[Interest] L Word

[Ben Haller]

+1.

I am mostly a lurker on this list, but I have asked a few questions and 
learned a bunch of things.  I would like to remain subscribed to it; it 
is useful to me.  But Roland is destroying the list.  As Benjamin writes 
below, at least some of the issues Roland raises are valid, and the 
larger discussion (what is Qt for, what should the future of it be, how 
are its licensing terms affecting its usability, etc.) has often been 
interesting.  I have even learned things from Roland's posts, in fact. 
The problem is not Roland's viewpoint as such (although I agree with 
those who are puzzled that he doesn't simply leave the group, since Qt 
is clearly not the tool he wants it to be), nor the discussion topic, 
but the fact that Roland behaves like a troll: posting endlessly making 
essentially the same points over and over, being rude and insulting 
rather than constructive, and attempting not just to make his point, but 
to completely dominate the conversation.

That is unacceptable behavior, and if it isn't against the CoC, perhaps 
it should be.  Tuukka, I recognize the difficult position here, but I 
vote that something needs to be done.  If you don't want to ban someone 
who is not in clear violation of the CoC, then the CoC should be revised 
to disallow this type of behavior.  This needs to stop.  People who are 
good, constructive contributors to the list are leaving, and I will soon 
follow them if this doesn't change.  If I'm not mistaken, not a single 
person has posted to this "L Word" thread in defense of Roland's right 
to act as he has been acting, have they?  It feels like the community is 
pretty much unanimous on this (except, of course, Roland): it needs to 
stop.  It seems clear that it won't stop of Roland's own volition, so 
the moderators need to act.

Cheers,
-B.

Benjamin C. Haller
Messer Lab
Cornell University



Benjamin TERRIER wrote on 4/29/21 11:26 AM:
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 15:15, Bob Hood <bhood2 at comcast.net 
> <mailto:bhood2 at comcast.net>> wrote:
>
>     On 4/29/2021 4:02 AM, Bernhard Lindner wrote:
>>     Obviously, Qt has nothing to do with this type of software engineering. And it's obviously
>>     not suitable for functional safety (at least not if you take it seriously).
>
>     If this statement is true /and/ Roland's statement that TQC
>     actively courted that industry is also true, then it seems to me
>     that he has a valid grievance, regardless of how he presents it.
>
>
> TQC actively courted that industry, but it does not mean that they 
> intended Qt to be part of the functional safety stack.
>
> As a proof to my above statement I bring you the Qt Safe Renderer. It 
> is a commercial product from TQC targeted to functional safety 
> industry, so yes TQC has courted this industry.
> However, it also means that Qt itself was never meant to be a part of 
> the functional safety stack and is not supposed to mess with it.
>
> The issue at hand here is not that Roland has a valid grievance or 
> not. At least some of the issues he raised are valid.
> The issue is that his emails are numerous and have a very low 
> signal/noise ratio, that he is borderline insulting to anyone who is 
> out of his industry and that in the end it lowers the value users are 
> getting from this mailing list.
>
> And personally I'd add that he is so badly advocating for his 
> grievance that I'd prefer him not to advocate for the points where I 
> agree with him.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20210429/9a931017/attachment-0001.html>