Please stick to the facts, friend. I have added 1 (one) sticker. All of the following stickers are added by the team.
I agree with that. And as I mentioned, it was a mistake to add the first sticker without discussing it with the others. I’m not stupid. You don’t have to delve into that. I will not make the same mistake a second time.
The facts are hard to come by. Anyway for admins of this forum to modify even a single post is beyond my comprehension.
Please anonymize my account. Nevermind about 2 days to reconsider.
What? Why? No!
No problem friend, I’m resigning as an administrator. You don’t have to leave the community because of my mistake.
I just want to point out that you are being offended on behalf of a shared account. This is not personal account…
I have been adding to this shared account the Bulgarian translations for months, including the recent German ones. Now, that I think, this has given me the feeling that this account is partly mine, so I did not discuss with others the addition of this 1 sticker…
Please don’t do this.
Please don’t you do this either.
A total storm in a tea-cup.
High time this community got back to discussing the technical aspects rather than obsessing about who might possibly just be able to claim they have taken offence.
As the OP I think it’s worth clarifying that nobody is out for blood; I don’t think any individuals deserve blame here because that’s not productive.
Francis and Dimitrov reached out to me immediately after my initial comment 10 days ago to discuss and change the image. Now we’ve all had a mostly-civil and mostly-fruitful discussion about it and agreed to be more considerate in the future. The community update also isn’t in the voice of any particular person, so intending to add a fun image at the bottom doesn’t seem like an egregious offense to me.
Perhaps there are deeper reasons beyond this thread that led to both of your decisions to step down – if so, I hope we can address those reasons so you both can continue to play a role here. If they can’t be addressed, then I think we as a community have some work to do to figure out how to prevent this kind of burnout because it’s clearly not healthy.
I wish you both well regardless of what roads you choose.
Over the years I have seen a few conflicts here result in similar situations and have always felt it unnecessary.
My issue here may seem trivial to many but it is not about, pin-up girls or platipi.
My problem is when I read a post I want to be 100% certain that it is exactly as it was authored.
Some may say well it’s just a fun picture.
But the fun picture changed the way I and clearly some others viewed Maidsafe and the update.
(You yourself questioned is this who we are based on a image)
Now if my (or others) opinion of something changes based on edits made by a 3rd party that is an significant issue.
Dimitar and are fine I respect him for all he does he is definitely a star in this community, we have seen things differently at times but we also have agreed on many too.
To all
Moderators very and I mean very rarely edit a personal post. And if any do they highlight the change with a MOD EDIT notice at the place of the edit.
The post in question is a joint account post which many people can change as they are the owners. So really no need to highlight.
I see no issue here with what was done.
In all cases the edit can be seen by everyone just by clicking the pencil image on the post. No facts lost, just need to look at edits.
EDIT: the shared account is the maidsafe company one
I agree with you generally. I would also add that IMHO one or more individuals using the @dimitar account have been somewhat flippant in regards to comprehending the rationale behind the raised concerns. That said, going forward, I trust that the mistake will not reoccur.
I hadn’t inquired as to the individual responsible for the choice to include ‘stickers’ in official communiques because it’s an organizational failure for not maintaining proper separation, through policy or otherwise, of the personal and official. I expect that although the responsible individual of the @dimitar account was perhaps not fully forthcoming, the original intent was only good and probably seeing the development update as collaborative in the spirit of a wiki document.
That however, is a different issue than the shortcoming of communique transparency and it should be rectified. We can audit who’s responsible for each line of code committed to the repositories, however we cannot currently easily trace the origin of entries to official communiques. That can be solved.
With SAFE’s perpetual data and some inspiration from Ted Nelson’s Xanadu, collaborative data provenance is trivial to become excited about. For now, perhaps a simple solution would be for sections of official communiques to be attributed and the entire document as-published to be hashed/signed with hash/keys provided in the first edit?
Naturally do as you wish, however I as nobody to you would ask that if you close your account you at least return with an anonymous account or remain involved with the project if not the community. Mistakes will be made; if they’re corrected the project and community are better for it, however if not I would leave with you. From my vantage I do see the few mistakes made being corrected.
This matter is not one of censorship, rather what’s appropriate in official communiques.
Really so a contributor leaves the project over a Rosie picture from 1940s WWII posters that were everywhere so that cooperka can spill blood over some cartoon titties that are not even exposed? Because the case was her being a sexualized, pinup, advertisement girl, not image branding. Was that really important enough to oust a contributor, this whole escapade into PC nonsense was it really worth anyones time? Over what is probably one of the most Vanilla images in US pop culture. I mean we have plenty of evil Norman Rockwell images to purge if thats the case.
I will only note that he does not leave because of the picture.
It is good to have public accountability for our actions. This forum is a community property and the community is all of us, so everyone is welcome to question our integrity for the good of the community.
Process crimes after the fact, anything that happened after the original post is an excuse. I refuse to sugar coat this because a known social justice warrior wanted to spill blood on these forums, we do not need that crap here.
I appreciate where you’re coming from.
The topic was created, and the majority of the replies have been from, one or the other positions on the PC aspect of the imagery. My replies[0] have instead consistently addressed the wider and actually relevant issue of what’s appropriate in official communiques without taking a position. I only have control over myself, and I attempted to correct course of what predictably and inevitably derails any productive endeavor; overloading common goals with personal ideology.
At risk of speaking for @Josh, and please correct me if I misrepresent you in any way @Josh, his reason for being off-put was a project transparency shortcoming and not the topic’s substance.
[0]
There is no such problem. Everyone is able to review the actions of others, as Rob points out here:
That’s incorrect.
I clearly identify the transparency shortcoming, as I see it, as:
@neo’s reply covers a subset of cases, where the provenance may be determined via edits, however it’s an incomplete solution and misses the point.
I would think that being able to see the original, the edits, and the person who did the edit is a proper audit trail.
So it covers the
What part is missing?
I do understand that it can create some doubts and maybe a horizonal line can be drawn under the maidsafe release and any additions (like translations) added after the horz line
If the sticker is included in the original communique, the edit feature would not help in identifying the source.
The only ones who can write the initial update are the team? I’ve been translating things for 6 years now, but that wouldn’t help me write 1 line from the update …
