[02:04] <BiosElement2> exit
[02:04] <BiosElement2> Bleh
[02:04] <BiosElement2> Gotta love console lag
[02:04] <canthus13> Heh.
[02:05] <BiosElement2> I figured it was a lost cause. Gotta call Wow today and raise hell over there about this nonsense they call 'service'.
[02:05] <BiosElement2> *tomorrow
[02:27] <Cheri703> note: groove IP is pretty freaking cool
[02:27] <Cheri703> also, downloaded 12.04 beta and going to poke at it tonight
[02:30] <Cheri703> that's weird that an alternate of my ID would be attempting to sign in and out while I am also here >.>
[02:30] <Cheri703> not really sure what is going on there...
[02:33] <canthus13> odd.
[02:34] <Cheri703> yeah, disconcerting
[02:37] <canthus13> It appears to be your IP, though.
[02:38] <Cheri703> yeah, no idea why quassel would do that
[02:38]  * canthus13 shrugs. dunno.
[02:45] <canthus13> You'd have loved the closing keynote speaker. It was supposed to be Ian what's-his-name, who started Debian, but he got the date wrong and didn't show, so we had Susan Stewart do an off-the-cuff talk on hacker culture.
[02:46] <dzho> Murdock
[02:46] <canthus13> dzho: thanks. :)
[02:46] <dzho> :)
[02:47] <dzho> we appreciate the report
[02:47] <dzho> sort of sad he didn't make it, he's from Indiana, i think.
[02:47] <dzho> at least, went to purdue.
[02:47] <canthus13> dzho: he's supposed to record the talk and post it.
[02:47] <yano> Paging Agent Muldor and Agent Scully.
[02:47] <dzho> we want to believe, does that count?
[02:47] <canthus13> ...and they're pretty sure they've got him locked in for the keynote at next year's ILF... which is kinda big since it's Debian's 20th anniversary.
[02:48] <yano> dzho: The Truth is out there.
[02:50] <canthus13> hmm.. here's the outline for her talk: http://www.binaryredneck.net/node/173
[02:55] <Unit193> X-Files. :D
[03:03] <Cheri703> it's back1
[03:04]  * yano runs and hides
[03:04] <Cheri703> !
[03:04] <yano> :-p
[03:04] <canthus13> Doppelgangers....
[03:05] <Cheri703> interesting ted talk I'm watching: http://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together.html
[03:14] <Cheri703> found it
[03:14] <Cheri703> had been using hdd from a different computer in main server, finally re-set up a proper one for the server, hadn't used other in weeks, turned on other comp tonight, forgot I hadn't fully removed everything I'd been using when it was in the server >.<
[03:20] <canthus13> Heh.
[03:20] <canthus13> Oops. :)
[03:25] <canthus13> Cheri703: You might find this fun... http://downlode.org/Etext/alicebob.html
[03:27]  * Cheri703 bookmarks for later, am watching ted talks :)
[03:28]  * canthus13 nods.
[03:42] <Cheri703> http://codeforamerica.org/
[03:42] <Cheri703> TED TALKS
[03:47] <canthus13> Heh.
[12:06] <jandrusk> TED talks are interesting to say the least.
[13:52] <Guest43802> nick andygraybeal
[13:52] <Guest43802> awesome
[14:18] <thafreak> Morning sugar coated rabbit shaped marshmallows!
[16:35] <jrgifford> jandrusk: most of the TED talks are pretty cool, but agreed.
[16:44] <gilbert> hey all :)
[16:44] <Unit193> Hello gilbert.
[16:44] <gilbert> what up?
[16:51] <Unit193> http://fridge.ubuntu.com/2012/04/16/code-of-conduct-update/ Right...
[17:19] <dzho> Unit193: Right?
[17:19] <Unit193> Left?
[17:22] <Unit193> cprofitt? Hello
[17:22] <cprofitt> hey Unit193
[17:24] <dzho> Unit193: I guess you won't be jumping up and down to offer your feedback on the CC, or what?
[17:26] <Unit193> Heh, I wouldn't be doing that anyway, but I read the reasoning for it and thought it was odd.
[17:27] <cprofitt> what was odd Unit193 ?
[17:31] <dzho> two years, "many important discussions . . . since"
[17:32] <Unit193> Anywho, that's the link to it, that's the main thing.
[17:32] <dzho> I guess how odd would depend on which discussions they're referring to.
[17:32]  * dzho has never had any dealings with czajkowski
[17:33] <Unit193> I've seen her around, but not personally had to.
[17:33] <cprofitt> yeah... I cam in on late, but I believe one of the issues was the leadership CoC was not signed
[17:33] <Unit193> Yep, the main CoC was the only one you could.
[17:34] <cprofitt> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/392976
[17:35] <cprofitt> I actually suggested that they remove the signature requirement and go to a checkbox
[17:35] <cprofitt> the signature is only as valid as the LP page anyway...
[17:35] <cprofitt> since there is no requirement that the GPG key has a certain level of validation in the web of trust
[17:36] <Unit193> Well, mine sure doesn't, but I can still use it.
[17:36] <cprofitt> yep
[17:37] <Unit193> I've used it in emails before as well, just don't have a ton of extras.
[17:38] <cprofitt> yeah... mine was relatively unsigned until this past UDS
[17:38] <dzho> I think I still have a print out of your key, and that I need to sign it, cprofitt
[17:38] <cprofitt> lol
[17:39] <cprofitt> I think I have 15-30 signatures on mine now
[17:39]  * dzho is more about the WoT than about any CoC
[17:39] <cprofitt> including several Debian developers
[17:39] <dzho> yeah, getting devs on a key brings it into the strongly connected set usually
[17:39] <jrgifford> the new CoC is... interesting.
[17:40] <dzho> jrgifford: "phenotype"
[17:40] <jrgifford> (won't say more than that, until I've figured out how to phrase it)
[17:40] <dzho> I think that might have been a milk-up-the-nose moment for me
[17:40] <cprofitt> that part has been revised out, but the wrong revision is currently linked
[17:41] <cprofitt> here is a better view... with the most recent
[17:41] <cprofitt> http://paste.ubuntu.com/932767/
[17:41] <Unit193> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~dholbach/ubuntu-codeofconduct/v2-draft/view/head:/MergedCodeOfConduct.txt Right one?
[17:41] <Unit193> Gah.
[17:42] <cprofitt> yeah... that one has the right verbage
[17:42] <cprofitt> v22 did not
[17:42] <cprofitt> the Fridge Post has been fixed
[17:43] <dzho> v22 is the latest shown
[17:43] <jrgifford> oh, agile. BUZZWORD BINGO
[17:43] <jrgifford> :P
[17:43] <dzho> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~sabdfl/ubuntu-codeofconduct/v2-draft/files
[17:43] <cprofitt> the one Unit193 linked to is accurate
[17:44] <cprofitt> maybe the Fridge has not been fixed
[17:45] <cprofitt> yeah... Fridge is still not correct
[17:45] <cprofitt> the only real change is the reduction of the phenotype stuff
[17:47] <dzho> oh, in dholbach's repo instead of sabdfl's
[17:48] <cprofitt> yes
[17:48] <cprofitt> I believe there is a merge proposal for sabdfl's that has not been approved yet
[17:48] <Unit193> Correct.
[17:49] <dzho> anyway 'between' is for two things, 'among' is for several.
[17:49]  * dzho files that right next to the 'less vs fewer' rant
[17:50] <paultag> someone should change sabdfl → sadfl :)
[17:50] <cprofitt> hey paultag
[17:50] <canthus13> paultag: Makes sense.
[17:51] <paultag> canthus13: I mean, after breaking Ubuntu really nasty-ly with an edict, it's not benevolent after a point
[17:51] <paultag> hi cprofitt
[17:52] <jrgifford> canthus13, paultag - i agree.
[17:52] <paultag> such a shame. Oh Ubuntu community, what has happened to you? :(
[17:53] <canthus13> paultag: You're right.  I still can't see what the point is of unity... aside from pointing out that the users are too stupid to be trusted with options. :/
[17:53] <paultag> canthus13: when my Mother, a Sysadmin of more then 15 years, can't use Unity, it's a problem
[17:53] <paultag> not to mention it crashes on me, is extremely buggy and hard to use
[17:54] <Unit193> They have options, they just can't pick what goes on.
[17:54] <paultag> I mean, pick two
[17:54] <canthus13> paultag: I'm sure I *could*, but I avoid it for the same reason that I avoid windows.
[17:54] <paultag> what a hunk of crap
[17:54]  * canthus13 has already switched to Mint 12, and will likely change to Mint Debian once Gnome 3 is there.
[17:55] <paultag> Debian straight has been outstanding to me
[17:55] <paultag> it's like i"m using Ubuntu 9,x again, but with fresh software and sane defaults
[17:55] <canthus13> paultag: Mint comes with sane defaults.
[17:55] <paultag> FSVO sane
[17:55]  * canthus13 nods.
[17:55] <paultag> they fucked up the Fluxbox package on me and broke it for all Fluxbox users
[17:56] <paultag> including on their fluxbox respin
[17:56] <canthus13> paultag: Mint supports all my hardware OOB and just kinda works without a whole lot of futzing around.
[17:56] <paultag> same here, but with Debian
[17:56] <paultag> I also use only thinkpads, which might help
[17:57] <canthus13> paultag: I'm sure broadcom chips are a bitch with debian still. :/
[17:57] <paultag> canthus13: I've not had one in a while, I'm not sure.
[17:57] <canthus13> ...Unless debian gave in and decided to make it easy to install Broadcom's closed-source drivers.
[17:58] <canthus13> Oh! Mint Debian has cinnamon now. :)
[17:58] <paultag> I mean, it's not going to be OOTB because debian doesn't support non-free or contrib (free software that depends on non-free) by default, given there's a commitment to free software
[17:58] <canthus13> right.
[17:59] <paultag> that's part of the DFSG (it also states there will be support for it, but it makes it clear it's not official)
[17:59] <canthus13> With mint and ubuntu, you just install the non-free drivers with a couple of clicks.
[17:59] <paultag> Ubuntu, on the other hand, requires you to use Nonfree software
[17:59] <dzho> requires?
[17:59] <paultag> like Ubuntu One (which I don't understand why it's called Ubuntu one, since it's neither community, nor free)
[17:59]  * canthus13 shrugs.
[17:59] <paultag> dzho: the ubuntu-desktop defaults include it, all default installs have it
[17:59] <paultag> Ubuntu One should be called Canonical One
[18:00] <paultag> or Nonfree-crap One
[18:00] <dzho> haha
[18:00] <paultag> or Poor-man's-dropbox One
[18:00] <dzho> the service is non-free, but the client is too?
[18:00] <jrgifford> The client is free, the service is not iirc.
[18:00] <paultag> the client's free, but that's not the problem
[18:00] <paultag> all the data is locked up in a nonfree system
[18:00] <paultag> that I can't even federate
[18:01] <dzho> well, I don't use Ubuntu One, and have similar criticisms, but I'm not sure "requires" is the right word here.
[18:01] <paultag> what a crock
[18:02] <dzho> o.O
[18:02] <jrgifford> its part of the default install
[18:02] <jrgifford> so you are forced to use it
[18:02] <paultag> dzho: not you, "Ubuntu" one
[18:02] <dzho> paultag: haha
[18:02] <paultag> I object strongly to that name
[18:02] <paultag> since it's not Ubuntu in any sense of the word
[18:02]  * dzho nods
[18:03] <dzho> jrgifford: fsvo "use" I guess
[18:03] <dzho> I don't use it, in any sense that I recognize the word "use" though.
[18:03] <dzho> it's installed, yes.  Does one use something just because it's installed?  Also, again, the bit that's installed is not non-free, which I think we've established.
[18:04] <dzho> I might even go so far as to call it *useless*
[18:04] <dzho> since I don't use it
[18:04] <jrgifford> I don't even use it.
[18:05] <paultag> either way, it's not Ubuntu, and I am really really offended by that shit name
[18:05] <paultag> almost as much as unity's pre-alpha crap making it to the desktop
[18:05] <paultag> I love how the Ubuntu community no longer has a say in any matters of importance
[18:05] <paultag> is the design team in the community yet?
[18:08] <jrgifford> no, as far as I can tell no
[18:09] <paultag> lordy
[18:09] <paultag> I'm super glad I'm in Debian now
[18:09] <cprofitt> I thought it was tried... and something did not work
[18:09] <paultag> side-note, almost half-way through the DD process
[18:09] <cprofitt> but I did not follow that closely
[18:09] <paultag> cprofitt: with the number of people who are non-technical contributing, I think that says more about them
[18:09] <paultag> not to mention they don't use Ubuntu in their own processes
[18:10] <paultag> they love their photoshop, which is fine, but it's ironic
[18:10]  * cprofitt nods
[18:19] <dzho> ubuntu has always attracted some people who are lukewarm, at best, about software freedom.
[18:20] <paultag> It seems like this new CoC is only here to stifle people's dislike of Unity
[18:20] <paultag> in fact, it seems like that's the only thing
[18:20] <paultag> see '''Decisiveness has value in itself.''' / '''Value decisiveness, clarity and consensus.'''
[18:20] <paultag> cprofitt: ^
[18:20] <paultag> those are stupid clauses
[18:20] <dzho> oh
[18:20] <jrgifford> yeah, exactly.
[18:21] <jrgifford> i mean, here's how it'd play out:
[18:21] <paultag> so that mark can now hold people in violation of CoC for saying Unity sucks
[18:21] <paultag> which is absurdist hitlarian behavior
[18:21] <jrgifford> (paultag stole my example. well done)
[18:21] <jrgifford> another thing would be if i were to close and delete a rant on ask ubuntu
[18:21] <cprofitt> well... I think that there are other concerns addressed, but I would certainly send those comments in
[18:22] <jrgifford> and someone took offense at that, boom, i'm in violation.
[18:22] <paultag> I will not be held in violation of the CoC if I'm critisizing a decision
[18:22] <paultag> I refuse to let that happen
[18:23] <jrgifford> because i'm not being "respectful", or "open", since I no longer have a part in the democratic process on AU.
[18:24] <jrgifford> so there, without even thinking, we have two examples of how we could violate it.
[18:24] <jrgifford> (or be accused of it)
[18:25] <paultag> it's absurd
[18:25] <jrgifford> paultag: do you intend to send your feedback in?
[18:25] <Unit193> But, you shouldn't rant about Unity in support channels.
[18:26] <paultag> jrgifford: you bet your sweet ass I will
[18:26] <jrgifford> Unit193: beside the point.
[18:26] <paultag> Unit193: would you consider planet.ubuntu an official Ubuntu channel?
[18:26] <paultag> Unit193: if I post an entry saying "Unity sucks, here's why" am I in violation of the CoC?
[18:26] <paultag> Does the CoC not apply to posts there?
[18:27] <paultag> We expect everyone who participates in Ubuntu, represents the project
[18:27] <paultag> officially or informally, or claims affiliation with the project, to
[18:27] <paultag> honour this Code of Conduct in public or private correspondence. It
[18:27] <paultag> governs how we behave when Ubuntu will be judged by our actions.
[18:27] <dzho> haha, fuck that
[18:27] <Unit193> paultag: Missed the "support channel" part. I'm talking in support IRC channels.  That seems better as it's not just screaming that it's bad, it's saying why it is bad.
[18:27] <paultag> Unit193: So the CoC doesn't apply elsewhere?
[18:27] <dzho> I guess the "participates in Ubuntu" bit is overreach
[18:27] <paultag> Unit193: it says right there in public and private correspondence.
[18:27] <Unit193> Missed my point, file it in /dev/null.
[18:28] <paultag> done
[18:28] <jrgifford> ok, even if I at a LUG, and I was saying that Unity sucks when doing X, and GNOME shell is awesome for X, then i'd be violating this.
[18:28] <paultag> right
[18:28] <paultag> or even at a bar
[18:29] <jrgifford> because A. I'm *probably* wearing a ubuntu tshirt, B. I'm probably talking to someone who I just met, and C. (if I were to) I have signed this and agreed to abide by it.
[18:30] <Unit193> That's a little overactive.
[18:31] <jrgifford> Unit193: people said the same thing about the whole "censorship" part of PIPA/SOPA. Its not the intent of the "law" or whatever, its the spirit and letter.
[18:31] <Unit193> jrgifford: I was saying on the CoC half, not yours.
[18:32] <jrgifford> Unit193: ah, my apologies then.
[18:32] <Unit193> I should just be silent as everything isn't going well...
[18:34] <dzho> lot of energy in this
[18:35] <dzho> I'm not convinced this is about silencing Unity critics.
[18:36] <dzho> cprofitt and I have talked about this before, I take this sort of tumult as a sign of Ubuntu maturing.
[18:36] <dzho> in its early honeymoon phases it was a lot easier for people to be distracted by the shiny
[18:36] <dzho> but its a tough old war horse now, and not so pretty anymore
[18:37] <dzho> and lo and behold, it is starting to look a bit like debian in terms of internecine angst
[18:37] <dzho> and ${DEATH_OF_PROJECT_IMMINENT}
[18:42] <jrgifford> paultag: do you mind if I quote from this IRC log (here in channel) extensively in my feedback?
[18:42] <paultag> jrgifford: if you don't mind avoiding me, I'm posting a very long email, and I plan to blog it.
[18:42] <jrgifford> paultag: fair enough.
[18:45] <paultag> jrgifford: sent my thoughts out
[18:45] <paultag> such crap
[18:46] <Unit193> Well, I'll randomly check the blog then.
[18:47] <jrgifford> isn't up on the blog, or at least i'm not seeing it
[18:47] <paultag> I expect this to get ignored and trashed, as usual
[18:47] <paultag> heil!
[18:47] <Unit193> jrgifford: Nope, not yet.
[18:47] <jrgifford> Unit193: ok, so i'm not not seeing things
[18:50] <dzho> where?
[18:51] <Unit193> blog.pault.ag
[18:51] <Unit193> Nothing up yet.
[18:51] <jrgifford> we wait with baited breath as he pgp signs it and prepares for the public to read his feedback.
[18:51] <paultag> I didn't post it to my blog
[18:51] <paultag> I emailed first
[18:52] <paultag> if I don't get anything back in ~8 hours, I'm going to put it on my blog
[18:52] <Unit193> Yep, that's why waiting rather than reading. :P
[18:52] <paultag> and spice up the language a bit
[18:52] <Unit193> jrgifford: For the whole "planet" to read. :D
[18:52] <jrgifford> Unit193: :D
[18:52] <jrgifford> paultag: ooh, spicy.
[18:54] <Unit193> I can't quite say now that I hate unity as I've never had to use it, but I'll say that I'd never use it and wouldn't recommend it to people unless they like Win 8. At that point, you can just leave them be though. :P
[18:54] <paultag> I'd rather this be delt with quietly and off a public channel jrgifford
[18:54] <jrgifford> fair enough.
[18:54] <paultag> jrgifford: if not, I'm going to make a big deal out of it
[18:54] <paultag> like, a big deal
[18:55] <Unit193> jrgifford: There's a "meeting" of the CC this Thurs.
[18:55] <paultag> I will not be subject to a hitlarian dictatorship in my freetime
[18:55] <jrgifford> yeah, i think i'll be able to make it
[18:55] <Unit193> I sure hope so, since that evening....
[18:55] <Unit193> paultag: I thought you moved into debian fully at this point.
[18:56] <paultag> Unit193: I have, but I'm still here in freenode, and active enough to have this subject me to terms I do not wish to be subject to
[18:56] <Unit193> (Not to say I don't like that you're into this)
[18:56] <paultag> I'd like to think that the CC only had good intentions
[18:56] <paultag> but this is clearly just Unity-clause.
[18:57] <paultag> ooh, what a good name for it
[18:57] <paultag> just like Unity, it's a fucking bad idea
[18:58] <jrgifford> the Unity-clause: Either you are with us, or you get the boot. Cya.
[18:58] <jrgifford> Yeah, thats unity right there.
[18:58] <paultag> Heil!
[18:59] <jrgifford> (i'm not talking about the software. thats a whole different disscussion)
[18:59] <jrgifford> *discussion
[19:16] <paultag> Every week, I'm going to take a different dicator (hitler, etc) and say in big bold letters "I approve of the Unity clause"
[19:16] <paultag> dictator
[19:20] <canthus13> just catching up.  I wonder if a mass refusal to sign/revokation of signatures for the CoC would get the point across?
[19:21]  * canthus13 will be back. picking up kids. :P
[19:22] <jrgifford> canthus13: perhaps. thing is, you can't revoke that without revoking the entire key iirc
[19:23] <Unit193> jrgifford: You can.
[19:23] <Unit193> https://launchpad.net/~jrgifford/+codesofconduct
[19:24] <jrgifford> OH. i missed that.
[19:24] <jrgifford> thanks Unit193
[19:25] <Unit193> :)
[19:28]  * canthus13 nods.
[19:54] <paultag> alright, jrgifford
[19:54] <paultag> jrgifford: I said some very harsh things, but people understood and agreed
[19:54] <paultag> also over email, which is ongoing
[19:55] <paultag> but I suspect that it'll be changed
[19:55] <Unit193> Great! You offer changes? ;P
[19:56] <paultag> Unit193: no, of course not
[19:56] <paultag> I don't care to fix something I see as not broken
[19:56] <paultag> I don't know why they insist on this change
[19:56] <paultag> I won't help them make a bad decision, just point out where it's a bad decision
[19:56] <Unit193> To add the Leadship CoC, that's all.
[19:56] <paultag> it's not the LCoC
[19:56] <Unit193> Anywho.....
[19:56] <paultag> it's the CoC, straight up
[19:56] <paultag> and it has more then was in the LCoC
[19:56] <paultag> seeing as how I signed the LCoC and agree with it
[19:57] <jrgifford> paultag: sweet. i sent an email as well, since I was trying to get my own (other) thoughts out of the way.
[19:57] <paultag> jrgifford: rockn'
[19:59] <Unit193> I first read it as "We haven't updated it in a while, so lets change it around", not the best of reasons...
[20:00] <paultag> I love the CoC
[20:00] <paultag> just not this second draft, since it imposes some nasty things
[20:00] <canthus13> paultag: It's like windows EULAs... :/
[20:00] <paultag> so lame
[20:00] <Unit193> Nobody reads those...
[20:00]  * canthus13 ponders the difficulty of throwing on Mint Debian 64...
[20:01] <canthus13> Looks like I'll have to rearrange my panels.
[20:10] <jrgifford> canthus13: yeah, i'm looking at how to do that as well
[20:10] <jrgifford> (installing Mint Debian)
[20:11] <canthus13> jrgifford: I like Gnome 3, and I like their implementation of it. It just looks like the debian version is a bit behind.
[20:12] <canthus13> Huh. they've completely written their own debian installer/live environment that will work with any other debian-based distro.
[20:12] <jrgifford> canthus13: oh? I haven't played with the full gnome3 stack in a few months,
[20:13] <jrgifford> canthus13: define "mass refusal".
[20:14] <canthus13> Mint's got a very nice implementation, once you remove the silly menu and the bottom bar.
[20:14] <canthus13> jrgifford: I'd suggest informing everyone you can of the changes and simply state that if they disagree they should refuse to sign the new verson, possibly revoke their signature altogether.
[20:14] <dzho> Mint fanboyism drives me a little crazy if it is at all coupled to Ubuntu criticism.
[20:14] <jrgifford> because there are 760 ubuntu members, we'd need to have roughly 100 of them do it.
[20:14] <jrgifford> heck, even 50.
[20:15] <dzho> present company might be an exception, if there's a pro-Debian slant to it.
[20:15]  * canthus13 nods.
[20:15] <jrgifford> dzho: anything remotely related to "mint is awesome ubuntu sucks" (with no constructive feedback) i just tune out.
[20:15] <canthus13> dzho: The main reason for people going to mint lately seems to be Unity, so it's to be expected.
[20:15] <dzho> mjg59 had a good way of putting this, in a slightly different context.
[20:16] <dzho> > This is easy if your workflow involves putting source in at one end and getting binaries out at the other, but getting to that workflow means having a certain degree of engineering rigour.
[20:16] <dzho> http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/9387.html
[20:17] <dzho> I've got lots of respect for any entity that fields a full build environment for the entire OS their users use.
[20:17] <dzho> Mint, unfortunately, doesn't do that.  Which is ok, it just isn't comparable.
[20:50] <cprofitt> paultag: this is a draft... please do take the time to send comments... and judge by the final product
[20:50] <paultag> cprofitt: I already noted my concern
[20:50]  * cprofitt nods
[20:50] <paultag> I'd hate to get thrown out of the Ubuntu community
[20:50] <cprofitt> I would hate to see that happen to you as well.
[20:51] <paultag> so fix it ;)
[20:51] <cprofitt> to be honest I am not sure I read it the same way you do... but I will take some time to reflect on it... given the perspective you have given me. I just can't do that tonight... I have Cub Scouts tonight... we are planting seeds
[20:52] <paultag> cprofitt: you should consider reading it ;)
[20:52] <paultag> It says, after debate you may not bring it up
[20:52] <cprofitt> I have read it... multiple times
[20:52] <paultag> ergo, if the debate is up and you disagree (c.f. unity), you are in violation if you talk about it
[20:52] <paultag> "I think Unity is unfit for the desktop"
[20:52] <paultag> Boom, CoC violation
[20:53] <paultag> it's fairly cut and dry
[20:54] <cprofitt>  we do not expect to
[20:54] <cprofitt> +delay, debate or discuss any decision after the fact, except through
[20:54] <cprofitt> +escalation to a more senior governance body
[20:54] <cprofitt> that is the critical part for you?
[20:54] <paultag> part of it
[20:54] <paultag> respectfus discusion and debte should be *encouraged*
[20:55] <paultag> disruptive actions to prevent the course of action should not
[20:55] <cprofitt> I agree... but what about after the decisioni is made?
[20:55] <paultag> but I should be able to say "I think unity is a very poor choice on the desktop"
[20:55] <paultag> cprofitt: esp. after the decision is made
[20:55] <paultag> I still think Unity is not fit for the desktop
[20:55] <paultag> and saying that is now a CoC violation
[20:55] <canthus13> cprofitt: It shouldn't matter. 'decision made' != 'everyone kiss my ass and agree with me'
[20:55] <paultag> in both public and private communication
[20:55] <paultag> if you read the first stanza
[20:55] <cprofitt> I understand... and I read that as you having an opinion... not engaging in a debate
[20:56] <paultag> I can no longer tweet "I don't like Unity"
[20:56] <paultag> for fear of being thrown out
[20:56] <cprofitt> I am not reading that paultag ...
[20:56] <paultag> That's discussing it.
[20:56] <paultag> After the decision, which was made.
[20:56] <paultag> ergo, CoC violation
[20:56] <cprofitt> would you want something that protects people's rights to express their opinion?
[20:57] <paultag> I want something that encourages that
[20:57] <paultag> only through open discourse can we move forward
[20:57] <paultag> stifling that like communist china is a fucking sham
[20:57] <cprofitt> I think there is a difference between stopping progress and stating an opinion...
[20:57] <paultag> if you read it, there's no difference
[20:57] <cprofitt> I can see what the language is trying to get that there...
[20:57] <cprofitt> and I think I understand your point
[20:57] <paultag> discussing it, in either private or public contexts is no longer acceptable
[20:58] <Unit193> I stumbled with Private or Public myself.
[20:58] <paultag> Unit193: that's always been there
[20:58] <paultag> and I'm fine with that
[20:58] <paultag> so long as there are no mandates like this
[20:58] <paultag> where I have to censor myself
[20:58] <cprofitt> well... it does give the avenue of engaging the relevant team or governing body
[20:58] <paultag> so?
[20:58] <paultag> that's more disruptive
[20:58] <paultag> and you can only do that once
[20:59] <paultag> of which, they'll 9/10 times agree
[20:59] <paultag> then you can't talk about it
[20:59] <paultag> because the debate's over
[20:59] <paultag> and saying "I think this is unfit for use" is no longer something you can do as an Ubuntu member
[20:59] <paultag> in any context
[20:59] <cprofitt> you mean like the debate over Banshee replacing Rythmbox?
[20:59] <paultag> it's very clear
[20:59] <paultag> or the choice to make Unity a DE
[20:59] <paultag> whatever, who cares
[21:00] <cprofitt> I am curious... because that decision got reversed...
[21:00] <paultag> cprofitt: which wouldn't happen if you can't speak out about it
[21:00] <cprofitt> though, because I was not involved, I do not know why either decision was made
[21:00]  * canthus13 doesn't mind Unity being *A* DE.. just it's choice as the 'use it or suffer with sub-par support for anything else'
[21:00] <paultag> if this CoC was in place, we'd not be reversed
[21:00] <paultag> don't you see, the point is to *encourage* discussion
[21:00] <paultag> not stifle it
[21:01] <cprofitt> paultag: I do... I do... and but I also agree that at some point the discussion need to not impede the decision
[21:01] <canthus13> The only reason I can see for it is to keep everyone else from reminding the people at the top that Unity is a stupid idea. :P
[21:01] <paultag> cprofitt: that clause establishes a frightning clause that only causes issues
[21:01] <paultag> cprofitt: encouraging respectful discussion without preventing it's implementation is what you *WANT*
[21:01] <paultag> cprofitt: telling people to shut up after someone makes a bad decision isn't
[21:01] <paultag> which is what this is doing
[21:02] <paultag> I've never once blocked something technically, and I never will
[21:02] <paultag> but so help me, I will always open up discussion on it
[21:02] <cprofitt> I just do not see the intent as going that far paultag... I can see the room there for someone to make that claim though.
[21:02] <paultag> and preventing that is worse then most facist goverments
[21:02] <paultag> cprofitt: look, the verbage is cut and dry, it's a CoC violation to speak out against a bad decision that was made
[21:03] <paultag> cprofitt: who cares about the intent, the wording is the wording
[21:03] <cprofitt> I certainly will think on it... I believe I Know what the intent is... and that may color my reading of it
[21:03] <paultag> you can't claim intent down the road
[21:03] <cprofitt> well the current wording is there for public comment... and it can change prior to release
[21:03] <paultag> I understand, I had this discussion elsewhere (community-team) where most people agreed with my reading
[21:03] <paultag> and now see it's a very poorly written clause
[21:03] <paultag> very poorly
[21:04] <paultag> intent has nothing to do with it
[21:04] <cprofitt> I need to go get ready for scouts... but I will re-read it and think on it.
[21:04] <paultag> cheers
[21:05] <paultag> (such a shame such discussion as we're having now won't be tolerated by the CoC-mark-two)
[21:05] <cprofitt> I am confident we will look at all the suggestions that come in from the community when we meet to discuss the CoC revision
[21:05] <cprofitt> have a great night everyone!
[21:09] <canthus13> paultag: I don't think he liked listening to you...
[21:24] <paultag> canthus13: nope
[21:24] <paultag> canthus13: because he wrote it
[21:25] <paultag> and he never admits he's wrong
[21:25]  * canthus13 nods.
[23:37] <dzho> paultag: unless you're talking about someone else, I think you've got him wrong.
[23:39] <dzho> "after the decision is made" only makes sense in the context of something that is *not* constantly changing.
[23:40] <dzho> there is always a new set of decisions going forward to be made.
[23:42] <canthus13> dzho: it still means that even though unity is garbage, since it's not changing nobody is allowed complain.