From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x429.google.com (mail-wr1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65B1D389041C for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:54:24 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 65B1D389041C Received: by mail-wr1-x429.google.com with SMTP id x7so25885739wrw.10 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 01:54:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=SlF1RrOqFJsde8r7qpw0iU6EM5WMYIgTlvxbmaLgv4k=; b=sFrQhR+xe349GsXt8GR6sewWPHBCx/9GqA5tTnsNgz8pSErQgAA/Yrvty3SUBb5SyO V0vrK0+i6wRCiJZSKarKSxWHcRjZQneoZiAmA65alprO25ro7Zv7GrPqiq21XcgSBcKB aS40oeSaH6sJP027a5QkXPaTl7JoQSGIswfsQEIZEyL8PjE7MZEQErxGxYraIoIBvvbB QCyCKJt6nfUB9NNg8YIwGqJXQlo9BDwrvTzbFiVc0eeXS0Qb5JZp3IwEWoCeq8JgX6CE Bbgy1wdFKaUceosRLtIRM1VWpVR6CHtw9TZBAi3t47WCCK8hLrQe2Y2sk9nk4KS2lKCq khdQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533kYpc7phQOlrjDcOw0uQ9GLlyHcsr6+y4jOkMIhgl4h/jZ4Rgi xDxm9rCyinQL5dbQRnQjWc+A0QoQK5Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyVRbJHHY5ZnzhiHRjjqA7XQKdGmi6QAeIMUUexLaXeZ2bMjxK5e9WgB4DWt5P3MAiFyB34hA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4010:: with SMTP id n16mr7925954wrp.225.1618563263445; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 01:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.212] (host81-138-1-83.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [81.138.1.83]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id c8sm9882565wrd.55.2021.04.16.01.54.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 01:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; delsp=yes; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers From: Iain Sandoe In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:54:21 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <373293F2-E35A-4DF0-AA05-7F20E394F2CA@googlemail.com> References: <20210414131843.GA4138043@thyrsus.com> <20210414142310.98E0833DD0@vlsi1.gnat.com> <20210414152112.GD4138043@thyrsus.com> <20210415134907.GA51340@thyrsus.com> <96db05d78cb1f829d0b3ce3026ac15a335fffd41.camel@redhat.com> <20210415232851.GA67555@thyrsus.com> To: GCC Development X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, LIKELY_SPAM_BODY, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:54:28 -0000 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