On 23/9/19 9:01, Dave Page wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 1:20 PM Álvaro Hernández <
aht@ongres.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
