Get out your popcorn, boys and girls, this is geek soap opera at its finest. "Jeff Waugh is a psychotic failure, obstructive and destructive. He is poisonous people." GNOME's Murray Cumming blogging on Jeff Waugh, all in relation to the board elections. Cumming first detailed what he deemed good candidates, he then went on to lambast the only bad candidate (according to Cumming): Waugh. "His behavior is far beyond the acceptable and displays contempt for the people in GNOME who actually do work. We've tolerated it too long, lost several high-level contributors because of it, slowed down the work of other contributors, and made their work unpleasant. That cost is too high, and we receive almost nothing in return. Jeff Waugh's only aim is self-publicity and any responsibilities in GNOME are just a way to achieve that. As long as his abysmal destructive misuse of those responsibilities is tolerated then he will happily continue clinging to symbolic authority regardless of the effects on GNOME. He seems driven by paranoia that people seek his downfall, but he is not driven by any need to do the job. Inevitably, people soon do want him to get out of the way." The story continues on Planet GNOME, with people supporting Cumming, but also a lot of people demanding a retraction. Don't kill the messenger. Update: Waugh's response. "There's a layer of truth to some of what Murray has said, but his shockingly exaggerated, hateful message is not intended to resolve or heal. Murray does not accept or credit my commitment or contributions to the project, and he has sought to denigrate, disenfranchise and discredit me consistently over the years... Though this is obviously the loudest and most hurtful attempt."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Democracy is inherently divisive, and saying you don't want somebody to hold a certain position is just as valid as saying you support someone - two sides of the same coin. I rather have this blatantly honest opinion than the writhing snakes you see on tv all day, who use their intelligence to say deadly things in a totally inoffensive way with a smile on their face.
Edited 2007-11-26 22:26
Member since:2005-07-13
It's not a personal attack when the issues discussed relate directly and exclusively to his actions within the Gnome organization, regardless of whether people think the criticism is overly harsh.
Clearly the poster has very strong and passionate feelings, and regardless of the etiquette or lack thereof, he seems to have done a remarkable job of keeping the rant and criticism on topic.
Politics is not, has not, and never will be a clean business. But there is a clear line between attacking someone's credibility and competency as to how they performed their job versus attacking their credibility and competency through unrelated or personal issues in some sort of a smear campaign intended to draw attention away from the core issues. That's when things get really ugly.
As an only slightly interested bystander completely unfamiliar with either the issues or the personalities involved, I don't see that the line was crossed.
Member since:2005-09-29
Member since:2005-07-08
It's just a blog, and in the free software community we air our dirty laundry in public for good reason. It's better if people say what they really think instead of self-imposing some contrived rules for diplomatic discourse. The court of public opinion will distinguish the lunatic fringes from the mainstream consensus.
It's a shame that the politics of free software has sullied the reputations of a not-so-big handful of community members. But there are personality traits that tend to culminate in this sort of public retribution, and they're not necessarily unique to free software projects. People with "sharp elbows" rise and fall quickly in any organization, even when their agenda has undeniable merit.
The word "poisonous" reminds me of a presentation at Google by the leaders of the Subversion project on dealing with poisonous personalities in free software projects. These people aren't necessarily "evil", and they could certain have the best of intentions. But as good as their work may be, if they cause problems for other contributors, the project suffers.
I'm unfamiliar with this situation, and I'm in no position to comment on Jeff's conduct in particular. That is for those who have worked and dealt with him to discuss. All I'm saying is that there are such things as "poisonous" contributors, and they can often be amongst the most active and well-intentioned members of the community. But they make working on the project less enjoyable and cause people to quit.
Not everybody is a Linus or even a Theo that has the capacity to lay the smack-down when necessary without jeopardizing the effectiveness of their leadership or the health of the community. When some people assert their authority, they do so in a way that causes others to push back and ultimately unite against them. Then they ought to step aside and let the project find its own way. Sometimes the best thing you can do for somebody or something you love is to let go.
Whether or not it has really come to this for Jeff Waugh and the GNOME project is for those parties to decide.
Edited 2007-11-27 00:52
Member since:
2005-07-06
This kind of high level bickering will only hinder gnome. It will cause division.
Openly say who you support and why, but attacking (personally) other members will cause tension and the loss of people who could help the project.
If this was taken from UK politics Cumming would be forced to resign. Such personal attacks should not be tolerated let alone supported
edit: typo
Edited 2007-11-26 22:01