ubuntu-website-content

Bug #1172422
Comment #37

Comment 37 for bug 1172422

Revision history for this message

Adam Porter (alphapapa) wrote on 2013-05-11:

#37

> it seems apparent to me that this has stopped being about a bug and started becoming more of an axe to grind.

Danger, danger! Hypocrisy incoming!

> Everyone agreed on the problem, but relatively few were committed to solving it. As such, I asked Daniel to work to get these folks to contribute their assigned work, and it has been nothing but an uphill struggle to bring this to completion.

So some volunteers over-promised and under-delivered. This happens in every FOSS project, especially large, amorphous ones like Ubuntu. Was this not anticipated?

> but in the midst of all of your complaints, interestingly, I don't see your name anywhere on that project page. Since this problem was raised I have asked you specifically if you would be happy to contribute to finish community.ubuntu.com, thus solving this problem (and actually making a better set of pages about our community) and being linked from ubuntu.com, and so far you have not demonstrated any interest in joining this effort to bring community.ubuntu.com to completion.

Now it begins. Ubuntu creates a problem and then won't accept criticism from anyone who isn't working to fix the problem Ubuntu created. "We broke it; you fix it."

> I find this saddening as I have seen you invest significant effort in highlighting this problem across social media, your blog, forums, news comments, and this bug. I have also see you extend significant effort in persistently questioning the web team and my team about why "community" was left off in the first place (to which I feel Peter and myself have both provided sufficient answers).

The community finds it saddening that Ubuntu publicly de-linked itself from the community because of "design" issues. Now the community is told to attend an event and argue their position; but why was a meeting not held before removing the link?

Ben is not the bad guy here, he is simply one who is standing up and speaking out. Is it not possible that this decision made by these teams was a mistake? Is there a reason it can't be temporarily reverted (not the whole design, just the link) other than dogma?

Let me restate the question: which will do more damage to Ubuntu, having the community link on the page before its fancy new black bar is ready, or not having the link on the page before its fancy new black bar is ready? Which will generate goodwill, and which will generate the opposite? Which damages Canonical's relationship with the Ubuntu community? Will anyone be less likely to buy a hypothetical Ubuntu device because they saw a "Community" link at the top of the page?

After answering those questions, the right choice seems obvious to me. The sad part is that damage has already been done.

> I can't help but think that if you had invested this effort instead in helping us to finish community.ubuntu.com, we would be much further along and would likely have community.ubuntu.com linked on ubuntu.com already.

This is a nasty, underhanded card to play. Ben's criticisms are valid. He is not obligated to fix a problem he did not create, and he is not ineligible to point out problems just because he isn't doing what you or anyone else want him to do.

> Ubuntu is not a community defined by rallying ill will to solve problems, we are a completely that problem solves together and delivers solutions together. Unfortunately I have really seen here is you stirring the pot to make this more of an issue than it really is, with the seeming goal to force out a solution as a result of this ill well; a solution that is already in progress, a solution *you* can help us to deliver.

The hypocrisy! Canonical creates ill will by acting unilaterally, then when it gets called out on it, it says, "You aren't working together, you're stirring the pot! Now stop complaining and finish the project we've started!" What, is Canonical holding the "community" link hostage?

> ...Either come out and say it, or don't; let's stay focused on facts not gossip.

This is the only reasonable thing you've said so far. Everything else has been hypocritical and defensive.

> I am getting tired of this somewhat anti-social approach you are using to solve problems. Let's focus on solutions and not stirring and let's work together to get community.ubuntu.com finished and bring it to visibility on ubuntu.com; an outcome that we *all* agree on.

Again, hypocrisy: Ubuntu de-links the community, but then when Ben says that was not right, Ben is accused of being anti-social. What I see is Ben pointing out a symptom of a deeper problem in the Ubuntu project, and Canonical acting defensive and refusing to admit a mistake--this seems to be a pattern.

> it seems apparent to me that this has stopped being about a bug and started becoming more of an axe to grind.

Danger, danger!  Hypocrisy incoming!

So some volunteers over-promised and under-delivered.  This happens in every FOSS project, especially large, amorphous ones like Ubuntu.  Was this not anticipated?

Now it begins.  Ubuntu creates a problem and then won't accept criticism from anyone who isn't working to fix the problem Ubuntu created.  "We broke it; you fix it."

The community finds it saddening that Ubuntu publicly de-linked itself from the community because of "design" issues.  Now the community is told to attend an event and argue their position; but why was a meeting not held before removing the link?

Ben is not the bad guy here, he is simply one who is standing up and speaking out.  Is it not possible that this decision made by these teams was a mistake?  Is there a reason it can't be temporarily reverted (not the whole design, just the link) other than dogma?

Let me restate the question: which will do more damage to Ubuntu, having the community link on the page before its fancy new black bar is ready, or not having the link on the page before its fancy new black bar is ready?  Which will generate goodwill, and which will generate the opposite?  Which damages Canonical's relationship with the Ubuntu community?  Will anyone be less likely to buy a hypothetical Ubuntu device because they saw a "Community" link at the top of the page?

After answering those questions, the right choice seems obvious to me.  The sad part is that damage has already been done.

This is a nasty, underhanded card to play.  Ben's criticisms are valid.  He is not obligated to fix a problem he did not create, and he is not ineligible to point out problems just because he isn't doing what you or anyone else want him to do.

The hypocrisy!  Canonical creates ill will by acting unilaterally, then when it gets called out on it, it says, "You aren't working together, you're stirring the pot!  Now stop complaining and finish the project we've started!"  What, is Canonical holding the "community" link hostage?

> ...Either come out and say it, or don't; let's stay focused on facts not gossip.

This is the only reasonable thing you've said so far.  Everything else has been hypocritical and defensive.

Again, hypocrisy: Ubuntu de-links the community, but then when Ben says that was not right, Ben is accused of being anti-social.  What I see is Ben pointing out a symptom of a deeper problem in the Ubuntu project, and Canonical acting defensive and refusing to admit a mistake--this seems to be a pattern.