Re: Real name policy? [was: kmail has messed up the email accounts]

On Mon, 2020-06-01 at 22:13 +0200, Erik Quaeghebeur wrote:
> Dear Werner, [email protected], list,
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2020-06-01 at 16:37 +0200, Werner Joss wrote:
> > > > [consider using your real name, because…]
> 
> I do not think there is a real-name policy on the kde lists. In case
> there 
> is, it should be described somewhere (I did not find it) and can be 
> enforced by the list maintainers.

If there was, how could they enforce it ...

> I personally feel that the standards about how we ask and respond to
> posts 
> are what counts. It should not matter if this is done anonymously, 
> pseudonymously, or with real names.

right

> Am Montag, 1. Juni 2020, 21:02:37 CEST schrieben [email protected]:
> > > [I prefer not to, because of privacy reasons…] 
> 
> [email protected]: I think you should not even need to justify yourself.

Thank you.

> (Totally off-topic: IMHO, you could be a bit more forgiving and
> considerate 
> about kmail's design choices: what you see as deficiencies usually have 
> valid underlying reasons. You come across as having formed an opinion 
> without having considered those reasons.)

Yeah I can be somewhat blunt and not everyone is receptive to irony.  Also,
I usually don't know which reasons are behind design choices made by
others, and I don't mean to say that such reasons were invalid or that the
choices were bad.

I don't think programmers are like "ok, I'm gona make bad design choices
for invalid reasons" when creating software.  Programmers are probably
trying to make good choices for evident reasons and are giving a lot of
thought about their creations.

And then, with time, the circumstances under which and the purposes for
which the software is being used, and how it is being used, change.  With
time, programmers may come to think that a decision they made has turned
out not to have been such a good idea now, and when that happens, it
doesn't mean that the decision was bad.  It likely means that the
programmers have learned and evolved and will do things differently now.

To the user, it doesn't really matter.  With or without time, users are
likely to use the software in ways the programmers never thought of or
expected.  Users may perceive deficiencies of the software the programmers
haven't conceived, and users may find deficiencies that aren't really there
because they don't understand the software, don't know how to use it, or
have different ideas about how they want to use the software.

That doesn't mean the users shouldn't be allowed to say something about the
software.  It doesn't mean that programmers will change the software.  It's
all something that just happens, and it's possible that progress can be
made when users provide useful input and programmers aren't ignoring them.

To give you an example: Kmail is broken in that it doesn't work anymore. 
I'm sure none of the programmers have made it intentionally so, and it
doesn't matter what their design choices and reasons were.  Kmail is still
broken.

Now I'm bluntly saying that using identities like kmail does --- and other
MUAs do --- is bullshit because it appears that doing so makes things so
complicated that they easily break and because it's not good for the users
because it's confusing and because users don't have multiple personalities
or identies, with some exceptions.

I imagine that there were good ideas and reasons for inventing identities,
and that's ok.  I appreciate the effort and the work that has gone into it.
I wouldn't mind it if it was working because I would set it up only once
and I can live with the confusion the way it's made is causing.  It even
gets less confusing when you set it multiple times, until it's finally
entirely broken.

> On maandag 1 juni 2020 21:22:14 CEST, Werner Joss wrote:
> > [I do not agree with your argumentation]
> > 
> > > […]
> > > Somehow, adjusting the netiquette was forgotten, and now, who even
> > > remembers what a netiquette is.
> > 
> > This last half sentence applies for you, granted :)
> 
> Werner: I think that last remark was not appropriate: [email protected]
> has 
> responded to your mail with an argumentation that shows they have
> thought 
> about it and made a (valid, I would say) personal choice. I personally
> feel 
> netiquette is not about being open about who we ‘really’ are, but how we 
> behave in conversation.

Right.  I hope someone sees the irony in that Werner is disproving his
point about everyone being supposed to use their real name by trying to
bully me into using mine: if everyone was using their real names, it might
give him more means to bully everyone.

Or was it mean to say that?