things this post does:1.
-
@iinavpov
- was Nate justified in his characterisation of the Nazi and of the actions done to said Nazi?
- was Nate right to say to characterise members of the community who are not direct contributors as "people mostly outside of KDE"?
- was the KDE project right in not apologising to the various people banned from expressing their worries about Nazis in the community, some if which are to my knowledge still blocked?
- Was Nate right in his only lesson being "avoid creating unnecessary drama"?@iinavpov and to ask the three big questions:
- what is to be done with Nazis in the community?
- does the opinion of non-contributor community members (about AI or in general) matter?
- is KDE still a community project?those are the things that worry me. not was or was not said in one presentation, which Nate later mischaracterised yet claimed his description was "verifiable", which KDE repeated as a "first-hand account".
-
@iinavpov and to ask the three big questions:
- what is to be done with Nazis in the community?
- does the opinion of non-contributor community members (about AI or in general) matter?
- is KDE still a community project?those are the things that worry me. not was or was not said in one presentation, which Nate later mischaracterised yet claimed his description was "verifiable", which KDE repeated as a "first-hand account".
@iinavpov and going back to your comment, the "account from Nate's (incomplete, probably biased) viewpoint" just became KDE's response. so it actually matters very little to the future what actually happened, since what i care about is what happens with KDE in the future.
my conclusion from this post is:
- KDE is not a community project, it's a developer project.
- the problem with Nazis in the community is they cause drama.
- same with the AI policy proposal.i hope you see why i'm unhappy.
-
@iinavpov
- was Nate justified in his characterisation of the Nazi and of the actions done to said Nazi?
- was Nate right to say to characterise members of the community who are not direct contributors as "people mostly outside of KDE"?
- was the KDE project right in not apologising to the various people banned from expressing their worries about Nazis in the community, some if which are to my knowledge still blocked?
- Was Nate right in his only lesson being "avoid creating unnecessary drama"?The Nazi was banned for being "unacceptable and people wanting nothing to do with him".
KDE is contributors in a broad sense, always had been. From coders to bug reporters. People who never interacted before with the project in any capacity can fairly be described as "not KDE".
If there is a code of conduct, and it's enforced selectively, is it a code of conduct? If I stab a Nazi, I may have done the morally right, I'm still going to jail.
On the lessons, that's not what I read.
-
@iinavpov and going back to your comment, the "account from Nate's (incomplete, probably biased) viewpoint" just became KDE's response. so it actually matters very little to the future what actually happened, since what i care about is what happens with KDE in the future.
my conclusion from this post is:
- KDE is not a community project, it's a developer project.
- the problem with Nazis in the community is they cause drama.
- same with the AI policy proposal.i hope you see why i'm unhappy.
@iinavpov
going back to the three big questions, the answers seem to be:
- ban them if they're called out, but also the person who called them out if they violate procedure, and shame that person
- no
- also no. -
@iinavpov and going back to your comment, the "account from Nate's (incomplete, probably biased) viewpoint" just became KDE's response. so it actually matters very little to the future what actually happened, since what i care about is what happens with KDE in the future.
my conclusion from this post is:
- KDE is not a community project, it's a developer project.
- the problem with Nazis in the community is they cause drama.
- same with the AI policy proposal.i hope you see why i'm unhappy.
@Yuvalne
All open source projects are contributor (not developer!) projects. Sorry.I emphatically disagree that the only problem with Nazis is drama, and I did *not* get that from the text.
I understand you think that the only AI policy acceptable is "it's forbidden". The current policy is "it's allowed". The revised policy looks like it's aiming for "it's restricted".
I don't like LLMs and refuse to use them. I also feel no right at all to forbid their usage to anyone.
-
The Nazi was banned for being "unacceptable and people wanting nothing to do with him".
KDE is contributors in a broad sense, always had been. From coders to bug reporters. People who never interacted before with the project in any capacity can fairly be described as "not KDE".
If there is a code of conduct, and it's enforced selectively, is it a code of conduct? If I stab a Nazi, I may have done the morally right, I'm still going to jail.
On the lessons, that's not what I read.
@iinavpov
> People who never interacted before with the project in any capacity can fairly be described as "not KDE"and how exactly did you or Nate reach the conclusion that the person who revealed the Nazi or the people at kdeforpeople.com are "people who never interacted before with the project in any capacity"? what exactly makes you characterise any of them as such?
do you know that the person who created the petition is "someone outside KDE", or do you just trust Nate? -
@Yuvalne
All open source projects are contributor (not developer!) projects. Sorry.I emphatically disagree that the only problem with Nazis is drama, and I did *not* get that from the text.
I understand you think that the only AI policy acceptable is "it's forbidden". The current policy is "it's allowed". The revised policy looks like it's aiming for "it's restricted".
I don't like LLMs and refuse to use them. I also feel no right at all to forbid their usage to anyone.
@iinavpov
if you're unable to think of one other criticism of the AI policy (and crucially, about the process surrounding it) other than "it's not forbidding it altogether" then you are part of the problem
but let me help you a little bit:
why does the opinion of community members as expressed via kdeforpeople.com not taken into account? why does it not count, why is it not even worthy if a refutal?
is KDE a community project? does the community have input in shaping the project's AI policy? -
@iinavpov
> People who never interacted before with the project in any capacity can fairly be described as "not KDE"and how exactly did you or Nate reach the conclusion that the person who revealed the Nazi or the people at kdeforpeople.com are "people who never interacted before with the project in any capacity"? what exactly makes you characterise any of them as such?
do you know that the person who created the petition is "someone outside KDE", or do you just trust Nate?@Yuvalne
I know of neither. I just think you assume that pure users are KDE, and I think they aren't.I read from Nate that neither does he. I also trust that if he knew the contributors behind the website he'd have said so (because otherwise the drama would be horrible).
-
@iinavpov
> People who never interacted before with the project in any capacity can fairly be described as "not KDE"and how exactly did you or Nate reach the conclusion that the person who revealed the Nazi or the people at kdeforpeople.com are "people who never interacted before with the project in any capacity"? what exactly makes you characterise any of them as such?
do you know that the person who created the petition is "someone outside KDE", or do you just trust Nate?@iinavpov how do you measure "being outside KDE"? the measure Nate takes is "do the contributors know the person", which is heavily biased towards recurring code contributors and people who hold official positions in the project.
i'm a KDE tester, i've interacted with Nate several times, but he doesn't recognise me, which makes sense because he interacts with many people regularly. that's not the issue, it's that per that definition i'm "outside KDE" and my opinions aren't consideration worthy. -
@mkyral
Fork a large FOSS project, in THIS economy? \s> And also there is a big group of users that did not stepped into discussion yet because they don't care about development process but only if they like the result.
This is “silent majority” vibes. As in pretending to speak for the users that didn't weigh in.
Because you did a survey with those users, and that's where you got this opinion, so this is the source of your care?
You don't need to fork KDE. You can also switch to another DE.
This is how Open Source works!
ad “silent majority” vibes)
I really like people that thinks that their opinion is the only valid opinion.
-
@iinavpov
if you're unable to think of one other criticism of the AI policy (and crucially, about the process surrounding it) other than "it's not forbidding it altogether" then you are part of the problem
but let me help you a little bit:
why does the opinion of community members as expressed via kdeforpeople.com not taken into account? why does it not count, why is it not even worthy if a refutal?
is KDE a community project? does the community have input in shaping the project's AI policy?@Yuvalne
If the only acceptable policy is "it's forbidden", detailed criticism of any other policy is a waste of time.I don't like LLMs I would like them banned. It's not my place to make that decision, enforce it, or (thankfully) deal with the shit storm.
But I also don't like that people trying to restrict use (which is going my way) get piled on because "it's not good enough".
-
@Yuvalne
I know of neither. I just think you assume that pure users are KDE, and I think they aren't.I read from Nate that neither does he. I also trust that if he knew the contributors behind the website he'd have said so (because otherwise the drama would be horrible).
@iinavpov you yourself described Nate's account as "incomplete and biased", yet when je describes the creator of kdeforpeople.com as "someone outside KDE" and dismisses virtually all of the signatures in the same vain you trust that?
-
RE: https://floss.social/@kde/117322549131682125
things this post does:
1. place the blame on the KDE community
2. dismiss kdeforpeople.com as an external pressure group
3. dismiss opinions of non-direct contributors as irrelevantthings this post doesn't do:
1. apologise
2. mention that the person who escalated this shitstorm was a literal nazi
3. call the pro-AI presentation a pressure campaign like it did with kdeforpeople.com
4. make literally any lessons for the future
5. apologise!!i no longer consider #KDE a community project.
@Yuvalne i am severely disappointed, but at this point everything else sucks too. we just need to get by, for the time being.
-
@Yuvalne
If the only acceptable policy is "it's forbidden", detailed criticism of any other policy is a waste of time.I don't like LLMs I would like them banned. It's not my place to make that decision, enforce it, or (thankfully) deal with the shit storm.
But I also don't like that people trying to restrict use (which is going my way) get piled on because "it's not good enough".
@iinavpov you're wildly missing the point and it's hard for me to tell if you're doing that deliberately.
a policy proposal was created, quickly locked for developers only, later after much uproar archived.
the position of kdeforpeople.con was dismissed and not even taken into consideration. there was no attempt to reply to its points.
Nate apologised for causing unnecessary drama and nothing else.
KDE shared the post with that conclusion.do you see an issue with that?
-
@Yuvalne i am severely disappointed, but at this point everything else sucks too. we just need to get by, for the time being.
@ariarhythmic that's fair. i myself don't know when i'm gonna have the time and energy to move to something else, if at all.
-
@iinavpov you're wildly missing the point and it's hard for me to tell if you're doing that deliberately.
a policy proposal was created, quickly locked for developers only, later after much uproar archived.
the position of kdeforpeople.con was dismissed and not even taken into consideration. there was no attempt to reply to its points.
Nate apologised for causing unnecessary drama and nothing else.
KDE shared the post with that conclusion.do you see an issue with that?
@iinavpov i know you disagreed with the framing of some of the questions i asked, so let me repeat just the ones you haven't challenged.
- was Nate justified in his characterisation of the Nazi and of the actions done to said Nazi?
- was Nate right to say to characterise kdeforpeople.com as "people mostly outside of KDE"?
- was the KDE project right in not apologising to the various people banned from expressing their worries about Nazis in the community? -
@iinavpov you're wildly missing the point and it's hard for me to tell if you're doing that deliberately.
a policy proposal was created, quickly locked for developers only, later after much uproar archived.
the position of kdeforpeople.con was dismissed and not even taken into consideration. there was no attempt to reply to its points.
Nate apologised for causing unnecessary drama and nothing else.
KDE shared the post with that conclusion.do you see an issue with that?
@Yuvalne
I would agree with your opinion of events if I agreed with you that this was what happened.As it is, because we don't agree on what happened, it's not relevant.
-
RE: https://floss.social/@kde/117322549131682125
things this post does:
1. place the blame on the KDE community
2. dismiss kdeforpeople.com as an external pressure group
3. dismiss opinions of non-direct contributors as irrelevantthings this post doesn't do:
1. apologise
2. mention that the person who escalated this shitstorm was a literal nazi
3. call the pro-AI presentation a pressure campaign like it did with kdeforpeople.com
4. make literally any lessons for the future
5. apologise!!i no longer consider #KDE a community project.
lol someone reported this post and forwarded it along, for "brigading", and to show this is brigading they cited... the exact Nate post i'm replying to.
idk what's more funny:
1. to report the admin of an almost single-user instance then forward the report to the same instance
2. to bring as evidence the blogpost the post you're reporting is in reply to
3. to quote Nate as evidence for brigading, when Nate himself edited the post to say he was wrong to call it brigading. -
@iinavpov i know you disagreed with the framing of some of the questions i asked, so let me repeat just the ones you haven't challenged.
- was Nate justified in his characterisation of the Nazi and of the actions done to said Nazi?
- was Nate right to say to characterise kdeforpeople.com as "people mostly outside of KDE"?
- was the KDE project right in not apologising to the various people banned from expressing their worries about Nazis in the community?@Yuvalne
I don't know what you mean by Nate's characterisation of the Nazi, because you haven't said what you mean.I presumptively agree with Nate on the kde for the people.
The third point requires way more characters than I have. I don't agree with your framing, but I know how rules are used by bullies to bully, and I know how difficult moderation is. And I don't feel I'm legitimate to pass judgement.
-
@Yuvalne it seems to be a pattern that Open Source projects "test the water" with this stuff, and then when they don't like the response the responsible parties just go "Fuck the water and everyone in it, this isn't for their benefit anyway"
@davey_cakes @Yuvalne the most enraging part is that the KDE devs insist that this poster is 'very anti-ai', yet his own words, and his proposed policy, are unquestionably full of AI boosterism.
If that's what the devteam consider 'anti-ai' then we're all fucked.
So much cishet white male privilege.
