Re: removing toxic emailers
On 15/04/2021 10:40 am, Frosku wrote: On Wed Apr 14, 2021 at 9:49 PM BST, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote: My answer is "it depends". More precisely, in the past I would have favored those who decline because the environment is unpleasant -- with the implied assumption being that their objections are reasonable. Given the emergency of cancel culture, that assumption is no longer automatically valid. This is why I asked the question "who decides?" Given a disagreement in which the proposed remedy is to ostracise a participant, it is necessary to inquire for what reason this should be done (and, perhaps, who is pushing for it to be done). My suggestion is that this judgment can be made by the community (via secret ballot), unless it is decided to delegate that power to a smaller body, considered as trustees, or whatever you choose to call them. paul I think, in general, it's fine to leave this decision to moderators. It's just a little disconcerting when one of the people who would probably be moderating is saying that he could have shut down the discussion if he could only ban jerks, as if to imply that everyone who dares to disagree with his position is a jerk worthy of a ban. A little late to the party, but thought this was worth commenting on- from my perspective, as long as there is some sort of consensus amongst moderators about who is worth banning, as opposed to whether it can be fixed by calling the person out on their ongoing behaviour, it's probably worth doing. If that power is left to one mod, it's not a good thing. 3 or a larger odd number of mods is best for avoiding stalemates, and more is better. As an example of a controversial mod choice and without wanting to reopen wounds here, if I were a mod I could quite easily ban Nathan for the dishonesty and divisiveness of his initial post (see below if you require substantive talk around that), despite the fact that I have no particular love for Stallman or any investment in the topic. But another mod might see that contribution as 'the end justifying the means' in terms of bringing in an inevitable debate around Stallman's offputting personal manner, and whether that fits in today's society. Another mod might have another opinion etc. Two or three heads, are better than one, when it comes to behaviour judgement - particularly when an international community is at stake. And the more temperamentally/culturally diverse the mods are - the better for decision-making overall. = 1. 'skeptical that voluntarily pedophilia harms children.’ stallman's own archives 2006-mar-jun I note that children are *incapable* of consenting. That’s what the age of consent means. He has recanted on this as of 2019 (https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong)) because people took the time to point out to him why his opinion was wrong. Omitting his recantation is, by my standards, a lie by omission. It doesn't make what he initially said any less terrible. But it clarifies his actual position. 2. 'end censorship of “child pornography”’. Stallman's archives 2012-jul-oct.html Notice use of “quotes” to down play what is actually being requested. While I don't actually agree with Stallman in the slightest, his stated objection is "it's common practice for teenagers to exchange nude photos with their lovers, and they all potentially could be imprisoned for this. A substantial fraction of them are actually prosecuted. " That's very different from how it's been presented here - a lie by omission. 3. 'gentle expressions of attraction’ Stallman's archives > 2012-jul-oct.html Condoning a variant of the wolf-whistle. Unless one’s talking to one’s lover, ‘gentle invitations for sex’ by a stranger is *grooming* (be it child or of-age). If you ever been to a bar, or an open-air event, or god forbid a party, you are aware that this is an obvious lie (for adults). Secondarily, nothing in Richard's text relates to wolf-whistling or variants.
Re: removing toxic emailers
> That would surely only be relevant if people wanted to use their > telephones to compile code? That's not completely clear. It would certainly be true if the compiler were included on the phone, whether or not the compiler was actually used. But I was more addressing the general comment that Google doesn't care about GPLv3 than the specific issue of GCC. If the kernel were GPLv3, for example, there would be an issue with what Samsung is doing.
Re: removing toxic emailers
On 20/04/2021 16:15, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
>> Just for the record, Google has no problem with the GPLv3. Google stopped
>> working on GCC because they made a company decision to use clang instead.
>> That decision was made for technical reasons, not licensing reasons.
>
> But note that some cellphone manufacturers (e.g, Samsung) have taken
> steps to prevent non-signed binaries from being loaded in their phones.
> This would have been problematic ("Tivoisation") if GPLv3 code was
> included in Android.
>
That would surely only be relevant if people wanted to use their
telephones to compile code? The license of the compiler does not matter
(except for libraries or code snippets that are copied directly by the
compiler to the binaries, and gcc has permissive license exceptions for
these.)
Re: removing toxic emailers
> Just for the record, Google has no problem with the GPLv3. Google stopped
> working on GCC because they made a company decision to use clang instead.
> That decision was made for technical reasons, not licensing reasons.
But note that some cellphone manufacturers (e.g, Samsung) have taken
steps to prevent non-signed binaries from being loaded in their phones.
This would have been problematic ("Tivoisation") if GPLv3 code was
included in Android.
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 12:54 AM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > > Check the git logs, Google employees are minor contributors these > days. The GPLv3 scared Google away from GCC years ago. > Just for the record, Google has no problem with the GPLv3. Google stopped working on GCC because they made a company decision to use clang instead. That decision was made for technical reasons, not licensing reasons. Ian >
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 04:47, Frosku wrote:
>
> On Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 4:06 PM BST, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> > Google doesn't pay anybody to work on GCC all day. You know nothing
> > about
> > GCC or the "problems" you're complaining about. Your input to this
> > conversation is not constructive.
>
> This feels like that moment in 8Mile, "pay attention, you're saying the
> same shit that he said." The personal insults and technical semantic
> arguments are testament to the fact that you're not willing or not able
> to argue the points. It's quite incredible that two people have replied
> to the same multiple-hundred word e-mail about a broad issue of trying
> to gatekeep discussion and both have focused on semantics ("it's not
> *all* day"). I will remember not to use hyperbole in future for fear of
> it being taken literally and used as an excuse to dodge the point.
Check the git logs, Google employees are minor contributors these
days. The GPLv3 scared Google away from GCC years ago.
I've unsubscribed from this list now, so please stop CCing me. I'm not
interested in continuing this.
Re: removing toxic emailers
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:47 PM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Thomas Rodgers" , "Jonathan Wakely"
>
> Cc: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 4:06 PM BST, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> > Google doesn't pay anybody to work on GCC all day. You know nothing
> > about
> > GCC or the "problems" you're complaining about. Your input to this
> > conversation is not constructive.
>
> This feels like that moment in 8Mile, "pay attention, you're saying the
> same shit that he said." The personal insults and technical semantic
> arguments are testament to the fact that you're not willing or not able
> to argue the points. It's quite incredible that two people have replied
> to the same multiple-hundred word e-mail about a broad issue of trying
> to gatekeep discussion and both have focused on semantics ("it's not
> *all* day"). I will remember not to use hyperbole in future for fear of
> it being taken literally and used as an excuse to dodge the point.
>
> > > Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users'
> > > opinions
> > > were as valid as contributor's opinions.
> >
> > That depends on the user.
> >
> > Once upon a time, free software's developers *were* it's primary users,
> > i.e. they built the technology for themselves and made it freely
> > available in the hope that it would be useful to others. It's also the
> > case that the vast majority of GCC *current* users are not here making
> > proclamations about what GCC's project governance should be. Rather it's
> > a vocal and vanishingly small minority, who have contributed nothing of
> > value, code or insights, and continue to vocally do so. Many of GCC's
> > users are, however, watching in horror at the absolutely amateurish way
> > in which this is playing out and wondering if their long term commitment
> > should be to using this piece of software to build their
> > products/businesses.
>
> It's obvious that the majority of current users aren't here, the majority of
> current users don't use the mailing lists. What have you done to try to
> consult their opinions on the matter? It's amazing how much effort is being
> expended to silence opposition, whilst not even one argument has been made
> as to how breaking from FSF/GNU will result in a better technical outcome.
Is that right!!! Users want to build their products and businesses?
Sounds very corporate to me, with wording that suggests the provision
of resources working on other projects for personal profit. The users
watching in horror are most likely developers who see Richard Stallman
as an obstacle.
GCC can never break from Gnu. They can only break from gnu, clone gcc and call
it something else such as gcc-fuckup, gcc-screw and the like. Then, if they
manage to fuckup the licensing or the compatibility with Gcc, we shall wait for
a new generation of forward thinking hackers to join us. The success of Gcc was
achieved to large extent due to the personal efforts of Rms.
These people never learned from the Cygnus EGCS Saga, because they cannot get
beyond the short-sighted viewpoint of "always disobey every authority".
The U.S.S. Cygnus was a "Death Ship". Reinhardt had planned to fly her
through the black hole but suffered sever damage and was torn apart.
> >>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
>
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 4:06 PM BST, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> Google doesn't pay anybody to work on GCC all day. You know nothing
> about
> GCC or the "problems" you're complaining about. Your input to this
> conversation is not constructive.
This feels like that moment in 8Mile, "pay attention, you're saying the
same shit that he said." The personal insults and technical semantic
arguments are testament to the fact that you're not willing or not able
to argue the points. It's quite incredible that two people have replied
to the same multiple-hundred word e-mail about a broad issue of trying
to gatekeep discussion and both have focused on semantics ("it's not
*all* day"). I will remember not to use hyperbole in future for fear of
it being taken literally and used as an excuse to dodge the point.
> > Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users'
> > opinions
> > were as valid as contributor's opinions.
>
> That depends on the user.
>
> Once upon a time, free software's developers *were* it's primary users,
> i.e. they built the technology for themselves and made it freely
> available in the hope that it would be useful to others. It's also the
> case that the vast majority of GCC *current* users are not here making
> proclamations about what GCC's project governance should be. Rather it's
> a vocal and vanishingly small minority, who have contributed nothing of
> value, code or insights, and continue to vocally do so. Many of GCC's
> users are, however, watching in horror at the absolutely amateurish way
> in which this is playing out and wondering if their long term commitment
> should be to using this piece of software to build their
> products/businesses.
It's obvious that the majority of current users aren't here, the majority of
current users don't use the mailing lists. What have you done to try to
consult their opinions on the matter? It's amazing how much effort is being
expended to silence opposition, whilst not even one argument has been made
as to how breaking from FSF/GNU will result in a better technical outcome.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:06 AM > From: "Thomas Rodgers" > To: "Jonathan Wakely" > Cc: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" > Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers > > On 2021-04-18 23:29, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, 02:41 Frosku, wrote: > > > > On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote: > > That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly > > conclude > > their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've > > driven dissenters into silence. > > The problem is, Alex, that the trolls mostly haven't been on the > > dissenting > > side. All of the childish namecalling -- "jerks", "trolls", "crazies" > > -- > > and the insinuations that our voices aren't worth listening to because > > we > > don't get paid $250,000 a year by Google to contribute to GCC all day > > are > > coming from the pro-forking side. > > Google doesn't pay anybody to work on GCC all day. You know nothing > about > GCC or the "problems" you're complaining about. Your input to this > conversation is not constructive. > > > Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users' > > opinions > > were as valid as contributor's opinions. > > That depends on the user. > > Once upon a time, free software's developers *were* it's primary users, > i.e. they built the technology for themselves and made it freely > available in the hope that it would be useful to others. It's also the > case that the vast majority of GCC *current* users are not here making > proclamations about what GCC's project governance should be. Rather it's > a vocal and vanishingly small minority, who have contributed nothing of > value, code or insights, and continue to vocally do so. Many of GCC's > users are, however, watching in horror at the absolutely amateurish way > in which this is playing out and wondering if their long term commitment > should be to using this piece of software to build their > products/businesses. Completely false. Free software's developers were people who were disgusted with the communities of software developers that started restricting users. The Free Software Community wanted software that they could use and modify code for any purpose, notwithstanding any prohibition other developers wanted to impose on them. The hackers of the 70s and 80s who transformed computing and the early internet were known for their wit. This included using a playboy photo of Lena Söderberg for image processing. They had got tired of the usually dull test images used at conferences. She rapidly became the First Lady of Computing. Many were very happy to meet her in person and ask her an autograph. n 1997, Forsén worked for a government agency supervising disabled employees who archived data using computers and scanners. In 2015, she was guest of honor at the banquet of IEEE, delivering a speech, and chairing the best paper award ceremony. Those were exciting times, but by now government-sepported and corporation-supported organizations have caught up; what was once a liberating technology has become a conduit for surveillance and manipulation. Even a chimp can write code. So I give the reply attributed to Eric Raymond, after Microsoft offerred him a job. I'd thank you for your offer of employment at Microsoft, except that it indicates that either you or your research team (or both) couldn't get a clue if it were pounded into you with baseball bats. What were you going to do with the rest of your afternoon, offer jobs to Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds? Or were you going to stick to something easier, like talking Pope Benedict into presiding at a Satanist orgy? - Eric Raymond There was a time when I felt too much at odds with Eric, but today he has became a friend.
Re: removing toxic emailers
On 2021-04-18 23:29, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, 02:41 Frosku, wrote: On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote: That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've driven dissenters into silence. The problem is, Alex, that the trolls mostly haven't been on the dissenting side. All of the childish namecalling -- "jerks", "trolls", "crazies" -- and the insinuations that our voices aren't worth listening to because we don't get paid $250,000 a year by Google to contribute to GCC all day are coming from the pro-forking side. Google doesn't pay anybody to work on GCC all day. You know nothing about GCC or the "problems" you're complaining about. Your input to this conversation is not constructive. Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users' opinions were as valid as contributor's opinions. That depends on the user. Once upon a time, free software's developers *were* it's primary users, i.e. they built the technology for themselves and made it freely available in the hope that it would be useful to others. It's also the case that the vast majority of GCC *current* users are not here making proclamations about what GCC's project governance should be. Rather it's a vocal and vanishingly small minority, who have contributed nothing of value, code or insights, and continue to vocally do so. Many of GCC's users are, however, watching in horror at the absolutely amateurish way in which this is playing out and wondering if their long term commitment should be to using this piece of software to build their products/businesses.
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 7:29 AM BST, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, 02:41 Frosku, wrote:
>
> > On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> > > That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
> > > their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've
> > > driven dissenters into silence.
> >
> > The problem is, Alex, that the trolls mostly haven't been on the dissenting
> > side. All of the childish namecalling -- "jerks", "trolls", "crazies" --
> > and the insinuations that our voices aren't worth listening to because we
> > don't get paid $250,000 a year by Google to contribute to GCC all day are
> > coming from the pro-forking side.
> >
>
> Google doesn't pay anybody to work on GCC all day. You know nothing
> about
> GCC or the "problems" you're complaining about. Your input to this
> conversation is not constructive.
>
>
>
> > Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users' opinions
> > were as valid as contributor's opinions.
>
>
>
> That depends on the user.
Thanks for perfectly illustrating my point. I don't agree with you so my opinion
isn't valid and I'm stupid/clueless/etc.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, 02:41 Frosku, wrote: > On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote: > > That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude > > their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've > > driven dissenters into silence. > > The problem is, Alex, that the trolls mostly haven't been on the dissenting > side. All of the childish namecalling -- "jerks", "trolls", "crazies" -- > and the insinuations that our voices aren't worth listening to because we > don't get paid $250,000 a year by Google to contribute to GCC all day are > coming from the pro-forking side. > Google doesn't pay anybody to work on GCC all day. You know nothing about GCC or the "problems" you're complaining about. Your input to this conversation is not constructive. > Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users' opinions > were as valid as contributor's opinions. That depends on the user.
Re: removing toxic emailers
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 1:10 PM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Alexandre Oliva" , "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc"
>
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> > That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
> > their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've
> > driven dissenters into silence.
>
> The problem is, Alex, that the trolls mostly haven't been on the dissenting
> side. All of the childish namecalling -- "jerks", "trolls", "crazies" --
> and the insinuations that our voices aren't worth listening to because we
> don't get paid $250,000 a year by Google to contribute to GCC all day are
> coming from the pro-forking side.
>
> Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users' opinions
> were as valid as contributor's opinions. For a project like a compiler which
> exists solely to enable other projects to exist, it seems like the only users
> who are deemed worthy of representation in the 'room where it happens' now
> are the major Corporations with the ability to sponsor a contributor on their
> behalf. It's becoming very difficult to engage in good faith against this
> kind of overt hostility to the grassroots users.
>
> > Violent emotional responses is what trolls of all alignments aim for.
> > Let's not give them that. Let's not give them reasons to denounce
> > censorship either. Let's dissent politely and kindly, without calling
> > them names, whether trolls or jerks or crazy. Ad troll[i]um is a very
> > popular fallacious argument these days, but it's just as logically
> > unsound as other fallacies.
>
> I've only seen one or two genuine 'trolls' in the discussion, as in, people
> who are just here to fish for a reaction who don't have an actual vested
> interest in the outcome. All of them have sent a couple of messages and then
> left. Completely agree with you that 'ad trollum' is being deployed here to
> conflate the legitimate voices of concerned free software advocates with
> childish trolling, much to the detriment of the level of conversation.
>
> > It's true that negotiating and settling with wildly different opinions
> > requires more effort than having despotic powers to dictate the right
> > answer. The community has made it clear what political model it
> > prefers, so let's put that in practice, shall we?
>
> I think there's a fundamental disagreement here where we're defining 'the
> community' broadly -- to include contributors, users, and pretty much the
> whole free software and GNU community -- and certain people on the pro-
> fork side are taking a more corporate view that only 'the firm' should get
> any input into 'internal business'. This is not the free software community
> that I recognize.
That's quite accurate. I can see again the emergence of the phreakers
types of the 1980's, the minority that were up to no good. Want to join
the club Frosku?
> >>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
>
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
> their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've
> driven dissenters into silence.
The problem is, Alex, that the trolls mostly haven't been on the dissenting
side. All of the childish namecalling -- "jerks", "trolls", "crazies" --
and the insinuations that our voices aren't worth listening to because we
don't get paid $250,000 a year by Google to contribute to GCC all day are
coming from the pro-forking side.
Once upon a time, free software developers understood that users' opinions
were as valid as contributor's opinions. For a project like a compiler which
exists solely to enable other projects to exist, it seems like the only users
who are deemed worthy of representation in the 'room where it happens' now
are the major Corporations with the ability to sponsor a contributor on their
behalf. It's becoming very difficult to engage in good faith against this
kind of overt hostility to the grassroots users.
> Violent emotional responses is what trolls of all alignments aim for.
> Let's not give them that. Let's not give them reasons to denounce
> censorship either. Let's dissent politely and kindly, without calling
> them names, whether trolls or jerks or crazy. Ad troll[i]um is a very
> popular fallacious argument these days, but it's just as logically
> unsound as other fallacies.
I've only seen one or two genuine 'trolls' in the discussion, as in, people
who are just here to fish for a reaction who don't have an actual vested
interest in the outcome. All of them have sent a couple of messages and then
left. Completely agree with you that 'ad trollum' is being deployed here to
conflate the legitimate voices of concerned free software advocates with
childish trolling, much to the detriment of the level of conversation.
> It's true that negotiating and settling with wildly different opinions
> requires more effort than having despotic powers to dictate the right
> answer. The community has made it clear what political model it
> prefers, so let's put that in practice, shall we?
I think there's a fundamental disagreement here where we're defining 'the
community' broadly -- to include contributors, users, and pretty much the
whole free software and GNU community -- and certain people on the pro-
fork side are taking a more corporate view that only 'the firm' should get
any input into 'internal business'. This is not the free software community
that I recognize.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 8:13 PM BST, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> Utter nonsense, Alex. I think it's clear I don't agree with most of
> your posts on this list in the past month, but it would be silly to
> suggest that you should not be allowed to post here, given your track
> record. Dave didn't say who he thinks should or shouldn't be
> moderated, so why do you think he said that those he agrees with are
> welcome to share their opinion? He said "those who have never
> contributed to GCC but persist in emailing the list" so why do you
> infer he only means those he disagrees with? Are you projecting maybe?
I'm genuinely trying to wrap my head around this. Front and centre of the
anti-RMS argument is that this is about becoming more welcoming. Is this
some kind of Orwellian doublespeak? That the project should become more
welcoming by casting off the neurodivergent leader who founded it and
putting up more barriers to participation?
Whoever heard of a free software community which bans its users from
participating? Let alone one which erects this metaphorical Trumpian wall
with its wrought iron, well-manned gates under the guise of being *more*
welcoming?
> To me a simple rule makes sense (and is what is used on another list
> that I am the moderator for, with not a single complain about my
> moderation in many years): every new subscriber has their "moderated"
> flag set by default. When a moderator approves their post, they have
> the option of clearing the "moderated" flag, if it's clear they are
> going to contribute usefully. That flag can be set again if somebody
> is disruptive or refuses to follow the list policies and stay on
> topic.
Why is it that those with the most radical ideas always seem to have the
least tolerance for dissent and feel the most threatened by discussion?
It's quite clear that your criteria for 'disruption' has more to do with
whether or not people agree with you than whether or not they're making
actual arguments or contributing in good faith. You're proposing for GCC
to act even less accountable to its (non-corporate) users than corporate
America does. How is this in the spirit of free software again?
How many values is it worth casting down the drain to achieve this promised
utopia where people never have to hear a voice they disagree with again?
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Apr 18, 2021, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > "Just ignore them" allows the trolls to dominate the discussion *nod* That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've driven dissenters into silence. Violent emotional responses is what trolls of all alignments aim for. Let's not give them that. Let's not give them reasons to denounce censorship either. Let's dissent politely and kindly, without calling them names, whether trolls or jerks or crazy. Ad troll[i]um is a very popular fallacious argument these days, but it's just as logically unsound as other fallacies. The best answer to unwanted speech is not censorship, but rather more good speech. It's true that negotiating and settling with wildly different opinions requires more effort than having despotic powers to dictate the right answer. The community has made it clear what political model it prefers, so let's put that in practice, shall we? -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Apr 18, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > Dave didn't say who he thinks should or shouldn't be moderated, Shall we ask him to confirm what I read between the lines? Shall we ask Nathan? Shall we ask you? > it would be silly to suggest that you should not be allowed to post > here, given your track record I happen to disagree with the underlying premise, that my opinion should be any more legitimate or welcome because of my modest contributions to the project. Besides the implied chaste system that I've already objected to in the previous message, the approach you suggested amounts to regarding people as guilty until proven innocent. I support the opposite alternative, the one prescribed in the declaration of human rights and adopted in most civilized societies, that recommends people to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty. I find systems in which people are not welcome by default, but rather need to first earn a baseline of respect that every human being ought to be entitled to, are the opposite of welcoming, and the unchecked powers needed to implement them are too prone to abuse. I've seen such powers being abused, and I've found that absolutely intolerable. Plus, there's a cautionary principle that I subscribe to, that it's preferrable to find 10 guilty parties not-guilty and let them go free, than to treat one single innocent party as guilty. > so why do you think he said that those he agrees with are > welcome to share their opinion? Mainly because of timing, threading and general disposition. Even if he didn't state it expressly, it has not been hard to tell. I'd welcome certainty instead, either way. Whose messages would you prefer to have had the power to filter out, or that whoever did had filtered out from your view? Nathan, how about you? David, how about you? > Are you projecting maybe? I doubt it. I don't find myself wanting or calling for people to be prevented from expressing their opinions, no matter how much I disagree with them, or how much I find they may be undermining what I stand for with their stance. I do notice, however, when people call for suppression of dissenting voices, on arguments that apply equally or even more strongly to aligned voices, but that did not motivate calls for suppression on the same grounds. It's not even like I have to actively search for such patterns, asymmetries jump out at me and catch my attention. -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 19:54, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote: > That you claim some are entitled to share their opinions, because > they've contributed code (and you agree with them), and that others are > not because they haven't (and you disagree with them), but you do not > disqualify those who have not contributed code (but you agree with them) > and dismiss those who have (that you disagree with), you not only > confirm that the issue really is about agreement/disagreement, but > attempt to frame the intolerance to dissenting ideas as a chaste system. Utter nonsense, Alex. I think it's clear I don't agree with most of your posts on this list in the past month, but it would be silly to suggest that you should not be allowed to post here, given your track record. Dave didn't say who he thinks should or shouldn't be moderated, so why do you think he said that those he agrees with are welcome to share their opinion? He said "those who have never contributed to GCC but persist in emailing the list" so why do you infer he only means those he disagrees with? Are you projecting maybe? To me a simple rule makes sense (and is what is used on another list that I am the moderator for, with not a single complain about my moderation in many years): every new subscriber has their "moderated" flag set by default. When a moderator approves their post, they have the option of clearing the "moderated" flag, if it's clear they are going to contribute usefully. That flag can be set again if somebody is disruptive or refuses to follow the list policies and stay on topic. > Again, not conducive of the tolerant and welcoming atmosphere I'd like > us to pursue. Neither is making false claims about Dave's claims or his motives for moderation. Stop it. > > I recall a scene from the original Cosmos TV series, by Carl Sagan, in > which he's set within an out-of-scale model of the solar system, walking > about the planets and talking about some batshit crazy theory by some > scientist about how a planet-sized body had some day been ejected from > Jupiter and floated about the solar system causing, among other effects, > the Earth to stop spinning and then start spinning again, as described > in some religious book. Sounds like Velikovsky. Less ridiculous than some of the ideas posted to this list recently.
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 16:32, David Malcolm wrote: > > "Don't feed the trolls" might have worked once, but sometimes they > start talking to each other, and it becomes difficult for a bystander > to tell that everyone else is ignoring them, and it keeps threads like > this one alive. > > I reject the idea that those of us who work on GCC have to put up with > arbitrary emails from random crazies on the internet without even the > simple recourse of being able to put individuals on moderation. That > might have worked 20 years ago when I thought ESR was relevant, but > seems absurdly out-of-date to me today. Hear hear. "Just ignore them" allows the trolls to dominate the discussion, and makes it appear that the entire GCC project is full of such people (when in fact the ones dominating the discussions have nothing to do with the project). Moderation is not censorship.
Re: removing toxic emailers
David, On Apr 18, 2021, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote: > I reject the idea that those of us who work on GCC have to put up with > arbitrary emails from random crazies on the internet without even the > simple recourse of being able to put individuals on moderation. All sides in this multi-threaded debate, since the very first message, have put forth crazy, unfounded, unsupported, and false theories. That you're willing to tolerate some, because you find them believable, but are not willing to tolerate others, because you disagree with them, is not conducive of the tolerant and welcoming atmosphere I'd like us to pursue. That you claim some are entitled to share their opinions, because they've contributed code (and you agree with them), and that others are not because they haven't (and you disagree with them), but you do not disqualify those who have not contributed code (but you agree with them) and dismiss those who have (that you disagree with), you not only confirm that the issue really is about agreement/disagreement, but attempt to frame the intolerance to dissenting ideas as a chaste system. Again, not conducive of the tolerant and welcoming atmosphere I'd like us to pursue. I recall a scene from the original Cosmos TV series, by Carl Sagan, in which he's set within an out-of-scale model of the solar system, walking about the planets and talking about some batshit crazy theory by some scientist about how a planet-sized body had some day been ejected from Jupiter and floated about the solar system causing, among other effects, the Earth to stop spinning and then start spinning again, as described in some religious book. Then he proceeds to describe the most serious scientific problem involving that theory: that some self-proclaimed scientists attempted to prevent those ideas from being published. Preventing ideas you don't already agree with from being shared is not the way to do science, quite the opposite. Being intolerant to ideas that aren't prevalent in your filter bubble, and demanding others to take action to protect you from as much as being exposed to them, does not seem conducive of scientific progress, of collaboration, of tolerance, of inclusivity, or of diversity. I certainly don't find that welcoming, but rather toxic. I find it requiring alignment and obedience rather than diversity and freedom. Please reflect some more thoroughly about this apparent misalignment between your actions and your words. Thanks for reading, -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Vim, Vi, Voltei pro Emacs -- GNUlius Caesar
Re: removing toxic emailers
- Christopher Dimech General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation) - Geophysical Simulation - Geological Subsurface Mapping - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation - Natural Resource Exploration and Production - Free Software Advocacy > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 2:51 AM > From: "David Malcolm via Gcc" > To: "Ian Lance Taylor" > Cc: "GCC Development" > Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers > > On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 09:10 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > Sorry for prolonging this thread-of-doom; I'm loathe to reply to Eric > because I worry that it will encourage him. I wrote a long rebuttal to > his last email to me about his great insights into the minds of women > but didn't send it in the hope of reducing the temperature of the > conversation. > > That said... > > > Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc : > > > This conversation has moved well off-topic for the GCC mailing lists. > > > > > > Some of the posts here do not follow the GNU Kind Communication > > > Guidelines > > > (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html). > > > > > > I suggest that people who want to continue this thread take it off > > > the > > > GCC mailing list. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Ian > > > > Welcome to the consequences of abandoning "You shall judge by the code > > alone." > > > > This is what it will be like, *forever*, until you reassert that norm. > > Or we could ignore the false dilemma that Eric is asserting, and > instead moderate the list, or even just moderate those who have never > contributed to GCC but persist in emailing the list. > > Personally, I've been moving all posts by Christopher Dimech to this > list direct from my inbox to my archive without reading them for the > last several days, and it's helped my mood considerably. He's been > prolifically posting to the list recently, but in the 8 years I've been > involved in gcc development I've never heard of him before this thing > kicked off, and the stuff I've had the misfortune to see by him appears > to me to be full of conspiracy theories and deranged raving. The clue > might have been when he referred to us as "bitches". > "Don't feed the trolls" might have worked once, but sometimes they > start talking to each other, and it becomes difficult for a bystander > to tell that everyone else is ignoring them, and it keeps threads like > this one alive. > > I reject the idea that those of us who work on GCC have to put up with > arbitrary emails from random crazies on the internet without even the > simple recourse of being able to put individuals on moderation. That > might have worked 20 years ago when I thought ESR was relevant, but > seems absurdly out-of-date to me today. > > As usual, these are my opinions only, not necessarily those of my > employer The deranged raving is the disclaimer every time an employee posts something. > Dave > > >
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 09:10 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: Sorry for prolonging this thread-of-doom; I'm loathe to reply to Eric because I worry that it will encourage him. I wrote a long rebuttal to his last email to me about his great insights into the minds of women but didn't send it in the hope of reducing the temperature of the conversation. That said... > Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc : > > This conversation has moved well off-topic for the GCC mailing lists. > > > > Some of the posts here do not follow the GNU Kind Communication > > Guidelines > > (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html). > > > > I suggest that people who want to continue this thread take it off > > the > > GCC mailing list. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Ian > > Welcome to the consequences of abandoning "You shall judge by the code > alone." > > This is what it will be like, *forever*, until you reassert that norm. Or we could ignore the false dilemma that Eric is asserting, and instead moderate the list, or even just moderate those who have never contributed to GCC but persist in emailing the list. Personally, I've been moving all posts by Christopher Dimech to this list direct from my inbox to my archive without reading them for the last several days, and it's helped my mood considerably. He's been prolifically posting to the list recently, but in the 8 years I've been involved in gcc development I've never heard of him before this thing kicked off, and the stuff I've had the misfortune to see by him appears to me to be full of conspiracy theories and deranged raving. The clue might have been when he referred to us as "bitches". "Don't feed the trolls" might have worked once, but sometimes they start talking to each other, and it becomes difficult for a bystander to tell that everyone else is ignoring them, and it keeps threads like this one alive. I reject the idea that those of us who work on GCC have to put up with arbitrary emails from random crazies on the internet without even the simple recourse of being able to put individuals on moderation. That might have worked 20 years ago when I thought ESR was relevant, but seems absurdly out-of-date to me today. As usual, these are my opinions only, not necessarily those of my employer Dave
Re: identifying toxic emailers (was: removing toxic emailers)
Hi Kenner On April 18, 2021 12:42:25 PM UTC, ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote: > > So I think it's quite reasonable to expect that their employers > could > > read the SC's secret exchanges (since they technically CAN read them). > > I'm a bit lost here. What do you think is the content of "the SC's > secret exchanges"? GCC governance issues, maintainers, SC appointments, relations with FSF, and general project management issues. The kind of exchanges that SC members described in these weeks, while arguing that the FSF oversight was pointless. The "project's politics, so that programmers can focus on code". (I'm citing by memory, but I can look for the exact quotation if you desire) In fact, programming is a powerful political activity. One of the most powerful, actually, despite many still haven't realized the huge responsibility that comes with it. Giacomo
Re: removing toxic emailers
Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc : > This conversation has moved well off-topic for the GCC mailing lists. > > Some of the posts here do not follow the GNU Kind Communication > Guidelines (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html). > > I suggest that people who want to continue this thread take it off the > GCC mailing list. > > Thanks. > > Ian Welcome to the consequences of abandoning "You shall judge by the code alone." This is what it will be like, *forever*, until you reassert that norm. -- http://www.catb.org/~esr/;>Eric S. Raymond
Re: identifying toxic emailers (was: removing toxic emailers)
> So I think it's quite reasonable to expect that their employers could > read the SC's secret exchanges (since they technically CAN read them). I'm a bit lost here. What do you think is the content of "the SC's secret exchanges"?
identifying toxic emailers (was: removing toxic emailers)
If you have justification, evidence, or even a rational argument for > your concerns, please share them. If not, please stop... But it was important not only to clarify that our concerns are shared by many technical and non technical people (I personally know hundreds of them among different categories: hackers, accademics, enterpreneours, politicians and plain users), but to clarify their nature. It's not about people. It's not about their personal integrity. It's about powerful corporations with a long track record of misbehaviours and with strong ties with US DoD, that in turn has a long track record of huge ingerence in foreign politics AND of violations in human rights. I have no doubt about your good faith and good will. But I'm not naive enough to believe that good people will can balance systemic issues and perversse incentives in the environment they work. This clarification was important and in topic with GCC governance because the thread is about "removing toxic emailers" and since I was depicted as a "jerk" and "concern troll" and you mentioned the GNU (!!!) Kind Comunications Guidelines, I thought it was a useful exercise to compare my post here with them to verify if one of the toxic emailers was me. In fact, all of the political issues I expressed here are about peoples' controlling their computing FOR REAL or not. Now please, do the same exercise with Nathan's request and follow up. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235091.html https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235267.html Please compare his mails with the GNU Kind Comunications Guidelines too. Count the violaions. Then look at what he scatenated here and tell us whose behaviour has been more "toxic" to this project. I'm sure you are going to do a fair analysis and stay in topic. It's not my intention to put shame on Nathan, but since he is looking for policies to remove "toxic emailers", I think it would be an interesting proof that people deciding what is "toxic" are going to be completely blind to certain toxicities. And this, in the long run, would perpretate and legitimate the power imbalances that led us here. Giacomo
Re: removing toxic emailers
This conversation has moved well off-topic for the GCC mailing lists. Some of the posts here do not follow the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html). I suggest that people who want to continue this thread take it off the GCC mailing list. Thanks. Ian
Re: removing toxic emailers
On 17/04/2021 13:56, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > Hi Gerald,, > > On April 17, 2021 9:09:19 AM UTC, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote: >>> In my view, if people employed by a small number of American >> companies >>> succeed in disassociating GCC from GNU/FSF, which is representative >>> of the free software grassroots community >> >> I find this insistant focus by some on "American companies" >> interesting - and quite pointless. And my passport is burgundy. > > > So much that in fact, we are talking about some of the most controversial > corporation in the whole world. > > And while we are talking about "toxic emailers", it's not lost to me > the irony that all this divisive debate about inclusive and righteous > behaviour started with an email of a Facebook employee that defines > working in Facebook "a joy". > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235091.html > > Yeah the same Facebook that still does what Cambridge Analytica used to. > >> It also is a completely unwarranted attack on the integrity of the >> maintainers, contributors, and other leaders of GCC. Regardless of >> the color of their passports. > > This is a strawman. > > People are just concerned about the undue influence that these > controversial corporations can have on GCC through the influence they > have on their employees. > Do you have any justification for thinking that the number of such "concerned people" is significant? It is clearly at least one - you - and arguably a couple of the others who have posted here. But do you think it is many, and do you think they have any reason or justification for this concern? (Repeating it multiple times in these mailing list threads is not reasoning or justification - "proof by repeated assertion" arguments can be dismissed off-hand.) I am not a Facebook fan myself. I have an account that I use almost exclusively just for keeping up with a couple of sports clubs of which I am a member, and which use Facebook to publish information. I don't like the way it tracks so much information about me and other people, and I don't see how it benefits me. (Google tracks information too, but I see more benefit in it.) However, that is /my/ choice and /my/ opinion, and the way /I/ like to use (or avoid) social media. Other people have very different opinions, and find a lot to like about Facebook. That's /their/ choice. Big companies like Facebook and Google are powerful tools. They usually try to be "good" most of the time - after all, they are staffed by real people with real consciences who are, as most people are the world over, basically good people. They will make mistakes sometimes, and powerful tools get abused on occasion. But on the whole they are trying to provide a service people want and can make use of, while also making a living in the process. Anything else is paranoia - and like most conspiracy theories, it falls flat when you realise it would involve huge numbers of people keeping quite about doing evil. I do believe that Facebook, Google, IBM, etc., will have /some/ influence on gcc and all the other free and open source projects that they support. That is because they are big users of such software - it makes sense for them to support them and help and encourage them. And sometimes they will be contributing towards specific features that they want for their systems. (This does not seem to be common for gcc, as far as I understand it from the key developers here.) For example, Facebook want improvements to filesystems in Linux so they have employed people specifically to work on btrfs. IMHO, this is /fine/. There is nothing wrong with that. It is companies "scratching their own itches", just as individual developers often do. We all benefit. It may be /influence/, but it is minor and it is certainly not /undue/ influence. The way you go on about "controversial American companies" and "undue influence" suggests you think these companies are forcing their employees on the gcc steering committee to add backdoors to gcc to tell Facebook what projects you are compiling, or make gcc only work well on Red Hat. That would be utter nonsense. So what is it that you think these companies are doing wrong for gcc? How do you think they are influencing it? Who are all these "concerned people" ? If you have justification, evidence, or even a rational argument for your concerns, please share them. If not, please stop repeating baseless paranoia. You have made your point, such as it is - please move along now. (That is not censorship - it's just a polite request to stop wasting people's time.) David Brown
Re: removing toxic emailers
Fundamentally, "micro-aggressions" describe insults and dismissals. Interpreting insults and dismissals as aggression leads only to an atrophy of the skills needed to mediate one's own disputes with others. I oppose the use of the term absolutely. - Christopher Dimech General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation) - Geophysical Simulation - Geological Subsurface Mapping - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation - Natural Resource Exploration and Production - Free Software Advocacy > Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 8:27 PM > From: "Aaron Gyes via Gcc" > To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers > > > I wasn't even implying that these cultures are 'good' or 'bad', just > > that they exist and differ from the various regional cultures which > > exist all over the world. I think people were quite touchy at my line > > of questioning. I recognise that there are differences between i.e. > > LA and Seattle or SF and NY, but those differences pale in comparison > > to the differences between Moscow and LA, Beijing and NY, or Sydney > > and SF -- and those are all still large international cities. > > > Give me a break Forsku. > > Could you care to share how you feel imposed upon or feel disenfranchised by > this discussion not being sensitive to your culture? How does a code of > conduct, > or how would discouraging “micro-aggressions” disrespect your lived > experiences > or make it uncomfortable for you to contribute to GCC? > > > The fact that over 50% of the SC is based in (probably?) urban North > > America should give pause to some humility that it may not represent > > the truly global nature of hackerdom. On a technical front this isn't > > important, but if you're trying to impose *culture* on a global group, > > it might be useful to remember that you have a steering group in which > > over 50% of its members represent urban North America, but in the > > world, only about 2% of the population live in urban North America. > > > As far as I understand it Chris Punches lives in North America. > > Only 2% of the world population lives in the US, indeed, most live in China. > > It’s interesting the unkind reaction Liu Hao received in this very thread > when they encountered the arguments making a false equivalency of these > proposals > to their countries’ history. I’m sure he felt not great, being forced to > either > defend the CCP or not share their views on the questions of this conversation. > > What is even the argument you are making at this point? > > Aaron > >
Re: removing toxic emailers
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 9:41 PM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Giacomo Tesio" , "Andrew Pinski" ,
> "Andrew Pinski via Gcc"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:08 AM BST, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > But in fact, millions of people outside the US would feel excluded.
> > And threatened. But we are all "jerks", right?
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Such culture is also dominated by RICH men, but it's unable to see the
> > problem in term of global and local distribution of wealth and power
> > and thus interprets it as a matter of sex, gender and race.
> >
> > Which is obviously totally fine for rich men, as it distract people's
> > attention from the root of their power and won't really fix the problem.
>
> Did you ever notice that income group (in a global sense) is never a
> protected characteristic in these COCs which proclaim to defend the
> disenfranchised and the disadvantaged? It would seem to me that low income
> is the greatest predictor of disadvantage globally.
The one thing that would make a difference is if the rich take on the idea
of sharing. The reason that communism failed was because the idea of sharing
was taken on by the poor, who had nothing to offer.
If there is going to be progress regarding the way the free software movement
sees things, mocking day and night those who have things to offer is stupid.
I have no intention of going there, or trying to buy a ticket to heaven with
my goodness.
> >>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
>
Re: removing toxic emailers
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 11:56 PM > From: "Giacomo Tesio" > To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Gerald Pfeifer" , "Frosku" > > Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers > > Hi Gerald,, > > On April 17, 2021 9:09:19 AM UTC, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote: > > > In my view, if people employed by a small number of American > > companies > > > succeed in disassociating GCC from GNU/FSF, which is representative > > > of the free software grassroots community > > > > I find this insistant focus by some on "American companies" > > interesting - and quite pointless. And my passport is burgundy. > > > So much that in fact, we are talking about some of the most controversial > corporation in the whole world. > > And while we are talking about "toxic emailers", it's not lost to me > the irony that all this divisive debate about inclusive and righteous > behaviour started with an email of a Facebook employee that defines > working in Facebook "a joy". > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235091.html > > Yeah the same Facebook that still does what Cambridge Analytica used to. It's worse than that. Facebook provides the soil and nourishment for companies like Cambridge Analytica to grow. Some early work on "The Shift News" exposed facebook profiles used to spread rumours about the government’s perceived enemies including the family of slain journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2017. Her police protection was removed entirely in 2013 when the Labour party - a frequent target of her investigations - returned to power. https://theshiftnews.com/2018/05/27/the-shift-news-disinformation-watch-fake-facebook-account-behind-unsubstantiated-attacks-on-opposition-mp/ https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/30/europe/daphne-caruana-galizia-qa-intl/index.html > > It also is a completely unwarranted attack on the integrity of the > > maintainers, contributors, and other leaders of GCC. Regardless of > > the color of their passports. > > This is a strawman. > > People are just concerned about the undue influence that these controversial > corporations can have on GCC through the influence they have on their > employees. > > It would be overly naive to pretend that the Steering Committee members' > are not influenced by their affiliations, even if we were not talking about > the > champions of surveillance capitalism. > > And this has nothing to do with their integrity. > > Why should they have declared such affiliations in the SC's web page, > if they were irrelevant? > > Because they acknowledge that their affiliations have a non-negligible > influence on what they do and what they do not. > > > Also this has nothing to do with their passports. > > In fact, as you say, > > > The majority of the FSF board, > > FSF leadership, and RMS himself are American from what I can tell. > > > It was Nathan who framed his request in term of culture, politics and > whiteness and priviledge... > > And since the GCC Steering Committe did what he requested, we have to > assume that these are the kind of arguments that we have to debunk, > providing you with a more varied perspective. > > But unfortunately you keep invalidating our perspective because... we are > "jerks". > > > Giacomo >
Re: removing toxic emailers
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 9:25 PM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Aaron Gyes" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:04 AM BST, Aaron Gyes via Gcc wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 2021, at 1:36 AM, Frosku wrote:
> > > I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just
> > > my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural
> > > norms. This is not normal. Just because some of you are paid very nice
> > > salaries to hack on free software doesn't mean all of us are.
> >
> > I don’t make a dime. I find it hard to imagine it would take you
> > all of your time not to act like an asshole. Nobody has even
> > asserted professionalism should be required of professionals.
> >
> > Yet you seem extremely uncomfortable with some bare minimum standards.
> >
> > I assumed as a technical, somewhat obsessive person, you have already
> > Googled “microagressions”, imagined what they would be in the
> > context
> > of a major open source project, and what in-group and out-groups exist
> > in
> > this context, then came to some kind of conclusion that explains your
> > hostility.
>
> Aaron,
>
> If you could kindly refrain from making repeated character attacks and
> trying to imply that because I disagree with you on policy I must be
> some kind of knuckle-dragging bigot, that would be a really good start
> to having a productive discussion. Perhaps instead of talking about
> whether I'm "obsessive", want to "act like an asshole", etc we can
> pretend we've been through that tiring exercise and discuss substance.
>
> My "hostility" to codes of conduct is that I have little confidence that
> they would be applied evenly (in which case, the way you've spoken to me
> thus far would surely not be considered proper conduct as you've taken
> little time to drop to the level of ad hominem attacks and implications)
> and would instead be used as a battering ram against people who are a)
> neurodivergent and struggle with social norms or b) are from different
> cultures which are more direct in communication style.
>
> It's all well and good to talk the talk of diversity and inclusion, but
> it seems to me that what's actually achieved is locking out some of the
> most isolated and vulnerable people -- who have found a home in our
> community -- in order to make some of the most privileged people in
> society more comfortable. *That* is the source of my hostility to what
> I believe is for the most part a noble but misguided proposal.
There are times where *not to act* is the solution. If the United States
and the Soviet Union acted upon aggressiveness by the other during tho last
century, the global ecosystem would have been wiped out. Human development
and progress brought us the capability for complete annihilation. More
like "Star Wars" than "Star Trek". More like 1984 and a Utopia.
> >>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
>
Re: removing toxic emailers
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 9:09 PM > From: "Gerald Pfeifer" > To: "Frosku" > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote: > > In my view, if people employed by a small number of American companies > > succeed in disassociating GCC from GNU/FSF, which is representative of > > the free software grassroots community > > I find this insistant focus by some on "American companies" > interesting - and quite pointless. And my passport is burgundy. > > It also is a completely unwarranted attack on the integrity of the > maintainers, contributors, and other leaders of GCC. Regardless of > the color of their passports. > Personally I care about quality of what we ship, supporting our > users, and upholding the principles of free software/open source. > And I am willing to bet this applies to the vast majority of us. > > So please stop those unfounded allegations. > > Gerald > > PS: Our release managers, for example, are British (Joseph), Czech > (Jakub), and German (Richi), IIRC. The majority of the FSF board, > FSF leadership, and RMS himself are American from what I can tell. It all depends on the quality of the people running it and in it. RMS is certainly top quality considering he got so many minds to start thinking straight about how software is developed and used. Nation is just an idea. The idea of nation is made because of sameness, of race, religion, ethnicity, ideologies, languages. The free software movement is in defiance of all those things. A total defiance of the sameness. Many people in our community have still to figure out *how to be* in our community. Many are getting it wrong. And it shows.
Re: removing toxic emailers
在 17/04/2021 16.27, Aaron Gyes 写道: As far as I understand it Chris Punches lives in North America. Only 2% of the world population lives in the US, indeed, most live in China. It’s interesting the unkind reaction Liu Hao received in this very thread when they encountered the arguments making a false equivalency of these proposals to their countries’ history. I’m sure he felt not great, being forced to either defend the CCP or not share their views on the questions of this conversation. What is even the argument you are making at this point? The history is written with many coincidences. Something is there just because it happened, while other didn't. I don't see anything wrong why a moderate number of all developers are from the US: Because modern computers were invented by American people. It's simply that people who contribute more deserve more, and who contribute less deserve less. That's fair. It's a natural law. There is no reason to go against that. -- Best regards, Liu Hao OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: removing toxic emailers
Hi Gerald,, On April 17, 2021 9:09:19 AM UTC, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote: > > In my view, if people employed by a small number of American > companies > > succeed in disassociating GCC from GNU/FSF, which is representative > > of the free software grassroots community > > I find this insistant focus by some on "American companies" > interesting - and quite pointless. And my passport is burgundy. So much that in fact, we are talking about some of the most controversial corporation in the whole world. And while we are talking about "toxic emailers", it's not lost to me the irony that all this divisive debate about inclusive and righteous behaviour started with an email of a Facebook employee that defines working in Facebook "a joy". https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235091.html Yeah the same Facebook that still does what Cambridge Analytica used to. > It also is a completely unwarranted attack on the integrity of the > maintainers, contributors, and other leaders of GCC. Regardless of > the color of their passports. This is a strawman. People are just concerned about the undue influence that these controversial corporations can have on GCC through the influence they have on their employees. It would be overly naive to pretend that the Steering Committee members' are not influenced by their affiliations, even if we were not talking about the champions of surveillance capitalism. And this has nothing to do with their integrity. Why should they have declared such affiliations in the SC's web page, if they were irrelevant? Because they acknowledge that their affiliations have a non-negligible influence on what they do and what they do not. Also this has nothing to do with their passports. In fact, as you say, > The majority of the FSF board, > FSF leadership, and RMS himself are American from what I can tell. It was Nathan who framed his request in term of culture, politics and whiteness and priviledge... And since the GCC Steering Committe did what he requested, we have to assume that these are the kind of arguments that we have to debunk, providing you with a more varied perspective. But unfortunately you keep invalidating our perspective because... we are "jerks". Giacomo
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:08 AM BST, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> But in fact, millions of people outside the US would feel excluded.
> And threatened. But we are all "jerks", right?
>
> ...
>
> Such culture is also dominated by RICH men, but it's unable to see the
> problem in term of global and local distribution of wealth and power
> and thus interprets it as a matter of sex, gender and race.
>
> Which is obviously totally fine for rich men, as it distract people's
> attention from the root of their power and won't really fix the problem.
Did you ever notice that income group (in a global sense) is never a
protected characteristic in these COCs which proclaim to defend the
disenfranchised and the disadvantaged? It would seem to me that low income
is the greatest predictor of disadvantage globally.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:29 AM BST, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Beware with what you desire, Frosku.
>
> On April 16, 2021 11:15:57 PM UTC, Frosku wrote:
> >
> > I can't speak for others, but for me at least, replacing ties with GNU
> > with ties to another well-respected (non-corporate) entity in the free
> > software world like Debian or the Apache foundation would go a long way in
> > allaying my worries about this shift.
>
> Pretending to defend Free Software is way cheaper that to actually
> defend it.
> In particular against a Google employee that violate GPL during his
> working hours.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235224.html
What I desire is that GCC stay a part of GNU, a project that exists solely
to create a free operating system for the entire world to use. What I fear
most is a GCC steered by essentially a monoculture of paid big-tech coders
with no input from the free software community or GCC's non-corporate
users. Therefore, if a childish and ultimately unwarranted split is to
happen, it should be with the oversight of an organization friendly to free
software values. Not Google and not Facebook.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:08 AM BST, Aaron Gyes via Gcc wrote:
> > I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just
> > my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural
> > norms.
>
> Can you not imagine… some people have already felt that way for quite
> some
> time, and became excluded? That it is not a hypothetical for them?
>
> Aaron
Absolutely, and we should find ways to re-include them without swapping
their exclusion for the exclusion of other vulnerable people.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
Beware with what you desire, Frosku. On April 16, 2021 11:15:57 PM UTC, Frosku wrote: > > I can't speak for others, but for me at least, replacing ties with GNU > with ties to another well-respected (non-corporate) entity in the free > software world like Debian or the Apache foundation would go a long way in > allaying my worries about this shift. Pretending to defend Free Software is way cheaper that to actually defend it. In particular against a Google employee that violate GPL during his working hours. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235224.html Giacomo
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:04 AM BST, Aaron Gyes via Gcc wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2021, at 1:36 AM, Frosku wrote:
> > I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just
> > my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural
> > norms. This is not normal. Just because some of you are paid very nice
> > salaries to hack on free software doesn't mean all of us are.
>
> I don’t make a dime. I find it hard to imagine it would take you
> all of your time not to act like an asshole. Nobody has even
> asserted professionalism should be required of professionals.
>
> Yet you seem extremely uncomfortable with some bare minimum standards.
>
> I assumed as a technical, somewhat obsessive person, you have already
> Googled “microagressions”, imagined what they would be in the
> context
> of a major open source project, and what in-group and out-groups exist
> in
> this context, then came to some kind of conclusion that explains your
> hostility.
Aaron,
If you could kindly refrain from making repeated character attacks and
trying to imply that because I disagree with you on policy I must be
some kind of knuckle-dragging bigot, that would be a really good start
to having a productive discussion. Perhaps instead of talking about
whether I'm "obsessive", want to "act like an asshole", etc we can
pretend we've been through that tiring exercise and discuss substance.
My "hostility" to codes of conduct is that I have little confidence that
they would be applied evenly (in which case, the way you've spoken to me
thus far would surely not be considered proper conduct as you've taken
little time to drop to the level of ad hominem attacks and implications)
and would instead be used as a battering ram against people who are a)
neurodivergent and struggle with social norms or b) are from different
cultures which are more direct in communication style.
It's all well and good to talk the talk of diversity and inclusion, but
it seems to me that what's actually achieved is locking out some of the
most isolated and vulnerable people -- who have found a home in our
community -- in order to make some of the most privileged people in
society more comfortable. *That* is the source of my hostility to what
I believe is for the most part a noble but misguided proposal.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote: > In my view, if people employed by a small number of American companies > succeed in disassociating GCC from GNU/FSF, which is representative of > the free software grassroots community I find this insistant focus by some on "American companies" interesting - and quite pointless. And my passport is burgundy. It also is a completely unwarranted attack on the integrity of the maintainers, contributors, and other leaders of GCC. Regardless of the color of their passports. Personally I care about quality of what we ship, supporting our users, and upholding the principles of free software/open source. And I am willing to bet this applies to the vast majority of us. So please stop those unfounded allegations. Gerald PS: Our release managers, for example, are British (Joseph), Czech (Jakub), and German (Richi), IIRC. The majority of the FSF board, FSF leadership, and RMS himself are American from what I can tell.
Re: removing toxic emailers
> I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just > my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural > norms. Can you not imagine… some people have already felt that way for quite some time, and became excluded? That it is not a hypothetical for them? Aaron
Re: removing toxic emailers
Hi Andrew and GCC, On April 17, 2021 5:04:55 AM UTC, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:56 PM Frosku wrote: > > > > On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 5:05 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 PM Frosku wrote: > > > > > > > > When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not > > > > prescriptive. It's just a reference to the fact that a *lot* of > > > > the SC live in California, and any culture prescribed by the > > > > steering committee will be overly influenced by that > > > > commonality. > > > > > > To the best of my knowledge, 2 of the 13 members of the GCC > > > steering committee live in California. > > > > And the rest of the west coast United States / New England? > > I count 5 which are not in the United States or Canada. And how many are affiliated with (controversial) US corporations (or their subsidiaries)? Here are the numbers: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235285.html Ultimately the culture and behavious that you are trying to prescribe here, are those of US tech workplaces. The ones where "hiring for culture fit" was invented. A culture that works strongly against unions, for example. https://theintercept.com/2020/06/11/facebook-workplace-unionize/ Yes, the exact same Facebook that Nathan described here as "a joy because of the huge step towards gender equality amongst the engineers": https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235091.html Inclusive to some, but eager to exclude others for political reasons, as you see in Nathan's long request. We are talking about culture where people do NOT start a strike when a scientist like Timnit Gebru is fired for what she wrote in a paper and so on. Nor when Google doubled down by firing Margaret Mitchell. THIS is the culture you are trying to impose to global Free Software. Is this a culture that is safe for Free Software? To me, it's not. To Stallman, neither. Terry Davis? Nope. As for me, I have been depicted as a "jerk" and "concern troll" here. My contribution is unwelcome. My code is welcome, the problem is me. Because I refuse to bow down to US workspace moralism and hypocrisy. I'm a toxic emailer, right? But in fact, millions of people outside the US would feel excluded. And threatened. But we are all "jerks", right? Such culture is also dominated by RICH men, but it's unable to see the problem in term of global and local distribution of wealth and power and thus interprets it as a matter of sex, gender and race. Which is obviously totally fine for rich men, as it distract people's attention from the root of their power and won't really fix the problem. And it's also fine for most leaders in this activist space, because they can focus attivists' attention and outrage against easier preys, like Stallman. After all, it's easier to obtain corporate support (and money) if you problematize these issues instead of the distribution of wealth and power that causes them. They need to fight, but cannot afford to win. Giacomo
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Apr 17, 2021, at 1:36 AM, Frosku wrote: > I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just > my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural > norms. This is not normal. Just because some of you are paid very nice > salaries to hack on free software doesn't mean all of us are. I don’t make a dime. I find it hard to imagine it would take you all of your time not to act like an asshole. Nobody has even asserted professionalism should be required of professionals. Yet you seem extremely uncomfortable with some bare minimum standards. I assumed as a technical, somewhat obsessive person, you have already Googled “microagressions”, imagined what they would be in the context of a major open source project, and what in-group and out-groups exist in this context, then came to some kind of conclusion that explains your hostility. Aaron
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 9:27 AM BST, Aaron Gyes via Gcc wrote:
> Give me a break Forsku.
>
> Could you care to share how you feel imposed upon or feel
> disenfranchised by
> this discussion not being sensitive to your culture? How does a code of
> conduct,
> or how would discouraging “micro-aggressions” disrespect your lived
> experiences
> or make it uncomfortable for you to contribute to GCC?
I have no idea what "micro-aggressions" are other than what I read on the
news. It's not a concept that is known outside of a bubble in parts of the
United States. I have never lived in that bubble, it is not a term I have
ever heard face-to-face, therefore I have no idea whether it affects me or
not. I do know that I'd feel pretty uncomfortable signing up to not cause
something when I have no idea what it is.
I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just
my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural
norms. This is not normal. Just because some of you are paid very nice
salaries to hack on free software doesn't mean all of us are.
> It’s interesting the unkind reaction Liu Hao received in this very
> thread
> when they encountered the arguments making a false equivalency of these
> proposals
> to their countries’ history. I’m sure he felt not great, being
> forced to either
> defend the CCP or not share their views on the questions of this
> conversation.
I didn't see that, but yes it's unreasonable to expect anyone to defend the
CCP (or any government for that matter) in order to contribute views to an
argument. Everyone should be encouraged to share their views on something
which is important to all of us: the wellbeing of GCC going forwards.
Language like "give me a break", btw, or expecting someone to explain how a
code of conduct which hasn't been written yet 'imposes' on them personally
is also not encouraging.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
> I wasn't even implying that these cultures are 'good' or 'bad', just > that they exist and differ from the various regional cultures which > exist all over the world. I think people were quite touchy at my line > of questioning. I recognise that there are differences between i.e. > LA and Seattle or SF and NY, but those differences pale in comparison > to the differences between Moscow and LA, Beijing and NY, or Sydney > and SF -- and those are all still large international cities. Give me a break Forsku. Could you care to share how you feel imposed upon or feel disenfranchised by this discussion not being sensitive to your culture? How does a code of conduct, or how would discouraging “micro-aggressions” disrespect your lived experiences or make it uncomfortable for you to contribute to GCC? > The fact that over 50% of the SC is based in (probably?) urban North > America should give pause to some humility that it may not represent > the truly global nature of hackerdom. On a technical front this isn't > important, but if you're trying to impose *culture* on a global group, > it might be useful to remember that you have a steering group in which > over 50% of its members represent urban North America, but in the > world, only about 2% of the population live in urban North America. As far as I understand it Chris Punches lives in North America. Only 2% of the world population lives in the US, indeed, most live in China. It’s interesting the unkind reaction Liu Hao received in this very thread when they encountered the arguments making a false equivalency of these proposals to their countries’ history. I’m sure he felt not great, being forced to either defend the CCP or not share their views on the questions of this conversation. What is even the argument you are making at this point? Aaron
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 7:21 AM BST, Chris Punches wrote:
> I've lived in most states in the US and can confirm exclusionary
> regional cultures not only exist but are more common than the absence
> of them.
>
> You might not see it in Sioux City, but you'll see it in LA, you'll see
> it in Dallas, Bangor, Miami, Baton Rouge, Chickasha, pretty much
> anywhere you travel to will have that, and some of their elements
> aren't pretty -- they do have one thing common among all of them --
> they are aversive to each other based on perceived lifestyle, legacy,
> and value system superiority.
>
> California culture has earned theirs as much as any of the other US
> regions have. I would find it difficult to believe that someone who
> didn't notice that had actually been to these places and examined for
> this -- it is no secret, and many people in those places generally
> pride themselves over it.
>
> I think there may be a tendency in some academic communities to ignore
> or marginilize the prominnence in their worldview the parts of society
> that do not fit within their value systems as well.
I wasn't even implying that these cultures are 'good' or 'bad', just
that they exist and differ from the various regional cultures which
exist all over the world. I think people were quite touchy at my line
of questioning. I recognise that there are differences between i.e.
LA and Seattle or SF and NY, but those differences pale in comparison
to the differences between Moscow and LA, Beijing and NY, or Sydney
and SF -- and those are all still large international cities.
The fact that over 50% of the SC is based in (probably?) urban North
America should give pause to some humility that it may not represent
the truly global nature of hackerdom. On a technical front this isn't
important, but if you're trying to impose *culture* on a global group,
it might be useful to remember that you have a steering group in which
over 50% of its members represent urban North America, but in the
world, only about 2% of the population live in urban North America.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On 4/16/2021 10:08 PM, Frosku wrote: On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 5:05 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 PM Frosku wrote: When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not prescriptive. It's just a reference to the fact that a *lot* of the SC live in California, and any culture prescribed by the steering committee will be overly influenced by that commonality. To the best of my knowledge, 2 of the 13 members of the GCC steering committee live in California. Ian And the rest of the west coast United States / New England? I'm not aware of anywhere in the US that is a monoculture in the way you seem to be implying. And if you really believe there are those kinds of monocultures , then you're showing a high degree of ignorance. FTR, I've never resided on the west coast of the US or in the traditionally defined New England states. Jeff
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:56 PM Frosku wrote:
>
> On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 5:05 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 PM Frosku wrote:
> > >
> > > When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not
> > > prescriptive. It's
> > > just a reference to the fact that a *lot* of the SC live in California,
> > > and any
> > > culture prescribed by the steering committee will be overly influenced by
> > > that
> > > commonality.
> >
> > To the best of my knowledge, 2 of the 13 members of the GCC steering
> > committee live in California.
> >
> > Ian
>
> And the rest of the west coast United States / New England?
I count 5 which are not in the United States or Canada.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> >>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 5:05 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not prescriptive.
> > It's
> > just a reference to the fact that a *lot* of the SC live in California, and
> > any
> > culture prescribed by the steering committee will be overly influenced by
> > that
> > commonality.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, 2 of the 13 members of the GCC steering
> committee live in California.
>
> Ian
And the rest of the west coast United States / New England?
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 PM Frosku wrote: > > When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not prescriptive. > It's > just a reference to the fact that a *lot* of the SC live in California, and > any > culture prescribed by the steering committee will be overly influenced by that > commonality. To the best of my knowledge, 2 of the 13 members of the GCC steering committee live in California. Ian
Re: removing toxic emailers
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 11:15 AM > From: "Frosku" > To: "Ian Lance Taylor" > Cc: "GCC Development" > Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers > > On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 5:28 PM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:08 PM Frosku wrote: > > > > > > On the other hand, I also think that a project which goes too far in > > > policing speech, especially speech unrelated to the project, will drive > > > away > > > talented people who are more than willing to comply with the project's > > > norms > > > within the project's spaces. Trying to enforce the 'California cultural > > > standard' on not only someone's interactions with the project but their > > > entire life (which may be lived in a very different cultural setting) > > > seems > > > very invasive and culturally exclusionary. > > > > I do live in California, but I don't know what the "California > > cultural standard" is. It's a big place, and it's full of people who > > behave in all kinds of different ways. Harvey Weinstein and > > brogrammer culture are California cultures. You presumably have > > something in mind, but I'm not sure it's a real thing. > > There isn't a real name for any given culture because culture is such an > organic > thing. When I think of codes of conduct I come back to i.e. Linus giving > people > a hard time in code reviews, or Coraline Ada Ehmke's critiques of meritocracy. > Neither of these beliefs about what culture should be (Linus' or Coraline's) > are > objectively right or objectively wrong, but both are likely to attract > different > people, and result in different outcomes. We will certainly have to adapt to the recognition that the human race is in great danger because of our politics going crazy and nationalism being a serious treat. Our world must turn itself into a new set of people that is unlike the generation that brought us in free software - just one corner of the western world. In 2016, Cosmologist Stephen Hawking warned us to stop reaching out to aliens before it's too late. His assessment was that distant alien civilisations might view us as inferior, weak, and perfect to conquer. We barely averted nuclear annihilation in the later half of last century. The problem is that we have not adapted ourselves to control all the power we already have. Science and technology has empowered us too much. After destroying much of the vegetal and animal species on Earth, we have started destroying ourselves, like other civilisations have destroyed themselves in the past. But this time, the collapse may be global. Good luck with death! > When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not prescriptive. > It's > just a reference to the fact that a *lot* of the SC live in California, and > any > culture prescribed by the steering committee will be overly influenced by that > commonality. You will have ideas about what is welcoming, what is polite, etc > which are shaped by your upbringing just as I or anyone else does. These are > not objective truths, or internationally accepted as such. > > > > I'd be interested to know where you draw the line as to what behavior is > > > related to the project, or if you don't draw a line, why volunteers in > > > China, > > > Russia, Poland etc should be expected to accept an entire political > > > doctrine > > > over their life to contribute to a compiler toolchain. > > > > How did we get to accepting an entire political doctrine? > > > > What I have in mind is treating people with respect. For example, I'm > > involved with the Go programming language. The Go community has a > > code of conduct: https://golang.org/conduct. The key elements are: > > > > - Be friendly and welcoming > > - Be patient > > Remember that people have varying communication styles and that not > > everyone is using their native language. (Meaning and tone can be lost > > in translation.) > > - Be thoughtful > > Productive communication requires effort. Think about how your words > > will be interpreted. > > Remember that sometimes it is best to refrain entirely from commenting. > > - Be respectful > > In particular, respect differences of opinion. > > - Be charitable > > Interpret the arguments of others in good faith, do not seek to > > disagree. > > When we do disagree, try to understand why. > > > > Avoid destructive behavior: > > > > Derailing: stay on topic; if you want to talk about something else, > > start a new conversation. > > Unconstru
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 5:28 PM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:08 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, I also think that a project which goes too far in
> > policing speech, especially speech unrelated to the project, will drive away
> > talented people who are more than willing to comply with the project's norms
> > within the project's spaces. Trying to enforce the 'California cultural
> > standard' on not only someone's interactions with the project but their
> > entire life (which may be lived in a very different cultural setting) seems
> > very invasive and culturally exclusionary.
>
> I do live in California, but I don't know what the "California
> cultural standard" is. It's a big place, and it's full of people who
> behave in all kinds of different ways. Harvey Weinstein and
> brogrammer culture are California cultures. You presumably have
> something in mind, but I'm not sure it's a real thing.
There isn't a real name for any given culture because culture is such an organic
thing. When I think of codes of conduct I come back to i.e. Linus giving people
a hard time in code reviews, or Coraline Ada Ehmke's critiques of meritocracy.
Neither of these beliefs about what culture should be (Linus' or Coraline's) are
objectively right or objectively wrong, but both are likely to attract different
people, and result in different outcomes.
When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not prescriptive. It's
just a reference to the fact that a *lot* of the SC live in California, and any
culture prescribed by the steering committee will be overly influenced by that
commonality. You will have ideas about what is welcoming, what is polite, etc
which are shaped by your upbringing just as I or anyone else does. These are
not objective truths, or internationally accepted as such.
> > I'd be interested to know where you draw the line as to what behavior is
> > related to the project, or if you don't draw a line, why volunteers in
> > China,
> > Russia, Poland etc should be expected to accept an entire political doctrine
> > over their life to contribute to a compiler toolchain.
>
> How did we get to accepting an entire political doctrine?
>
> What I have in mind is treating people with respect. For example, I'm
> involved with the Go programming language. The Go community has a
> code of conduct: https://golang.org/conduct. The key elements are:
>
> - Be friendly and welcoming
> - Be patient
> Remember that people have varying communication styles and that not
> everyone is using their native language. (Meaning and tone can be lost
> in translation.)
> - Be thoughtful
> Productive communication requires effort. Think about how your words
> will be interpreted.
> Remember that sometimes it is best to refrain entirely from commenting.
> - Be respectful
> In particular, respect differences of opinion.
> - Be charitable
> Interpret the arguments of others in good faith, do not seek to
> disagree.
> When we do disagree, try to understand why.
>
> Avoid destructive behavior:
>
> Derailing: stay on topic; if you want to talk about something else,
> start a new conversation.
> Unconstructive criticism: don't merely decry the current state of
> affairs; offer—or at least solicit—suggestions as to how things may
> be
> improved.
> Snarking (pithy, unproductive, sniping comments)
> Discussing potentially offensive or sensitive issues; this all too
> often leads to unnecessary conflict.
> Microaggressions: brief and commonplace verbal, behavioral and
> environmental indignities that communicate hostile, derogatory or
> negative slights and insults to a person or group.
I certainly prefer it to the Contributor Covenant, however the last
point ('microaggressions') is an example of 'California culture'. In
most of the world, we do not have any such concept. The examples I've
seen online for what counts as a microaggression include asking questions
like "where are you from?"
I'm assuming this is considered offensive because there's a trend of using
it to imply that someone "isn't welcome" in the local area, but in most of
the world this isn't considered an offensive question. As someone who
spends the vast majority of my time in countries that aren't my birthplace,
it's one of the questions I hear the most.
I'm not sure that most of us who live outside of cultures where "micro-
-aggressions" are a commonly referenced 'thing' would know if we're making
one or just being friendly. As an aside, would this be applied to
communication in GCC spaces or to all off-list communications i.e. Twitter
/ Weibo postings, e-mails, things said at unrelated conferences?
> And I have to note that I have seen very few people here saying "RMS
> must never participate in GCC in any way." What I see most people
> saying is "RMS should not be in a position of leading the GCC project
> and telling people what to do."
My concern here is that if not RMS/GNU -- an institution which most free
software
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 23:42 Iain Sandoe via Gcc wrote: > it is essential (IMO) that review of code is carried out on a fair and > technical basis without personal attack or harrassment (or > unwelcome unrelated attention). > Is this not the case on gcc-patches? >
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:08 PM Frosku wrote: > > On the other hand, I also think that a project which goes too far in > policing speech, especially speech unrelated to the project, will drive away > talented people who are more than willing to comply with the project's norms > within the project's spaces. Trying to enforce the 'California cultural > standard' on not only someone's interactions with the project but their > entire life (which may be lived in a very different cultural setting) seems > very invasive and culturally exclusionary. I do live in California, but I don't know what the "California cultural standard" is. It's a big place, and it's full of people who behave in all kinds of different ways. Harvey Weinstein and brogrammer culture are California cultures. You presumably have something in mind, but I'm not sure it's a real thing. > I'd be interested to know where you draw the line as to what behavior is > related to the project, or if you don't draw a line, why volunteers in China, > Russia, Poland etc should be expected to accept an entire political doctrine > over their life to contribute to a compiler toolchain. How did we get to accepting an entire political doctrine? What I have in mind is treating people with respect. For example, I'm involved with the Go programming language. The Go community has a code of conduct: https://golang.org/conduct. The key elements are: - Be friendly and welcoming - Be patient Remember that people have varying communication styles and that not everyone is using their native language. (Meaning and tone can be lost in translation.) - Be thoughtful Productive communication requires effort. Think about how your words will be interpreted. Remember that sometimes it is best to refrain entirely from commenting. - Be respectful In particular, respect differences of opinion. - Be charitable Interpret the arguments of others in good faith, do not seek to disagree. When we do disagree, try to understand why. Avoid destructive behavior: Derailing: stay on topic; if you want to talk about something else, start a new conversation. Unconstructive criticism: don't merely decry the current state of affairs; offer—or at least solicit—suggestions as to how things may be improved. Snarking (pithy, unproductive, sniping comments) Discussing potentially offensive or sensitive issues; this all too often leads to unnecessary conflict. Microaggressions: brief and commonplace verbal, behavioral and environmental indignities that communicate hostile, derogatory or negative slights and insults to a person or group. That is what I would aim for. And in general that is how the GCC community behaves. I don't know whether that is "California culture" or not. And I have to note that I have seen very few people here saying "RMS must never participate in GCC in any way." What I see most people saying is "RMS should not be in a position of leading the GCC project and telling people what to do." Ian
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:09 PM Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > Ian Lance Taylor : > > Patronizing or infantilizing anybody doesn't come into this at all. > > I am not even *remotely* persuaded of this. This whole attitude that if > a woman is ever exposed to a man with less than perfect American > upper-middle-class manners it's a calamity requiring intervention > and mass shunning, that *reeks* of infantilizing women. I just don't see it. Maybe occasionally. But in general you see someone acting badly, and you think "I don't want to associate with that person." Preferring to work with people who treat others decently is not about infantilizing others. > > We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to > > succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many > > are, you can choose to spend your time on the project where you have > > to short-stop unwelcome advances, where you are required to deal with > > "men with poor social skills." Or you can choose to spend your time > > on the project where people treat you with respect. Which one do you > > choose? > > The one where your expected satisfaction is higher, with boorishness > from autistic males factored in as one of the overheads. Don't try to > tell me that's a deal-killer, I've known too many women who would > laugh at you for that assumption. I'm not saying either option is a deal killer, I'm saying you have to make a choice. And more generally a project has to make a choice. > > Or perhaps you have a job that requires you to work on free software. > > Now, if you work on a project where the people act like RMS, you are > > being forced by your employer to work in a space where you face > > unwelcome advances and men who have "trouble recognizing boundaries." > > That's textbook hostile environment, and a set up for you to sue your > > employer. So your employer will never ask anyone to work on a project > > where people act like that--at least, they won't do it more than once. > > Here's what happens in the real world (and I'm not speculating, I was > a BoD member of a tech startup at one time, stuff like this came up). > You say "X is being a jerk - can I work on something else?" Your > employer, rightly terrified of the next step, is not going to "force" > you to do a damn thing. He's going to bend over backwards to > accommodate you. Yes. > What I am pushing for is for everyone to recognize that *women are > adults* - they have their own agency and are in general perfectly > capable of treating an RMS-class jerk as at worst a minor annoyance. OK, you got it. Not sure it's relevant to what I'm saying, though. Ian
Re: removing toxic emailers
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 2:42 AM > From: "Iain Sandoe via Gcc" > To: "GCC Development" > Cc: "Thomas Koenig" > Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers > > Kalamatee wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 11:05, Kalamatee wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 10:42, Iain Sandoe via Gcc wrote: > > > > It is already a considerable leap for many engineers to post code for > > public > > review; it is essential (IMO) that review of code is carried out on a fair > > and > > technical basis without personal attack or harrassment (or unwelcome > > unrelated > > attention). > > > > “Grow a thicker skin” is an appalling advertising slogan. > > > > I just want to clarify - i am not posting these things to be a "troll" > > or awkward, but as someone that uses "your" toolchain, because we depend > > on it to build "our" operating system, and the actions (and inactions!) > > on this list are a bit disturbing when taken in context of the whole > > thread. > > > > I have a massive amount of respect for the people involved in developing > > gcc (which is far beyond my capabilities, of just developing patches to > > support the OS I contribute to), but I still have a vested interest in > > what happens because of the actions here - as do many corporate, > > commercial and academic institutes that invest money and time on "your" > > toolchain - so to exclude everyone except a group of people who have > > built a rapport in discussions that affect us feels a bit offensive to be > > honest. > > I am saddened by the prospect that there might be no consensus available > here. > > > > This thread has become so intertwined with different discussions it seems > that people are mistaking who has said what. > > For the record (on-one needs to take my word for it, the list is archived). > > * I am not being paid to work on GCC, I have been once (some time ago now) > - however almost all my input is voluntary over the 12 years or so since I > made my first commit. > > * I have not: > >expressed any opinion re RMS >expressed any opinion re FSF or the desirability of a fork > >said that people need to agree (technically or procedurally) >required people to have rapport (I doubt that there is as much as folks > think). > > I have said: > >if people are not willing to resolve differences in a civilised manner, > that perhaps indicates that they have no interest in resolving anything. > This does not seem contrary to general GNU guidelines either: > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html It has been occurring to me that Nathan-and-Associates do not want a fork. This has became problematic because they do not seem to be able to successfully run a Gnu Package because they would have to deal with RMS. Although I have not campaigned against their continuation as maintainers, they lobbied for my removal. And that's definitely not on! >I am not willing to spend my spare time working in a hostile environment. > > well, I did post in good faith, > Iain > >
Re: removing toxic emailers
Kalamatee wrote: On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 11:05, Kalamatee wrote: On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 10:42, Iain Sandoe via Gcc wrote: It is already a considerable leap for many engineers to post code for public review; it is essential (IMO) that review of code is carried out on a fair and technical basis without personal attack or harrassment (or unwelcome unrelated attention). “Grow a thicker skin” is an appalling advertising slogan. I just want to clarify - i am not posting these things to be a "troll" or awkward, but as someone that uses "your" toolchain, because we depend on it to build "our" operating system, and the actions (and inactions!) on this list are a bit disturbing when taken in context of the whole thread. I have a massive amount of respect for the people involved in developing gcc (which is far beyond my capabilities, of just developing patches to support the OS I contribute to), but I still have a vested interest in what happens because of the actions here - as do many corporate, commercial and academic institutes that invest money and time on "your" toolchain - so to exclude everyone except a group of people who have built a rapport in discussions that affect us feels a bit offensive to be honest. I am saddened by the prospect that there might be no consensus available here. This thread has become so intertwined with different discussions it seems that people are mistaking who has said what. For the record (on-one needs to take my word for it, the list is archived). * I am not being paid to work on GCC, I have been once (some time ago now) - however almost all my input is voluntary over the 12 years or so since I made my first commit. * I have not: expressed any opinion re RMS expressed any opinion re FSF or the desirability of a fork said that people need to agree (technically or procedurally) required people to have rapport (I doubt that there is as much as folks think). I have said: if people are not willing to resolve differences in a civilised manner, that perhaps indicates that they have no interest in resolving anything. This does not seem contrary to general GNU guidelines either: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html I am not willing to spend my spare time working in a hostile environment. well, I did post in good faith, Iain
Re: removing toxic emailers
On 16.04.21 10:54, Iain Sandoe via Gcc wrote: This forum (barring the current discussion where, frankly, the dissent is not coming from people who are actually active contributors), Maybe I should have been less diplomatic :-) I dissent, strongly.
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 10:39 AM BST, Kalamatee via Gcc wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 05:59, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> > Ian Lance Taylor :
> > > Patronizing or infantilizing anybody doesn't come into this at all.
> >
> > I am not even *remotely* persuaded of this. This whole attitude that if
> > a woman is ever exposed to a man with less than perfect American
> > upper-middle-class manners it's a calamity requiring intervention
> > and mass shunning, that *reeks* of infantilizing women.
> >
> > > We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to
> > > succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many
> > > are, you can choose to spend your time on the project where you have
> > > to short-stop unwelcome advances, where you are required to deal with
> > > "men with poor social skills." Or you can choose to spend your time
> > > on the project where people treat you with respect. Which one do you
> > > choose?
> >
> > The one where your expected satisfaction is higher, with boorishness
> > from autistic males factored in as one of the overheads. Don't try to
> > tell me that's a deal-killer, I've known too many women who would
> > laugh at you for that assumption.
> >
> > > Or perhaps you have a job that requires you to work on free software.
> > > Now, if you work on a project where the people act like RMS, you are
> > > being forced by your employer to work in a space where you face
> > > unwelcome advances and men who have "trouble recognizing boundaries."
> > > That's textbook hostile environment, and a set up for you to sue your
> > > employer. So your employer will never ask anyone to work on a project
> > > where people act like that--at least, they won't do it more than once.
> >
> > Here's what happens in the real world (and I'm not speculating, I was
> > a BoD member of a tech startup at one time, stuff like this came up).
> > You say "X is being a jerk - can I work on something else?" Your
> > employer, rightly terrified of the next step, is not going to "force"
> > you to do a damn thing. He's going to bend over backwards to
> > accommodate you.
> >
> > > (Entirely separately, I don't get the slant of your whole e-mail. You
> > > can put up with RMS despite the boorish behavior you describe. Great.
> > > You're a saint. Why do you expect everyone else to be a saint?
> >
> > I'm no saint, I'm merely an adult who takes responsibility for my own
> > choices when dealing with people who have minimal-brain-damage
> > syndromes. OK, I have probably acquired a bit more tolerance for
> > their quirks than average from long experience, but I don't believe I'm
> > an extreme outlier that way.
> >
> > What I am pushing for is for everyone to recognize that *women are
> > adults* - they have their own agency and are in general perfectly
> > capable of treating an RMS-class jerk as at worst a minor annoyance.
> >
> > Behaving as though he's some sort of icky monster who should be
> > shunned by all right-thinking people and taints everything he touches
> > is ... just unbelievably disconnected from reality. Bizarre
> > neo-Puritan virtue signaling of no help to anyone.
> >
> > If I needed more evidence that many Americans lead pampered,
> > cossetted, hyper-insulated lives that require them to make up their
> > own drama, this whole flap would be it.
> >
> >
> Im glad there are people like you on the project Eric, because you
> express
> exactly what a lot of people see - even if a minority of people chose to
> ignore it,
>
> To a lot of "non americans", the events on here appear as nothing more
> than
> a power grab by a small minority of developers, abusing their position
> and
> american corporate ideologies to enact change, ignoring any one who
> dares
> question or disagree unless they fit into a clique they have built (and
> want to maintain by ostracizing people they deem unworthy),
> brandishing them jerks, trolls, toxic and other childish names. Im glad
> there are a few devs that can see this, but it feels like they are
> stepping
> on egg shells (despite the rhetoric about how well the people in said
> clique can communicate on technical matters).
A lot of Americans see it too, just many are petrified of speaking out
against this new illiberal orthodoxy.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 05:59, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Ian Lance Taylor : > > Patronizing or infantilizing anybody doesn't come into this at all. > > I am not even *remotely* persuaded of this. This whole attitude that if > a woman is ever exposed to a man with less than perfect American > upper-middle-class manners it's a calamity requiring intervention > and mass shunning, that *reeks* of infantilizing women. > > > We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to > > succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many > > are, you can choose to spend your time on the project where you have > > to short-stop unwelcome advances, where you are required to deal with > > "men with poor social skills." Or you can choose to spend your time > > on the project where people treat you with respect. Which one do you > > choose? > > The one where your expected satisfaction is higher, with boorishness > from autistic males factored in as one of the overheads. Don't try to > tell me that's a deal-killer, I've known too many women who would > laugh at you for that assumption. > > > Or perhaps you have a job that requires you to work on free software. > > Now, if you work on a project where the people act like RMS, you are > > being forced by your employer to work in a space where you face > > unwelcome advances and men who have "trouble recognizing boundaries." > > That's textbook hostile environment, and a set up for you to sue your > > employer. So your employer will never ask anyone to work on a project > > where people act like that--at least, they won't do it more than once. > > Here's what happens in the real world (and I'm not speculating, I was > a BoD member of a tech startup at one time, stuff like this came up). > You say "X is being a jerk - can I work on something else?" Your > employer, rightly terrified of the next step, is not going to "force" > you to do a damn thing. He's going to bend over backwards to > accommodate you. > > > (Entirely separately, I don't get the slant of your whole e-mail. You > > can put up with RMS despite the boorish behavior you describe. Great. > > You're a saint. Why do you expect everyone else to be a saint? > > I'm no saint, I'm merely an adult who takes responsibility for my own > choices when dealing with people who have minimal-brain-damage > syndromes. OK, I have probably acquired a bit more tolerance for > their quirks than average from long experience, but I don't believe I'm > an extreme outlier that way. > > What I am pushing for is for everyone to recognize that *women are > adults* - they have their own agency and are in general perfectly > capable of treating an RMS-class jerk as at worst a minor annoyance. > > Behaving as though he's some sort of icky monster who should be > shunned by all right-thinking people and taints everything he touches > is ... just unbelievably disconnected from reality. Bizarre > neo-Puritan virtue signaling of no help to anyone. > > If I needed more evidence that many Americans lead pampered, > cossetted, hyper-insulated lives that require them to make up their > own drama, this whole flap would be it. > > Im glad there are people like you on the project Eric, because you express exactly what a lot of people see - even if a minority of people chose to ignore it, To a lot of "non americans", the events on here appear as nothing more than a power grab by a small minority of developers, abusing their position and american corporate ideologies to enact change, ignoring any one who dares question or disagree unless they fit into a clique they have built (and want to maintain by ostracizing people they deem unworthy), brandishing them jerks, trolls, toxic and other childish names. Im glad there are a few devs that can see this, but it feels like they are stepping on egg shells (despite the rhetoric about how well the people in said clique can communicate on technical matters).
Re: removing toxic emailers
Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote: On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:02 PM Frosku wrote: We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many are, you can choose to spend your time on the project where you have to short-stop unwelcome advances, where you are required to deal with "men with poor social skills." Or you can choose to spend your time on the project where people treat you with respect. Which one do you choose? The one where technical excellence is prioritized over social skills, personally. If I have a choice between partaking in a project where I have to walk on eggshells for fear of people coming with torches and pitchforks to expel me because I was a bit too harsh in my critique or posted an opinion on my personal blog which wasn't something they agreed with, or a project where some of the other people are people I wouldn't share a beer with but the technical standard is high and free expression is generally valued, I would choose the latter. Those are not the only two possible ways that a project can work. Also, you seem to be making the implicit assumption that there is some sort of trade off between technical excellence and social skills. That is false. They are independent axes. Absolutely! This forum (barring the current discussion where, frankly, the dissent is not coming from people who are actually active contributors), does not usually have a problem. Nor is this isolated; I participate in two other forums where there are many excellent software engineers with good social and communication skills (and those that would not, perhaps, do this naturally have managed to adapt). The world has changed (for the better in my view) this is 2021, not 1971; it is not a passing fashion to treat each other with respect, but a steady progression that I’ve witnessed over my adult life. Perpetuating the stereotypical “excellent” engineer (this problem is not confined to software) as a beer-drinking male social misfit is a huge disservice to engineering everywhere. It is already a considerable leap for many engineers to post code for public review; it is essential (IMO) that review of code is carried out on a fair and technical basis without personal attack or harrassment (or unwelcome unrelated attention). “Grow a thicker skin” is an appalling advertising slogan. Iain
Re: removing toxic emailers
Ian Lance Taylor : > Patronizing or infantilizing anybody doesn't come into this at all. I am not even *remotely* persuaded of this. This whole attitude that if a woman is ever exposed to a man with less than perfect American upper-middle-class manners it's a calamity requiring intervention and mass shunning, that *reeks* of infantilizing women. > We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to > succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many > are, you can choose to spend your time on the project where you have > to short-stop unwelcome advances, where you are required to deal with > "men with poor social skills." Or you can choose to spend your time > on the project where people treat you with respect. Which one do you > choose? The one where your expected satisfaction is higher, with boorishness from autistic males factored in as one of the overheads. Don't try to tell me that's a deal-killer, I've known too many women who would laugh at you for that assumption. > Or perhaps you have a job that requires you to work on free software. > Now, if you work on a project where the people act like RMS, you are > being forced by your employer to work in a space where you face > unwelcome advances and men who have "trouble recognizing boundaries." > That's textbook hostile environment, and a set up for you to sue your > employer. So your employer will never ask anyone to work on a project > where people act like that--at least, they won't do it more than once. Here's what happens in the real world (and I'm not speculating, I was a BoD member of a tech startup at one time, stuff like this came up). You say "X is being a jerk - can I work on something else?" Your employer, rightly terrified of the next step, is not going to "force" you to do a damn thing. He's going to bend over backwards to accommodate you. > (Entirely separately, I don't get the slant of your whole e-mail. You > can put up with RMS despite the boorish behavior you describe. Great. > You're a saint. Why do you expect everyone else to be a saint? I'm no saint, I'm merely an adult who takes responsibility for my own choices when dealing with people who have minimal-brain-damage syndromes. OK, I have probably acquired a bit more tolerance for their quirks than average from long experience, but I don't believe I'm an extreme outlier that way. What I am pushing for is for everyone to recognize that *women are adults* - they have their own agency and are in general perfectly capable of treating an RMS-class jerk as at worst a minor annoyance. Behaving as though he's some sort of icky monster who should be shunned by all right-thinking people and taints everything he touches is ... just unbelievably disconnected from reality. Bizarre neo-Puritan virtue signaling of no help to anyone. If I needed more evidence that many Americans lead pampered, cossetted, hyper-insulated lives that require them to make up their own drama, this whole flap would be it. -- http://www.catb.org/~esr/;>Eric S. Raymond
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 4:19 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:02 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > > We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to
> > > succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many
> > > are, you can choose to spend your time on the project where you have
> > > to short-stop unwelcome advances, where you are required to deal with
> > > "men with poor social skills." Or you can choose to spend your time
> > > on the project where people treat you with respect. Which one do you
> > > choose?
> >
> > The one where technical excellence is prioritized over social skills,
> > personally. If I have a choice between partaking in a project where I
> > have to walk on eggshells for fear of people coming with torches and
> > pitchforks to expel me because I was a bit too harsh in my critique or
> > posted an opinion on my personal blog which wasn't something they
> > agreed with, or a project where some of the other people are people I
> > wouldn't share a beer with but the technical standard is high and free
> > expression is generally valued, I would choose the latter.
>
> Those are not the only two possible ways that a project can work.
>
> Also, you seem to be making the implicit assumption that there is some
> sort of trade off between technical excellence and social skills.
> That is false. They are independent axes.
I shouldn't really use the term 'social skills' when what I really mean is
conformance to a specific set of cultural norms. I don't necessarily think
that social skills are quantifiable in the way that i.e. writing performant
and secure code is. Someone could be highly compliant with social norms in
their own culture, in their first language, without necessarily being as
conformant with foreign cultural norms in a second language, for example.
I agree with you that a project which creates a hostile atmosphere to women
would drive people away, not just women but men with a sense of decency. I
would not want to be a part of such a project. I would differ from you on
whether RMS has created such a thing given his seemingly limited
interactions with the project spaces. If I am wrong, and he has been here
harassing women, or on other project-related spaces, I am very willing to
admit I'm wrong.
On the other hand, I also think that a project which goes too far in
policing speech, especially speech unrelated to the project, will drive away
talented people who are more than willing to comply with the project's norms
within the project's spaces. Trying to enforce the 'California cultural
standard' on not only someone's interactions with the project but their
entire life (which may be lived in a very different cultural setting) seems
very invasive and culturally exclusionary.
I'd be interested to know where you draw the line as to what behavior is
related to the project, or if you don't draw a line, why volunteers in China,
Russia, Poland etc should be expected to accept an entire political doctrine
over their life to contribute to a compiler toolchain.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:02 PM Frosku wrote: > > > We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to > > succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many > > are, you can choose to spend your time on the project where you have > > to short-stop unwelcome advances, where you are required to deal with > > "men with poor social skills." Or you can choose to spend your time > > on the project where people treat you with respect. Which one do you > > choose? > > The one where technical excellence is prioritized over social skills, > personally. If I have a choice between partaking in a project where I > have to walk on eggshells for fear of people coming with torches and > pitchforks to expel me because I was a bit too harsh in my critique or > posted an opinion on my personal blog which wasn't something they > agreed with, or a project where some of the other people are people I > wouldn't share a beer with but the technical standard is high and free > expression is generally valued, I would choose the latter. Those are not the only two possible ways that a project can work. Also, you seem to be making the implicit assumption that there is some sort of trade off between technical excellence and social skills. That is false. They are independent axes. Ian
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 3:47 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
> This is about work. There are social aspects to free software, but
> it's not fundamentally a social activity. It's about getting
> something done, and for many people it's their job. For the sake of
> argument, I'm going to temporarily set aside all consideration of how
> people should behave in a professional setting, not because it doesn't
> matter, but just to try to clarify matters. Let's just think about
> the project.
>
> We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to
> succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many
> are, you can choose to spend your time on the project where you have
> to short-stop unwelcome advances, where you are required to deal with
> "men with poor social skills." Or you can choose to spend your time
> on the project where people treat you with respect. Which one do you
> choose?
The one where technical excellence is prioritized over social skills,
personally. If I have a choice between partaking in a project where I
have to walk on eggshells for fear of people coming with torches and
pitchforks to expel me because I was a bit too harsh in my critique or
posted an opinion on my personal blog which wasn't something they
agreed with, or a project where some of the other people are people I
wouldn't share a beer with but the technical standard is high and free
expression is generally valued, I would choose the latter.
This comes down to culture. I did not grow up in a culture where I was
taught that other people need to wrap me in cotton wool. I grew up in a
culture where arguments were judged on merit and generally as people we
accepted other peoples' rights to hold shitty opinions. For many of us,
the latter is more comfortable.
> Or perhaps you have a job that requires you to work on free software.
> Now, if you work on a project where the people act like RMS, you are
> being forced by your employer to work in a space where you face
> unwelcome advances and men who have "trouble recognizing boundaries."
> That's textbook hostile environment, and a set up for you to sue your
> employer. So your employer will never ask anyone to work on a project
> where people act like that--at least, they won't do it more than once.
I have never seen RMS act like that in a technical setting though, and
if he did, I think that would be a valid reason to remove him from the
mailing list and demand that GNU chooses someone else to represent
itself when communicating with GCC.
> In other words, having people who act in the way that you describe RMS
> as acting is actively harmful for a free software project, because it
> will discourage people from working on it.
>
> (Entirely separately, I don't get the slant of your whole e-mail. You
> can put up with RMS despite the boorish behavior you describe. Great.
> You're a saint. Why do you expect everyone else to be a saint? I
> don't meet with people who act like that, not more than once. Life is
> too short. I'll work with them if I must, but not if I don't have
> to.)
I don't think anyone needs to be a saint, but we do need to be able to
collaborate with people from different cultural, political, and personal
backgrounds to our own. Enforcing a social code which is exclusive to
the coasts of the United States on a global community seems to me to be
even more exclusionary than allowing people with poor social skills.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 4:29 PM Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > *grumble* Get *over* yourselves. You want to be "welcoming" to > women? Don't patronize or infantilize them - respect their ability to > tell off RMS for themselves *and then keep working with him*! Thank you for sharing your experiences. I just want to note that I think this last paragraph misses the point. Patronizing or infantilizing anybody doesn't come into this at all. This is about work. There are social aspects to free software, but it's not fundamentally a social activity. It's about getting something done, and for many people it's their job. For the sake of argument, I'm going to temporarily set aside all consideration of how people should behave in a professional setting, not because it doesn't matter, but just to try to clarify matters. Let's just think about the project. We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many are, you can choose to spend your time on the project where you have to short-stop unwelcome advances, where you are required to deal with "men with poor social skills." Or you can choose to spend your time on the project where people treat you with respect. Which one do you choose? Or perhaps you have a job that requires you to work on free software. Now, if you work on a project where the people act like RMS, you are being forced by your employer to work in a space where you face unwelcome advances and men who have "trouble recognizing boundaries." That's textbook hostile environment, and a set up for you to sue your employer. So your employer will never ask anyone to work on a project where people act like that--at least, they won't do it more than once. In other words, having people who act in the way that you describe RMS as acting is actively harmful for a free software project, because it will discourage people from working on it. (Entirely separately, I don't get the slant of your whole e-mail. You can put up with RMS despite the boorish behavior you describe. Great. You're a saint. Why do you expect everyone else to be a saint? I don't meet with people who act like that, not more than once. Life is too short. I'll work with them if I must, but not if I don't have to.) Ian
Re: removing toxic emailers
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 12:16 PM > From: "Joseph Myers" > To: "Frosku" > Cc: e...@thyrsus.com, "Christopher Dimech" , "GCC > Development" > Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote: > > > Right now, the ultimate oversight of GCC sits with GNU & > > FSF -- both institutions with a mandate to represent the ecosystem based > > on level of membership and time spent fighting for free software. > > I think the oversight of glibc by development working through discussion > seeking consensus, and rejecting any attempt to override such consensus > "from above", is much more effective than any attempt GNU or FSF makes at > oversight. An umbrella organization for the toolchain should not act as > an "above" that can override the community at all; it should provide > services to the toolchain (e.g. legal support) as needed. It should act as an umbrella organization for distributing useful code under robust legal theory during the production of software in commons. That's my position, anyway. > -- > Joseph S. Myers > jos...@codesourcery.com >
Re: removing toxic emailers
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 11:52 AM > From: "Eric S. Raymond" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Cc: "Frosku" , "GCC Development" > Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers > > Christopher Dimech via Gcc : > > The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When people > > at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use it, > > and maybe distribute it themselves or encourage other people to distribute > > it for them, we did not criticise them for not being non-profit virtuous > > enough, or said "we are suspicious of you", let alone threatening them. > > Actually, some of us did *exactly* those things late in the last century. When I worked in ocean acoustics, everything was kept secret. Yet russian oceanographers (e.g. Leonid Brekhovshkikh who was working in the Sea Japan) had themselves figured out the same phenomena independently at around the same time. > One of the challenges I faced in my early famous years was persuading > the hacker culture as a whole to treat the profit-centered parts of the > economy as allies rather than enemies. > > I won't say that a *majority* of us were resistent to this, but I > did have to work hard on the problem for a while, between 1997 > and about 2003. About ten years ago, free software was chosen as the operating system of the International Space Station. Things have been changing, but I agree that there is much work to be done. Our approach has been a noticeable proposition, not just to us - though we understand why it is socially and politically desirable that the world works this way. > -- > http://www.catb.org/~esr/;>Eric S. Raymond > > >
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 1:16 AM BST, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
>
> > Right now, the ultimate oversight of GCC sits with GNU &
> > FSF -- both institutions with a mandate to represent the ecosystem based
> > on level of membership and time spent fighting for free software.
>
> I think the oversight of glibc by development working through discussion
> seeking consensus, and rejecting any attempt to override such consensus
> "from above", is much more effective than any attempt GNU or FSF makes
> at
> oversight. An umbrella organization for the toolchain should not act as
> an "above" that can override the community at all; it should provide
> services to the toolchain (e.g. legal support) as needed.
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> jos...@codesourcery.com
The way I see it, the developers represent the interests of the developers,
and FSF/GNU represent the interests of the users. The users should always
have some level of representation in any steering discussion, especially
for a project like GCC where any poor decision could have a negative effect
on so many other free software projects.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
I fully agree with your assessment. Have in the past organised meetings for him and never seen any bs. Having led the discussions, RMS was always cooperative and at no point disrupted procedure. This was 2017-2018 when I was in Barcelona coordinating all this - leading to the CaixaForum conversation on digital cities with Barcelona City Council Chief of Technology Francesca Bria. And other interactions, e.g. with Behavioral Expert Dr Diane Hamilton. If anyone thinks the two women needed white-knighting, people who think this way, should go and get their head tested. Although the 14th century is long past, many educated people today are either uneducated, or education has educated them out of it. - Christopher Dimech General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation) - Geophysical Simulation - Geological Subsurface Mapping - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation - Natural Resource Exploration and Production - Free Software Advocacy > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 11:28 AM > From: "Eric S. Raymond" > To: "David Malcolm" > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Nathan Sidwell" , "Joseph Myers" > > Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers > > David Malcolm : > > > I will, however, point out that it is a very *different* point from > > > "RMS has iupset some people and should therefore be canceled". > > > > Eric: I don't know if you're just being glib, or you're deliberately > > trying to caricature those of us who are upset by RMS's behavior. > > My intent was not caricature. I was being dismissive and snarky > because I genuinely consider the personality complaints against RMS to > be pretty trivial. Not the managerial ones Joseph Myers listed; those > are serious. But they're not the cause of the current ruckus. > > To make the "triviality" point in the most forceful possible way, I > will take the bull by the horns and directly address RMS's behavior towards > women. And I will reveal a few things that I haven't talked about in > public for 40 years. > > I've known RMS since 1979; I'm fully aware of how obnoxious he can be > towards both men and women. There have been occasions on which I have > thought the state of the universe would have been improved if he'd > gotten a swift slap in the face. > > In fact, the first or second time I met him face to face it was > because he was rather determinedly pursuing my then-girlfriend. > A hostile witness might have said he was creeping on her, though > that slang for it wouldn't be invented until much later. > > I think an explanation of how how I reasoned about that situation has > some value in light of the current attempt to ostracize RMS. > > I paid very careful attention to whether my girlfriend appeared to > need any help dealing with him. I regarded her as an adult fully > capable of making her own decisions. One of those decisions could > have been to slap his face. If a more severe sanction had been > required, and she had yelled for help, I would cheerfully have > punched his lights out. > > No fisticuffs were required. She gently discouraged him, and we both > established friendly relations with him. In later years RMS and I > remained fairly close long after I broke up with that girlfriend. He > made passes at at least two of my later girlfriends that I know of, > including the woman I am still married to. In all cases, I trusted > these ladies to handle the situation like adults, and they did. It > really would not have occurred to me to do otherwise. > > I hear a lot of talk about RMS's behavior towards women being some sort > of vast horrible transgression that will drive all women everywhere to > flee from ever being contributors to FSF projects. To me this seems > just silly, and very infantilizing of women in general. My > girlfriends were emtirely able to > > (1) short-stop his advances when they became unwelcome > > (2) understand that some men have poor social skills and > trouble recognizing boundaries, > > (3) and *stay on friendly terms with him anyway*. > > I mean I saw this not just more than once, but every single time it > came up. > > I don't assume that any adult female is incapable of these things; I > respect women as fully capable of asserting and defending their > interests, I *expect* women to do that, and I thus consider a lot of the > white-knighting on their behalf to be at best empty virtue signaling > and at worst a cover for much more discreditable motives. > > Of course, he offends men too. When I deal with RMS, I know that I'm > going to have to cope with a certain amount of unpleasantness because > he has autism-like deficits amplified by some unfortunate p
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote: > Right now, the ultimate oversight of GCC sits with GNU & > FSF -- both institutions with a mandate to represent the ecosystem based > on level of membership and time spent fighting for free software. I think the oversight of glibc by development working through discussion seeking consensus, and rejecting any attempt to override such consensus "from above", is much more effective than any attempt GNU or FSF makes at oversight. An umbrella organization for the toolchain should not act as an "above" that can override the community at all; it should provide services to the toolchain (e.g. legal support) as needed. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:52 AM BST, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Christopher Dimech via Gcc :
> > The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When people
> > at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use it,
> > and maybe distribute it themselves or encourage other people to distribute
> > it for them, we did not criticise them for not being non-profit virtuous
> > enough, or said "we are suspicious of you", let alone threatening them.
>
> Actually, some of us did *exactly* those things late in the last
> century.
>
> One of the challenges I faced in my early famous years was persuading
> the hacker culture as a whole to treat the profit-centered parts of the
> economy as allies rather than enemies.
>
> I won't say that a *majority* of us were resistent to this, but I
> did have to work hard on the problem for a while, between 1997
> and about 2003.
ESR,
My criticism has nothing to do with profit and everything to do with
accountability. GCC is a project which is used by almost everyone in the
ecosystem, and whose future direction is important to almost everyone in
the ecosystem. Right now, the ultimate oversight of GCC sits with GNU &
FSF -- both institutions with a mandate to represent the ecosystem based
on level of membership and time spent fighting for free software.
GCC forking away from those institutions removes that oversight, and
unless something which is equally or more representative is brought in to
replace that oversight role, I find it difficult to believe that this
doesn't represent a huge step backwards in terms of who ultimately has
an input into the future direction of GCC. It should be, at the very
minimum, challenging for representatives of Google, Red Hat and other
corporations to convince anyone -- after wrestling the project away from
GCC -- that their interests are not at odds with GCC users'.
I would say *exactly* the same thing if you replaced Google/Red Hat with
nonprofits which have less trust in free software than GNU/FSF.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote: > There is a colossal difference between commercial use and commercial > entities buying control of projects currently governed by entities > which are answerable to the grassroots (GNU) and then toppling that RMS's notion of GNU is as something under his personal direction and control, not answerable to the grassroots at all. For answerability to the grassroots, whatever organization the toolchain falls under, it's better for it to *explicitly* act only as an umbrella organization, serving the toolchain community rather than having any authority to direct it. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:52 AM BST, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 2021, at 7:44 PM, Frosku wrote:
> >
> > On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:36 AM BST, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >>
> >> The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When
> >> people
> >> at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use
> >> it,
> >> and maybe distribute it themselves or encourage other people to
> >> distribute
> >> it for them, we did not criticise them for not being non-profit virtuous
> >> enough, or said "we are suspicious of you", let alone threatening them.
> >>
> >
> > There is a colossal difference between commercial use and commercial
> > entities buying control of projects currently governed by entities
> > which are answerable to the grassroots (GNU) and then toppling that
> > governance structure in favor of one which is only answerable to
> > boardrooms in Silicon Valley and Seattle WA.
>
> There are, or would be if that were a real issue. It's not something
> that is feasible with GPL licensed code, whether the copyright is held
> by the FSF as it is for GCC, or by all the authors as for Linux.
>
> paul
Paul,
Short of maintaining the FSF branch of the fork, I don't see a way to
keep the project's direction accountable to end users.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
Christopher Dimech via Gcc : > The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When people > at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use it, > and maybe distribute it themselves or encourage other people to distribute > it for them, we did not criticise them for not being non-profit virtuous > enough, or said "we are suspicious of you", let alone threatening them. Actually, some of us did *exactly* those things late in the last century. One of the challenges I faced in my early famous years was persuading the hacker culture as a whole to treat the profit-centered parts of the economy as allies rather than enemies. I won't say that a *majority* of us were resistent to this, but I did have to work hard on the problem for a while, between 1997 and about 2003. -- http://www.catb.org/~esr/;>Eric S. Raymond
Re: removing toxic emailers
> On Apr 15, 2021, at 7:44 PM, Frosku wrote: > > On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:36 AM BST, Christopher Dimech wrote: >> >> The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When >> people >> at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use >> it, >> and maybe distribute it themselves or encourage other people to >> distribute >> it for them, we did not criticise them for not being non-profit virtuous >> enough, or said "we are suspicious of you", let alone threatening them. >> > > There is a colossal difference between commercial use and commercial > entities buying control of projects currently governed by entities > which are answerable to the grassroots (GNU) and then toppling that > governance structure in favor of one which is only answerable to > boardrooms in Silicon Valley and Seattle WA. There are, or would be if that were a real issue. It's not something that is feasible with GPL licensed code, whether the copyright is held by the FSF as it is for GCC, or by all the authors as for Linux. paul
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:36 AM BST, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When
> people
> at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use
> it,
> and maybe distribute it themselves or encourage other people to
> distribute
> it for them, we did not criticise them for not being non-profit virtuous
> enough, or said "we are suspicious of you", let alone threatening them.
>
There is a colossal difference between commercial use and commercial
entities buying control of projects currently governed by entities
which are answerable to the grassroots (GNU) and then toppling that
governance structure in favor of one which is only answerable to
boardrooms in Silicon Valley and Seattle WA.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 11:11 AM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Ian Lance Taylor" , chris.punc...@silogroup.org
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 9:51 PM BST, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:26 PM Chris Punches via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Every single proponent of this argument that I have seen so far is
> > > employed by one of the same 5 companies and "really isn't doing it on
> > > behalf of my company I swear".
> > >
> > > Why is it almost exclusively that specific crowd saying it here, then?
> >
> > For better or for worse, since the early '90s the majority of people
> > who do serious work on GCC have been hired by companies that want to
> > do serious work on GCC. After all, it's a win-win: the company gets
> > work done, the GCC programmer gets well paid. The effect is that most
> > of the major GCC contributors work for a relatively small number of
> > companies. There are of course many exceptions, but that is the
> > general rule.
> >
> > Ian
>
> In my view, if people employed by a small number of American companies
> succeed in disassociating GCC from GNU/FSF, which is representative of
> the free software grassroots community, this is not a win-win. This is
> powerful US corporations removing something our community created from
> our community's oversight and moving it into a space where it's governed
> by representatives of Silicon Valley rather than a membership-based non
> profit.
>
> Whilst everyone's contributions to the software should be welcomed, I
> don't think you'll find many FSF members celebrating the impact of paid
> Corporate engineers on GCC if this sorry state of affairs comes to be.
The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When people
at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use it,
and maybe distribute it themselves or encourage other people to distribute
it for them, we did not criticise them for not being non-profit virtuous
enough, or said "we are suspicious of you", let alone threatening them.
> >>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
>
Re: removing toxic emailers
David Malcolm : > > I will, however, point out that it is a very *different* point from > > "RMS has iupset some people and should therefore be canceled". > > Eric: I don't know if you're just being glib, or you're deliberately > trying to caricature those of us who are upset by RMS's behavior. My intent was not caricature. I was being dismissive and snarky because I genuinely consider the personality complaints against RMS to be pretty trivial. Not the managerial ones Joseph Myers listed; those are serious. But they're not the cause of the current ruckus. To make the "triviality" point in the most forceful possible way, I will take the bull by the horns and directly address RMS's behavior towards women. And I will reveal a few things that I haven't talked about in public for 40 years. I've known RMS since 1979; I'm fully aware of how obnoxious he can be towards both men and women. There have been occasions on which I have thought the state of the universe would have been improved if he'd gotten a swift slap in the face. In fact, the first or second time I met him face to face it was because he was rather determinedly pursuing my then-girlfriend. A hostile witness might have said he was creeping on her, though that slang for it wouldn't be invented until much later. I think an explanation of how how I reasoned about that situation has some value in light of the current attempt to ostracize RMS. I paid very careful attention to whether my girlfriend appeared to need any help dealing with him. I regarded her as an adult fully capable of making her own decisions. One of those decisions could have been to slap his face. If a more severe sanction had been required, and she had yelled for help, I would cheerfully have punched his lights out. No fisticuffs were required. She gently discouraged him, and we both established friendly relations with him. In later years RMS and I remained fairly close long after I broke up with that girlfriend. He made passes at at least two of my later girlfriends that I know of, including the woman I am still married to. In all cases, I trusted these ladies to handle the situation like adults, and they did. It really would not have occurred to me to do otherwise. I hear a lot of talk about RMS's behavior towards women being some sort of vast horrible transgression that will drive all women everywhere to flee from ever being contributors to FSF projects. To me this seems just silly, and very infantilizing of women in general. My girlfriends were emtirely able to (1) short-stop his advances when they became unwelcome (2) understand that some men have poor social skills and trouble recognizing boundaries, (3) and *stay on friendly terms with him anyway*. I mean I saw this not just more than once, but every single time it came up. I don't assume that any adult female is incapable of these things; I respect women as fully capable of asserting and defending their interests, I *expect* women to do that, and I thus consider a lot of the white-knighting on their behalf to be at best empty virtue signaling and at worst a cover for much more discreditable motives. Of course, he offends men too. When I deal with RMS, I know that I'm going to have to cope with a certain amount of unpleasantness because he has autism-like deficits amplified by some unfortunate personal history. Yes. So what? He's one of my oldest friends anyway. He has many admirable qualities; I respect and value him even when I have to argue with him. And I can work with him when I need to. Why in the *hell* should I assume anyone with female genitalia is incapable of doing the same? More to the point, why is anybody else making such a silly, reductive assumption and then turning it into a galloping moral panic that somehow justifies stoning RMS and driving him out of the village? *grumble* Get *over* yourselves. You want to be "welcoming" to women? Don't patronize or infantilize them - respect their ability to tell off RMS for themselves *and then keep working with him*! -- http://www.catb.org/~esr/;>Eric S. Raymond
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:30 PM David Malcolm via Gcc wrote: > On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 16:26 -0400, Chris Punches wrote: > > What I see here in sum is another high level tightly integrated Red > > Hat > > employee saying the gist of "I'm really not saying it out of my > > employer's interest and it has nothing to do with my personal > > feelings". > > I'm not sure I'm "high level", but I guess I'll take that as a > compliment. > > I stated that the opinions in my screed were my own, but I'm a former > FLOSS enthusiast in the fortunate position of being paid to work on > GCC. I've tried to be open about my biases. Then let me offer my perspective, again. I am not affiliated with RedHat, IBM, or what have you. I do not work for them, never have worked for them, and have contributed to the C, C++, and other Systems Programming communities entirely out-of-pocket or through scholarship and donation. I submitted my Copyright Revocation to the Free Software Foundation after giving the greenlight to merge the last of my already-submitted patches into GCC. Stallman is an exceptionally poor leader for Free Software. We routinely complain about LLVM here but Stallman had the chance to get on top of LLVM and guide it into the Free Software world; he missed the e-mail and "found" it 10 years later. Stallman was horrible to the people employed by the Free Software Foundation and apparently the board was barely able to keep him in check, resulting in his employees needing to have Shop Stewards with a Union in order to keep it workable for employees. Stallman is terrible at his job, and this group's inability to have a secondary or tertiary copyright assignment has cost them my contributions for the foreseeable future. Stallman's defenders are ableist, because Stallman himself - in the FSF book and more - have publicly stated that he is not autistic or neurodivergent. Stallman has also stated this publicly, but the fact that Bruce Perens, Eric S. Raymond, and more feel the need to show up and claim on behalf of all Neuroatypical people and Neurodivergent people that they are fighting for us while pushing a disgusting, ableist theory that "Neurodivergent == Definitely An Asshole And Needs To Be Deprived Of Agency For Their Actions" is disgusting. That people feel the need to stereotype neurodivergent people like me for the sake of Stallman's defense is horrible. That people would stand by and claim this is some kind of great advocacy for someone like me is a series of mental gymnastics I do not want to be apart of. This place is fetid, and contrary to Raymond's idea that toxicity has no cost, it most certainly did cost it myself and many other people like me. Sincerely, JeanHeyd
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 9:51 PM BST, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:26 PM Chris Punches via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > Every single proponent of this argument that I have seen so far is
> > employed by one of the same 5 companies and "really isn't doing it on
> > behalf of my company I swear".
> >
> > Why is it almost exclusively that specific crowd saying it here, then?
>
> For better or for worse, since the early '90s the majority of people
> who do serious work on GCC have been hired by companies that want to
> do serious work on GCC. After all, it's a win-win: the company gets
> work done, the GCC programmer gets well paid. The effect is that most
> of the major GCC contributors work for a relatively small number of
> companies. There are of course many exceptions, but that is the
> general rule.
>
> Ian
In my view, if people employed by a small number of American companies
succeed in disassociating GCC from GNU/FSF, which is representative of
the free software grassroots community, this is not a win-win. This is
powerful US corporations removing something our community created from
our community's oversight and moving it into a space where it's governed
by representatives of Silicon Valley rather than a membership-based non
profit.
Whilst everyone's contributions to the software should be welcomed, I
don't think you'll find many FSF members celebrating the impact of paid
Corporate engineers on GCC if this sorry state of affairs comes to be.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 3:40 PM BST, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> I intended the weaker observation that driving away a large number of
> smart autistic assholes (and non-assholes with poor social skills)
> is not necessarily a good trade for the people the project might
> recruit by being "more welcoming".
>
> Possibly that *would* be a good trade. I have decades of experience
> that makes me doubt this. I think the claim needs to be examined
> skeptically, not just uncritically accepted because we value being
> "nice".
I'm not even sure that this only applies to autists, over the years
I've had various interactions where I've thought someone was being
an asshole but it turned out English wasn't their first language and
they just lacked the depth of vocabulary to express a point politely.
There are also huge disparities in what cultures deem to be polite vs
impolite (high context vs low context cultures, cultural sensitivities
to particular phrases or concepts, etc). I remain unconvinced that
trying to define 'jerks' by a narrow-minded west coast American ideal
and enforce that on a global community is not, itself, jerkish.
More often than not, strict speech codes just encourage people to
assume bad faith of each other, and to tone police each other instead
of engaging in substantive debate on the issues. I also cannot remember
ever seeing one enforced equally against everyone, rather than become
a tool of an entrenched majority culture against a minority culture.
I have yet to see a project where a strict speech code has improved the
dialectic, rather than degraded it.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
Re: removing toxic emailers
On 4/15/2021 2:26 PM, Chris Punches via Gcc wrote: What I see here in sum is another high level tightly integrated Red Hat employee saying the gist of "I'm really not saying it out of my employer's interest and it has nothing to do with my personal feelings". Every single proponent of this argument that I have seen so far is employed by one of the same 5 companies and "really isn't doing it on behalf of my company I swear". Why is it almost exclusively that specific crowd saying it here, then? I just don't buy it. Please say anything that would not support the emerging theory that these companies are using integrated employees to try to emulate justification/pretext for a rift to attack the free software world. Anything at all. [ Again, speaking or myself, not my employer or for the steering committee. ] So first, my employer (Tachyum) has had absolutely no clue what's going on with this discussion until yesterday afternoon when I mentioned it in passing. We're much more focused on getting our bits where they need to be rather than policy, procedures and politics of the upstream projects. However they have repeatedly, up to the CEO level emphasized that upstreaming our work and being good players in the various relevant communities is important and the various concerns I raised around that prior to joining were answered to my satisfaction. Second, I was the technical lead for Red Hat's tools team until about a month ago. I've also held management positions in Red Hat (and Cygnus prior to the acquisition) during my 25+ year career there. Red Hat and Cygnus have consistently worked through the years to be good stewards for the GNU tools. Management has consistently had a hands-off approach to the upstream community, allowing engineers to exercise their own judgment on if when and how to engage in various discussions. The only time management got involved in these kinds of discussions was to throw support behind EGCS -- including being supportive of bringing in outside advisors for what ultimately became the steering committee. You may not buy it, but that's OK. That's ultimately your decision to make. I do buy it. It's consistent with what I've seen over nearly three decades of dealing with GNU tools and what I've *directly observed* as part of the leadership and management teams. Jeff
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 21:26, Chris Punches via Gcc wrote: > > What I see here in sum is another high level tightly integrated Red Hat > employee saying the gist of "I'm really not saying it out of my > employer's interest and it has nothing to do with my personal > feelings". > > Every single proponent of this argument that I have seen so far is > employed by one of the same 5 companies and "really isn't doing it on > behalf of my company I swear". > > Why is it almost exclusively that specific crowd saying it here, then? > > I just don't buy it. Please say anything that would not support the > emerging theory that these companies are using integrated employees to > try to emulate justification/pretext for a rift to attack the free > software world. Anything at all. > One reason you might be seeing this is people who (a) are not paid to work on GCC, and (b) found RMS and parts of the GNU community unpleasant to work with, left years ago. Chris
Re: Gcc as callable libraries (was: removing toxic emailers)
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 17:31 -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote: > On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 21:48 +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote: [...snip...] > > > Perhaps a pronouncement like: "try to make everything be > > consumable as > > > libraries with APIs, as well as as standalone binaries" might > > have > > > helped (and still could; can we do that please?) > > > > That makes perfect sense, as LLVM shows, and is something that the > > steering committee could decide for the project (or rather, it > > could > > issue a pronouncement that this will not be opposed if some > > volunteer > > does it). > > > > I think this could be as close to an unanimous decision as there > > can > > be among such a diverse community as the gcc developers. If the > > FSF > > takes umbrage at this, the ball is in their court. > > I deliberately added the weasel-words "try to", because these things > are, of course, much easier said that done. > > I attempted to reduce gcc's use of global state back in 2013 with a > view to making it a shared library, but eventually the sheer size of > the task overwhelmed me. In libgccjit I hid everything behind a > separate API, with a bug mutex guarding all of gcc's global state, ~~~ big, I meant to write. > which feels like something of a cop-out. libgccjit calls into as and ld, which shows up in the profile, so another idea I dabbled in the whole "libraries rather than just executables" area is to make as and ld buildable as shared libraries; hence this 2015 experiment: "[PATCH 00/16] RFC: Embedding as and ld inside gcc driver and into libgccjit" crossposted between gcc-patches and binutils here: https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg00116.html https://sourceware.org/legacy-ml/binutils/2015-06/msg00010.html (admittedly my prototype had a barely-existent API, but it gave me a 5x speedup on a synthetic benchmark, which was dominated by the overhead of dynamically linking libbfd into as and ld on each invocation IIRC; better to do it once when libgccjit is linked into the process). > > One idea I had would be to refactor out our diagnostics code into a > libdiagnostics (or similar), so that all of the source- > printing/underlining/fix-it logic etc could be used outside of gcc, and > the use of diagnostic_context might help towards that. But even "just" > that's decidedly non-trivial. > > Hope this is constructive > Dave > >
Re: Gcc as callable libraries (was: removing toxic emailers)
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 21:48 +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote: > David, > > for some reason or other, I did not get your mail, so I will > just reply copying in from the archive. > > First, thanks for injecting some sanity into the discussion. Thanks Thomas > I will not discuss RMS' personal shortcomings or the lack of them. > In today's toxic political climate, such allegations are often > made up and weaponized without an effective defense for the > alleged wrongdoer. I don't know the truth of the matter, and I make > a point of not finding out. Fair enough. > > In many ways the last 8 years of my career have been > > an attempt to get gcc to respond to the appearance of LLVM/clang > (I've > > added JIT-compilation, improved diagnostics, and I'm implementing > a > > static analysis pass) > > And this is highly welcome, and has made gcc (including gfortran) a > much > better compiler. I well remember how you implemented the much better > colored error messages that gfortran has now. I've added a bunch of features to the C and C++ frontends (underlined ranges, labelling of such reanges, fix-it hints, etc), but I don't have the Fortran skills to know what would be appropriate to gfortran. Let me know if you have ideas for specific improvements to how gfortran diagnostics work that I might be able to help implement. > > > Perhaps a pronouncement like: "try to make everything be > consumable as > > libraries with APIs, as well as as standalone binaries" might have > > helped (and still could; can we do that please?) > > That makes perfect sense, as LLVM shows, and is something that the > steering committee could decide for the project (or rather, it could > issue a pronouncement that this will not be opposed if some volunteer > does it). > > I think this could be as close to an unanimous decision as there can > be among such a diverse community as the gcc developers. If the FSF > takes umbrage at this, the ball is in their court. I deliberately added the weasel-words "try to", because these things are, of course, much easier said that done. I attempted to reduce gcc's use of global state back in 2013 with a view to making it a shared library, but eventually the sheer size of the task overwhelmed me. In libgccjit I hid everything behind a separate API, with a bug mutex guarding all of gcc's global state, which feels like something of a cop-out. One idea I had would be to refactor out our diagnostics code into a libdiagnostics (or similar), so that all of the source- printing/underlining/fix-it logic etc could be used outside of gcc, and the use of diagnostic_context might help towards that. But even "just" that's decidedly non-trivial. Hope this is constructive Dave
Re: Gcc as callable libraries (was: removing toxic emailers)
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:04 PM Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote: > > David, > > for some reason or other, I did not get your mail, so I will > just reply copying in from the archive. > > First, thanks for injecting some sanity into the discussion. > > I will not discuss RMS' personal shortcomings or the lack of them. > In today's toxic political climate, such allegations are often > made up and weaponized without an effective defense for the > alleged wrongdoer. I don't know the truth of the matter, and I make > a point of not finding out. > > > In many ways the last 8 years of my career have been > > an attempt to get gcc to respond to the appearance of LLVM/clang (I've > > added JIT-compilation, improved diagnostics, and I'm implementing a > > static analysis pass) > > And this is highly welcome, and has made gcc (including gfortran) a much > better compiler. I well remember how you implemented the much better > colored error messages that gfortran has now. > > > Perhaps a pronouncement like: "try to make everything be consumable as > > libraries with APIs, as well as as standalone binaries" might have > > helped (and still could; can we do that please?) > > That makes perfect sense, as LLVM shows, and is something that the > steering committee could decide for the project (or rather, it could > issue a pronouncement that this will not be opposed if some volunteer > does it). > > I think this could be as close to an unanimous decision as there can > be among such a diverse community as the gcc developers. If the FSF > takes umbrage at this, the ball is in their court. Andrew Macleod led a BOF at GNU Cauldron 2013 that discussed re-architecting and modularizing GCC along these same lines. The header flattening was one step. Thanks, David
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 16:26 -0400, Chris Punches wrote: > What I see here in sum is another high level tightly integrated Red > Hat > employee saying the gist of "I'm really not saying it out of my > employer's interest and it has nothing to do with my personal > feelings". I'm not sure I'm "high level", but I guess I'll take that as a compliment. I stated that the opinions in my screed were my own, but I'm a former FLOSS enthusiast in the fortunate position of being paid to work on GCC. I've tried to be open about my biases. > > Every single proponent of this argument that I have seen so far is > employed by one of the same 5 companies and "really isn't doing it on > behalf of my company I swear". > > Why is it almost exclusively that specific crowd saying it here, > then? Because, sadly, there's only a small group of companies that employ GCC developers. These developers tend to have an emotional attachment to the project (e.g. a broad agreement with the professed goals of the FSF). Part of the reason I work at Red Hat is that its own internal culture aligns with mine, much of the time, anyway (and I know we're not perfect). Hence there's some correlation between those with strong opinions on the project and those who are being paid to work on it. I don't see that as malicious or a conspiracy - just that we, reasonably, care about the work we do and its context. It's not necessarily just a job for me. > > I just don't buy it. Please say anything that would not support the > emerging theory that these companies are using integrated employees > to > try to emulate justification/pretext for a rift to attack the free > software world. Anything at all. I hope I just did. Dave
Re: removing toxic emailers
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 8:51 AM > From: "Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc" > To: chris.punc...@silogroup.org > Cc: "GCC Development" > Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:26 PM Chris Punches via Gcc wrote: > > > > Every single proponent of this argument that I have seen so far is > > employed by one of the same 5 companies and "really isn't doing it on > > behalf of my company I swear". > > > > Why is it almost exclusively that specific crowd saying it here, then? > > For better or for worse, since the early '90s the majority of people > who do serious work on GCC have been hired by companies that want to > do serious work on GCC. After all, it's a win-win: the company gets > work done, the GCC programmer gets well paid. The effect is that most > of the major GCC contributors work for a relatively small number of > companies. There are of course many exceptions, but that is the > general rule. > > Ian Such contributions are valued, and companies where talent is allowed to flow towards the public is commendable, even for those with a history of exploitation. Many of us pay their taxes, not because we see crowds of people sent to jail. But because spontaneous compliance is the way for things to work. That's what I hope for.
Re: removing toxic emailers
> >> === > >> > >> So .. in summary: > >> > >> 1/ I propose that we do have written guidelines, to which someone behaving > >> in a > >> non-constructive manner can be pointed. > >> > >> 2/ if those guidelines *are the consensus* of this group and someone is > >> unable to > >> follow them (given some reasonable chance to amend as is customary in > >> matters > >> such as employment law here, at least), then they are treated no > >> differently from > >> any other spam. > > > > Proposing the guidelines essentially means that the community accepts the > > fact > > that many of us are incapable of navigate everyday problems and dilemmas > > by making > > “right” decisions based on the use of good judgment and values rather > > than sterile > > sets of rules and conventions that typically disregard the individual, > > the particular, > > or the discrete. > > However, that isn’t what I wrote - what I wrote was the opposite; that > history shows > that almost everyone communicating on these lists can do so constructively > *without* > recourse to written guidelines. > > It is not the general case that has precipitated this discussion but, > rather, the exceptional. There have been many discussions emanating from Nathan's messages, that toxity is endemic. I disagree with that in practice as you do. But there are some discussions that potentially lead to the opposite. I feel that when the issues at hand produce a series of contrasting views that are significant. taking a guideline approach could result > > Thusly, it is wrong to suggest that the problems are simply associated > > with RMS, FSF and GNU. > > My mail contains no reference to any of these, but simply to identifying > processes > that have failed to work in discussions (about those topics, granted). No, your message did not reference that. But was a general assessment of what I have seen developing. Indeed, the discussion started with the same person suggesting "white male privilege", the source of all toxicity coming from one individual and those associated with him, etc. > > Human beings have the capacity to be wise and develop their thoughts on > > wise > > decision-making skills that evolve from a combination of experience, > > empathy, > > and intellect. Many times, this means having the capacity to break those > > guidelines and rules. > > “rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men”? > > As noted above, 99.99% (guessed of course) of the list traffic is carried > out in > the guise you mention, and probably would continue to be so… > > … the proposal is to have a mechanism to deal with the exceptional. That depends on the arguments of the discussion. It is acceptable at times to respond roughly to some kinds of discursive treatment. Although Nathan was allowed to write, he was surely aware of the implications - that a schism was likely. > > In the World Trade Center Disaster, many people who were used to following > > the rules died because they did what they were told by authority figures. > > I know about these things as part of my industrial work experience. > > Probably almost no-one “here” would be able to substantiate or deny this - > am I to > take it that it is a serious data point suggesting that absence of control > is a better > process? There have been numerous historical instances - let's say in the journalistic realm where I do operate - when that was true. Still, I am not against moderation when required in principle. Indeed, it is part of the job as maintainer (and co-maintainers, etc.) to exercise authority on these points when they arise. Personally, I am not afraid to exercise them when associated with my own work. Customarily, I would not oppose to intervention, except on special instances when the assessments was faulty - I specifically mention Gnu Health and the arguments Dr. Luis Falcon had with Savannah regarding package admin. May I remind everybody that Argentina opted for GNU Health for COVID19 observatory and contact tracing. At the time, I was also doing my own work on COVID19 and considered my intervention necessary. > There is no counter experiment to determine the outcome in the case that > there > were no authority figures and no rules (nor would anyone wish to conduct > such an > experiment). > > To me this is spurious input, I cannot see how it could be used to make any > guidance > to the progress here. > > Iain > > > > >>* although one might lose some notionally valuable input, the judgement > >> here is that > >>the net benefit of such input is negative. > >> > >> 3/ I would recommend on the basis of another online community (about > >> music) > >> to > >>which I belong, to suggest that Politics (party or international) and > >> Religion are better > >>discussed in other forums and are exceedingly unlikely to affect a > >> technical decision > >>on the progress of
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:26 PM Chris Punches via Gcc wrote: > > Every single proponent of this argument that I have seen so far is > employed by one of the same 5 companies and "really isn't doing it on > behalf of my company I swear". > > Why is it almost exclusively that specific crowd saying it here, then? For better or for worse, since the early '90s the majority of people who do serious work on GCC have been hired by companies that want to do serious work on GCC. After all, it's a win-win: the company gets work done, the GCC programmer gets well paid. The effect is that most of the major GCC contributors work for a relatively small number of companies. There are of course many exceptions, but that is the general rule. Ian
Re: removing toxic emailers
What I see here in sum is another high level tightly integrated Red Hat employee saying the gist of "I'm really not saying it out of my employer's interest and it has nothing to do with my personal feelings". Every single proponent of this argument that I have seen so far is employed by one of the same 5 companies and "really isn't doing it on behalf of my company I swear". Why is it almost exclusively that specific crowd saying it here, then? I just don't buy it. Please say anything that would not support the emerging theory that these companies are using integrated employees to try to emulate justification/pretext for a rift to attack the free software world. Anything at all. -C On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 13:31 -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote: > On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 09:49 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > Joseph Myers : > > > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > > > > > > I'm not judging RMS's behavior (or anyone else's) one way or > > > > another. I am simply pointing out that there is a Schelling > > > > point > > > > in > > > > possible community norms that is well expressed as "you shall > > > > judge > > > > by > > > > the code alone". This list is not full of contention from > > > > affirming > > > > that norm, but from some peoples' attempt to repudiate it. > > > > > > Since RMS, FSF and GNU are not contributing code to the toolchain > > > and > > > haven't been for a very long time, the most similar basis to > > > judge > > > them > > > would seem to be based on their interactions with toolchain > > > development. > > > I think those interactions generally show that FSF and GNU have > > > been > > > bad > > > umbrella organizations for the toolchain since at least when the > > > GCC > > > 4.4 > > > release was delayed waiting for a slow process of developing the > > > GCC > > > Runtime Library Exception. > > > > I do not have standing to argue this point. > > > > I will, however, point out that it is a very *different* point from > > "RMS has iupset some people and should therefore be canceled". > > [I'm sorry to everyone who's sick of these threads, but I feel I have > to respond to this one; sorry about writing another long email] > > Eric: I don't know if you're just being glib, or you're deliberately > trying to caricature those of us who are upset by RMS's behavior. > > I think the words "canceled" and "cancel culture" have effectively > become meaningless and should be avoided if we want to have a nuanced > discussion - no-one seems to have a definition of what counts as > "canceling" vs "consequences" vs "fair and measured responses". > > At one time, both you and RMS were heroes of mine, and I was a true > believer (of what, I'm no longer sure); I own copies of both "The > Cathedral and the Bazaar" and "Free Software - Free Society", though > both are currently in my attic, gathering dust. > > I've long felt that there was a massive hole in the GNU project and > FSF > where effective technical leadership should have been - various > maintainers on gcc, gdb, etc have been implementing things, and > things > were humming along, and those of us in Red Hat working on them tried > to > coordinate on features we felt were important - but where was the > top- > level response to, say, LLVM/clang? (to name just one of many changes > in the industry) In many ways the last 8 years of my career have > been > an attempt to get gcc to respond to the appearance of LLVM/clang > (I've > added JIT-compilation, improved diagnostics, and I'm implementing a > static analysis pass) - I'm lucky that my managers inside Red Hat are > happy to pay me to hack on this stuff and make GCC better - it helps > our customers, but it also helps GCC, and the broader FLOSS > communities > using both toolchains). > > Where has the technical leadership from RMS been? Instead the long- > standing opposition by RMS to exposing the compiler's IR has hobbled > GCC, and partly contributed to the pile of technical debt we have to > dig our way out of. The only "leadership" coming out of GNU/FSF seem > to me to be dictats from on high about ChangeLog formats and coding > conventions. The GNU project seems to me to be stuck in the 1980s. > Perhaps a pronouncement like: "try to make everything be consumable > as > libraries with APIs, as well as as standalone binaries" might have > helped (and still could; can we do that please?) > > Similarly, I agree with Joseph's observations of the ways that the > FSF > and GNU have been bad umbrella organizations for the toolchain. > > But beyond the failure of technical leadership, and the > organizational > incompetence/incoherence, is RMS's behavior, and the extent to which > it, as you put it "upset some people". > > RMS's defenders seem to have fixated on his 2019 comments on Marvin > Minsky, the uproar over those, and his responses to them (then and > recently), and seem keen to assure us that everything's OK now, or, > at > least on a road to
Re: removing toxic emailers
Christopher Dimech wrote: Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 7:21 AM From: "Iain Sandoe" To: "GCC Development" Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers Paul Koning wrote: On Apr 15, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote: ... responding in general to this part of the thread. * The GCC environment is not hostile, and has not been for the 15 or so years I’ve been part of the community. * We would notice if it became so, I’m not sure about the idea that the wool can be so easily pulled over our eyes. responding to the thread in general.. * Please could we try to seek consensus? - it is disappointing to see people treating this as some kind of point-scoring game when to those working on the compiler day to day it is far from a game. I'm not sure what the consensus is you're looking for. Let us start from the observations above and try to add in the issues that have arisen in the recent threads - and end with a proposal * One could be glib and suggest that discussions about governance and project process should be directed to a different (new) mailing list - but that does not solve the problem(s) it just moves them. - (however, it might still be valuable to folks who wish to have an automatic filter for these topics or have no interest in them). * I think we are all clear about the primary role of the gcc@ and gcc-patches@ lists - primarily technical discussion about current and future projects and patch review respectively. - we have a history of politely redirecting usage questions to the help list (while often answering them anyway), likewise with the irc channel. - I believe we also have a history of encouraging input and discussing the technical issues (reasonably) calmly. - to the best of my recollection I have never seen an idea excluded on any basis than technical content. * Without a specific list to process input on governance and project process, this list is a reasonable choice. ——— The observations above, copied from my first email, together with a belief that most of the current and potential contributor to GCC would prefer to function in a constructive environment, lead to the following proposition: * that, since the lists are generally constructive without additional management, (OK. there are occasional heated technical debates), it implies that this community by-and-large is already able to function without heavy-handed moderation. * It has been postulated that there could be valued technical input from people who have difficulty in interacting in a constructive manner (through no fault of their own). * no-one else would be making valued input, either they would be a spammer or intentionally acting in a destructive manner. - Let us propose that someone capable of working on a complex system such as a compiler would be able to read and act on a set of guidelines. - ergo, I propose that we have a set of guidelines to which someone who is being disruptive can be pointed. * (Probably?) no-one has any issue with a spammer being thrown off the list, for which I guess there is a process already - it would be reasonable to expect that genuine contributors (even with difficulties) would make an effort to follow guidelines - and that someone who was making no effort to do so is not really any different from a spammer. Of course, guidelines require debate (but I doubt that the right set would be much different from the obvious for this group). is seems to me that most of the strife in the last two weeks comes from a few key things: - attacking the person delivering a message rather than debating the message - introducing topics spurious and unrelated to the actual debate - trying to equate the process of this project with party or international Politics. === So .. in summary: 1/ I propose that we do have written guidelines, to which someone behaving in a non-constructive manner can be pointed. 2/ if those guidelines *are the consensus* of this group and someone is unable to follow them (given some reasonable chance to amend as is customary in matters such as employment law here, at least), then they are treated no differently from any other spam. Proposing the guidelines essentially means that the community accepts the fact that many of us are incapable of navigate everyday problems and dilemmas by making “right” decisions based on the use of good judgment and values rather than sterile sets of rules and conventions that typically disregard the individual, the particular, or the discrete. However, that isn’t what I wrote - what I wrote was the opposite; that history shows that almost everyone communicating on these lists can do so constructively *without* recourse to written guidelines. It is not the general case that has precipitated this discussion but, rather, the exceptional.
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 12:45 PM Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote: > > Proposing the guidelines essentially means that the community accepts the fact > that many of us are incapable of navigate everyday problems and dilemmas by > making > “right” decisions based on the use of good judgment and values rather than > sterile > sets of rules and conventions that typically disregard the individual, the > particular, > or the discrete. Thusly, it is wrong to suggest that the problems are simply > associated with RMS, FSF and GNU. I think you are conflating two different things. Iain was describing general guidelines for communication, not saying anything about RMS, FSF, or GNU. Personally I would say that the purpose of communication guidelines for GCC mailing lists is not for existing members of the community. As several people have said, the GCC mailing lists are normally civil. It is to provide a mechanism for blocking people whose goal is, for whatever reason, to disrupt the community. Such a mechanism requires a lot of sensitivity to context and care on the part of the moderators. But it still helps to have a set of guidelines to refer to. Ian
Gcc as callable libraries (was: removing toxic emailers)
David, for some reason or other, I did not get your mail, so I will just reply copying in from the archive. First, thanks for injecting some sanity into the discussion. I will not discuss RMS' personal shortcomings or the lack of them. In today's toxic political climate, such allegations are often made up and weaponized without an effective defense for the alleged wrongdoer. I don't know the truth of the matter, and I make a point of not finding out. > In many ways the last 8 years of my career have been > an attempt to get gcc to respond to the appearance of LLVM/clang (I've > added JIT-compilation, improved diagnostics, and I'm implementing a > static analysis pass) And this is highly welcome, and has made gcc (including gfortran) a much better compiler. I well remember how you implemented the much better colored error messages that gfortran has now. > Perhaps a pronouncement like: "try to make everything be consumable as > libraries with APIs, as well as as standalone binaries" might have > helped (and still could; can we do that please?) That makes perfect sense, as LLVM shows, and is something that the steering committee could decide for the project (or rather, it could issue a pronouncement that this will not be opposed if some volunteer does it). I think this could be as close to an unanimous decision as there can be among such a diverse community as the gcc developers. If the FSF takes umbrage at this, the ball is in their court.
Re: removing toxic emailers
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 7:21 AM > From: "Iain Sandoe" > To: "GCC Development" > Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers > > Paul Koning wrote: > >> On Apr 15, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote: > >> > >> ... > >> responding in general to this part of the thread. > >> > >> * The GCC environment is not hostile, and has not been for the 15 or so > >> years I’ve been part of the community. > > >> * We would notice if it became so, I’m not sure about the idea that the > >> wool > >> can be so easily pulled over our eyes. > >> > > >> responding to the thread in general.. > >> > >> * Please could we try to seek consensus? > >> > >> - it is disappointing to see people treating this as some kind of > >> point-scoring game > >> when to those working on the compiler day to day it is far from a game. > > > > I'm not sure what the consensus is you're looking for. > > Let us start from the observations above and try to add in the issues that > have > arisen in the recent threads - and end with a proposal > > * One could be glib and suggest that discussions about governance and project >process should be directed to a different (new) mailing list > >- but that does not solve the problem(s) it just moves them. >- (however, it might still be valuable to folks who wish to have an > automatic filter > for these topics or have no interest in them). > > * I think we are all clear about the primary role of the gcc@ and > gcc-patches@ lists > >- primarily technical discussion about current and future projects and > patch review > respectively. > >- we have a history of politely redirecting usage questions to the help > list (while > often answering them anyway), likewise with the irc channel. > >- I believe we also have a history of encouraging input and discussing the > technical > issues (reasonably) calmly. > >- to the best of my recollection I have never seen an idea excluded on any > basis than > technical content. > > * Without a specific list to process input on governance and project > process, this >list is a reasonable choice. > > ——— > > The observations above, copied from my first email, together with a belief > that most of > the current and potential contributor to GCC would prefer to function in a > constructive > environment, lead to the following proposition: > >* that, since the lists are generally constructive without additional > management, > (OK. there are occasional heated technical debates), it implies that > this community > by-and-large is already able to function without heavy-handed moderation. > > * It has been postulated that there could be valued technical input from > people who > have difficulty in interacting in a constructive manner (through no fault > of their own). > > * no-one else would be making valued input, either they would be a spammer > or > intentionally acting in a destructive manner. > > - Let us propose that someone capable of working on a complex system such > as a > compiler would be able to read and act on a set of guidelines. > > - ergo, I propose that we have a set of guidelines to which someone who > is being > disruptive can be pointed. > >* (Probably?) no-one has any issue with a spammer being thrown off the > list, for which > I guess there is a process already - it would be reasonable to expect > that genuine > contributors (even with difficulties) would make an effort to follow > guidelines - and > that someone who was making no effort to do so is not really any > different from a > spammer. > > Of course, guidelines require debate (but I doubt that the right set would > be much > different from the obvious for this group). > > is seems to me that most of the strife in the last two weeks comes from a > few key > things: > >- attacking the person delivering a message rather than debating the > message >- introducing topics spurious and unrelated to the actual debate >- trying to equate the process of this project with party or international > Politics. > > === > > So .. in summary: > > 1/ I propose that we do have written guidelines, to which someone behaving > in a > non-constructive manner can be pointed. > > 2/ if those guidelines *are the consensus* of this group and someone is > unable to > follow them (given some
Re: removing toxic emailers
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 5:31 AM > From: "David Malcolm via Gcc" > To: e...@thyrsus.com, "Joseph Myers" > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Nathan Sidwell" > Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers > > On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 09:49 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > Joseph Myers : > > > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > > > > > > I'm not judging RMS's behavior (or anyone else's) one way or > > > > another. I am simply pointing out that there is a Schelling point > > > > in > > > > possible community norms that is well expressed as "you shall judge > > > > by > > > > the code alone". This list is not full of contention from > > > > affirming > > > > that norm, but from some peoples' attempt to repudiate it. > > > > > > Since RMS, FSF and GNU are not contributing code to the toolchain and > > > haven't been for a very long time, the most similar basis to judge > > > them > > > would seem to be based on their interactions with toolchain > > > development. > > > I think those interactions generally show that FSF and GNU have been > > > bad > > > umbrella organizations for the toolchain since at least when the GCC > > > 4.4 > > > release was delayed waiting for a slow process of developing the GCC > > > Runtime Library Exception. > > > > I do not have standing to argue this point. > > > > I will, however, point out that it is a very *different* point from > > "RMS has iupset some people and should therefore be canceled". > > [I'm sorry to everyone who's sick of these threads, but I feel I have > to respond to this one; sorry about writing another long email] > > Eric: I don't know if you're just being glib, or you're deliberately > trying to caricature those of us who are upset by RMS's behavior. > > I think the words "canceled" and "cancel culture" have effectively > become meaningless and should be avoided if we want to have a nuanced > discussion - no-one seems to have a definition of what counts as > "canceling" vs "consequences" vs "fair and measured responses". > > At one time, both you and RMS were heroes of mine, and I was a true > believer (of what, I'm no longer sure); I own copies of both "The > Cathedral and the Bazaar" and "Free Software - Free Society", though > both are currently in my attic, gathering dust. > > I've long felt that there was a massive hole in the GNU project and FSF > where effective technical leadership should have been - various > maintainers on gcc, gdb, etc have been implementing things, and things > were humming along, and those of us in Red Hat working on them tried to > coordinate on features we felt were important - but where was the top- > level response to, say, LLVM/clang? (to name just one of many changes > in the industry) In many ways the last 8 years of my career have been > an attempt to get gcc to respond to the appearance of LLVM/clang (I've > added JIT-compilation, improved diagnostics, and I'm implementing a > static analysis pass) I don't see a problem with improvements in appearance when valuable and useful. It is not easy to work with as it could be. One can also complain about what's missing in LLVM. I am however not a proponent of C++, and closely relate to Eric's comment about the unfortunate decline of C. Have worked on C++ myself in the oil, gas and mining industry, and in other things like underwater acoustics. Where the difficulties of working with object oriented programming made working with some kinds of algorithms impossible to track adequately. > - I'm lucky that my managers inside Red Hat are > happy to pay me to hack on this stuff and make GCC better - it helps > our customers, but it also helps GCC, and the broader FLOSS communities > using both toolchains). > > Where has the technical leadership from RMS been? Instead the long- > standing opposition by RMS to exposing the compiler's IR has hobbled > GCC, and partly contributed to the pile of technical debt we have to > dig our way out of. The only "leadership" coming out of GNU/FSF seem > to me to be dictats from on high about ChangeLog formats and coding > conventions. The GNU project seems to me to be stuck in the 1980s. > Perhaps a pronouncement like: "try to make everything be consumable as > libraries with APIs, as well as as standalone binaries" might have > helped (and still could; can we do that please?) > > Similarly, I agree with Joseph's observations of the ways that the FSF > and GNU
Re: removing toxic emailers
Paul Koning wrote: On Apr 15, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote: ... responding in general to this part of the thread. * The GCC environment is not hostile, and has not been for the 15 or so years I’ve been part of the community. * We would notice if it became so, I’m not sure about the idea that the wool can be so easily pulled over our eyes. responding to the thread in general.. * Please could we try to seek consensus? - it is disappointing to see people treating this as some kind of point-scoring game when to those working on the compiler day to day it is far from a game. I'm not sure what the consensus is you're looking for. Let us start from the observations above and try to add in the issues that have arisen in the recent threads - and end with a proposal * One could be glib and suggest that discussions about governance and project process should be directed to a different (new) mailing list - but that does not solve the problem(s) it just moves them. - (however, it might still be valuable to folks who wish to have an automatic filter for these topics or have no interest in them). * I think we are all clear about the primary role of the gcc@ and gcc-patches@ lists - primarily technical discussion about current and future projects and patch review respectively. - we have a history of politely redirecting usage questions to the help list (while often answering them anyway), likewise with the irc channel. - I believe we also have a history of encouraging input and discussing the technical issues (reasonably) calmly. - to the best of my recollection I have never seen an idea excluded on any basis than technical content. * Without a specific list to process input on governance and project process, this list is a reasonable choice. ——— The observations above, copied from my first email, together with a belief that most of the current and potential contributor to GCC would prefer to function in a constructive environment, lead to the following proposition: * that, since the lists are generally constructive without additional management, (OK. there are occasional heated technical debates), it implies that this community by-and-large is already able to function without heavy-handed moderation. * It has been postulated that there could be valued technical input from people who have difficulty in interacting in a constructive manner (through no fault of their own). * no-one else would be making valued input, either they would be a spammer or intentionally acting in a destructive manner. - Let us propose that someone capable of working on a complex system such as a compiler would be able to read and act on a set of guidelines. - ergo, I propose that we have a set of guidelines to which someone who is being disruptive can be pointed. * (Probably?) no-one has any issue with a spammer being thrown off the list, for which I guess there is a process already - it would be reasonable to expect that genuine contributors (even with difficulties) would make an effort to follow guidelines - and that someone who was making no effort to do so is not really any different from a spammer. Of course, guidelines require debate (but I doubt that the right set would be much different from the obvious for this group). is seems to me that most of the strife in the last two weeks comes from a few key things: - attacking the person delivering a message rather than debating the message - introducing topics spurious and unrelated to the actual debate - trying to equate the process of this project with party or international Politics. === So .. in summary: 1/ I propose that we do have written guidelines, to which someone behaving in a non-constructive manner can be pointed. 2/ if those guidelines *are the consensus* of this group and someone is unable to follow them (given some reasonable chance to amend as is customary in matters such as employment law here, at least), then they are treated no differently from any other spam. * although one might lose some notionally valuable input, the judgement here is that the net benefit of such input is negative. 3/ I would recommend on the basis of another online community (about music) to which I belong, to suggest that Politics (party or international) and Religion are better discussed in other forums and are exceedingly unlikely to affect a technical decision on the progress of GCC - such discussions almost never end well. (I’d believe that any valid exception to the need to heed some political situation would be readily recognised by the participants here). 4/ It is likely that we can extract much of the basic guidelines from any other writing on communicating constructively - after all, it is how 99.99% of this list traffic is managed without
Re: removing toxic emailers
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:31 AM David Malcolm via Gcc wrote: > > I still admire much of what RMS has written, and have spent much of my > career trying to implement part of a vision inspired by him. I'm sad > about the way things have turned out. Twitter seems to turn everything > into a pitched battle between two camps. I hope there's room for a > nuanced view of him - the good and the less good. I don't know what > role he should have, but I think it should not be a leadership one, and > I think the FSF and GNU need to greatly change to stay relevant, > including on governance and on succession plans. None of us are > getting any younger, and the vision of the FSF and GNU seems to me to > be stuck in the 1990s (or earlier). Thanks, that is well put. That describes my own feelings as well. To be very blunt, I don't know how to read https://www.fsf.org/news/rms-addresses-the-free-software-community and think "the person who wrote this should be in a leadership role." I don't think RMS is a bad person. I think that RMS can still have a great deal to contribute to free software as a programmer and as a philosopher. But those are not the words of a leader. Leadership is about people: understanding what people need, understanding how to motivate them toward a shared goal. What I see in that essay is somebody who doesn't understand people very well, and is not all that interested in learning. Ian
