Re: Using postgresql.org account as an auth id on third party websites

On 23/9/19 9:01, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 1:20 PM Álvaro Hernández <aht(at)ongres(dot)com
> <mailto:aht(at)ongres(dot)com>> wrote:
>
>
>>      TBQH, I'm having a really hard time to understand how this
>> conclusion could be derived from my words.
>>
>>
>> It's exactly what I've inferred from your emails, and clearly I'm
>> not alone :-(
>
>     In between this sentence you are replying to, and the next
> one, there was this one which you removed from your response:
>
> "For the avoidance of doubt: Stefan, and any other pg-infra
> volunteer or anyone else how felt bad about my words: my deepest
> and most sincere apology. I never, under any circumstance,
> intended to do any negative statement about the job done or the
> team itself. I have a great deal of respect to any kind of
> volunteering in general, let alone for the one on helping on the
> technology that I love. I have volunteered tons of work on
> Postgres myself, and I cannot otherwise that feel in the same
> page. pg-infra: I know the work that you do and have done, and I
> really appreciate it, specially given how small team you are."
>
>     The fact that you are still replying to the above sentence
> with the paragraph that follows removed, means that either:
>
> * you didn't read it (in which case, please do);
>
> * or you are acting in bad faith, by replying to the first
> sentence only, and deleting the following paragraph. You are
> insisting on the matter which is clearly responded on the second
> one, and showing a negative sentiment through the use of that
> smiley which IMHO should have turned into the opposite smiley
> after my apology and clarifications. The fact that you could be
> acting in bad faith, being a Core Member, really worries me.
>
>
> I was responding to the specific point that you're "having a really
> hard time to understand how this conclusion could be derived from my
> words". Whether or not you later apologised is irrelevant to the
> comment that I read your words in the same way as Stefan.
>
> That neither means that I didn't read it (I did) or that I was acting
> in bad faith (I was not).

    I believe you have an important position as a Core Member. As such,
IMHO you should try to avoid confrontation and favor understanding among
the parties.

    If I said something that was understood wrongly, and I later
clarified it and make it very clear that it was the *opposite* of my
intentions and apologized for it, the fact that you ignored (explicitly
removed) the apology and instead go back to a topic that was already
closed (a misunderstanding) does not contribute to easy things but
rather seems to be poking in the eye. Something I believe it is
inappropriate of someone in your position.

     If you say it was not bad faith, I take your word and I won't come
back to this. Thank you.

    Álvaro

--

Alvaro Hernandez

-----------
OnGres