Actually, I did explain this in the BZ issue for this item, and I did
>> this **two weeks ago**:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624
>>
> If this is going on for more than two weeks you could've
> waited some more minutes.
>
>>> These bullying in the lines of "I reverted it .. and I will do it
>> again" is NOT acceptable.
>> I say again, I would do exactly the same thing in similar circumstances.
>>
> You are starting to sound like Anders Breivik.
You are way out of line. Please stop this.
>
> Your attitude is recurrent and I don't really have time to tell you how to
Please don´t talk about other peoples attitude after the comment above.
-Andre
> behave in a community, I will only say that issues like this push me to
> spend more time on my *other* favorite software project.
>
> Pedro.
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
> I have no problem with the change that you made, and I said so in my initial reply.
>
> My problem is the way that you characterized it. You can be more polite. For example, "I like the link you added, but I think that the (R) is not correct and so I removed it..."
>
I thought my response was quite cordial. Sorry if you did not see it
that way. Recall I wrote:
"Could we please take this to legal-discuss, or to Trademarks@? I know
you think you are protecting the OpenOffice.org trademark. So your
intentions are good. But I'm pretty sure that you are actually
risking the trademark by applying it to the website when the trademark
registration is explicitly for software, not for a website.
So let's revert that until we get further clarification. You don't
want to mess around with trademark fraud."
So I acknowledged your good intentions and said "please". After
ignoring my two previous objections to the use of (R) for such a link,
I think this was quite polite. If I sounded brief, it was because I
believed the situation was urgent and that you had already been
adequately informed of my concerns.
Regards,
-Rob
> That is all I'm going to say about it for now.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 2, 2013, at 9:41 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>>>> Da: Rob Weir
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really
>>>> urgent please
>>>>> take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for
>>>> now and we can discuss
>>>>> this issue with legal@."
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I did explain this in the BZ issue for this item, and I did
>>>> this **two weeks ago**:
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624
>>>
>>> If this is going on for more than two weeks you could've
>>> waited some more minutes.
>>
>> Actually, no. Talking about the change was fine. But actually
>> putting this on the website, if my interpretation is correct, put us
>> in an immediate danger.
>>
>> What you may not be aware of, is that there is a company watching very
>> carefully, waiting for us to screw up with the trademark. The company
>> is the same one that runs several of the malware OpenOffice clone
>> sites. For example, when Oracle announced that they were getting out
>> of OpenOffice, this company immediately submitted a trademark
>> registration for OpenOffice. Not a month later, not a week later, but
>> the ***very next business day***.
>>
>> It took some special effort and legal work to get that application
>> rejected. I know about this. Others may not. But you can see the
>> full record of it in TESS. So the belief that you can get trademarks
>> wrong on the website for a 72 hour discussion is a dangerous form of
>> ignorance.
>>
>> Again, I removed this and I would do it again, without hesitation, in
>> similar circumstances. I should have your thanks, not your scorn, for
>> doing this.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>>>> These bullying in the lines of "I reverted it .. and I will do it
>>>> again" is NOT acceptable.
>>>>
>>>> I say again, I would do exactly the same thing in similar circumstances.
>>>
>>> You are starting to sound like Anders Breivik.
>>>
>>> Your attitude is recurrent and I don't really have time to tell you how to
>>> behave in a community, I will only say that issues like this push me to
>>> spend more time on my *other* favorite software project.
>>>
>>> Pedro.
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>.
I have no problem with the change that you made, and I said so in my initial reply.
My problem is the way that you characterized it. You can be more polite. For example, "I like the link you added, but I think that the (R) is not correct and so I removed it..."
That is all I'm going to say about it for now.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 2, 2013, at 9:41 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>>> Da: Rob Weir
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really
>>> urgent please
>>>> take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying:
>>>>
>>>> "Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for
>>> now and we can discuss
>>>> this issue with legal@."
>>>
>>> Actually, I did explain this in the BZ issue for this item, and I did
>>> this **two weeks ago**:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624
>>
>> If this is going on for more than two weeks you could've
>> waited some more minutes.
>
> Actually, no. Talking about the change was fine. But actually
> putting this on the website, if my interpretation is correct, put us
> in an immediate danger.
>
> What you may not be aware of, is that there is a company watching very
> carefully, waiting for us to screw up with the trademark. The company
> is the same one that runs several of the malware OpenOffice clone
> sites. For example, when Oracle announced that they were getting out
> of OpenOffice, this company immediately submitted a trademark
> registration for OpenOffice. Not a month later, not a week later, but
> the ***very next business day***.
>
> It took some special effort and legal work to get that application
> rejected. I know about this. Others may not. But you can see the
> full record of it in TESS. So the belief that you can get trademarks
> wrong on the website for a 72 hour discussion is a dangerous form of
> ignorance.
>
> Again, I removed this and I would do it again, without hesitation, in
> similar circumstances. I should have your thanks, not your scorn, for
> doing this.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
>>>> These bullying in the lines of "I reverted it .. and I will do it
>>> again" is NOT acceptable.
>>>
>>> I say again, I would do exactly the same thing in similar circumstances.
>>
>> You are starting to sound like Anders Breivik.
>>
>> Your attitude is recurrent and I don't really have time to tell you how to
>> behave in a community, I will only say that issues like this push me to
>> spend more time on my *other* favorite software project.
>>
>> Pedro.
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>> Da: Rob Weir
> ...
>>>
>>> So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really
>> urgent please
>>> take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying:
>>>
>>> "Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for
>> now and we can discuss
>>> this issue with legal@."
>>>
>>
>> Actually, I did explain this in the BZ issue for this item, and I did
>> this **two weeks ago**:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624
>>
>
> If this is going on for more than two weeks you could've
> waited some more minutes.
>
Actually, no. Talking about the change was fine. But actually
putting this on the website, if my interpretation is correct, put us
in an immediate danger.
What you may not be aware of, is that there is a company watching very
carefully, waiting for us to screw up with the trademark. The company
is the same one that runs several of the malware OpenOffice clone
sites. For example, when Oracle announced that they were getting out
of OpenOffice, this company immediately submitted a trademark
registration for OpenOffice. Not a month later, not a week later, but
the ***very next business day***.
It took some special effort and legal work to get that application
rejected. I know about this. Others may not. But you can see the
full record of it in TESS. So the belief that you can get trademarks
wrong on the website for a 72 hour discussion is a dangerous form of
ignorance.
Again, I removed this and I would do it again, without hesitation, in
similar circumstances. I should have your thanks, not your scorn, for
doing this.
Regards,
-Rob
>>> These bullying in the lines of "I reverted it .. and I will do it
>> again" is NOT acceptable.
>>>
>>
>> I say again, I would do exactly the same thing in similar circumstances.
>>
>
> You are starting to sound like Anders Breivik.
>
> Your attitude is recurrent and I don't really have time to tell you how to
> behave in a community, I will only say that issues like this push me to
> spend more time on my *other* favorite software project.
>
> Pedro.
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: Rob Weir
...
>>
>> So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really
> urgent please
>> take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying:
>>
>> "Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for
> now and we can discuss
>> this issue with legal@."
>>
>
> Actually, I did explain this in the BZ issue for this item, and I did
> this **two weeks ago**:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624
>
If this is going on for more than two weeks you could've
waited some more minutes.
>> These bullying in the lines of "I reverted it .. and I will do it
> again" is NOT acceptable.
>>
>
> I say again, I would do exactly the same thing in similar circumstances.
>
You are starting to sound like Anders Breivik.
Your attitude is recurrent and I don't really have time to tell you how to
behave in a community, I will only say that issues like this push me to
spend more time on my *other* favorite software project.
Pedro.
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>________________________________
>> Da: Andrea Pescetti
> ...
>>
>>Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> This tempest in a teapot is not about
>>> a wayward revert as you did not completely
>>> back out the commit- you just patched it.
>>
>>Exactly. It is rather clear from here:
>>
>>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?r1=1419051&r2=1441659&diff_format=h
>>Dave adds a link to the OpenOffice.org site and includes a (R) too, but the reason for the commit was to add the link (see log).
>>
>>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?r1=1441659&r2=1441662&diff_format=h
>>Rob does not change the link, but removes the (R) over legal concerns and informs the list.
>>
>>I don't see anything bad here.
>
> I don't see a big issue around the partial revert but I do see an attitude problem.
> We are building a community every day and everyone, especially PMC members,
> are expected to be politically correct and give other participants space and respect.
>
> So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really urgent please
> take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying:
>
> "Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for now and we can discuss
> this issue with legal@."
>
Actually, I did explain this in the BZ issue for this item, and I did
this **two weeks ago**:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624
> These bullying in the lines of "I reverted it .. and I will do it again" is NOT acceptable.
>
I say again, I would do exactly the same thing in similar circumstances.
-Rob
> I hate to say this but our mentors warned us exactly about this type of situation[1].
>
> Pedro.
>
> [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q52kFL8zVoM
>
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
>________________________________
> Da: Andrea Pescetti
...
>
>Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> This tempest in a teapot is not about
>> a wayward revert as you did not completely
>> back out the commit- you just patched it.
>
>Exactly. It is rather clear from here:
>
>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?r1=1419051&r2=1441659&diff_format=h
>Dave adds a link to the OpenOffice.org site and includes a (R) too, but the reason for the commit was to add the link (see log).
>
>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?r1=1441659&r2=1441662&diff_format=h
>Rob does not change the link, but removes the (R) over legal concerns and informs the list.
>
>I don't see anything bad here.
I don't see a big issue around the partial revert but I do see an attitude problem.
We are building a community every day and everyone, especially PMC members,
are expected to be politically correct and give other participants space and respect.
So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really urgent please
take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying:
"Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for now and we can discuss
this issue with legal@."
These bullying in the lines of "I reverted it .. and I will do it again" is NOT acceptable.
I hate to say this but our mentors warned us exactly about this type of situation[1].
Pedro.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q52kFL8zVoM
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> This tempest in a teapot is not about
> a wayward revert as you did not completely
> back out the commit- you just patched it.
Exactly. It is rather clear from here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?r1=1419051&r2=1441659&diff_format=h
Dave adds a link to the OpenOffice.org site and includes a (R) too, but
the reason for the commit was to add the link (see log).
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?r1=1441659&r2=1441662&diff_format=h
Rob does not change the link, but removes the (R) over legal concerns
and informs the list.
I don't see anything bad here. It was a patch that respected the
intentions behind Dave's commit. Anyway, it is very good that the
trademark issue came up again, so that we can get clear indications on
what must be done for 4.0.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
This tempest in a teapot is not about
a wayward revert as you did not completely
back out the commit- you just patched it.
BFD- move on.
>________________________________
> From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>
>Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 1:40 PM
>Subject: Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
>
>On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>>> Da: Tim Williams
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar
>>>> circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong
>>>> then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right
>>>> and did not act quickly.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what to say. By "uncool" I meant, it's socially
>>> unacceptable around here (the ASF) and, yet, your not only ok with
>>> that but you'd "do it again". The timeliness wasn't as grave
>>> as you
>>> intimate - some reasonable time could have been allowed. Please don't
>>> revert other's commits in the future...
>>>
>>> --tim
>>>
>>
>> I agree with Tim. It is rude to revert someone else's changes without
>> giving the original committer the time to fix it himself or defend his
>> position. There is no good reason to be rude with a colleague.
>>
>
>Call it rude, call it antisocial, call it whatever you want. I would
>do it again in similar circumstances without hesitation. And I would
>recommend others to do the same. No one's commits are holy scripture.
>
>And remember, CTR is not appropriate for all circumstances. Making
>new trademark claims is something where RTC is more appropriate.
>
>-Rob
>
>-Rob
>> Pedro.
>
>
>
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>> Da: Tim Williams
> ...
>>>
>>> Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar
>>> circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong
>>> then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right
>>> and did not act quickly.
>>
>> I'm not sure what to say. By "uncool" I meant, it's socially
>> unacceptable around here (the ASF) and, yet, your not only ok with
>> that but you'd "do it again". The timeliness wasn't as grave
>> as you
>> intimate - some reasonable time could have been allowed. Please don't
>> revert other's commits in the future...
>>
>> --tim
>>
>
> I agree with Tim. It is rude to revert someone else's changes without
> giving the original committer the time to fix it himself or defend his
> position. There is no good reason to be rude with a colleague.
>
Call it rude, call it antisocial, call it whatever you want. I would
do it again in similar circumstances without hesitation. And I would
recommend others to do the same. No one's commits are holy scripture.
And remember, CTR is not appropriate for all circumstances. Making
new trademark claims is something where RTC is more appropriate.
-Rob
-Rob
> Pedro.
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: Tim Williams
...
>>
>> Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar
>> circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong
>> then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right
>> and did not act quickly.
>
> I'm not sure what to say. By "uncool" I meant, it's socially
> unacceptable around here (the ASF) and, yet, your not only ok with
> that but you'd "do it again". The timeliness wasn't as grave
> as you
> intimate - some reasonable time could have been allowed. Please don't
> revert other's commits in the future...
>
> --tim
>
I agree with Tim. It is rude to revert someone else's changes without
giving the original committer the time to fix it himself or defend his
position. There is no good reason to be rude with a colleague.
Pedro.