Path: news.mathworks.com!not-for-mail
From: "Ivan E. Cao-Berg" <icaoberg@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: Re: FEX: the ML file exchange censored and stifled by the makers of MATLAB (TMW)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 22:22:01 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Universidad Metropolitana
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <grdva9$bsg$1@fred.mathworks.com>
References: <gr657p$pdl$1@fred.mathworks.com>
Reply-To: "Ivan E. Cao-Berg" <icaoberg@gmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: webapp-02-blr.mathworks.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: fred.mathworks.com 1239056521 12176 172.30.248.37 (6 Apr 2009 22:22:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@mathworks.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 22:22:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: MATLAB Central Newsreader 591203
Xref: news.mathworks.com comp.soft-sys.matlab:530895

FYI my comment got deleted. I didnt abuse any contributor nor I was disrespectful to anyone at FEX.

Nevertheless I got deleted.

Ivan

"us " <us@neurol.unizh.ch> wrote in message <gr657p$pdl$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> just for ML-users/FEX-contributors/CSSMers information...
> 
> after several of my sincere and well-meant reviews regarding FEX contributions about the sprint 2009 ML-contest were silently remove from TMW's operated file exchange(FEX) w3-site, i received this email...
> 
> THE FOLLOWING IS AN EMAIL CONTENTS
> 
> dear shari (and all those others hiding cowardly behind his/her name)
> 
> firstly, i do NOT direct my very angry replay to you - i do angrily reply to whomever now feels has to come up with this crap - now that TMW&#8217;s own are under scrutiny - and does abuse you as the scapegoat to convey the ridiculous message&#8230;
> 
> --- START ORIGINAL EMAIL ---
> Hello Urs,
> Thank you for being part of our MATLAB Central Community. We received your multiple comments on MATLAB Central submissions that you felt were not appropriate for File Exchange. We are taking your comments under advisement. In future, please comment directly on the code or other relevant topics as described in the File Exchange guidelines displayed on each file's detail page. This guideline was established following requests from our community members. It is intended to keep the discussions focused and professional. 
> I appreciate your cooperation in not re-posting these same comments. Please feel free to contact me should you have any further issues or concerns.
> Regards,
> Shari Freedman
> MATLAB Central Administrator
> E-Marketing and Creative Services
> The MathWorks, Inc.
> P: (508) 647-8133
> shari.freedman@mathworks.com
> --- END ORIGINAL EMAIL ---
> 
> your (TMW&#8217;s) audacity to trying to coerce me into changing my views and opinions on FEX contributions is EXTREMELY bothersome and outright egregious&#8230;
> 
> and yes, i did realized that you have removed all my - AND OTHERS&#8217; (eg, jos v/john d/duane h/ - reviews WITHOUT asking my/others&#8217; permission to do so! this is simply impolite&#8230;
> 
> preliminaries
> 
> 1) amongst many others, i (together with all of the above mentioned) was one of the so called -community members- who - years ago - tried(!) to establish FEX guidelines for a) submitting and b) reviewing submissions&#8230;
> 2) as you mention: the guidelines shall serve to keep the discussion FOCUSED and PROFESSIONAL&#8230;
> 
> regarding the matter at hand
> 
> as many others i got VERY angry with the layout to the latest ML contest - and unmistakably have voiced my opinion in a recent CSSM post
> 
> http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_thread/248096
> 
> as mentioned in this OP, my review for each of these - considered likewise by many other well-known and seasoned FEX/CSSM contributors - spams (yes!), shall be the following:
> 
> this submission is a) NOT suitable for and b) clearly does NOT live up to the goals and expectations of the FEX by which other authors are relentlessly judged by fellow MLers... 
> frankly, submitting stuff related to a (rather insignificant) ML-beauty contest to the FEX is an abuse of this (already heavily) taxed site and should be moved to another place...
> please remove it...
> urs
> 
> 
> now&#8230;
> 
> a) FOCUSED: the wording unambiguously deals with the particular submission - meant to be a revelation/novelty/cannot-live-without for a variety of ML users - by clearly stating --- it is NOT&#8230; YOU (the TMW) still have to tell my why each and every one of these contest-related submissions is being worthwhile to be downloaded for many a ML user&#8217;s daily use (when gauged with john&#8217;s or jos&#8217;s or other&#8217;s great contributions)&#8230;
> 
> b) PROFESSIONAL: as far as i can see, there is NO unprofessional wording, let alone profane slander, in the review! it simply and clearly states (identifiably [including valid email-address!]) WHO has voiced the opinion, WHY this submission is NOT a worthy FEX contribution, and simply and politely asks it to be removed&#8230;
> 
> c) if you seriously(!) call these particular FEX reviews an ABUSE, i shall immediately remove my few (pedestrian) contributions from the FEX and shall not be seen on CSSM any longer&#8230;
> 
> living for 23 years now with ML - and having contributed from time to time to the FEX as well as CSSM, i had NEVER - in my wildest dreams - thought that TMW would proceed in such an unprofessional and - frankly - clandestine and hostile way to pursue its (monetary?) goals&#8230;
> 
> i am utmost and seriously disappointed&#8230; and start to realize that TMW starts to (secretly) manage the FEX according to some company rules
> 
> urs (us) schwarz
> 
> ps: i also do sincerely ask cleve moler, whom i met in the late 1970s(!), to provide some input into this most unpleasant and unexpected development of our ML and its professional, admirable goals&#8230;