Walter Bright Wrote:

> Bane wrote:
> > I meant on topic removal from DM newsgroup. I guess Walther did it, as he is the one administering it, right? I support his decision for a reason I wrote above.
> 
> Yes, I did it, it was my idea to do so. I did it for the reason you suggest (not the Stalin one!) but the one about letting our hot tempers cool a bit so hopefully we can find the best solution for D, not an ego-driven one.
> 

As I said, this Stalin thing is joke on efficiency and speed of action was taken. Comparing Walther to Staling was not my intention.

Bane wrote:
> As I said, this Stalin thing is joke on efficiency and speed of action was
> taken. Comparing Walther to Staling was not my intention.


No prob, I knew it was a joke <g>.

> I've read all the discussion, I think it's very clear (especially from Lars's mesage here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.d.phobos/359 ) thst there's been absolutely no ego involved, by anyone, at all. The whole thing was all about Walter being told that it may be possible that one of tango.time's writers could *IN THEORY* have a potentially legal complaint about SHOO's lib. I assume that Lars was the one who informed Walter of this (though I'm not certain), and if so, then *NOBODY* has actually made any complaint about *THEIR OWN* code being infringed!!
> 
> Additionally, it's been made very clear that the whole binary attribution thing is staying in Tango *purely* because of difficulties in switching away from BSD (While I may disagree that sticking with BSD is the best thing for Tango to do, the important thing here is that ego doesn't have a damn thing to do with it).
> 
> So can we finally knock it off with all the "someone has an ego" bullcrap? I fully expect Halleck to keep it up, but that's only because every post he's made here has been trolling, and trolls certainly aren't going to care about any reasonable argument that gets presented to them. But for everyone else: It's done, it's over, QED, there's no flaming egos, give it a rest.
> 
> 

I was under impression that stopping factor is that Tango can't switch to boost so it and Phobos can share the same license. Or maybe that Tango has problems with itself switching to single license from current dual licensing thing that has problems.

I read all links involving this discussion, and frankly, its a mess (too much details).

Also, I'm not tracking who is troll here, so I take seriously everything I read that sounds remotely non-trolling.

== Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a@a.a)'s article
> "Bane" <branimir.milosavljevic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:hrk1oi$1o7i$1@digitalmars.com...
> > Gurney Halleck Wrote:
> >
> >> == Quote from Bane (branimir.milosavljevic@gmail.com)'s article
> >> > Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> >> > > "Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:hrgbo5$fvo$1@digitalmars.com...
> >> > > > "Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:hrgag4$cp2$2@digitalmars.com...
> >> > > >> Jason House wrote:
> >> > > >>> It is my understanding that several Tango developers no longer
> >> > > >>> follow
> >> > > >>> digitalmars.D. I recommend posting to the Tango forums.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> If anyone would like to repost my message initiating this thread
> >> > > >> in the
> >> > > >> Tango forums, feel free.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Done: http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/forums/topic/878
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > It seems to have been silently deleted...(???)
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > Yup, that's what Stalin would do :)
> >> > Joke aside, hot tempered discussion can't bring any good, so its better
> >> > that way.
> >>
> >> Srsly?!? Its better to censor Walters informative post because the Tango
> >> Komintern
> >> has no good retort?
> >>
> >> The dimwits tried to rewrite history once. They edited the title of Dons
> >> bug
> >> report. They failed to explain that too. This time the truth is out
> >> there. Tango
> >> leadership deserves no respect.
> >>
> >
> > I meant on topic removal from DM newsgroup. I guess Walther did it, as he is the one administering it, right? I support his decision for a reason I wrote above.
> >
> I was talking about the post on Tango's forums that reposted Walter's OP. I haven't seen anything deleted on the NG.

My post was deleted.

--
Lars Ivar Douchegesund

Lars Ivar Douchegesund wrote:
> My post was deleted.

I will restore it if you request, and this goes for anyone else in this thread. I apologize if I offended you by deleting this thread.

Your post http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.d.phobos/359 remains.

Gurney Halleck wrote:
> == Quote from Bane (branimir.milosavljevic@gmail.com)'s article
>> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>>> "Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message
>>> news:hrgbo5$fvo$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>> "Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hrgag4$cp2$2@digitalmars.com...
>>>>> Jason House wrote:
>>>>>> It is my understanding that several Tango developers no longer follow
>>>>>> digitalmars.D. I recommend posting to the Tango forums.
>>>>> If anyone would like to repost my message initiating this thread in the
>>>>> Tango forums, feel free.
>>>> Done: http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/forums/topic/878
>>>>
>>> It seems to have been silently deleted...(???)
>>>
>>>
>> Yup, that's what Stalin would do :)
>> Joke aside, hot tempered discussion can't bring any good, so its better that way.
> 
> Srsly?!? Its better to censor Walters informative post because the Tango Komintern
> has no good retort?
> 
> The dimwits tried to rewrite history once. They edited the title of Dons bug
> report. They failed to explain that too. This time the truth is out there. Tango
> leadership deserves no respect.

I don't support that conclusion. There's more going on here, I think, and without knowing what it is (and how far back it goes), nobody should jump to conclusions.

It's now public that we're all confused.

On 05/02/2010 03:04 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> Lars Ivar Douchegesund wrote:
>> My post was deleted.
>
> I will restore it if you request, and this goes for anyone else in this
> thread. I apologize if I offended you by deleting this thread.

It looks like you finally broke down and violated your own stated principles by deleting the posts of others (aside from spam) without asking. As a reader of this newsgroup, I'm not so much offended as surprised and disappointed. How many years has this newsgroup survived without such moderation?

Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> It looks like you finally broke down and violated your own stated principles by deleting the posts of others (aside from spam) without asking. As a reader of this newsgroup, I'm not so much offended as surprised and disappointed. How many years has this newsgroup survived without such moderation?

Yes, this is the one and only time I did that. Maybe it was a really bad idea, and something we can point to in the future as why it shouldn't be done again.

What do you think?

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1@digitalmars.com)'s article
> Lars Ivar Douchegesund wrote:
> > My post was deleted.
> I will restore it if you request, and this goes for anyone else in
this thread.
> I apologize if I offended you by deleting this thread.
> Your post http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.d.phobos/359
remains.

Don't worry, I don't think you offended Lars here ;) His real name definitely isn't "Douchegesund". And if you removed the troll's earlier post - great!

--
Tomasz Stachowiak

On 05/02/2010 05:01 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> Yes, this is the one and only time I did that. Maybe it was a really bad
> idea, and something we can point to in the future as why it shouldn't be
> done again.
>
> What do you think?

I suppose you're asking "you" to the community, but anyways: Yes, it was a really bad idea. You should restore the posts of others without them having to "opt-out" of having their posts deleted. Yes, it is a good example of why it shouldn't be done again. Note that the post from Lars you deleted shed lots of light and no heat on the matter.

The subject of moderation has been discussed many times. I believe open discussion and free speech is worth dealing with the occasional heated discussions. I don't see what changed in this instance to make you reverse your policy, except for your personal involvement.