Re: Tolerance

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 7/15/2019 4:51 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> In my opinion, the problem we saw that sparked much of this discussion 
> was twofold:
>
> a) By describing the actions as stupid, this carried a (unwanted) 
> implication that those carrying out the action were stupid. Only 
> stupid people do stupid things, but even clever people can make 
> serious errors.
>
> b) Rather than call out that choice of words but answer the essential 
> points, the organisation chose instead to chastise the sender publicly 
> and leave the points unanswered - unwittingly shutting down the 
> discussion.
>
> Put another way, the sender's choice of words added nothing useful to 
> the discussion, and in fact dissuaded some from offering their own 
> opinions. The response to it had much the same effect. And of course, 
> the response to that escalated further.. And so on.


I really hate to restart this, but what I said was that the "result" was 
"a stupidity".  Language is important.   The proximate actions that 
finally caused the result are mostly still unexplained.  As I explained 
in the second email in the chain, there's enough blame to go around to 
all of us and I happily take the label of "stupid" for not paying more 
attention and not pushing back earlier especially after the RFC++ bof.

In any event, what word or words would you use to describe the avoidable 
result of losing before time our world-class RSE?  My guess is that any 
characterization that you make that's at least half correct and doesn't 
preclude human causes or contributions for the result can be molded, 
twisted or otherwise imputed as being an insult to someone.   And lest 
you misunderstand - that's a rhetorical comment, not an actual demand 
for set of words.

Thanks by the way for noticing (b).

Later, Mike