Re: How we are being silently manipulated - a fresh example - Was: Re: QT4CG meeting 120 draft minutes, 6 May 2025

I don't pretend to understand the technical issues anywhere near as well as you do, Dimitre, nor as well as those who have already commented on your objections to the PR. However, I do want to address some other aspects of what you say.

(I hope this isn't necessary, but I want to make clear that I'm writing purely from my own perspective. Nothing I say should be taken as a reflection of views or feelings other than my own.)

> Just a fresh example... I wonder how many times similar concealments happened in the past, hence what bag of snakes our specifications might turn out to be.

> As for the people that intentionally conceal from us crucial information when proposing their PRs - well, let everybody knows that this "works" in the QT4 group.

You have been given ample space to express your concerns about this PR, both in writing and orally in the CG meetings. This is how a discussion should work: the proposer of a PR gives the information that s/he thinks is useful and relevant, and then other CG members add their own perspectives. Part of the community's role is to identify strengths and weaknesses, fill in gaps, and so on. In this case, you believe you have identified weaknesses, and you have been given plenty of space to explain your perspective. There has been no attempt to silence you, nor to block you from explaining your views in great detail. 

I cannot understand where you find the evidence to support your persistent claims of manipulation and intentional concealment of information. You feel strongly that there is a flaw in the PR; the author has listened to your concerns, and explained why he does not share them. That somebody disagrees with your interpretation may be frustrating, but it isn't evidence of manipulation, concealment, conspiracy, or any other Machiavellian behaviour.

You have every right to raise concerns about the technical content of the PR. Personally, I am glad that you have done so: I find it interesting and rewarding to hear from someone with so much more knowledge and experience than myself. Making unfounded ad hominem attacks, however, undermines your technical arguments; you cannot introduce such an obvious logical fallacy into one part of your argument without undermining your entire discourse. 

Perhaps more importantly, your insinuations are insulting to the person you are attacking. They are also insulting to the group as a whole, whom you apparently see as a collection of mindless stooges who are incapable of making intelligent judgements about the merits of different technical proposals, and who are likely to have allowed countless deliberately flawed PRs to pass by them. I am, therefore, genuinely confused about your enthusiasm to contribute to a community which you apparently view as being made up of manipulators, on the one hand, and idiots, on the other.

Very best,

Bethan

Received on Thursday, 8 May 2025 04:50:28 UTC