bomber wrote:Grow up you children....
CURT !
you say you want harmony between parties and yet you or your minions allow the 'competing' statement stand...
How can YOU be taken seriously ?
Sort your house out, as your pets are sh.ting in it.
Simon.
Post by bomber.
Post by bomber.
Re: Post by bomber.
I've pointed out to curt that the title of the split off topic is deliberately antagonistic and adversarial. And that also '3rd party repositories ' is the only sub forum not shown under the support forum.... take a look.
https://forum.flightgear.org/index.php
It's difficult if you're constantly being dealt from the bottom of the deck.
https://forum.flightgear.org/index.php
It's difficult if you're constantly being dealt from the bottom of the deck.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell
Re: Post by bomber.
Think about it that way, Bomber, you play with some cheating card sharks, who bring their own deck, very shamelessly give from the bottom, marked all cards and still in their limitless ineptness lose all the time ...
Free speech can never be achieved by dictatorial measures!
Re: Post by bomber.
well they play the same card everything. Its a 3 of Clubs everytime 
(useless in most games I know of)
They have this rethoric (specially bugman) of linking the anti-FGMEMBERS Manifesto -- which is still some unofficial draft of document, as an official side. You read that, and you are either dumb by it (and your position is borked), or you have more self-reasoning and realize that the whole thing makes no great sense.
Then you have Thorsten claiming that his intelectual property on the SpaceShuttle grants him the right to unvest it from GPL status, and then screams : Copyright violation!.
Finally the other 3 of Clubs card is that the proposal came too late, and a decision to go FGADDon way was settle, and there was not a good reason to revert.
They have no better arguments. Certainly no a technical one that is of use.
The only time that someone attempted at arguing technically was Torsten Dreyer in the Devel List. He said, something like
<<I won't choose FGMEMBERS because I think it won't work>>
no explanation given.
From there on, he vetoed the whole FGMEMBERS from ever be officially discussed.
Sure, I think by now, the evidence that FGDATA with submodules using FGMEMBERS as a platform of development does work, which negates the only technical assumption (if not argument) ever made against FGMEMBERS system.
(useless in most games I know of)
They have this rethoric (specially bugman) of linking the anti-FGMEMBERS Manifesto -- which is still some unofficial draft of document, as an official side. You read that, and you are either dumb by it (and your position is borked), or you have more self-reasoning and realize that the whole thing makes no great sense.
Then you have Thorsten claiming that his intelectual property on the SpaceShuttle grants him the right to unvest it from GPL status, and then screams : Copyright violation!.
Finally the other 3 of Clubs card is that the proposal came too late, and a decision to go FGADDon way was settle, and there was not a good reason to revert.
They have no better arguments. Certainly no a technical one that is of use.
The only time that someone attempted at arguing technically was Torsten Dreyer in the Devel List. He said, something like
<<I won't choose FGMEMBERS because I think it won't work>>
no explanation given.
From there on, he vetoed the whole FGMEMBERS from ever be officially discussed.
Sure, I think by now, the evidence that FGDATA with submodules using FGMEMBERS as a platform of development does work, which negates the only technical assumption (if not argument) ever made against FGMEMBERS system.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
Re: Post by bomber.
It is all a lot looking back, and little "where do we go from now".
Kind regards, Vincent
Kind regards, Vincent
Re: Post by bomber.
It would nice if I could get a single straight answer....
The time will come soon when I stop giving him the benefit of the doubt.
The time will come soon when I stop giving him the benefit of the doubt.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell
Re: Post by bomber.
There will be never any straight answer. Their fearless leader, Curt the Ballless has demonstrated, with his demand to SkyBoat to keep his answers a secret, that he has nothing to say, he can stand to in public. The last thing, he and one of his cohorts want, is to give straight answers, they could be pinned on.
Free speech can never be achieved by dictatorial measures!
Re: Post by bomber.
Jwocky, i know your job makes you very mistrustful, but i always say: Trust that people can adapt to be nice, if the diplomacy is right. I have not seen Curt use the theme of: "All the bad comes from outside" for a while now. So in my opinion he wants to adjust to the better tone of the conversation at the other forum. Sure it can be over any time. But as long as it goes good, it is hopeful sign.
Kind regards, Vincent
Kind regards, Vincent
Re: Post by bomber.
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 75#p285115
Yeah!.... NO.
No-one but yourselves keep coming back at your perceptions of Meritocracy and Democracy. As a matter of fact, "meritocracy" is now the first on Official description of Flight-gear in its new policy declaration:
http://www.flightgear.org/flightgear-policy-document/
First off. Your take on meritocracy is a measure of past contributions. I'll call it an ill-distributed manufacturing of "the power of do", and much worse, the way FG is applying it lately, an ill-distributed manufacturing of the "power of not letting do" (read, as in attempting vetoing FGMEMBERS). Basically, this principle of meritocracy is indicating who has the ultimate decision power based upon having being a developer for longer time, instead of allowing the community to "mod" itself, and to develop based on its needs.
FG, as I recall, was not a "Meritocracy" system in those lines. Per example: Several FG features were not created or decided based upon a core agreeing upon, but created via a community filling their needs and per the community convenience. Firstly, FG was a decision of an early community that saw the need of a OpenSourced FlightSimulator and created it, based on shouldering work, not a merit-scale. Secondly, per example, Canvas, Rembrandt, fgcom, OpenRadar, the FG multiplayer system, even the servers, All these things, if I recall correctly were born of a community necessity and the hard work required to fruition was shouldered by members of the community itself. Not by a blue-necked core-developer ruler, that pre-made the decision and told everyone where to go/what to do. Such Meritocracy is purely fictitious. Maybe just residing in wet dreams of Torsten and Thorsten. FGMEMBERS is not alike those things listed above in that was created out of the necessity of the community, and the hard work required to see it born shouldered by a few in the community itself.
Which goes to your second point. Manpower to make it happen.
Are you suggesting that FGMEMBERS could not have been decided as a viable alternative to FGADDon, if not as a replacement, because Torsten and James were not available to shoulder "hard work"? Because, reality is, they did not move a finger to make it possible. Well... yes, the strongly move a machinery of influence that alledgely costed flightgear a full-release cycle TO PREVENT IT TO HAPPEN. Yet, FGMEMBERS was born out of their incredulity that it wouldn't work. And out of their incredulity that a single man (IAHM-COL) could create 800 github repositories, and link them to the official infrastructure in a way that is more technically sound, more stable, and distributed than their protected child: FGADDon.
So, it we are going to be talking about "Meritocracy" and we are going to be making a realistic perspective of What Meritocracy means for our community (and FG in general), then meritocracy should mean: "Those with the merit to do, and the ability to make happen will have the say of what happens". Which means, if you don't have time to make it happen, you won't have the power to prevent it to happen.
And in such precept of Meritocracy. FGMEMBERS has shown that our group has all merit to decide that FGMEMBERS is here to stay, and thus to power to make it available and an integral part of FG as a core.
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 75#p285120
Yes. And I remember you mentioned me climbing a mountain... all right. As always you trying to be funny and stabbing someone in the back.
Look. I dont need to suppose climbing a mountain. You and your group have done all in your way (including abusing infrastructure, as banning me from the devel.list, banning JWocky and myself from the forum, deleting several of our posts --legitimate many of them--, and deleting the FGMEMBERS wiki page) to make sure FGMEMBERS creation is climbing a mountain of feared hills, false-steps and lots of snow willing to roll down hill.
Most of your attitudes, including radically redesign a policies of interaction (at all levels, you a posteriori changed the rules of the devel list, the forum, and even created the new policy document) in an attempt to permanently ban FGMEMBERS from FG. You have by doing so, made sure to establish "a competition" and attempted to destroy not only FGMEMBERS work, but also the names and respectability of people involved. Because you keep ill-taking about me and JWocky in the forum, and ill taking about me in the Devel list, but I have zero voice to speak out and defend mysefl in your turf.
And, after making sure you are borking our name, you also attemp at spread misinformation and fear to many users as you can on how bad for your project is to cooperate in FGMEMBERS --disregarding that FGMEMBERS brings new content and improvements on planes for your software DAILY, disregarding that FGMEMBERS provides a safe heaven for aircraft development exploration and learning (plus git exploration as well) to all community, in a way that could not endanger or jeopardize your collection, which is hosted in a more fragile development environment (a subversion system).
So. Stop being funny, and talk about how someone should climb a mountain, while you are doing all the efforts to yank down the climbers,... while they (or we I guess) succeed in front of your incredulous eyes.
Oh IAHM-COL is just to disrespectful!!!
Yeah . Sure. Of your power games I am.
And it will remain that way because you are not a boss for me. I admire you for what you did and created (FG), but resent your attitudes towards me, who 80% of the time have been bringing you and your project nothing else that big technical solutions.
Said above, I don't think you understand the meaning of meritocracy in an opensource project.
But how about Politeness, respect, trust and Humility?
How many times in this last year or two have you heard this question
ARE YOU SERIOUS?!
You claim those adjectives, and still you hold Thorsten in your circle. Do you call himp polite? Respectful, trustworthy or humble?
Really? How about those qualifiers for Bugman?
Look, to make the point clearer. A day after you banned JWocky and I you celebrated how your forum was already becoming a much happier place, where dissent could be discussed with respect. All I saw was a group of feared collaborators, and two people whom you butchered their pressence and you claimed victory. Now I ask you. Can you stand by your words six months later?
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 30#p257871
Yes. Sure. IT DOES NOT paint a larger picture yet.
IAHM-COL
Hooray wrote:I haven't read/interpreted Thorsten's posting accordingly - ultimately, I think that interpretation would be a little misleading, i.e. while feedback is important, it is definitely judged on how much people are going to be part of the solution rather than the problem, i.e. in terms of their willingness to roll up their sleeves and get involved to address a certain problem, which is touching on the whole "meritocracy" debate we keep having - even without looking at core development, or project management, matters in particular: it simply does not work out if people merely conduct democratic polls without also having a way (=manpower) to implement the result of such polls.
Looking at what happened actually, I'd say that the pros&cons were weighed and people could speak up obviously, but the decision-making, and process, was largely impacted by the corresponding constraints (manpower, time, contributors willing to implement a certain scheme) - which makes absolutely sense.
Yeah!.... NO.
No-one but yourselves keep coming back at your perceptions of Meritocracy and Democracy. As a matter of fact, "meritocracy" is now the first on Official description of Flight-gear in its new policy declaration:
http://www.flightgear.org/flightgear-policy-document/
http://www.flightgear.org/flightgear-policy-document/ wrote:The FlightGear project operates as a meritocracy on the principles of politeness, respect, trust and humility.
First off. Your take on meritocracy is a measure of past contributions. I'll call it an ill-distributed manufacturing of "the power of do", and much worse, the way FG is applying it lately, an ill-distributed manufacturing of the "power of not letting do" (read, as in attempting vetoing FGMEMBERS). Basically, this principle of meritocracy is indicating who has the ultimate decision power based upon having being a developer for longer time, instead of allowing the community to "mod" itself, and to develop based on its needs.
FG, as I recall, was not a "Meritocracy" system in those lines. Per example: Several FG features were not created or decided based upon a core agreeing upon, but created via a community filling their needs and per the community convenience. Firstly, FG was a decision of an early community that saw the need of a OpenSourced FlightSimulator and created it, based on shouldering work, not a merit-scale. Secondly, per example, Canvas, Rembrandt, fgcom, OpenRadar, the FG multiplayer system, even the servers, All these things, if I recall correctly were born of a community necessity and the hard work required to fruition was shouldered by members of the community itself. Not by a blue-necked core-developer ruler, that pre-made the decision and told everyone where to go/what to do. Such Meritocracy is purely fictitious. Maybe just residing in wet dreams of Torsten and Thorsten. FGMEMBERS is not alike those things listed above in that was created out of the necessity of the community, and the hard work required to see it born shouldered by a few in the community itself.
Which goes to your second point. Manpower to make it happen.
Hooray wrote:Under different circumstances, with different times, different personalities and attitudes/language involved, it could very well be that proposals like "fgmembers" (github) and/or TerraGit would have been embraced/implemented more easily - especially if Torsten or James had not been around at the time to shoulder all the work, it seems likely that the project would have ended up making even more concessions.
Are you suggesting that FGMEMBERS could not have been decided as a viable alternative to FGADDon, if not as a replacement, because Torsten and James were not available to shoulder "hard work"? Because, reality is, they did not move a finger to make it possible. Well... yes, the strongly move a machinery of influence that alledgely costed flightgear a full-release cycle TO PREVENT IT TO HAPPEN. Yet, FGMEMBERS was born out of their incredulity that it wouldn't work. And out of their incredulity that a single man (IAHM-COL) could create 800 github repositories, and link them to the official infrastructure in a way that is more technically sound, more stable, and distributed than their protected child: FGADDon.
So, it we are going to be talking about "Meritocracy" and we are going to be making a realistic perspective of What Meritocracy means for our community (and FG in general), then meritocracy should mean: "Those with the merit to do, and the ability to make happen will have the say of what happens". Which means, if you don't have time to make it happen, you won't have the power to prevent it to happen.
George Bernard Shaw wrote:People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.
And in such precept of Meritocracy. FGMEMBERS has shown that our group has all merit to decide that FGMEMBERS is here to stay, and thus to power to make it available and an integral part of FG as a core.
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 75#p285120
Curt wrote:Suppose FlightGear is like a couple guys deciding one day they'd like to climb a mountain.
Yes. And I remember you mentioned me climbing a mountain... all right. As always you trying to be funny and stabbing someone in the back.
Look. I dont need to suppose climbing a mountain. You and your group have done all in your way (including abusing infrastructure, as banning me from the devel.list, banning JWocky and myself from the forum, deleting several of our posts --legitimate many of them--, and deleting the FGMEMBERS wiki page) to make sure FGMEMBERS creation is climbing a mountain of feared hills, false-steps and lots of snow willing to roll down hill.
Most of your attitudes, including radically redesign a policies of interaction (at all levels, you a posteriori changed the rules of the devel list, the forum, and even created the new policy document) in an attempt to permanently ban FGMEMBERS from FG. You have by doing so, made sure to establish "a competition" and attempted to destroy not only FGMEMBERS work, but also the names and respectability of people involved. Because you keep ill-taking about me and JWocky in the forum, and ill taking about me in the Devel list, but I have zero voice to speak out and defend mysefl in your turf.
And, after making sure you are borking our name, you also attemp at spread misinformation and fear to many users as you can on how bad for your project is to cooperate in FGMEMBERS --disregarding that FGMEMBERS brings new content and improvements on planes for your software DAILY, disregarding that FGMEMBERS provides a safe heaven for aircraft development exploration and learning (plus git exploration as well) to all community, in a way that could not endanger or jeopardize your collection, which is hosted in a more fragile development environment (a subversion system).
So. Stop being funny, and talk about how someone should climb a mountain, while you are doing all the efforts to yank down the climbers,... while they (or we I guess) succeed in front of your incredulous eyes.
Oh IAHM-COL is just to disrespectful!!!
Yeah . Sure. Of your power games I am.
And it will remain that way because you are not a boss for me. I admire you for what you did and created (FG), but resent your attitudes towards me, who 80% of the time have been bringing you and your project nothing else that big technical solutions.
http://www.flightgear.org/flightgear-policy-document/ wrote:The FlightGear project operates as a meritocracy on the principles of politeness, respect, trust and humility.
Said above, I don't think you understand the meaning of meritocracy in an opensource project.
But how about Politeness, respect, trust and Humility?
How many times in this last year or two have you heard this question
ARE YOU SERIOUS?!
You claim those adjectives, and still you hold Thorsten in your circle. Do you call himp polite? Respectful, trustworthy or humble?
Really? How about those qualifiers for Bugman?
Look, to make the point clearer. A day after you banned JWocky and I you celebrated how your forum was already becoming a much happier place, where dissent could be discussed with respect. All I saw was a group of feared collaborators, and two people whom you butchered their pressence and you claimed victory. Now I ask you. Can you stand by your words six months later?
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 30#p257871
When I go to the main page, I see the flightgear forum has 5905 members. I only observed 2 of these people creating consistent problems over the past 6 months. This is a rare and exceptional case. Many people are confused about what really was going on because this group created their own version of reality and presented that in a variety of clever ways at every opportunity possible. This is one of the reasons we created a policy/position statement on fgmembers. These two users have already launched their own forum and a few people have signed up and contributed postings. If anyone favors their version of reality, there are plenty of postings at that forum site to resonate with. For people that just aren't happy here, maybe go over to thejabberwocky.net and hang out there for a while. I'd much prefer that people go do something productive in a different sandbox than waste their time (and our time) causing chaos in this sandbox here. And maybe it's important to say that I'm not suggesting anyone else specifically do that unless they'd make a personal determination that it's the best option for themselves.
There's no specific restriction about mentioning their new forum or their project or work (that has already happened several times.) But just be reasonable about it. We don't want to see every thread spammed with this stuff as the answer to every issue or every thread used as a launching point to remind us of every past grievance. I think reasonable people with even basic social skills understand the difference.
The responses I have seen on the forum today give me a lot of encouragement. We still have many different opinions, and people are welcome to voice objections or disagreement (and have.) The difference that I've seen today is that it has all been largely respectful. No one really wants to fight all the time (or so I naively once thought), and we can clearly see that after we have removed the disruptive catalyst things have already become calmer.
I know that doesn't directly answer your specific questions, but I hope it paints a larger picture.
Regards,
Curt.
Yes. Sure. IT DOES NOT paint a larger picture yet.
IAHM-COL
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
Return to “Club of the Banned”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests