This is a cross post. I want to post it here to make sure you all see what is happeing here on the forum. If this is incorrect protocol my apologies.

The incidents mentioned in this message happened here so I feel it is appropriate to post it here.

Rodman

I would like to make some comments and observations regarding the recent incidents involving John Petersen. By now, most are aware that John was banished from the UT, effective early Friday morning.

Everyone (including John himself) acknowledges that the UT ownership is well within their authority to ban John. While many people agreed that the ban two years ago was warranted (the TOC violations were clear), the reasons today are far less persuasive. Therefore, I’m not in agreement with this banishment.

Nonetheless, it’s the UT’s decision. However, I believe members have rights to voice their opinions. I’m concerned and disturbed by certain facts related to this situation:

1) Michel communicated to John that, basically, the IP address where John works would be blocked from UT access. John requested that other individuals at the client location be allowed to access the UT. Michel’s e-mail response to John’s request was the following:

“the answer is no. Their entire two Class C are blocked for lifetime duration of UT. No negotication will occur. It’s part of the context, they have provided you access to the Internet which lead you access to our services. In such a context, they are also included in the loop.”

Michel, unless you have already done so, I ask that you reconsider the block against the client’s network. They are also a part-time client of mine, even though I no longer work on the premises. I don’t see how this action is justified. This potentially creates a uncomfortable and negative situation between John and John’s client, one that needn’t exist. While I at least understand this is being done out of an extreme abundance of caution for security, I assure you that John is not the type of individual who would use an opening to cause harm.

2) Several of John’s messages over the last few days are marked as ‘sensitive’. I’ve reviewed all the messages, and have asked other members to do so. There’s strong consensus that the case for these being ‘sensitive’ and ‘personal attacks’ is (at best) questionable. In some instances, it’s confounding. To the degree that these messages led to John’s banishment, several forum members, even ones whom John has had heated debates, have stated that they don’t understand the banishment.

I’ve also reviewed recent messages by other forum members to John, and have found a number of them that are similar and in some cases worse. However, these are not marked as sensitive. This inconsistency has myself and others believing that standards are not being applied consistently. To be honest, I find the evaluation process (as well as the application of the troll definition and the new rules ) vague and problematic.

In my opinion, some of this is motivated by those who have complained loudly about John and hold grudges against John. While John has never claimed ‘victim status’, these same members seem to have no problem posting messages that are much worse.

3) Related to #2…a three-way discussion recently occurred between myself, JVP, and one other forum member. This member has made several posts regarding .NET technology that are either not correct, misleading, or misinformed. His posts have been called into question by multiple people who have produced .NET solutions. The consensus is that this member is not qualified to be making assertions on .NET.

Despite the fact that this individual has acknowledged a lack of production experience, he continued to offer views regarding .NET that are misinformed and possibly negatively biased. John responded with specific technical feedback that was followed by “you don’t know what you’re talking about”, and “you have zero credibility”.

While these statements are definitely strong, they are essentially correct as they apply to the individual’s ability to discuss .NET with authority. Many view these types of JVP responses as ‘tactics’ – if they are, it is only because sometimes that is the only way to break through certain mindsets and deep prejudices. Given that this is a technical forum, it’s interesting that a greater level of accountability seems to be placed on respondants of questionable technical statements than the originators. I can probably guess what the reactions would be if multiple messages were posted that incorrectly reported VFP’s capabilities.

Finally, I’m sorry to see that John will no longer be part of the UT. Despite what some have said, John has had the interest of VFP developers at heart. His words might not have always seemed consistent with that, but his actions were. In the last year, he was instrumental in successfully recruiting at least two individuals for FoxPro work. He is currently involved in a Fox/Oracle application and has been able to share some of his findings with regards to Fox-Oracle integration with others. He has also provided good professional and career advice – advice that unfortunately isn’t very popular with some. I probably sound like a broken record, but it’s the reactions of a few on the VFP forum that do more to discredit the cause of VFP than anything John has ever said about FoxPro.

I’ve shared this letter with Rod Paddock, the Editor-in-Chief of CoDe magazine. He communicated to me that he is in general agreement with the points made here, and volunteered his name to the signature line. Rod, I appreciate your support.

I’m sure there will be comments and feedback, both positive and negative. However, I've spoken my mind on this and am moving on, so I won’t be responding to any subsequent posts.

Michel, my main focus on the UT is helping folks who are new to .NET and various other tools, so I will continue to provide as much assistance as I’m able. I benefited greatly from the UT in 2002 and 2003 when I was learning .NET, and feel a professional responsibility to “pay it forward”. I’ve been a member for over six years now and have always shared my high opinion of the UT as a great technical resource with others. (And John has contributed greatly to the UT’s history).

But I must tell you, as one of the contributors of one of your forums, that I’m disappointed and discouraged with the recent actions.

Sincerely,

Kevin S. Goff, Common Ground Solutions
Rod Paddock (Editor in Chief, CoDe Magazine)