CentOS - Nov 2005 - Reducing the deleterious effects of ego related issues on the list: growing up individually.

Folks,

I *suggest* that little or no reply to this is warranted. It's just the
statements of an old fart trying to make a (slightly) better environment
for all of us. These thoughts are offered for consideration and use as
you see fit. For some, "Hey, that'll work for me too" is the hoped
for
result. No discussion is intended or warranted, IMO.

If you recognize yourself in here, so what? I have no problem with it,
you shouldn't. If you are obnoxious, have too little ego to withstand
reasonable well-intentioned community-spirited criticism, ... have
myriad other issues and believe I am referring to *you*; your problem,
not mine. I may be referring to you, but why should you care? If you get
embroiled in some of the negative activities exampled below with good
intentions, I understand completely and do not unduly condemn you for
your efforts.

If the person that removed others from the list because their attitude
was not to the liking of the powers-that-be wants to remove me too, go
for it. It won't bother me. This place is no prize, in real-life terms.

Nevertheless, ...

I've not been a list member long, but I've sen enough to make me wonder
if I want to stay here (save your snide self-serving comments, they
waste bandwidth and have 0 useful product other than to your own ego).

I recently was the *potential* victim of one of those threads that
begins with a simple query, gets some alternatives discussed and
descends into a folks-defending-ego thread. Not having a victim
mentality, ego issues or need to walk on water in the eyes of anyone, I
avoided the trap. But the thread started to go that way regardless. I
like to feel that my behavior contributed to its early death.

*All* of this is unnecessary and childish.

Example: as minor background to lend credence to a possibility that had
been proposed, I mentioned that I had worked on UNIX systems since way
back when. Not waving my ego or trying to denigrate anyone else's POV or
credentials, just supporting an assertion that there had been a time
when things had been done a certain way. And questioning if it was not
still so. Since I was discussing a solution conflicting with one posed
by a knowledgeable participant, it seemed to appropriate to set the
stage with an "I've worked on *IX since ..." clause.

One did not interpret it as intended and chose to come flapping his
background, degrees and experience . *But* he also provided some
valuable education to me surrounding the topic. His need to "out
credential" me (easily done since I have none) caused me no aggravation
whatsoever. Wasted a few lines worth of reading time, but no big deal to
me.

*I* had no problem with the (somewhat) inappropriate nature of his
response and did nothing more than thank him for taking the time and
educating me on some of the conventions in place in the Linux (*IX?)
community today.

I *propose* that this should be the normal response to certain perceived
objectionable behavior, as a courtesy to the rest of the list. Why?

Selfishness. I get tired of <DEL> <DEL> <DEL> ... on the crap
that
follows. *If* there was any chance that one's objectionable behavior
would be improved by pointing out various transgressions and/or lapses
in etiquette, I say go for it. But there are certain individuals for
which we know this effort to be a complete waste of time and energy. So
why do it? Discrimination is needed. A good starting point may be "If I
say this, *might* the person see it as a positive suggestion, as
intended?".

Anyway, this was the (potential) end of the thread... but nooooo.
Someone else has to jump in. Don't misunderstand, I *completely*
understand the emotional impetus, some of the history causing that
impetus and think the interjection was not unreasonable and I know it
was well-intentioned (for which I thank you). But part of the maturity
we need on the list is to consider not only our on ego-centric needs to
"stand up for ourselves and others", but the "personalities"
of (and
possible effects on) various list participants.

To put it in a slightly humorous vein (I know this is not allowed and I
will *never* let that issue die completely, but...)

When you have an urge to reply to one who has demonstrated a persecution
complex (justified or not), one who must always be right (and who may in
actuality probably very often be so), one who can not see the harsh
unforgiving nature of his relationship with others, one who is paranoid
(aren't all sysadmins? Being paranoid does not mean they are *not* out
to get you. There is a reason that a well known acronym is BOFH.), ...

    DO A RISK VS. REWARD ANALYSIS

The Rasmussen(?) trees might be applied to your endeavor (  :-)  )

If the reward is nothing more than the egotistical satisfaction of
telling that SOB where to get off

    let the damn issue slide.

If the reward seems minimal or unlikely to materialize at all,

    let the damn issue slide.

If the adverse results seem very likely and/or *probably* significant,
such that the perceived reward is not justified,

    let the damn issue slide.

Additional considerations. Don't let someone else's problems become
yours (ours, mine). *He* has ego issues? Not *my* problem and will not
become so. He's paranoid? *I'm* not and will not become so. *He* is
grating, intolerant, has tunnel-vision... pick the pejorative trait of
the day... *not* (my/your/our) problem,

    let the damn issue slide.

I thought the LFS crew was overly contentious. But considering the much
higher level of activity, it was the garden of Eden compared to this
place.

*Some* of this is because there is nothing (that I have seen yet) that
highlights or establishes the standards of behavior that the list
expects. So far I have seen only an arbitrary removal of certain
participants because one individual got irked and had the power to
remove folks' privileges. Not a good way to run a community effort, IMO.

Some of the dissension occurs over misinformation. It would be nice if
everything posted was 100% complete and accurate. Can't be so.
Corrections will be posted. I'm wrong! =:-0 So what! I have an ego that
can withstand that condemnation. I suggest you go to a Dollar General or
some such and purchase one for yourself. The strength of community
knowledge lies in quantity as well as quality. Postings should not be
discouraged for fear of condemnation resulting from erroneous
information. Anal retentive types that insist only 100% complete and
accurate information should appear are doing a disservice to the
community. It denies the community the benefits of the interactions that
can result.

I feel no obligation to force you into believing I'm right. I offer what
I have, right wrong or indifferent. I will *not* argue back and forth
about its correctness if the issue can't be discussed rationally among
*friends*. Do with it what you will. Someone thinks it's wrong-headed?
Carve the crap out of it. Slice me, dice me, anyway you want to. Not an
issue. I care not if your information is right or wrong. Google is
your/my/our friend (one of many) in dispute resolution proceedings and
the results need not be published if it will engender on-list wars.
Open, tolerant discussions benefit all, except the terminally insecure
(we used to call them a**hole engineers - because they always believed
they were getting it there or were intent on giving it to another there
and spent inordinate amounts of energy covering it - CYA).

I *can* and *do* learn from everyone regardless of right/wrong.
Maximization of learning through community knowledge and experience
*demands* that incorrect information postings be expected and tolerated
(kindness and consideration of responses to such are needed by all
involved)

And LFS folks even permitted and appreciated humor. A *big* plus
compared to here (don't bother to say it).

Anyway, that's all I wanted to offer. Take it any way you prefer. Flames
off-list handled as I see fit, on-list shows what kind of a jerk you are
to waste everyone's time.

This posting *may* not be a waste, based on my subjective observations.

Bill Maltby
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20051107/e2fd30d1/attachment.sig>

[ I'll answer anyway. ;-]

"William L. Maltby" <BillsCentOS at triad.rr.com>
wrote:
> One did not interpret it as intended and chose to come
> flapping his background, degrees and experience .
I think you should re-read my post.  It's key to what you
missed (especially in the order of your statements before
mine).

Your post here:  
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-November/014351.html

Then my response:  
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-November/014359.html
> *But* he also provided some valuable education to me
> surrounding the topic.
And I appreciate that.  But I don't think you do in this
after-thought.
> His need to "out credential" me (easily done since I have
> none)
I don't think I was doing that.  I was merely saying I too
was using UNIX when you were.  In fact, given my age, I often
get a "you were too young to have used UNIX in the '80s"
attitude from many people.

In fact, I did _not_ take _any_ offense to your statement:  

  'If you research back to the epoch or thereabouts, you
   may find I spoke the truth.  I began working on
   UNIX PWB Versions 6/7.'

I merely responded with where I was coming from.
> caused me no aggravation whatsoever.
Nor did your statements before mine.  I was merely sharing. 
Even Preston confirmed I need not fear of sharing my
experience.  Regarding my statement ...

  '[ I know I'm now going to hear from "select people" that
   I'm "flaunting my resume" again.  Sigh. ]'

Even Preston calmed my fears ...

  'Actually in this context this information is useful.
   And tone matters too, remember. This has been a good
   thread, IMHO.'
> *I* had no problem with the (somewhat) inappropriate nature
> of his response
Is it me, or is that a self-conflicting statement?

I appreciate your saying you had no issue with it, but please
don't call it "(somewhat) inappropriate nature" to merely
state that I too had been using UNIX at the same time you
had.  We both took a few lines to state where we were coming
from -- you first -- not that is matters, but it does matter
from the consideration of applying the term "inappropriate
nature."

Okay, so maybe "too much story" in there.  But com'mon, you
gave a few lines _first_, then I gave a few lines.  To point
that out as "(somewhat) inappropriate nature" is a
_double_standard_.

Again, I invite your statements from _before_ I made my
statements of a "(somewhat) inappropriate nature" ...
 
  'Please note the word "original". If you research back to
   the epoch or thereabouts, you may find that I spoke the
   truth. I began working on UNIX PWB Versions 6/7.'

I did _not_ take offense to it.
> I *propose* that this should be the normal response to
> certain perceived objectionable behavior, as a courtesy
> to the rest of the list.
But what is this response?  It's basically the same type of
response you're arguing against?
> Why?  Selfishness. I get tired of <DEL> <DEL> <DEL> ...
on
> the crap that follows. *If* there was any chance that one's
> objectionable behavior would be improved by pointing out
> various transgressions and/or lapses in etiquette, I say go
> for it.
> But there are certain individuals for which we know this
> effort to be a complete waste of time and energy.
And you just made my point.

EVERYONE:

"Read between the lines" of this and what do you see? 
Re-read it and let me know, off-list if you like (to spare
the list).

This is from someone I did _not_ mind one bit starting wtih
...

  'If you research back to the epoch or thereabouts, you
   may find I spoke the truth.  I began working on
   UNIX PWB Versions 6/7.'

But yet he "didn't take offense" to how I answered, which is
what this post is all about?  Com'mon!

Now many people would get offended by the first statement
that as if you were saying "you don't know what you are
talking about."  And they might infer the second statement
that you have been using UNIX longer.

But *I* did _not_ take _any_ offense.  I honestly didn't.
I read it completely different!

I read it that you were an experienced administrator who has
been working with UNIX since the early '80s at least -- a few
years before myself.  So then I shared that I started with
UNIX in the late '80s.

So what's the problem?  Why this post?

So hell yes, I am _now_ offended!  Not for what you said in
the earlier post's quote, but what you are saying -- quite
self-righteous -- in this post.

It's hypocritical!  I hope you can see that!
> So why do it? Discrimination is needed. A good starting
> point may be "If I say this, *might* the person see it as
> a positive suggestion, as intended?".
> Anyway, this was the (potential) end of the thread... but
> nooooo. Someone else has to jump in. Don't misunderstand, 
> I *completely* understand the emotional impetus, some of
> the history causing that impetus and think the interjection
> was not unreasonable
Here's the difference between you and I ...

I am not saying your post here:  
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-November/014351.html

Is "(somewhat) inappropriate behavior."  I still do _not_
think it's "(somewhat) inappropriate behavior."

But you are saying my sharing of background is?
I'm kinda lost?

How would you be satisfied?

"I've been using UNIX since the '80s too."?

Was it length?
What was it?

What part was the "(somewhat) inappropriate behavior"
prompted this post?

Why did you say "there are certain individuals for which we
know this effort to be a complete waste of time and energy"
with regard to "*If* there was any chance that one's
objectionable behavior would be improved by pointing out
various transgressions and/or lapses in etiquette, I say go
for it."

How much of an unidirection *INSULT* to you have to throw
while assume you are the least bit objective?!?!?!

All for what, someone could have said, "I've been using UNIX
since the '80s too" instead of taking a few more lines? 
Again, you basically made the post that you tell others not
to!

How self-righteous and self-blinding can someone be? 
Especially given your statement _prior_ to my statements ...

  'If you research back to the epoch or thereabouts, you
   may find I spoke the truth.  I began working on
   UNIX PWB Versions 6/7.'

I didn't take offense to your statements.  Why did you feel
the need to make the statements in this post about mine? 
Really?
> and I know it was well-intentioned (for which I thank you).
> But part of the maturity we need on the list is to consider
> not only our on ego-centric needs to "stand up for
ourselves
> and others", but the "personalities" of (and possible
> effects on) various list participants.
Like this post?

No sense in responding further.  I think I've made my point.

I have just never been so-insulted by someone in such a
round-about, indirect way -- from a standpoint of a
hypocrite.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith                | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org     |  (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ |   missing headers)

On 11/7/05, William L. Maltby <BillsCentOS at triad.rr.com> wrote:

[ lots snipped ]

All I can say is wow! That's got to be the longest post ever received on a
list.

--
Collins Richey
      Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code ... If you write
      the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not
      smart enough to debug it.
             -Brian Kernighan