On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 8:53 AM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
So what's the point?
System installation is the responsibility of the Change Owner rsp. of the distribution.
I don't know what this statement means. In particular I don't know
what rsp. means.
‚Degraded Raid‘ is the responsibility of the system administrator.
And they also have the means to fix the problem. And the problem looks much more harmless
right away, because a degraded raid is the positive case of a system error that prevents a
total failure.
Are you suggesting that in the case of a bootable raid1 system, i.e.
the simplest case of mirroring / and /boot, that upon either device
failing, that you don't expect subsequent boot to succeed without
sysadmin intervention?
What we find here is a deep reach into the mothballs of destructive
rhetoric. The problem is first =redefined= from an installation problem to an operational
problem and at the same time the =responsibility is shifted= from the causers, the change
proposal owners, to the user, in this case the system administrator.
This is a well known rhetoric strategy, and one of the typical fallacies in rhetoric.
This strategy is called =fallacy of Equivocation= [1].
And Chris reinforces Equivocation here with another rhetorical trick, =omitting=
essential information. For example, that the change in the installation media results in a
non-bootable software raid system following installation steps that are part of the
anaconda installation options for years. To talk about a ==bootable== degraded raid is
blatant misdirection. Software raid doesn't boot at all after Change proposal [5].
You find a more detailed analyses of this rhetorical =fallacy of Omission= in an article
using the example of Adolf Hitler's Seizure of Power in post WW I Germany [2].
And you've just given us all an example of Godwin's law. You should
stop, if you have any capacity for self-control at all. You are
damaging your efforts in the working group.
The use of the aforementioned tactics is not a coincidence or an
isolated case in Chris email communication. Already in this mail, you can find this also
in other places. For example
> If you expressly want certain people
> to show up at your meeting, you need to extend them an invitation and
> see what times work for them. It's not like most people have the
> ability to just drop what they're doing to attend a SIG's meeting
> without knowing their attendance is needed well in advance.
The request is plausible at first reading. However, the sentence systematically =omits=
that it was about the absence of the Working Group members among change proposal owners.
Therefor there is no reason at all to invite them specially or to coordinate an
appointment. They have already been invited and they have agreed as members to attend
regularly.
There's no requirement for a change to contain working group members.
If you want change owners appearing at your meeting, ask them to
attend.
With the analysis I expressly do not claim that there is an evil
person at work who only wants to intentionally destroy. That would be beyond any
socio-linguistic analyses. Such an analyses is strictly about the structure of
communication, not about intentions of participants. That’s a matter of psychology or
politics. It is well known among these sciences that the mechanism of action of rhetorical
structures, are not aware of and are effective "behind the back of the actors“. It
must therefore be conceded that Chris is not acting out of malice. Certainly on purpose,
certainly with the choice of unfair and indecent methods, but not maliciously.
Well I've heard just about enough.
--
Chris Murphy