From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x42c.google.com (mail-wr1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6542E38460A2 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:42:45 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 6542E38460A2 Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id p6so20228155wrn.9 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 07:42:45 -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=08MmpyoDAs9pzdwvxT7mVyHa3bSrVtwbcj7slCigCHg=; b=MNjy5LlKsGyAJnF+pxhIvjSvznjpV0eSQ14uGG2e8H+uhCu3XTJB7ZShDu8OjvmmRz 1cjwsv5TKKJAUzBRDH+WOEGE+tRtjfKTCQULAsj6+k1ywx1rrSaUurw1FycTS4XdVmVQ hb0bU0kPj7oP1rH/Sach3esahaTr4zHaRnC4q5VtrH1mKTC5Okfl0JqPU1DN4q7AJYPj 3gLv/STbKJWCtc9OC06N6ixwkjMERaSjTD4Fc30HpjW/jPn1IC4mTk3p+ildyi18byyg njlESSGW4HDLZobcIJ3aUvKJL9AITT7syFEmF6z1eqiy6ZhXDhd3hDM/E1O6174RBxt6 waMw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530fgOb81+S5EzCT1gBk3WBffPZfGOQHqXyNe2R/r0XU9AmsFzM9 68LMsEs6XU7Flo8i/MsgNrTF6Q7AXrY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyAl1hbm+Tyh9HGGeVairZ0TV0xn0VDy+nrS0z4PO6uoy3Kmdu8fK904O0MdpBOTxWdVKf48Q== X-Received: by 2002:adf:ef8b:: with SMTP id d11mr9351053wro.107.1618584164454; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 07:42:44 -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 w4sm10617561wrp.58.2021.04.16.07.42.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 07:42:43 -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 15:42:42 +0100 Cc: Kalamatee , Thomas Koenig Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <9D9B7215-170A-42B0-8AFC-55C8ED458FF5@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> <373293F2-E35A-4DF0-AA05-7F20E394F2CA@googlemail.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, KAM_SHORT, 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 14:42:55 -0000 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