Misuse of power at the LMMS issue tracker

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Misuse of power at the LMMS issue tracker

Alex Henry
Hello, I'm sad it has come to this but I feel I must report a case of misuse of power on the LMMS GH tracker. Issue #2556, which has been open since February 2016, containing 12 participants and 60 comments has been locked by Tres (@tresf) over him feeling "threatened by personal attacks". This is the comment that got the thread locked and in the following reply Tres explains why he is locking the thread. I'll let anyone interested draw their own conclusions if there have been any personal attacks to be found there or not.

I will be the first to admit that I'm not overly careful with when I write or talk but since Tres directly asked me before in that thread to refrain from any "ad hominen" comments (or, more precisely, what he felt constituted "ad hominen" remarks), I did try my best to be as neutral as possible later on. All I can say is that I don't know who Tres is and frankly, I don't even care or want to know. I wouldn't take the time to deliberately offend someone I don't know on the web, more less so someone who helps create a project I'm invested in. My intention in these issues has been only to help with LMMS as an open-source enthusiast and user of the great program that I see being developed on almost a daily basis. Here is an example of another issue I opened earlier this year, to show my good intentions towards the project.

Having #2556 locked, myself (@tukkek) and Simon (@probonopd), who were the only users there making progress towards resolving the issue (in my own personal view, not meant as a personal attack towards anyone else) were excluded from the conversation. In an attempt to leave whatever personal issues behind and move forward with a solution, I opened a new issue and pinged Simon to try and continue to work on a pull request. As I said before, I'm not involved with the project so maybe it's not my place to try and make a PR happen but I did it anyway in good will and not trying to offend anyone's sensibilities. What happened again is that Tres immediately closed the issue, even when he hadn't been mentioned there at all. He is now clearly out on a witch-hunt and made the issue personal, himself.

Again, I'm not an active developer with LMMS, just a regular user who knows enough to try and help with reporting and resolving issues on open-source projects I'm personally invested in. I don't know how the LMMS team handles such issues but it's clear to me that there has been a misuse (if not a clear-cut abuse) of power here. I believe my job here is only to report that this is happening, let the team know and take whatever appropriate actions (or none at all). If you want to keep me in the conversation, though, just "reply to all" since I'm not subscribed to the mailing list. I'm also sending this to Simon since I believe that all we wanted was to help the project and we were arbitrarily kicked out of it for no good reason - not once, but systematically. I wouldn't be writing this email hadn't this happened twice in a row.

I don't believe this entire scenario shows a welcoming stance to people trying to help with your project and I felt it was my duty to formally report this. Having done it, I defer to the LMMS development team.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
LMMS-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of power at the LMMS issue tracker

Tres Finocchiaro
> I don't know who Tres is and frankly, I don't even care or want to know.

Please avoid singling out individuals as it can quickly become toxic.  This is the third request to avoid ad hominem style responses.

(@tukkek) and Simon (@probonopd), who were the only users there making progress towards resolving the issue

On the contrary, progress has been made by @jasp00 and myself towards #2932, which has redundancies with the AppImage effort.  This was explained in #2556.

 > opened [#3558] and pinged Simon to try and continue to work on a pull request

#3558 thread is not locked, but rather closed.  Simon or any other interested parties will have access to answer his/her progress there if he/she chooses to do so.  The open status of #3558 is redundant with #2556 so it will remain closed unless the tasks are split.

The decision to lock #2556 was done after several warnings.

Best regards,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
LMMS-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of power at the LMMS issue tracker

Alex Henry
> Please avoid singling out individuals

How can I not refer to you after you're the one locking the threads? Am I not allowed to point out you have personally and systematically misused your power as an administrator?

> progress has been made by @jasp00 and myself

Seems to me like you are personally closing the issue you're not interested in and allowing the one you're personally involved in to keep going. Maybe you can do that but then don't lock and close other issues  claiming  "ad hominen" accusations, making it about yourself and not about technical issues. Be transparent (if that's indeed the case)

> #3558 thread is not locked, but rather closed.  Simon or any other interested parties will have access to answer his/her progress there if he/she chooses to do so.

Are you literally telling me that we should continue to work on a cosed issue? That's completely devoid of any logic.

> The decision to lock #2556 was done after several warnings.

Warnings that I did my best to heed and respect and which were baseless since I never attacked you personally. I'll add the link here again so anyone interested can verify for themselves if my last comment was personally offensive at all to merit a thread being shutdown https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/2556#issuecomment-301805379

I am more than willing to accept an apology from you to make things right.

On 16 May 2017 at 15:04, Tres Finocchiaro <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I don't know who Tres is and frankly, I don't even care or want to know.

Please avoid singling out individuals as it can quickly become toxic.  This is the third request to avoid ad hominem style responses.

(@tukkek) and Simon (@probonopd), who were the only users there making progress towards resolving the issue

On the contrary, progress has been made by @jasp00 and myself towards #2932, which has redundancies with the AppImage effort.  This was explained in #2556.

 > opened [#3558] and pinged Simon to try and continue to work on a pull request

#3558 thread is not locked, but rather closed.  Simon or any other interested parties will have access to answer his/her progress there if he/she chooses to do so.  The open status of #3558 is redundant with #2556 so it will remain closed unless the tasks are split.

The decision to lock #2556 was done after several warnings.

Best regards,


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
LMMS-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of power at the LMMS issue tracker

Tres Finocchiaro
I am more than willing to accept an apology from you to make things right.

If the issue is personal, we should take the resolution offline.
Any further public discussion would be wasteful to outsiders.
 
> you are personally closing the issue you're not interested in 

Since I largely spearhead packaging I'm quite heavily invested and interested but I'd rather not come to my own defense, this is not the right place for that type of discussion.  This is a developer mailing list and I'd like to keep it that way.


On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Alex Henry <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Please avoid singling out individuals

How can I not refer to you after you're the one locking the threads? Am I not allowed to point out you have personally and systematically misused your power as an administrator?

> progress has been made by @jasp00 and myself

Seems to me like you are personally closing the issue you're not interested in and allowing the one you're personally involved in to keep going. Maybe you can do that but then don't lock and close other issues  claiming  "ad hominen" accusations, making it about yourself and not about technical issues. Be transparent (if that's indeed the case)

> #3558 thread is not locked, but rather closed.  Simon or any other interested parties will have access to answer his/her progress there if he/she chooses to do so.

Are you literally telling me that we should continue to work on a cosed issue? That's completely devoid of any logic.

> The decision to lock #2556 was done after several warnings.

Warnings that I did my best to heed and respect and which were baseless since I never attacked you personally. I'll add the link here again so anyone interested can verify for themselves if my last comment was personally offensive at all to merit a thread being shutdown https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/2556#issuecomment-301805379

I am more than willing to accept an apology from you to make things right.

On 16 May 2017 at 15:04, Tres Finocchiaro <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I don't know who Tres is and frankly, I don't even care or want to know.

Please avoid singling out individuals as it can quickly become toxic.  This is the third request to avoid ad hominem style responses.

(@tukkek) and Simon (@probonopd), who were the only users there making progress towards resolving the issue

On the contrary, progress has been made by @jasp00 and myself towards #2932, which has redundancies with the AppImage effort.  This was explained in #2556.

 > opened [#3558] and pinged Simon to try and continue to work on a pull request

#3558 thread is not locked, but rather closed.  Simon or any other interested parties will have access to answer his/her progress there if he/she chooses to do so.  The open status of #3558 is redundant with #2556 so it will remain closed unless the tasks are split.

The decision to lock #2556 was done after several warnings.

Best regards,



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
LMMS-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of power at the LMMS issue tracker

Alex Henry
> If the issue is personal

It isn't, for me, at least. As far as I'm concerned this is about development process and issue management on GH.

> this is not the right place for that type of discussion

Is there any better place to discuss development process issues than the development mailing list for the project?

Can you please address why you keep referring to perfectly polite discussion as personal attacks towards your person and taking actions on it such as closing and locking threads? If you can, please point out which part of my last comment here were enough of an offensive personal attack to merit a year-long thread being locked over https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/2556#issuecomment-301805379

On 16 May 2017 at 15:30, Tres Finocchiaro <[hidden email]> wrote:
I am more than willing to accept an apology from you to make things right.

If the issue is personal, we should take the resolution offline.
Any further public discussion would be wasteful to outsiders.
 
> you are personally closing the issue you're not interested in 

Since I largely spearhead packaging I'm quite heavily invested and interested but I'd rather not come to my own defense, this is not the right place for that type of discussion.  This is a developer mailing list and I'd like to keep it that way.


On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Alex Henry <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Please avoid singling out individuals

How can I not refer to you after you're the one locking the threads? Am I not allowed to point out you have personally and systematically misused your power as an administrator?

> progress has been made by @jasp00 and myself

Seems to me like you are personally closing the issue you're not interested in and allowing the one you're personally involved in to keep going. Maybe you can do that but then don't lock and close other issues  claiming  "ad hominen" accusations, making it about yourself and not about technical issues. Be transparent (if that's indeed the case)

> #3558 thread is not locked, but rather closed.  Simon or any other interested parties will have access to answer his/her progress there if he/she chooses to do so.

Are you literally telling me that we should continue to work on a cosed issue? That's completely devoid of any logic.

> The decision to lock #2556 was done after several warnings.

Warnings that I did my best to heed and respect and which were baseless since I never attacked you personally. I'll add the link here again so anyone interested can verify for themselves if my last comment was personally offensive at all to merit a thread being shutdown https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/2556#issuecomment-301805379

I am more than willing to accept an apology from you to make things right.

On 16 May 2017 at 15:04, Tres Finocchiaro <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I don't know who Tres is and frankly, I don't even care or want to know.

Please avoid singling out individuals as it can quickly become toxic.  This is the third request to avoid ad hominem style responses.

(@tukkek) and Simon (@probonopd), who were the only users there making progress towards resolving the issue

On the contrary, progress has been made by @jasp00 and myself towards #2932, which has redundancies with the AppImage effort.  This was explained in #2556.

 > opened [#3558] and pinged Simon to try and continue to work on a pull request

#3558 thread is not locked, but rather closed.  Simon or any other interested parties will have access to answer his/her progress there if he/she chooses to do so.  The open status of #3558 is redundant with #2556 so it will remain closed unless the tasks are split.

The decision to lock #2556 was done after several warnings.

Best regards,




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
LMMS-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Misuse of power at the LMMS issue tracker

Tres Finocchiaro
The first attack was here:

Comparing AppImages with run files makes it clear you have no idea what you're talking about and didn't even bother reading the thread and the thoughtful, thorough comments other people wrote here.

The ad hominem continues here (making false claims that an individual is invested against a technology)

If your best argument is "makeself does everything that AppImage does" then why are you so invested against AppImage?

The ad hominem is implicitly continued with this comment.

> There seem to be several people here in favor of offering an AppImage and one in favor of a run file. 

The topic shifts, but the targeted comments continue:

> Explain to me why, when @probonopd already has a working AppImage, verified by yourself, using a very simple YAML recipe? You were advocating for keeping this discussion strictly towards the benefits of each packaging method. What technical advantages does building an AppImage from scractch have over a deb-based one?
 
And then here:

> If you (or anyone) cannot provide an argument for .run files over AppImages it seems to me this discussion is then settled.

Claiming victory of a sided argument that was asked on several occasions to avoid is what finally got it locked.

If at any point I baited this conversation, I apologize for that and that alone.

If you feel the need to reply to the above statements, you may do so but I do ask you make them final and I ask that any further discussion is left offline.  I will not add subsequent replies past this point out of respect to the community.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
LMMS-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel