[19:34] <MarkDude> jono its rather not cool to do a public shaming post- and NOT highlight my name. Btw, I only apologized for *type* of video
[19:34] <MarkDude> Nothing more.
[19:34] <MarkDude>  The bug also affects *85 people*
[19:35] <MarkDude> Similar to how Ubuntu did a public shaming a while ago- listed 3 names that should have maybe been there, and a fourth name that was nothing less than bs to put on
[19:36] <MarkDude> You are a great CM, but man, you gotta work on the Open thing
[19:38] <MarkDude> Respectful is not using a scarlet letter. This is nothing less.
[19:39] <MarkDude> Most important tho, you did not ping me on G+. The moment I saw it, I said something in a logged channel, and was nice enough to highlight/notify you :)
[19:41] <raevol> what's going on?
[19:43] <jono> MarkDude, eh?
[19:43] <jono> MarkDude, which post?
[19:44] <MarkDude> https://plus.google.com/114419073019603780828/posts/689WZkpZqeF
[19:44] <darthrobot`> Title: [Jono Bacon - Google+ - In my mind everything boils down to two factors, Trust and…]
[19:45]  * MarkDude thought a water under the bridge stance was taken, apparently not. I will follow up comment later. But I need to clarify I apologized for type of video- and also point out MORE than 2 were upset
[19:46] <MarkDude> Public shaming is a rather horrible methodology, imho :(
[19:46] <jono> MarkDude, two things:
[19:46] <MarkDude> But par for the course from Ubuntu perspective apparently
[19:47] <jono> 1. your name was not highlighted because it was a response on Valorie's blog, and I didn't know this was backended to G+, hence no +Mark Terranova
[19:47] <jono> 2. this was not a "public shaming" - it was a response to a blog entry, and yes I highlighted you and Ben, but I believe the paragraph that I wrote was supportive and respective of you
[19:48] <jono> I didn't just randomly post that on G+
[19:48] <jono> it was a response to a blog post that specifically referenced this incident
[19:49] <jono> s/respective/respectful
[19:50] <Torikun> Hey jono!
[19:50] <jono> also, this is not " par for the course from Ubuntu perspective"
[19:51] <jono> I find it ironic that you could be so disrespectful throughout this link incident yet you come down on me for posting something that is no where near as firey as your own postsa
[19:51] <jono> Torikun, hi
[20:10] <MarkDude> Firey no.
[20:10] <MarkDude> Naming names like Ubuntu does -? Yes.
[20:10] <MarkDude> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22nathan+haines%22+%22neal+busset%22+ubuntu&l=1
[20:10] <darthrobot`> Title: [Let me google that for you]
[20:10] <MarkDude> Internet is permanent
[20:10] <MarkDude> And my name is fine- as I said in call. Other folks names? Not so much, imho
[20:11] <MarkDude> But my name was mentioned
[20:11] <MarkDude> No need to notify me? But its cool to drop other names?
[20:12] <MarkDude> Respond to post, sure, dropping names tho is #poorform, as I posted on my G+ its a habit here
[20:12] <jono> MarkDude, Mark, all I did was say that I felt you and Ben felt bad about what happened, that I consider you friends, and that I am confident things will change
[20:12] <MarkDude> You care - I *know* that- you just dont get it
[20:12] <MarkDude> Well of course :D
[20:12] <jono> I don't get what?
[20:12] <MarkDude> Thats never been in doubt :)
[20:12] <MarkDude> WHY folks are mad
[20:12] <MarkDude> Its more than a link
[20:13] <jono> hang on
[20:13] <MarkDude> Val was mad BEFORE i posted
[20:13] <MarkDude> BEFORE
[20:13] <jono> so are you angry at me now because of the post or because of the link issue?
[20:13] <jono> lets keep focused on one issue at a time
[20:13] <MarkDude> So I have NOTHING to do with her being mad- thats revisionist
[20:13] <MarkDude> The OTHER name #1
[20:13]  * jono is confused
[20:14] <MarkDude> 2 is not letting me know my name was used- thats poor form
[20:14]  * MarkDude shared the video
[20:14] <MarkDude> Not ben
[20:14] <MarkDude> He had a provate joke
[20:14] <jono> this wasn't just about the video
[20:14]  * MarkDude SHARED it
[20:14] <jono> I personally don't care about the video
[20:14] <jono> people make private jokes, so what
[20:14] <MarkDude> Ok - and you still say its 2 names
[20:14] <jono> this was about conduct
[20:14] <MarkDude> The video WAS funny
[20:14] <jono> I referenced you and Ben in relation to the issues over the link
[20:14] <jono> and you were part of that
[20:15] <MarkDude> Yes, and if I was an Ubuntu Member- you could have held that over my head
[20:15] <jono> no
[20:15]  * MarkDude is member of Ubuntu Community
[20:15] <jono> Ben is an Ubuntu member, I don't hold it over his head
[20:15] <MarkDude> Its been doen
[20:15] <jono> if someone wants to question Ben's membership to the CC, I will be the first to defend him
[20:15] <MarkDude> But yet- you post his name on public post?
[20:16] <MarkDude> One or the other
[20:16] <jono> I did, because he still participated in this incident
[20:16] <jono> that doesn't go away
[20:16] <jono> and I was responding to this topic on the blog
[20:16] <jono> so I see referencing the name as reasonable
[20:16] <jono> this is the nature of consequences ;-)
[20:16] <jono> if you do something, people call you on it
[20:16] <jono> it happens to me *every single day*
[20:16] <MarkDude> Yes, other projects like to do things in the background.
[20:16] <MarkDude> Sure
[20:16] <MarkDude> you are Jono
[20:17] <MarkDude> You  make money here
[20:17] <MarkDude> Not fair to compare to hobby people
[20:17] <jono> why does me pulling a salary make a difference?
[20:17] <MarkDude> You make money to do that
[20:17] <jono> Ubuntu is my hobby too
[20:17] <jono> people call me in posts on my hobbies too
[20:17] <jono> that is how the Internet works
[20:17] <MarkDude> Pay me and you can say whatever you want
[20:17] <MarkDude> Sure
[20:17] <jono> I don't get angry when people call me on things, I respond where I can
[20:18] <jono> I could understand your anger if I deliberately went out to highlight you in this issue, but I didn't, I responded inline to a blog post
[20:18] <MarkDude> Folks that post about FOSS projects on kid related posts are still asses, it should be 2 separate ares - I agree
[20:18] <MarkDude> Lets go back a few years
[20:18] <MarkDude> Naming names like in the Google link
[20:18] <MarkDude> No heres the deal, I was ready to let this be water under the bridge, not so much now
[20:18] <MarkDude> no/now
[20:19] <jono> that is your decision
[20:19] <MarkDude> Yes
[20:19] <jono> I think you are overreacting
[20:19] <jono> but as I said on the phone last week, this is the problem
[20:19] <MarkDude> Possibly
[20:19] <jono> as I said, the ubuntu.com link was a perfectly reasonable topic to raise, but the way it was communicated and engaged around was not
[20:19] <MarkDude> Have you ever heard of my hassles in another project? NOPE. they do things in a way that values input
[20:20] <jono> "Canonical piss on people and claim it is rain" is not thoughtful engagement
[20:20] <MarkDude> More than a few years there- no hassles
[20:20] <jono> I don't track your contributions in other projects
[20:20] <MarkDude> Dude, that is my quote
[20:20] <MarkDude> YEP
[20:20] <MarkDude> And you cant google to see when folks get in trouble- they are grownups
[20:20] <jono> Google knows everything
[20:20] <jono> again, this is the nature of consquences
[20:21] <MarkDude> piss comes from Canonical - its not rain
[20:21] <raevol> o_o wow
[20:21] <MarkDude> Again the nature of Ubuntu actions will help it be looked at in sunlight
[20:21] <jono> I agree
[20:21] <MarkDude> raevol: this post was OPPOSITE of pohonecall
[20:21] <MarkDude> Anyway, will respond later
[20:22] <raevol> MarkDude: did you make some video?
[20:22] <jono> MarkDude, no worries, but just remember the context of all of this
[20:23] <MarkDude> raevol: nope- I shared it
[20:23] <MarkDude> Clarification; no names were used- UNTIL AFTER val posted
[20:23] <jono> MarkDude, also, to be honest, if you are concerned about your name being associated with this topic, you probably shouldn't have been a part of the datamation article
[20:23] <MarkDude> THAT is shaming
[20:24] <MarkDude> Telling her and other\
[20:24] <jono> MarkDude, it is not shaming; I didn't seek to shame you
[20:24] <jono> you know me well
[20:24] <jono> do you really think I would do that to you?
[20:24] <MarkDude> If you speak out- others you care about will be shamed
[20:24] <MarkDude> Your words up there ^^^^ said it was a response
[20:24] <jono> yes, it was a response to a post
[20:24] <MarkDude> So in other words, had val not posted
[20:24] <jono> that is different to shaming
[20:25] <MarkDude> You would have not named the names
[20:25] <MarkDude> Nope
[20:25] <jono> if Val had not posted I would never have written that
[20:25] <MarkDude> Actions and reactions
[20:25] <MarkDude> Yep
[20:25] <jono> this is accountability
[20:25] <jono> this is not shaming
[20:25] <MarkDude> Clear message - dont speak out
[20:25] <jono> there is a very definitive difference
[20:25] <MarkDude> Or others will be come after
[20:25] <MarkDude> Not you intent
[20:25] <jono> MarkDude, not at all, you are not listening to me
[20:25] <MarkDude> Thats the message
[20:25] <MarkDude> Dude- this is logged
[20:25]  * MarkDude <<<<< walk
[20:25] <jono> I have made it *very clear* all criticism is welcome, but it has to be on a platform of respectful discourse
[20:26] <jono> yes, all our official channels are logged
[20:26] <MarkDude> Yep- and FOSS can deciding if naming names in RESPONSE to a critique is fair
[20:26] <jono> as I said on the phone, I thought the topic of the ubuntu.com link was a valuable topic
[20:26] <MarkDude> Not all
[20:26] <jono> look this is the way it works as I see it:
[20:27] <raevol> so you want to be able to be disrespectful, and get away with it?
[20:27] <jono> actions have consequences
[20:27] <jono> professionally communicated concerns are seen as a professional engagement
[20:27] <jono> emotive ranting is seen as emotive ranting
[20:27] <jono> people bring their own conclusions from the conduct
[20:28] <jono> what I am hearing now is that you were sorry for how you engaged in the ubuntu.com issue but you don't want to be held accountable
[20:28] <jono> and I get that
[20:28] <jono> but it is not like I am trying to make you an example
[20:28] <jono> I am not raising this with the CC, the TB, blogging about what you specifically did or anything like that
[20:29] <jono> I simply responded to a blog post and mentioned that I had spoken to you, you expressed regret for your actions, that I consider you a friend, and I am confident changes will be made
[20:29] <jono> I was defending you here, not attacking you
[20:29] <jono> I have a call I have to take
[20:29] <jono> I will be back soon
[20:30] <jono> too many meetings :-)
[20:32] <raevol> the kdub
[20:32] <raevol> kdubdubdub
[20:32] <raevol> -_-
[20:32] <kdub> haha :P
[20:32] <raevol> how's life man
[20:33] <kdub> can't complain, how about you?
[20:33] <raevol> same
[20:36] <kdub> havent had a sd uh in a while... been busy
[20:38] <raevol> yea :( and philililillip has been a world traveller
[20:38] <raevol> well, for some value of world
[20:38] <raevol> i went back to my salsa team so my availability is back to zero :(
[20:43] <kdub> maybe we'll just switch to v-uh to go with v-uds ;-)
[20:44] <raevol> hahahaha
[20:44] <raevol> "we all live in the same city but are going to do a google hangout because we're too busy to meet up"
[20:56] <jono> hey MarkDude
[20:56] <jono> back