[Foundation] St Peter is really Hitler conspiracy theory

Craig Kaes CKaes at jabber.com
Tue Mar 11 13:15:37 CST 2003


I've quoted below what was my second favorite response.  My favorite goes to
the completely humorless reply from Germany.  So, indeed, let's take my
response out of context and see what it says.

"you allowed us to
vote on an image and gave us the means to change the process
beforehand..."

and

"shared the decision making with the
marketing group and we were all free to join that group and didn't,"

and

St Peter puts "in insane amounts of
effort, not only in time but in emotional energy for which [he] receive[s]
no compensation"

The fact is that St. Peter is the needed driving force behind the JSF and
without him driving the process, very little would happen.  I have known him
in real life for over two years and my only beef with him is that he is a
stronger cyclist on his mountain bike than I am on my road bike.

Instead of persistent whining from a small minority on this list, we should
be seeing more praise of his efforts and more distributed effort (thanks,
Iain).  In particular, I noted that the rebuttals from the humorless gallery
said things like, "St. Peter is not a total Naxi," and "He may be heavy
handed, but not fascist."  Forget that!  St. Peter is not heavy handed nor
is he a partial Nazi.  He is an extremely patient and tireless driving force
who deserves a great deal of recognition.  Shame on you for your lack of
support.

--Craig

<Humor>
btw, Use of the term "Nazi" in this message was not an endorsement, nor does
it imply any affiliation, nor does it mean to disparage any of their fine
products.
</Humor>


-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Davis [mailto:rkdavis at burninghorse.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:06 AM
To: members at jabber.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation] voting update


doubly so as I could now take craigs post out of context and show it to
companies in europe along with his affiliation to both JINC and the JSF
and I doubt very much if many of them would want to do business with
either entity.

Russell

On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 10:53, Daniel Chote wrote:
> I agree with Russell, I actually took this as being serious to start
> with until talking to DW about it.  I think in this enviroment being a
> foundation mailing list, that such comments and content should be
> avoided if a valid point is not being made.
> 
> Russell Davis wrote:
> > Ben,
> > 
> > if it was a joke it was in extremly poor taste and as such should have
> > been treated (as it was)as if those are his real feelings.
> > 
> > i reiterate EXTREMLY POOR TASTE!!!!
> > 
> > Russell
> > 
> > On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 10:21, Ben Schumacher wrote:
> >   
> > > Simple. Craig's post was obviously a joke, and he was making a point,
> > > which I think he did very well. Peter works hard to keep momentum up
in
> > > the JSF. Before he dedication, the JSF regularly stalled on simple
issues
> > > because nobody was willing to stop all the infighting and realize that
you
> > > can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time. Its just not
possible.
> > > 
> > > It *is* important to have a logo for OSCON. However, if we're not
happy
> > > with it beyond OSCON, there is nothing preventing us from going
through
> > > the logo contest again, but we need to have something *NOW*. XMPP
isn't
> > > necessarily here to stay. XMPP right not serves a niche market. While
that
> > > niche market may always exist, wouldn't it be nice if it became a
> > > ubiquitous protocol? Then we could have thousands more around that
would
> > > be willing to bicker about silly things (like the new logo), and
hopefully
> > > a couple more stp's who are willing to work hard to advance the
protocol
> > > in spite of the bickering. Just think... you could have a thousand
plus
> > > more people who would argue you until the end of time about which logo
is
> > > cooler... you'd like that, right?
> > > 
> > > As for 12 hour meetings... what would be the point of that? Unless
> > > somebody was available to attend all meetings, then groups would just
talk
> > > over the same points and no progress would be made. And decisions made
in
> > > the first meeting would be disputed in the by members of the second
> > > meeting to the point where nothing would move ahead. It just makes no
> > > sense. We all have jobs, school and other commitments, and not all of
us
> > > can be available all the time. But to those who can spend the time, I
say
> > > more power to them. Without those few, things may never get done and
the
> > > JSF and XMPP would always remain a fringe protocol.
> > > 
> > > I am absolutely, unequivocally, without a doubt -1 on doubling
meetings at
> > > the sake progress.
> > > 
> > > stp, thanks for all your hard work. Craig, thanks for bringing to
light
> > > the silliness of this entire argument.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > 
> > > bs.
> > > 
> > > Shawn Wilton said:
> > >     
> > > > Holy shiza.  Why the hell was I incinerated to the point of pure
carbon
> > > > and all he gets is a pat on the back?  Hot damn.
> > > > 
> > > > Ok, now in all seriousness, thanks to Peter for the hard work, but
in
> > > > all honesty, do try to slow down some.  None of this is a race.
XMPP is
> > > >  here to stay, there's no need to race to get this logo in to oscon.
> > > > Seriously.
> > > > 
> > > > On another note, can we begin holding all meetings in duplicate?  I
> > > > propose meetings 12 hours apart to maximize world convenience.  I
would
> > > > love to attend these meetings as I have a great deal to say, but
like
> > > > others I have fiduciary responsibilities that I can't neglect for
XMPP.
> > > > 
> > > > -Shawn
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Craig Kaes wrote:
> > > >       
> > > > > Peter, like others have expressed on this list, I am not satisfied
> > > > > with the process which you proposed.  I thought that I might be,
but
> > > > > when the  logo that I liked best wasn't selected for the final
six, I
> > > > > recognized that I had been misled by you.  My friend worked for
hours
> > > > > on his image and it wasn't chosen and that sucks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Choosing a logo is going to be the most important activity
performed
> > > > > by the JSF this year and you have really cut out the membership on
> > > > > this one.  If we are not empowered to choose the icon that
represents
> > > > > us, what good is it to be a member?  Oh, sure, you allowed us to
> > > > > "vote" on an image and gave us the means to change the process
> > > > > beforehand, but that doesn't really matter.  My buddy's logo
wasn't
> > > > > selected and that sucks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The real problem is that you feel that putting in insane amounts
of
> > > > > effort, not only in time but in emotional energy for which you
receive
> > > > >  no compensation, gives you the right to make decisions for the
JSF.
> > > > > Hitler put in great amounts of time and energy too but you know
where
> > > > > that went.  Granted, you shared the decision making with the
> > > > > "marketing group" and we were all free to join that group and
didn't,
> > > > > but that's because it wasn't advertised effectively enough.
> > > > > 
> > > > > There should have been a concerted effort -- maybe even a full
fledged
> > > > >  program to get the word of this Marketing group out to the
> > > > > membership.  We do have, afterall, a JEP process -- couldn't the
logo
> > > > > selection and  marketing group joining processes be written up as
a
> > > > > JEP to pass  through the council?  We could have easily worked
with a
> > > > > temporary  logo during the six months that would have taken.
Market
> > > > > awareness is  overrated. People could get used to the new image
and,
> > > > > in time, come  to associate it with us.  Just like the old one.
> > > > > 
> > > > > You know why I think you didn't?  Because you never wanted us to
be
> > > > > involved.  You are on a power trip, my man!  I see you as a
fascist
> > > > > and now wonder if Nazis are in control of the JSF.  I suspect that
> > > > > they are and have been for quite some time.  I resent that you
have
> > > > > been hiding this from us for so long.  I ask all members to remain
> > > > > vigilant against this form of tyrrany.  United, we can stand
against
> > > > > it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > --C
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > >         
> > > > > > I just got off the phone with the conference coordinator at
O'Reilly.
> > > > > > He informs me that if we send our logo to them by March 19 or
20,
> > > > > > they will be able to squeeze our logo in. So, in order to give
us the
> > > > > > maximum  amount
> > > > > > of time to choose the logo contest winner, and in order to meet
all
> > > > > > the requirements of Section 3.4 of the Bylaws, we are going to
once
> > > > > > again  but
> > > > > > for the last time change the process.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. Proxy voting via memberbot will continue through Wednesday,
March
> > > > > > 19. And of course, discussion can continue on this list while we
> > > > > > debate the alternatives.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 2. We will hold an official meeting of the members on March 20 @
> > > > > > 18:00 UTC
> > > > > > in foundation at conference.jabber.org in order to accept any
in-meeting
> > > > > > votes and then to validate the results, thus completing the logo
> > > > > > selection
> > > > > > process. This email is the official 10 days' notice of that
meeting.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The consensus in the open, publicly-announced Marketing meeting
just
> > > > > > ended
> > > > > > [1] was that this will provide enough time to discuss and vote
on the
> > > > > > finalists, yet still meet our deadline with O'Reilly.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Peter
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
http://www.jabber.org/chatbot/logs/conference.jabber.org/foundation/2003-03-
10.html
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Peter Saint-Andre
> > > > > > Jabber Software Foundation
> > > > > > http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php
> > > > > >           
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Members mailing list
> > > Members at jabber.org
> > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > >     
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> >   
> _______________________________________________ Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members

_______________________________________________
Members mailing list
Members at jabber.org
http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members



More information about the Members mailing list