Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Leo,

Leo Prikler  writes:

> Am Montag, den 03.05.2021, 05:00 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
>> Leo Prikler  writes:
>> 
>> > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 23:13 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
>> > > I don't think I fumbled on the facts at all.  It's true that I
>> > > didn't yet have _all_ of the relevant facts, but as far as I
>> > > know, every fact that I presented is true.
>> > > 
>> > > If you disagree, can you please provide a counterexample?
>> > 
>> > In your very first message you made it seems as though Raghav
>> > single-handedly authored and pushed the changes in question and
>> > called into question their reliability as a committer.  The former
>> > was based on "facts", that turned out half-true – Raghav did push
>> > that commit, but they did so thinking that Léo did proper review,
>> > which they did not –
>> 
>> Here, once again, you've failed to point out any of my *actual* words
>> to back up your (bogus) claim that I "fumbled on the
>> facts".  Instead, you speak of how I "made it seem".  You put more
>> words into my mouth.

> If you want to read your actual words, they were

>> Behold, Raghav's "cosmetic changes" to our 'cairo' package

I don't know how the genitive case is used in German, but in English, it
can mean a great many things, from possession (Mark's bicycle) to mere
association (Mark's community of friends) and many other things.  It
certainly does *not* imply single-handed authorship as you suggest
above.

I'll grant that you are correct in your speculation that at the time I
wrote the words above, in my *mind* I more-or-less assumed that Raghav
had authored the commit.  After all, Raghav digitally signed and pushed
the commit, whose metadata indicated that he was the sole author.

However, I never *wrote* anything that implied he was the sole author.
Therefore, I still maintain that in my actual communications, I didn't
"fumble on the facts" *at all*.

I'm going to _try_ to refrain from responding again, because in order
for this exchange to be finite, *one* of us must eventually let the
other one have the final word.

   Regards,
 Mark

-- 
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts.  Ask me about .

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Leo Prikler]

Hi Mark,

Am Montag, den 03.05.2021, 05:00 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
> Leo Prikler  writes:
> 
> > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 23:13 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
> > > I don't think I fumbled on the facts at all.  It's true that I
> > > didn't
> > > yet have _all_ of the relevant facts, but as far as I know, every
> > > fact that I presented is true.
> > > 
> > > If you disagree, can you please provide a counterexample?
> > 
> > In your very first message you made it seems as though Raghav
> > single-
> > handedly authored and pushed the changes in question and called
> > into
> > question their reliability as a committer.  The former was based on
> > "facts", that turned out half-true – Raghav did push that commit,
> > but
> > they did so thinking that Léo did proper review, which they did not
> > –
> 
> Here, once again, you've failed to point out any of my *actual* words
> to back up your (bogus) claim that I "fumbled on the
> facts".  Instead, you speak of how I "made it seem".  You put more
> words into my mouth.
If you want to read your actual words, they were
> Behold, Raghav's "cosmetic changes" to our 'cairo' package
Again, those were not Raghav's changes, they were added by Léo and
"once again" pushed by Raghav, who trusted them on the matter.  You
made an incorrect assumption based on incomplete information.  I call
that fumbling.  It was an honest mistake based on the facts you thought
present at the time, but nonetheless a mistake.

Please don't assume I'm acting in bad faith and throw around words like
bogus lightly.  I don't think I'm making any extraordinary claim here,
my statements should follow from the words themselves or the
interpretations of a casual observer.  I am not aiming to grossly
misrepresent you here, I'm trying to help you find an answer to the
question 
> Is it possible that you read more in my messages than I
> actually wrote?
The answer is "Yes, always".  People don't just derive raw information
from messages, there's all sorts of other cues – including social cues
– that swing with them.  Even in newspaper articles or scientific
literature, there is such a thing as framing.  You absolutely have to
consider many forms of subtext both when reading and when writing.

I hope this clears up any remaining misconceptions.  If not and you're
fine having me as conversation partner, I'm still willing to answer
(some) questions off-list.  Again, I am not attacking you for calling
attention to an objectively bad commit, I think it was right of you to
do so.  All of what I'm saying here should at worst be seen as
"criticism of your tone".

Regards,
Leo

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Leo,

I think we're mostly going in circles at this point, so I think we
should finish up this conversation, as Ludovic suggested.  I'll let you
have the last word on most of our conversation threads, but I feel
compelled to briefly counter one claim of yours:

Leo Prikler  writes:

> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 23:13 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
>> I don't think I fumbled on the facts at all.  It's true that I didn't
>> yet have _all_ of the relevant facts, but as far as I know, every
>> fact that I presented is true.
>> 
>> If you disagree, can you please provide a counterexample?
>
> In your very first message you made it seems as though Raghav single-
> handedly authored and pushed the changes in question and called into
> question their reliability as a committer.  The former was based on
> "facts", that turned out half-true – Raghav did push that commit, but
> they did so thinking that Léo did proper review, which they did not –

Here, once again, you've failed to point out any of my *actual* words to
back up your (bogus) claim that I "fumbled on the facts".  Instead, you
speak of how I "made it seem".  You put more words into my mouth.

That's not nice.  Please stop it.

 Thanks,
   Mark

-- 
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts.  Ask me about .

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Leo Prikler]

Hi Mark,

Am Sonntag, den 02.05.2021, 17:02 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
> Hi Leo,
> 
> Leo Prikler  writes:
> 
> > Am Sonntag, den 02.05.2021, 15:29 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
> > 
> > Likewise, there's no middle ground on assuming evil
> > intentions, you either assume they exist or you don't.
> 
> That's true also, but this is a different dichotomy than the one you
> presented above.  In the sentence above, the dichotomy is between:
> 
>   (1) You assume bad faith
>   (2) You do not assume bad faith
> 
> In your list of scenarios above, there's a (false) dichotomy between:
> 
>   (1) You assume bad faith
>   (2) You assume good faith
> 
> It's a false dichotomy because neither of these is the logical
> negation of the other.  They cannot both be true, but they _can_ both
> be false.
> 
> In other words, I think that you have conflated "not assuming bad
> faith" with "assuming good faith".  Do you see the difference?
> 
> This is not mere nitpicking.  It's a very important distinction.
> It's analogous to being forced to choose between "faith in god" and
> "atheism", without allowing for the possibility of "agnosticism".
> 
> Does that make sense?
When it comes to interactions, "good faith" is defined as being "fair,
open and honest".  Negate any of these, and you arrive at some form of
bad faith.  I think more commonly "bad faith" means that the honesty is
negated, while openness is contrasted with lack of transparency and
fairness with unfairness.

You could say "Well, technically, I don't know whether they're being
honest", and that is correct, but it is also a form of casting doubt,
which I would argue constitutes an assumption of bad faith.  Of course,
"you're not sure about it", but the other party is still guilty until
proven innocent.

I'm not sure what definitions of "good" and "bad" faith you're using,
but please consider that I meant "acting in bad faith" to be the same
as "not acting in good faith".

> > > This is, in fact, the current scenario.  I'm not making any
> > > assumptions.  That is truly the state of my mind on this
> > > question, and I think it's the only rational position to take.
> > Which one is the rational position now?  Not assuming evil
> > intentions or assuming them?
> 
> I think the only rational position to take here is to not make
> assumptions.
You're always making an assumption, however.  Even if it's not one
governed by the situation at hand, you have a natural bias to trust or
distrust others in their words.  Claiming you don't is misleading
yourself and others.

Regards,
Leo

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Ludovic,

Ludovic Courtès  writes:
> I’m sorry to inform you that this is not a philosophy or linguistics
> mailing list.

*lol*  Indeed, this conversation has wandered quite far off-topic.
Thanks for stepping in.

> I invite you to continue this discussion off-list.  We have a release
> coming up that needs everyone’s focus and attention.  :-)

Sounds good to me.  Let's get back to work :)

 Regards,
   Mark

-- 
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts.  Ask me about .

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Leo,

Leo Prikler  writes:

> Am Sonntag, den 02.05.2021, 15:29 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
>> 
>> Leo Prikler  writes:
>> 
>> > Let us assume for the sake of argument I were to introduce a bug
>> > into Guix.  There are a number of ways this can happen, but let's
>> > focus on the important distinction here, which is me purposefully
>> > introducing that bug vs.  it happening due to oversight.
>> > 
>> > Let us imagine the following four scenarios:
>> > 1. You assume I'm acting in bad faith and I indeed am.
>> > 2. You assume I'm acting in bad faith and I am not.
>> > 3. You assume I'm acting in good faith and I am not.
>> > 4. You assume I'm acting in good faith and I am.
>> 
>> This is a false dilemma ,
>> because you've missed a very important case, namely:
>> 
>> 5. You assume *nothing*.

> I think you're nitpicking here.

I don't think so.

> clearly I either have evil intentions or I don't – there's no middle
> ground.

Yes, I agree with this.

> Likewise, there's no middle ground on assuming evil
> intentions, you either assume they exist or you don't.

That's true also, but this is a different dichotomy than the one you
presented above.  In the sentence above, the dichotomy is between:

  (1) You assume bad faith
  (2) You do not assume bad faith

In your list of scenarios above, there's a (false) dichotomy between:

  (1) You assume bad faith
  (2) You assume good faith

It's a false dichotomy because neither of these is the logical negation
of the other.  They cannot both be true, but they _can_ both be false.

In other words, I think that you have conflated "not assuming bad faith"
with "assuming good faith".  Do you see the difference?

This is not mere nitpicking.  It's a very important distinction.
It's analogous to being forced to choose between "faith in god" and
"atheism", without allowing for the possibility of "agnosticism".

Does that make sense?

>> This is, in fact, the current scenario.  I'm not making any
>> assumptions.
>> That is truly the state of my mind on this question, and I think it's
>> the only rational position to take.
> Which one is the rational position now?  Not assuming evil intentions
> or assuming them?

I think the only rational position to take here is to not make
assumptions.

 Regards,
   Mark

-- 
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts.  Ask me about .

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Ludovic Courtès]

Leo, Mark,

Mark H Weaver  skribis:

> This is a false dilemma ,
> because you've missed a very important case, namely:
>
> 5. You assume *nothing*.

I’m sorry to inform you that this is not a philosophy or linguistics
mailing list.

I invite you to continue this discussion off-list.  We have a release
coming up that needs everyone’s focus and attention.  :-)

Thanks in advance!

Ludo’.

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Leo Prikler]

Hi Mark,

Am Sonntag, den 02.05.2021, 15:29 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
> Hi Leo,
> 
> Leo Prikler  writes:
> 
> > Let us assume for
> > the sake of argument I were to introduce a bug into Guix.  There
> > are a
> > number of ways this can happen, but let's focus on the important
> > distinction here, which is me purposefully introducing that bug vs.
> > it
> > happening due to oversight.
> > 
> > Let us imagine the following four scenarios:
> > 1. You assume I'm acting in bad faith and I indeed am.
> > 2. You assume I'm acting in bad faith and I am not.
> > 3. You assume I'm acting in good faith and I am not.
> > 4. You assume I'm acting in good faith and I am.
> 
> This is a false dilemma 
> ;,
> because you've missed a very important case, namely:
> 
> 5. You assume *nothing*.
I think you're nitpicking here.  If "good faith vs. bad faith" is not a
boolean value, I could also be acting without one or the other, but
clearly I either have evil intentions or I don't – there's no middle
ground.  Likewise, there's no middle ground on assuming evil
intentions, you either assume they exist or you don't.  Of course, we
could get into technicalities of how evil you assume my intentions to
be, but that's not going to help us here.

> This is, in fact, the current scenario.  I'm not making any
> assumptions.
> That is truly the state of my mind on this question, and I think it's
> the only rational position to take.
Which one is the rational position now?  Not assuming evil intentions
or assuming them?

> In particular, I don't feel the need to introduce assumptions in
> order to justify my question in the opening email of this thread,
> namely whether someone who pushed a "cosmetic changes" commit that
> removes security fixes should have commit access.
> 
> That question does _not_ imply that anyone acted in bad faith.  From
> my perspective, it doesn't matter for our purposes.  (Of course, it
> would be good to know, but I'd rather not be distracted by questions
> that we have little hope of ever answering.)
IIRC I already answered that question as one of the first things in
this thread (before it got renamed), so I don't want to repeat myself
at lengths here.

> My primary concern here is to protect our users, and the integrity of
> our systems and of Guix itself.  I don't know how to do that if we
> tolerate committers who repeatedly push commits with misleading
> commit messages.
> 
> In order for meaningful oversight of Guix to be practical, it is of
> *paramount* importance that the summary lines of commits be
> reasonably accurate.  I have neither the time nor the interest in
> scrutinizing _every_ commit pushed to our repository, just in case
> the summary lines are misleading.  Therefore, I claim that we *must
> not* tolerate committers who repeatedly push commits with misleading
> commit logs.
> 
> We are lucky that this incident was discovered.  There's no guarantee
> that the next one will be.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but if it's something
along the lines of "Raghav must not be trusted", I disagree.  They
themselves have stated, that they have since learned from their past
mistakes and the only reason this commit was even introduced at this
point was because one of their older commits did not receive careful
review.

> This is _not_ about being a beginner.  No technical expertise should
> have been required to avoid this incident, only some basic care
> before pushing commits.  Even the most cursory glance at the commit
> log should have immediately raised red flags, because its summary
> line clearly contradicts the next few lines of the commit log itself:
> 
> --8<---cut here---start->8---
> gnu: cairo: Make some cosmetic changes.
> 
> * gnu/packages/patches/cairo-CVE-2018-19876.patch,
> gnu/packages/patches/cairo-CVE-2020-35492.patch: Remove patches.
> * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Unregister them.
> * gnu/packages/gtk.scm (cairo): Make some cosmetic changes.
> [replacement]: Remove.
> (cairo/fixed): Remove.
> --8<---cut here---end--->8---
> 
> I don't know what went wrong here, but it doesn't really matter to
> me.  Whatever the reason, I don't want someone who pushes commits
> like this to have commit access.  If people want to condemn me for
> saying that, so be it.
I don't know why your rehashing this at this point, we went over this
already.  Please refer to Raghav's messages at the time, they were
helpful in clearing up the matter.

Regards,
Leo

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Leo,

Leo Prikler  writes:

> Let us assume for
> the sake of argument I were to introduce a bug into Guix.  There are a
> number of ways this can happen, but let's focus on the important
> distinction here, which is me purposefully introducing that bug vs. it
> happening due to oversight.
>
> Let us imagine the following four scenarios:
> 1. You assume I'm acting in bad faith and I indeed am.
> 2. You assume I'm acting in bad faith and I am not.
> 3. You assume I'm acting in good faith and I am not.
> 4. You assume I'm acting in good faith and I am.

This is a false dilemma ,
because you've missed a very important case, namely:

5. You assume *nothing*.

This is, in fact, the current scenario.  I'm not making any assumptions.
That is truly the state of my mind on this question, and I think it's
the only rational position to take.

In particular, I don't feel the need to introduce assumptions in order
to justify my question in the opening email of this thread, namely
whether someone who pushed a "cosmetic changes" commit that removes
security fixes should have commit access.

That question does _not_ imply that anyone acted in bad faith.  From my
perspective, it doesn't matter for our purposes.  (Of course, it would
be good to know, but I'd rather not be distracted by questions that we
have little hope of ever answering.)

My primary concern here is to protect our users, and the integrity of
our systems and of Guix itself.  I don't know how to do that if we
tolerate committers who repeatedly push commits with misleading commit
messages.

In order for meaningful oversight of Guix to be practical, it is of
*paramount* importance that the summary lines of commits be reasonably
accurate.  I have neither the time nor the interest in scrutinizing
_every_ commit pushed to our repository, just in case the summary lines
are misleading.  Therefore, I claim that we *must not* tolerate
committers who repeatedly push commits with misleading commit logs.

We are lucky that this incident was discovered.  There's no guarantee
that the next one will be.

This is _not_ about being a beginner.  No technical expertise should
have been required to avoid this incident, only some basic care before
pushing commits.  Even the most cursory glance at the commit log should
have immediately raised red flags, because its summary line clearly
contradicts the next few lines of the commit log itself:

--8<---cut here---start->8---
gnu: cairo: Make some cosmetic changes.

* gnu/packages/patches/cairo-CVE-2018-19876.patch,
gnu/packages/patches/cairo-CVE-2020-35492.patch: Remove patches.
* gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Unregister them.
* gnu/packages/gtk.scm (cairo): Make some cosmetic changes.
[replacement]: Remove.
(cairo/fixed): Remove.
--8<---cut here---end--->8---

I don't know what went wrong here, but it doesn't really matter to me.
Whatever the reason, I don't want someone who pushes commits like this
to have commit access.  If people want to condemn me for saying that,
so be it.

 Regards,
   Mark

-- 
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts.  Ask me about .

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Leo Prikler]

Am Sonntag, den 02.05.2021, 12:17 +0800 schrieb 宋文武:
> Hello Leo, I see nothing wrong for assuming bad faith when security
> fixes of packages are removed, in the end the truth matter, which I
> believe is: You thought the patches for cario is not needed now on
> core-updates, so you remove them.

> what I mean is "for assuming bad intent", or more clearly: "for
> assuming that you remove thoese security patches to introduce
> backdoors on purpose".  I don't think Mark try to prove you're lying
> from his messages, if that's what "assumed bad faith" means...

Now, lfam has already pointed out, that I'm not Léo, but I don't think
whether I am or am not matters much in this context.  Let us assume for
the sake of argument I were to introduce a bug into Guix.  There are a
number of ways this can happen, but let's focus on the important
distinction here, which is me purposefully introducing that bug vs. it
happening due to oversight.

Let us imagine the following four scenarios:
1. You assume I'm acting in bad faith and I indeed am.
2. You assume I'm acting in bad faith and I am not.
3. You assume I'm acting in good faith and I am not.
4. You assume I'm acting in good faith and I am.

In scenarios 1 and 4, your judgement is completely correct and we need
not further discuss it.  But what about 2 and 3?  
First, let's believe myself to be acting in bad faith while I am not. 
You will attack me for introducing a bug into Guix and (because you've
already determined I'm acting in bad faith) strip me from commit
rights.  This can either be the end of the story or the start of a long
rant started by me on how unfairly I was treated by Guix.  Bad optics.
Now let's say you assume I'm acting in good faith while I am not.  You
might want to (politely) ask me to come up with an explanation as to
why I introduced this bug.  I might respond or not.  Depending on my
response, you might even be fooled into believing I acted in good faith
until I conveniently introduce another bug.  At some point, you will
probably have to conclude, that I'm not.  In this scenario, I am kept
around longer than necessary and my repeated introduction of bugs
produces headaches to everyone, particularly when I circumvent the
review process.

To be honest, the way I presented 3, it looks very grim, but
realistically speaking, I don't think all of the maintainers will be
fooled for very long.  With regards to the recent issue, we have a
clear account from Raghav as to what happened as well as their
statement, that they have since learned to be less misleading in their
commit messages.  I often collaborate with Raghav or review their
patches and when doing so I can feel clear commitment from their side,
but also a sense of eagerness, that at times I feel uneasy about. 
Rather than worrying, that they might intentionally do bad, I fear they
might do bad out of haste and I'm still in the process of learning how
to best communicate that to them.  They are awfully fast at churning
out patch sets and at times I find myself outpaced, especially
recently, when Guix has not been the only project I'm working on. 
Writing long essays by email also takes precious time away from patch
review, working on my own contributions or leisure.  In short, I'm
slowly starting to feel a little too stressed.

But enough about my complaints.  Long story short, I think we ought to
assume good faith when engaging in criticism, so as to not discourage
people, who otherwise do good work.

Regards,
Leo

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Leo Prikler]

Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 23:13 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
> Hi Leo,
> 
> I took the liberty of refilling the quotations in your email to make
> them more readable.
Please do.
> 
> Leo Prikler  writes:
> 
> > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 18:12 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
> > > Can you please point out which of my words led you to conclude
> > > that I was assuming bad faith?
> > 
> > I am basing this on the following exchange:
> > 
> > Am Montag, den 26.04.2021, 19:17 +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> > > > I feel an obligation to protect our users, and among other
> > > > things
> > > > that means calling attention to Guix committers that are doing
> > > > things like pushing commits with misleading commit logs (which
> > > > evade proper review) and pushing "cosmetic changes" that remove
> > > > security fixes.
> > > 
> > > That you called attention on these issues is a great service to
> > > all of
> > > us, Mark.  But I have to agree with Ricardo: the harsh accusatory
> > > tone
> > > towards Raghav and Léo was not warranted; please assume good
> > > faith.
> > > 
> > To re-iterate, I believe you were (and are) right to call out
> > commits
> > for their misleading messages, but the unique circumstances of this
> > thread led people to think you were assuming ill intent or
> > something
> > along those lines.
> 
> I asked you to point out which of *my* words led you to conclude that
> I was assuming bad faith, and it seems that you haven't been able to
> do that, nor has anyone else.
> 
> Do you see the problem here?
I am not arguing, that you were assuming bad faith, I'm making the much
weaker argument, that people were led to believe you were.  For me, the
root cause of understanding it this was were Léo's defensive attitudes
coupled with Ludo's statement.  I personally don't think you were
assuming bad faith, especially after your clarification, but I can see
how people might construct that view.  Refer to my response to Giovanni
to see how cherry-picking your messages might result in that.

When asking more generally, however, I'm afraid I can't give you a
definitive answer on this one.  Only Léo can tell why they assumed bad
faith on your part, but looking at the situation, they are emotionally
not able to do so or at the very least not willing.  The best advice I
can give you is to listen to them when they do respond, but also listen
to others when they point out concrete issues with your wording.  For
instance, someone made the case that "Behold" sounded rather sarcastic,
and while I've personally watched enough anime to consider it a
completely normal word, they might have a point.

> > That being said, I think it is fair to argue, that some people read
> > your posts as assuming bad faith from Léo and some did the
> > reverse.  I can't put hard numbers to that, but given the
> > number of participants an existence "proof" ought to suffice.
> 
> It's true that some people have gotten the mistaken impression that I
> assumed bad faith.  The problem is that it's flat wrong.  There's
> *nothing* to back it up, and in fact it's simply false.
> 
> It's unjust to blame me for other people's bogus, evidence-free
> claims about what they *imagine* I assumed.
I don't think I can agree with that.  I think it's good practice to
preempt misunderstandings and to clarify your intent when they happen. 
>From what I recall, you did do that, but in that clarification lied
other problems.

For instance:
"It seems to me that the facts speak for themselves, and those
facts naturally cast Raghav and Léo in a bad light."
This phrase only serves to further cast Raghav and Léo in a bad light
and should thus be avoided.  A better way of phrasing this paragraph
(assuming you were focused on the mistake, not who made it):
"With very few exceptions, almost every sentence that I wrote was
purely factual.  I was not aiming to cast Raghav or Léo in a bad light,
commits like these are dangerous regardless of who authors or signs
them.  It is important for us all to learn from this mistake and to not
repeat it."
The above, though not perfect (and I'd be happy for someone to point
out flaws in them), would have taken some emotional weight off of
Raghav and Léo and in my opinion made it easier to respond to the facts
alone, the fact being that a poorly reviewed commit made it onto an
important branch.

> > > For what it's worth, I have *never* assumed bad faith, and I
> > > don't
> > > think I said anything to imply it either.
> > > 
> > > > (or at the very least incompetence, which, if you are the party
> > > > being accused, does not sound too nice either).
> > > 
> > > I pointed out facts.  I did not engage in speculation beyond the
> > > facts.
> > Well, you did fumble on those facts a little, because the true
> > history
> > of the misleading commits was only discovered later.
> 
> I don't think I fumbled on the facts at all.  It's true that I didn't
> yet have _all_ of the relevant facts, but as far as I know, every
> 

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[宋文武]

Leo Famulari  writes:

> [...]
> To clarify, Leo Prikler is not the same person that was involved in
> removing the Cairo bug fixes. That was a different person, also named
> Leo.
>
> Not me, either :)

Um, my bad, thank you!

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Leo Famulari]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 12:17:59PM +0800, 宋文武 wrote:
> Hello Leo, I see nothing wrong for assuming bad faith when security
> fixes of packages are removed, in the end the truth matter, which I
> believe is: You thought the patches for cario is not needed now on
> core-updates, so you remove them.
> 
> 
> > [...]
> > Well, you did fumble on those facts a little, because the true history
> > of the misleading commits was only discovered later.  So did I in the
> > same thread.  Either way, "just pointing out facts" is not an accurate
> > assessment in my opinion; facts are nothing without interpretation,
> > which see.
> 
> Yes, you have to take actions based on interpretation to get more clues
> from existed facts to reach the truth.
> 
> > [...]
> > Let it be said, that I don't condemn you for starting this thread.  Not
> > only did it highlight an issue, that would otherwise have gone
> > unnoticed, I think most of the participants are now more acutely aware
> > of what might go wrong if they evade review.  It is sad, that things
> > turned out the way they did, but despite what others might claim you
> > don't bear sole responsibility for that.
> 
> Sure, I think we just lack some trust.  With the trust, you'll know that
> Mark only want to confirm the truth with you and avoid this kind of
> issues in the future.

To clarify, Leo Prikler is not the same person that was involved in
removing the Cairo bug fixes. That was a different person, also named
Leo.

Not me, either :)

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[宋文武]

宋文武  writes:

> Leo Prikler  writes:
>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 18:12 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
>>> Hi Leo,
>>> 
>>> Leo Prikler  writes:
>>> 
>>> > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 19:02 +0200 schrieb Giovanni Biscuolo:
>>> > > I also spent some time re-reading messages that Mark sent in this
>>> > > thread and, like him, I really don't understand what Mark did
>>> > > wrong.
>>> > > 
>>> > > For sure Mark /insisted/ that Raghav and Léo did something wrong
>>> > > with
>>> > > some commits, we can say Mark did it being /direct/ and
>>> > > /accusatory/
>>> > > but we cannot really say Mark assumed bad faith from them.
>>> > He did wrong insofar as his accusatory message read as though he
>>> > was
>>> > assuming bad faith
>
> Hello Leo, I see nothing wrong for assuming bad faith when security
> fixes of packages are removed, in the end the truth matter, which I
> believe is: You thought the patches for cario is not needed now on
> core-updates, so you remove them.

Sorry, I'm not a native English speaker, what I mean is "for assuming
bad intent", or more clearly: "for assuming that you remove thoese
security patches to introduce backdoors on purpose".  I don't think Mark
try to prove you're lying from his messages, if that's what "assumed bad
faith" means...

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[宋文武]

Leo Prikler  writes:

> Hi Mark,
>
> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 18:12 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
>> Hi Leo,
>> 
>> Leo Prikler  writes:
>> 
>> > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 19:02 +0200 schrieb Giovanni Biscuolo:
>> > > I also spent some time re-reading messages that Mark sent in this
>> > > thread and, like him, I really don't understand what Mark did
>> > > wrong.
>> > > 
>> > > For sure Mark /insisted/ that Raghav and Léo did something wrong
>> > > with
>> > > some commits, we can say Mark did it being /direct/ and
>> > > /accusatory/
>> > > but we cannot really say Mark assumed bad faith from them.
>> > He did wrong insofar as his accusatory message read as though he
>> > was
>> > assuming bad faith

Hello Leo, I see nothing wrong for assuming bad faith when security
fixes of packages are removed, in the end the truth matter, which I
believe is: You thought the patches for cario is not needed now on
core-updates, so you remove them.


> [...]
> Well, you did fumble on those facts a little, because the true history
> of the misleading commits was only discovered later.  So did I in the
> same thread.  Either way, "just pointing out facts" is not an accurate
> assessment in my opinion; facts are nothing without interpretation,
> which see.

Yes, you have to take actions based on interpretation to get more clues
from existed facts to reach the truth.

> [...]
> Let it be said, that I don't condemn you for starting this thread.  Not
> only did it highlight an issue, that would otherwise have gone
> unnoticed, I think most of the participants are now more acutely aware
> of what might go wrong if they evade review.  It is sad, that things
> turned out the way they did, but despite what others might claim you
> don't bear sole responsibility for that.

Sure, I think we just lack some trust.  With the trust, you'll know that
Mark only want to confirm the truth with you and avoid this kind of
issues in the future.

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Leo,

I took the liberty of refilling the quotations in your email to make
them more readable.

Leo Prikler  writes:

> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 18:12 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
>> Can you please point out which of my words led you to conclude that I
>> was assuming bad faith?
>
> I am basing this on the following exchange:
>
> Am Montag, den 26.04.2021, 19:17 +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> > I feel an obligation to protect our users, and among other things
>> > that means calling attention to Guix committers that are doing
>> > things like pushing commits with misleading commit logs (which
>> > evade proper review) and pushing "cosmetic changes" that remove
>> > security fixes.
>> 
>> That you called attention on these issues is a great service to all of
>> us, Mark.  But I have to agree with Ricardo: the harsh accusatory tone
>> towards Raghav and Léo was not warranted; please assume good faith.
>> 
> To re-iterate, I believe you were (and are) right to call out commits
> for their misleading messages, but the unique circumstances of this
> thread led people to think you were assuming ill intent or something
> along those lines.

I asked you to point out which of *my* words led you to conclude that I
was assuming bad faith, and it seems that you haven't been able to do
that, nor has anyone else.

Do you see the problem here?

> That being said, I think it is fair to argue, that
> some people read your posts as assuming bad faith from Léo and some did
> the reverse.  I can't put hard numbers to that, but given the number of
> participants an existence "proof" ought to suffice.

It's true that some people have gotten the mistaken impression that I
assumed bad faith.  The problem is that it's flat wrong.  There's
*nothing* to back it up, and in fact it's simply false.

It's unjust to blame me for other people's bogus, evidence-free claims
about what they *imagine* I assumed.

>> For what it's worth, I have *never* assumed bad faith, and I don't
>> think I said anything to imply it either.
>> 
>> > (or at the very least incompetence, which, if you are the party
>> > being accused, does not sound too nice either).
>> 
>> I pointed out facts.  I did not engage in speculation beyond the
>> facts.
> Well, you did fumble on those facts a little, because the true history
> of the misleading commits was only discovered later.

I don't think I fumbled on the facts at all.  It's true that I didn't
yet have _all_ of the relevant facts, but as far as I know, every fact
that I presented is true.

If you disagree, can you please provide a counterexample?

> Either way, "just pointing out facts" is not an accurate
> assessment in my opinion; facts are nothing without interpretation,
> which see.

I don't understand what you're getting at here.  Can you please
elaborate?

>> Here, I think that you are making your own speculations based on the
>> facts that I uncovered, and are attributing those speculations to me.
>> That's unfair.  Your speculations are not my responsibility.
>> 
>> Moreover, even if it were true that most people would make similar
>> speculations based on the facts I exposed, that's not my
>> responsibility either.
>>
> Here, I believe, you are wrong.  If your audience is led to a certain
> view due to your speech, even if it's not something you explicitly
> stated, you are still the one who made them hold that view (or
> reinforced it, if they already held it before and you merely made a
> claim in support of their view).  From an utilitarian point of view, it
> is the effects of your actions, that matter.

For purposes of deciding what actions one should take to achieve a
certain goal, I certainly agree that what ultimately matters are the
predictable effects of one's actions, and not the intent behind them.
So, in that context, I agree with much of what you wrote above.

However, if you mean to suggest that people should be held accountable
for all effects of their actions, I must *strenuously* object.

For example, if a speaker at a Black Lives Matter protest gives a speech
which recounts the many unjustifiable killings of innocent black people
by police, and later that day some of the people attending the protest
loot small businesses, I hope that we can agree that it would be unjust
to hold the speaker accountable for that.

If speakers at a protest can be held accountable for the actions of
every person who attends the protest, then protests would *effectively*
become illegal, because the opposition can always hire infiltrators to
*ensure* that someone does something illegal.

In this case, if I cannot point out a "cosmetic changes" commit that
removes security fixes without being accused of insinuating that the
person was acting in bad faith, then effectively it becomes unsafe for
me to point out breaches such as this one.

> Let it be said, that I don't condemn you for starting this thread.  Not
> only did it highlight an issue, that would otherwise have gone
> unnoticed, I think 

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Leo Prikler]

Hi Mark,

Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 18:12 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
> Hi Leo,
> 
> Leo Prikler  writes:
> 
> > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 19:02 +0200 schrieb Giovanni Biscuolo:
> > > I also spent some time re-reading messages that Mark sent in this
> > > thread and, like him, I really don't understand what Mark did
> > > wrong.
> > > 
> > > For sure Mark /insisted/ that Raghav and Léo did something wrong
> > > with
> > > some commits, we can say Mark did it being /direct/ and
> > > /accusatory/
> > > but we cannot really say Mark assumed bad faith from them.
> > He did wrong insofar as his accusatory message read as though he
> > was
> > assuming bad faith
> 
> Can you please point out which of my words led you to conclude that I
> was assuming bad faith?
I am basing this on the following exchange:

Am Montag, den 26.04.2021, 19:17 +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> > I feel an obligation to protect our users, and among other things
> that
> > means calling attention to Guix committers that are doing things
> like
> > pushing commits with misleading commit logs (which evade proper
> review)
> > and pushing "cosmetic changes" that remove security fixes.
> 
> That you called attention on these issues is a great service to all
> of
> us, Mark.  But I have to agree with Ricardo: the harsh accusatory
> tone
> towards Raghav and Léo was not warranted; please assume good faith.
> 
To re-iterate, I believe you were (and are) right to call out commits
for their misleading messages, but the unique circumstances of this
thread led people to think you were assuming ill intent or something
along those lines.
Again, I might just be reading Ludo's message wrong here (and if not,
Ludo might have read Ricardo wrong at the time; the original message
seems to be directed towards Léo for insinuating you assumed bad faith
when you weren't).  That being said, I think it is fair to argue, that
some people read your posts as assuming bad faith from Léo and some did
the reverse.  I can't put hard numbers to that, but given the number of
participants an existence "proof" ought to suffice.

> For what it's worth, I have *never* assumed bad faith, and I don't
> think
> I said anything to imply it either.
> 
> > (or at the very least incompetence, which, if you are the party
> > being
> > accused, does not sound too nice either).
> 
> I pointed out facts.  I did not engage in speculation beyond the
> facts.
Well, you did fumble on those facts a little, because the true history
of the misleading commits was only discovered later.  So did I in the
same thread.  Either way, "just pointing out facts" is not an accurate
assessment in my opinion; facts are nothing without interpretation,
which see.

> Here, I think that you are making your own speculations based on the
> facts that I uncovered, and are attributing those speculations to me.
> That's unfair.  Your speculations are not my responsibility.
> 
> Moreover, even if it were true that most people would make similar
> speculations based on the facts I exposed, that's not my
> responsibility
> either.
Here, I believe, you are wrong.  If your audience is led to a certain
view due to your speech, even if it's not something you explicitly
stated, you are still the one who made them hold that view (or
reinforced it, if they already held it before and you merely made a
claim in support of their view).  From an utilitarian point of view, it
is the effects of your actions, that matter.

> > > If you want you can consider Mark used an /harsh/ tone but this
> > > is a
> > > personal feeling, something one /could/ read "between the lines"
> > > even
> > > if actually in a written communication I find it hard to read
> > > between
> > > the lines, it is not something factual.  Maybe Mark intended to
> > > be
> > > harsh, maybe not: who knows?  Is /this/ (finding he was harsh)
> > > important?
> > It is definitely of some importance.
> 
> I agree that it's of some importance, but it's also a fundamentally
> hard
> thing to do.  I'm genuinely surprised by some of the claims being
> made
> about my messages, especially the claim that I assumed "bad
> faith".  I
> didn't say anything to imply that, I didn't think it, and I still
> don't.
I agree, it is hard, and it is also not immediately obvious what
effects a given statement might have.  We can only ever evaluate such
things a posteriori and try to learn from them.

> Sorry, what I meant to write above was "it's also fundamentally hard
> to
> anticipate the 'tone' that others will attribute to my writing."
Don't worry, that's more or less the way I read it.  In case you
wonder, the way I read it "reading between lines" is hard, which
certainly also holds, especially outside one's first language.

Let it be said, that I don't condemn you for starting this thread.  Not
only did it highlight an issue, that would otherwise have gone
unnoticed, I think most of the participants are now more acutely aware
of what might go wrong if they evade review.  

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Mark H Weaver]

Mark H Weaver  writes:

> Leo Prikler  writes:
>
>> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 19:02 +0200 schrieb Giovanni Biscuolo:
>>> If you want you can consider Mark used an /harsh/ tone but this is a
>>> personal feeling, something one /could/ read "between the lines" even
>>> if actually in a written communication I find it hard to read between
>>> the lines, it is not something factual.  Maybe Mark intended to be
>>> harsh, maybe not: who knows?  Is /this/ (finding he was harsh)
>>> important?
>> It is definitely of some importance.
>
> I agree that it's of some importance, but it's also a fundamentally hard
> thing to do.

Sorry, what I meant to write above was "it's also fundamentally hard to
anticipate the 'tone' that others will attribute to my writing."

> I'm genuinely surprised by some of the claims being made
> about my messages, especially the claim that I assumed "bad faith".  I
> didn't say anything to imply that, I didn't think it, and I still don't.
>
> Thanks for discussing this, Leo.  I appreciate your feedback, even where
> we disagree.

  Regards,
Mark

-- 
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts.  Ask me about .

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Leo,

Leo Prikler  writes:

> Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 19:02 +0200 schrieb Giovanni Biscuolo:
>> I also spent some time re-reading messages that Mark sent in this
>> thread and, like him, I really don't understand what Mark did wrong.
>> 
>> For sure Mark /insisted/ that Raghav and Léo did something wrong with
>> some commits, we can say Mark did it being /direct/ and /accusatory/
>> but we cannot really say Mark assumed bad faith from them.
> He did wrong insofar as his accusatory message read as though he was
> assuming bad faith

Can you please point out which of my words led you to conclude that I
was assuming bad faith?

For what it's worth, I have *never* assumed bad faith, and I don't think
I said anything to imply it either.

> (or at the very least incompetence, which, if you are the party being
> accused, does not sound too nice either).

I pointed out facts.  I did not engage in speculation beyond the facts.

Here, I think that you are making your own speculations based on the
facts that I uncovered, and are attributing those speculations to me.
That's unfair.  Your speculations are not my responsibility.

Moreover, even if it were true that most people would make similar
speculations based on the facts I exposed, that's not my responsibility
either.

>> If you want you can consider Mark used an /harsh/ tone but this is a
>> personal feeling, something one /could/ read "between the lines" even
>> if actually in a written communication I find it hard to read between
>> the lines, it is not something factual.  Maybe Mark intended to be
>> harsh, maybe not: who knows?  Is /this/ (finding he was harsh)
>> important?
> It is definitely of some importance.

I agree that it's of some importance, but it's also a fundamentally hard
thing to do.  I'm genuinely surprised by some of the claims being made
about my messages, especially the claim that I assumed "bad faith".  I
didn't say anything to imply that, I didn't think it, and I still don't.

Thanks for discussing this, Leo.  I appreciate your feedback, even where
we disagree.

 Regards,
   Mark

-- 
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts.  Ask me about .

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Leo Prikler]

Hello Giovanni,

I am not Mark or Ludo, but as a /generic other/, I'd still like to
reply.

Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 19:02 +0200 schrieb Giovanni Biscuolo:
> Hello Mark and Ludovic,
> 
> please forgive me if I'm going forward with this thread but, after
> some
> hesitation, I decided to write this message because I /feel/ we could
> do
> better in dealing with issues like this one.
> 
> Please when you'll read "you" consider it a /generic you/ ("you the
> reader") not Mark, Ludovic or any specific person;  please also
> consider
> that "we" is a /plurali maiestatis/ :-D
Nitpick, should be /pluralis/ :P

> I also spent some time re-reading messages that Mark sent in this
> thread
> and, like him, I really don't understand what Mark did wrong.
> 
> For sure Mark /insisted/ that Raghav and Léo did something wrong with
> some commits, we can say Mark did it being /direct/ and /accusatory/
> but
> we cannot really say Mark assumed bad faith from them.
He did wrong insofar as his accusatory message read as though he was
assuming bad faith (or at the very least incompetence, which, if you
are the party being accused, does not sound too nice either).

> If you want you can consider Mark used an /harsh/ tone but this is a
> personal feeling, something one /could/ read "between the lines" even
> if
> actually in a written communication I find it hard to read between
> the
> lines, it is not something factual.  Maybe Mark intended to be harsh,
> maybe not: who knows?  Is /this/ (finding he was harsh) important?
It is definitely of some importance.  You want your readers to
interpret your message in the same way you interpret them and "sounding
pointlessly harsh" is (I would assume) not the way anyone wants to be
read.  Of course, there is a complex interplay between reader and
writer at hand here, but only one variable for the writer to control.

In this case, what was read between the lines caused one of the
participants to assume a very defensive stance, and might also have
been uncomfortable for others, who were involved.  While I personally
disagree with tone policing (the act of dismissing criticism based
solely on issues of tone), I think trying to phrase things in a way
you're less likely to be misunderstood is in general a good idea.

> As I said above, at most Mark communication should be considered
> /direct/ and /accusatory/, I say this considering statements like
> this:
> 
> «Léo Le Bouter [...] bears primary responsibility for these
> mistakes.»
> 
> «I would very much like to hear an explanation from Léo about how
> this
> happened.»
> 
> «Nonetheless, you (Raghav) also bear some responsibility»
> 
> «blatantly [1] misleading commit log [...] Most of the changes above
> are
> not mentioned in the commit log at all, and of course the summary
> line
> is extremely misleading.»
Each of those phrases on their own might not look too bad, but
stringing them together like this constructs an image in which Mark is
just looking for someone to blame.  Of course, with full context, it's
slightly less severe, but you can't ignore the possibility, that your
conversation partner might choose to get riled up by those alone.

> So: Mark gave responsibilities and complained "loudly" about
> misleading
> commits, giving precise explanations of the reasons for how bad he
> considered the situation, from his point of view (the point of view
> of a
> person with competence /and/ previous commints in the domain he was
> analyzing).  You can agree or disagree with him, but /now/ this is
> not
> the point.
> 
> You can call it /accusation/, I call it /asking for responsibility/.
> 
> You can call it /harsh/, I call it /direct/.
> 
> Is it really important to find a proper definition for words used by
> Mark?  Is it important to define if some word was proper or improper
> to
> in this context?
> 
> In my opinion we should refrain questioning language here (I mean in
> Guix mailing lists), especially questioning (perceived) "tone";
> /unless/
> containing accusations of bad faith or insults, we should be
> forgiving
> /each other/ on how people choose how to use [2] language.
> 
> If we question language usage we risk to shame people for improper
> use
> of language and this is bad in my opinion because we risk to isolate
> or
> alienate people who - for whatever reason they choose - use direct
> (or
> harsh, or accusatory) language to express controversial ideas or
> report
> issues, never intending to offend really no one: please respect
> people
> /also/ if you find they improperly use language.
You make a somewhat decent point against tone policing and since I
agree on the position, I don't want to take away from your argument. 
However, I think it'd be better not to consider this as an issue of
people "choosing to be harsh" (which could well be avoided), but in
terms of inclusivity (not everyone is a native English speaker and we
come from different cultural backgrounds; we shouldn't discourage people from 

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Giovanni Biscuolo]

Hello Mark and Ludovic,

please forgive me if I'm going forward with this thread but, after some
hesitation, I decided to write this message because I /feel/ we could do
better in dealing with issues like this one.

Please when you'll read "you" consider it a /generic you/ ("you the
reader") not Mark, Ludovic or any specific person;  please also consider
that "we" is a /plurali maiestatis/ :-D

Mark H Weaver  writes:

> Ludovic Courtès  writes:

[...]

>> That you called attention on these issues is a great service to all of
>> us, Mark.  But I have to agree with Ricardo: the harsh accusatory tone
>> towards Raghav and Léo was not warranted; please assume good faith.
>
> I'm sorry if this comes off as obtuse, but having now re-read all of my
> messages in this thread, I honestly do not see what I did wrong here.
> I will need some help to understand.

I also spent some time re-reading messages that Mark sent in this thread
and, like him, I really don't understand what Mark did wrong.

For sure Mark /insisted/ that Raghav and Léo did something wrong with
some commits, we can say Mark did it being /direct/ and /accusatory/ but
we cannot really say Mark assumed bad faith from them.

If you want you can consider Mark used an /harsh/ tone but this is a
personal feeling, something one /could/ read "between the lines" even if
actually in a written communication I find it hard to read between the
lines, it is not something factual.  Maybe Mark intended to be harsh,
maybe not: who knows?  Is /this/ (finding he was harsh) important?

As I said above, at most Mark communication should be considered
/direct/ and /accusatory/, I say this considering statements like this:

«Léo Le Bouter [...] bears primary responsibility for these mistakes.»

«I would very much like to hear an explanation from Léo about how this
happened.»

«Nonetheless, you (Raghav) also bear some responsibility»

«blatantly [1] misleading commit log [...] Most of the changes above are
not mentioned in the commit log at all, and of course the summary line
is extremely misleading.»

So: Mark gave responsibilities and complained "loudly" about misleading
commits, giving precise explanations of the reasons for how bad he
considered the situation, from his point of view (the point of view of a
person with competence /and/ previous commints in the domain he was
analyzing).  You can agree or disagree with him, but /now/ this is not
the point.

You can call it /accusation/, I call it /asking for responsibility/.

You can call it /harsh/, I call it /direct/.

Is it really important to find a proper definition for words used by
Mark?  Is it important to define if some word was proper or improper to
in this context?

In my opinion we should refrain questioning language here (I mean in
Guix mailing lists), especially questioning (perceived) "tone"; /unless/
containing accusations of bad faith or insults, we should be forgiving
/each other/ on how people choose how to use [2] language.

If we question language usage we risk to shame people for improper use
of language and this is bad in my opinion because we risk to isolate or
alienate people who - for whatever reason they choose - use direct (or
harsh, or accusatory) language to express controversial ideas or report
issues, never intending to offend really no one: please respect people
/also/ if you find they improperly use language.

[...]

> It would be very helpful if you could point out specific messages or
> quotes of mine to illustrate your criticisms, and to clearly explain
> what's wrong with them.  I'm not trying to be obstructionist here.  I
> honestly don't understand, and I cannot improve without understanding.

Also, if I overlooked, misinterpreted or missed something please tell me
so I can also improve.

Thanks! Giovanni.



[1] in a way that is very obvious and intentional, when this is a bad
thing (from Cambridge Dictionary).

[2] or misuse, in case of not native (or not so good) english speakers

-- 
Giovanni Biscuolo

Xelera IT Infrastructures


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[aviva]

On 4/28/21 12:43 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> I'm sorry if this comes off as obtuse, but having now re-read all of my
> messages in this thread, I honestly do not see what I did wrong here.
> I will need some help to understand.



please save it

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Matias Jose Seco Baccanelli]

Hello! 
In Guix i feel there's a precious source that's enriching my
experience: mutualism
There's a lot of building together, of helping each other out.
It's a refreshing opportunity to see how positive cooperation brings a
lot of good energy.

Have a Happy Thursday!
Matias

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Léo Le Bouter]

On Wed, 2021-04-28 at 12:43 -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> I'm sorry if this comes off as obtuse, but having now re-read all of
> my
> messages in this thread, I honestly do not see what I did wrong here.
> I will need some help to understand.
> 
> With very few exceptions, almost every sentence that I wrote was
> purely
> factual.  It seems to me that the facts speak for themselves, and
> those
> facts naturally cast Raghav and Léo in a bad light.  I don't see how
> to
> avoid that while still presenting the facts.
> 
> You, and a couple of others, have criticized my "tone".  This is very
> subjective, especially over email where we must *imagine* the tone of
> the speaker.  Is it possible that you read more in my messages than I
> actually wrote?
> 
> It would be very helpful if you could point out specific messages or
> quotes of mine to illustrate your criticisms, and to clearly explain
> what's wrong with them.  I'm not trying to be obstructionist here.  I
> honestly don't understand, and I cannot improve without
> understanding.
> 
>  Thanks,
>Mark
> 

If you really do not understand, I encourage you read 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication and associated
works.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Joshua Branson]

If you'll allow me to comment Mark, I would say that I valued your
commitment to discover how to avoid a repeat of the problem.  It is nice
to see someone truly care about a project and insist a problem does not
repeat itself.

In practical terms, putting a few smiley faces in emails probably
helps.  Especially near any criticisms of others.

May I mention two book recommendations that I've loved?  (Leaders are
readers, so I read a lot!)

Crucial Conversations is a fantastic book that argues that you can talk
about ANYTHING with anyone AND be completely respectful.  A crucial
conversation is something like "Honey, I don't think we make love
enough.  May we talk about that?"  THAT'S a CRUCIAL CONVERSATION.
Everybody is emotionally invested in the outcome of the conversation.

So how do you have a good conversation?

1) Focus on your goal.  Remind yourself that your goal is to be SUPER
respectful to all parties and also to show your point of view and also
to believe that you do not know everything and your solution may not be
the best one.   It is easy in crucial conversations to be silent or
violent.  To either SCREAM your view or not to express your view.  This
is a false choice.  You CAN be respectful AND persuasive AND open to be
persuaded.  :)

2)  Create dialog.  Dialog happens when there is free flow of
information.  This happens when both people are adding information to
the pool of shared meaning.  Dialog comes before the decision.  I like
to say something like, "Let's both honestly add information to our pool
of shared meaning.  Before we make a decision what are some objective
facts that we both should know?  Having more facts will help us reach a
better decision.  Please be completely honest.  What am I missing here?
What do you know that I don't?"

You can read more about some of the tips in crucial conversations.  But
that is perhaps one of the greatest books I've ever read.



Another great book is How to Win Friends and Influence People.  It's in
the public domain.  You can download it now.  Here are a couple of
principles that are super interesting.

- Never criticize.
  "I have spent the best years of my life giving people the lighter
  pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the
  existence of a hunted man."  -  Al  Capone.  Almost no one thinks of
  themselves as a bad person.  Criticizing almost never gets the result
  that you want.

  Lincoln was considered to be one of America's greatest leaders.  He
  learned the hard way that criticizing is a terrible idea.  It almost
  cost him his life.

  "In the autumn of 1842 he ridiculed a vain, pugnacious politician by
  the name of James Shields.  Lincoln lampooned him through an anonymous
  letter published in the Springfield Journal.  The town roared with
  laughter. Shields, sensitive and proud, boiled with indignation.  He
  found out who wrote the letter, leaped on his horse, started after
  Lincoln, and challenged him to fight a duel.  Lincoln didn't want to
  fight.  He was opposed to dueling, but he couldn't get out of it and
  save his honor.  He was given the choice of weapons.  Since he had
  very long arms, he chose cavalry broadswords and took lessons in sword
  fighting from a West Point graduate; and on the appointed day, he and
  Shields met on a sandbar in the Mississippi River, prepared to fight
  to the death; but at the last minute, their seconds interrupted and
  stopped the duel.

  That was the most lurid personal incident in Lincoln's life.  It
  taught him an invaluable lesson in the art of dealing with people.
  Never again did he write an insulting letter.  Never again did he
  ridicule anyone.  And from that time on, he never criticized anybody
  for anything."

  - Lavish people in praise (publicly if possible)
  "One of the first people in American business to be paid a salary of
  over a million dollars a year (when there was no income take and a
  person earning fifty dollars a week was considered well off) was
  Charles Schwab.  He had been picked by Andrew Carnegie to become the
  first president of the newly formed United States Steel Company in
  1921, when Schwab was only 38 years old.  (Schwab later left
  U.S. Steel to take over the then-troubled Bethlehem Steel Company, and
  he rebuilt it into one of the most profitable companies in America).

  Why did Andrew Carnegie pay a million dollars a year, or more than
  three thousand dollars a day, to Charles Schwab?  Why?  Because Schwab
  was a genius? No.  Because he know more about the manufacture of steel
  than other people?  Nonsense.  Charles Schwab told me himself that he
  had many men working for him who knew more about the manufacture of
  steel that he did.

  Schwab says that he was paid this salary largely because of his
  ability to deal with people.  I asked him how he did it.  Here is his
  secret set down in his own words --words that ought to be cast in
  eternal bronze and hung in every home and school, 

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Pjotr Prins]

Dear Leo,

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 01:55:25PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> You should have sent a message that explained the problem and tried to
> teach the solution. I've seen you do it many times before; 

That is perhaps fair comment. It is always best to be constructive and
not too personal. The latter is probably what rubs people the wrong
way, especially in public. Good advice, in other words.

Going by my experience in Guix - if we were to meet personally we
would all be impressed by each other, that includes the other Leo and
Mark. I think Guix developers are special and all have made
interesting journeys to get here. Lisp is an great filter. I wonder
how we end up with more Leos than Marks, however ;)

But let me defend Mark here (a little). I'll only do this once. I
don't think it was malicious even if it did not look nice. Truth is we
should also try to look a little beyond the surface.  The intention
matters. What I read was exasperation.

But really, partly to prevent character assassination, I think that if
anyone crosses a line the accuser should use our complaints channels.
That is what they are for. We should not accuse each other about
behaviour in a public channel. Mostly because it is very hard to
defend oneself against opinion (of a majority). 

Pj.

Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Leo Famulari]

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:43:53PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> I'm sorry if this comes off as obtuse, but having now re-read all of my
> messages in this thread, I honestly do not see what I did wrong here.
> I will need some help to understand.

It's common advice that managers and leaders should "praise in public
and criticize in private".

Assuming that the goal of the criticism is to improve somebody's work,
and it must be done in public, then criticism must be carefully
calibrated to avoid making them feel defensive, humiliated, and angry.
It was correct to point out these mistakes in public but, based on the
result, I conclude that your message was not calibrated well.

The beginning of this email discussion began by naming a perpretrator
and pointing out that it was part of a pattern of mistakes, rather than
focusing on the mistake.

The next part said, "Behold [...]". As a native USA English speaker, I
claim that we only use "Behold" ironically and sarcastically.

The message ended by casting aspersions on Raghav's status in Guix.

At no point did you concretely describe the problem, or try to teach
Raghav what the solution was, or try to explain the correct workflow
regarding security updates.

You should have sent a message that explained the problem and tried to
teach the solution. I've seen you do it many times before; I don't know
why you sent that sarcastic and mean message instead.

Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Ludovic,

Ludovic Courtès  writes:

> Mark H Weaver  skribis:
>
>> Léo Le Bouter  writes:
>>
>>> It seems you are more focused and spend more time sending accusations
>>> here than collaboratively working to improve GNU Guix. I don't feel
>>> like that's something great to do at all.
>>
>> I feel an obligation to protect our users, and among other things that
>> means calling attention to Guix committers that are doing things like
>> pushing commits with misleading commit logs (which evade proper review)
>> and pushing "cosmetic changes" that remove security fixes.
>
> That you called attention on these issues is a great service to all of
> us, Mark.  But I have to agree with Ricardo: the harsh accusatory tone
> towards Raghav and Léo was not warranted; please assume good faith.

I'm sorry if this comes off as obtuse, but having now re-read all of my
messages in this thread, I honestly do not see what I did wrong here.
I will need some help to understand.

With very few exceptions, almost every sentence that I wrote was purely
factual.  It seems to me that the facts speak for themselves, and those
facts naturally cast Raghav and Léo in a bad light.  I don't see how to
avoid that while still presenting the facts.

You, and a couple of others, have criticized my "tone".  This is very
subjective, especially over email where we must *imagine* the tone of
the speaker.  Is it possible that you read more in my messages than I
actually wrote?

It would be very helpful if you could point out specific messages or
quotes of mine to illustrate your criticisms, and to clearly explain
what's wrong with them.  I'm not trying to be obstructionist here.  I
honestly don't understand, and I cannot improve without understanding.

 Thanks,
   Mark

-- 
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts.  Ask me about .