From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FC1C385703A for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 20:58:35 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 5FC1C385703A X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [213.165.168.94] ([213.165.168.94]) by web-mail.gmx.net (3c-app-mailcom-bs09.server.lan [172.19.170.177]) (via HTTP); Thu, 15 Apr 2021 22:58:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: From: Christopher Dimech To: Iain Sandoe Cc: GCC Development Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 22:58:32 +0200 Importance: normal Sensitivity: Normal In-Reply-To: <52931F1E-C9E0-46D7-924E-0E561D409518@sandoe.co.uk> References: <20210414131843.GA4138043@thyrsus.com> <093dbfde-a7b5-a55c-8a03-3e82460bce67@acm.org> <82189248-2E7D-46FF-A0A4-7C3D79463D54@comcast.net> <20210415140057.GB51340@thyrsus.com> <6E1497BE-EF6F-4B31-9BAE-27D91C541804@comcast.net> <7EC5CBE6-1A1C-460E-9778-62B2463E579F@sandoe.co.uk> <52931F1E-C9E0-46D7-924E-0E561D409518@sandoe.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-UI-Message-Type: mail X-Priority: 3 X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:oTQzlpwSMEN6JrcMtU4zNY/VECY7EhEO7dYKfMCgE2moK3lq4obMuSvAkKi2+wSvgMckL 8pQcVQ10YHcKOtCp09XN7XtuS3CqvFDpmwd9d2+XvZdmpaEnsGlZF14KUd7BWe75jggVnT983zFz 2EAyQt1DDpZaSHx9qD8BIDIfXqdOlTSiLB+1stm3vkMM8aBd1vXzHxfK54WVCkTeHIV9ZB+ueMiB DkbMuks1nxGohm2gex5I3RYTG/hL/7iomsBYImmvHtrnJ0QfKJbqqraaGd0ocFiTyBR4efFLfMTG eY= X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:NxWp8YHVdXo=:HRXCDAd75Fgl/pUNpp4DRJ 9JpLFdOAd3N7HdYRBk3fB5/gHD9v/9iCSRrg8Prq0uuqgFBdkJpQJAtWsXexAil7lS58O1MYJ XUCrNWGIgTA0CHpBRgOOtbkbzXBtrAXLcPMQmGvTLly6tzliHW5UImwdKX+0oNLlJIJVkhUpd hm7ILXAJt9XD9DKqeyGkWPkyd1elNjeyXCd27emNC62xA2FRawv1yeQfrEGxneGKmA3oeTZ7N PaiwtaL/7dTsFU1dz1zmm2Tz+yWPJRkWdG3Xk066uHTv4Ywwd8cuSVnvDMsiTVlALOgQHVJOJ GdwYBMgcD9zoeTXQtCewoj7L0+t1WzFZFHzQXRms+YYz1V4NXEgnvvFXLXnGicLenj3Aojl5o r0HZyg3wYrcivhART1Genucov6eScIW2UXYQRP8j42eKeRSKI1zRYAfMyNGxAYrbuALvotbp2 iod+PN9L0kuKorDSU6zhz+oMZpwvP/Pn3mwfQYFKnnFbsS+k1gvcagNOEDr1Ll0Wj5xvjmAIg dkIfDdiOIkehf3Zn+ksWACxURYriUiVvsAMrby/Hb0bnYsRoWPS6VX6Aj47m8yn93piI96mxJ p2kgXV68wMnXAZwQDB41Y/h43kjxshs+8Mvh/ZTVZbYLaab/Sf8fw0VPzFNSz9gDx9afNCU01 zGgIrGwitjVqc9+/29TzyVGklaAkvkPC9ZZRgaB6lab+UzLjCLr9fxQz+PO4r/32nDmNFA0z8 zVdga4kc2QyGklMqujY4xp+fE6fhI74/MjWMDbk9iwE0IDoZX8JQz9tTAhY0Iqwa1kFE/j6Tt hOwNihiBGf/n8lEMpiqaF9l+bR6VZusPHMhy9IPw6i7ra3vn+gcQltZV3Dj/5pqOykrkHInYo /kcOp7aUrD6GFjTzYadTE5nQs39zhOTURr8XL/iu5WFiZ6QaXAGTe05sYAxY7H X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3029.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, LIKELY_SPAM_BODY, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, 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: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 20:58:37 -0000 > >> =3D=3D=3D > >> > >> So =2E=2E in summary: > >> > >> 1/ I propose that we do have written guidelines, to which someone beh= aving > >> in a > >> non-constructive manner can be pointed=2E > >> > >> 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 customar= y in matters > >> such as employment law here, at least), then they are treated no = differently from > >> any other spam=2E > > > > Proposing the guidelines essentially means that the community accepts = the =20 > > fact > > that many of us are incapable of navigate everyday problems and dilemm= as =20 > > by making > > =E2=80=9Cright=E2=80=9D decisions based on the use of good judgment an= d values rather =20 > > than sterile > > sets of rules and conventions that typically disregard the individual,= =20 > > the particular, > > or the discrete=2E >=20 > However, that isn=E2=80=99t what I wrote - what I wrote was the opposite= ; that =20 > history shows > that almost everyone communicating on these lists can do so constructive= ly =20 > *without* > recourse to written guidelines=2E >=20 > It is not the general case that has precipitated this discussion but, = =20 > rather, the exceptional=2E There have been many discussions emanating from Nathan's messages, that=20 toxity is endemic=2E I disagree with that in practice as you do=2E =20 But there are some discussions that potentially lead to the opposite=2E I feel that when the issues at hand produce a series of contrasting views that are significant=2E taking a guideline approach could result =20 > > Thusly, it is wrong to suggest that the problems are simply associate= d with RMS, FSF and GNU=2E >=20 > My mail contains no reference to any of these, but simply to identifying= =20 > processes > that have failed to work in discussions (about those topics, granted)=2E No, your message did not reference that=2E But was a general assessment o= f what I have seen developing=2E Indeed, the discussion started with the same person suggesting "white male privilege", the source of all toxicity comin= g from one individual and those associated with him, etc=2E =20 > > Human beings have the capacity to be wise and develop their thoughts o= n =20 > > wise > > decision-making skills that evolve from a combination of experience, = =20 > > empathy, > > and intellect=2E Many times, this means having the capacity to break = those > > guidelines and rules=2E >=20 > =E2=80=9Crules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise m= en=E2=80=9D? >=20 > As noted above, 99=2E99% (guessed of course) of the list traffic is carr= ied =20 > out in > the guise you mention, and probably would continue to be so=E2=80=A6 >=20 > =E2=80=A6 the proposal is to have a mechanism to deal with the exception= al=2E That depends on the arguments of the discussion=2E It is acceptable at ti= mes to respond roughly to some kinds of discursive treatment=2E Although Nath= an was allowed to write, he was surely aware of the implications - that a=20 schism was likely=2E =20 > > In the World Trade Center Disaster, many people who were used to foll= owing > > the rules died because they did what they were told by authority figur= es=2E > > I know about these things as part of my industrial work experience=2E >=20 > Probably almost no-one =E2=80=9Chere=E2=80=9D would be able to substanti= ate or deny this - =20 > am I to > take it that it is a serious data point suggesting that absence of contr= ol =20 > is a better > process? There have been numerous historical instances - let's say in the journalis= tic realm where I do operate - when that was true=2E Still, I am not against moderation when required in principle=2E Indeed, = it=20 is part of the job as maintainer (and co-maintainers, etc=2E) to exercise= =20 authority on these points when they arise=2E Personally, I am not afraid = to exercise them when associated with my own work=2E =20 Customarily, I would not oppose to intervention, except on special instanc= es when the assessments was faulty - I specifically mention Gnu Health and th= e arguments Dr=2E Luis Falcon had with Savannah regarding package admin=2E = May I remind everybody that Argentina opted for GNU Health for COVID19 observato= ry and contact tracing=2E At the time, I was also doing my own work on COVID= 19 and considered my intervention necessary=2E > There is no counter experiment to determine the outcome in the case that= =20 > there > were no authority figures and no rules (nor would anyone wish to conduct= =20 > such an > experiment)=2E >=20 > To me this is spurious input, I cannot see how it could be used to make = any =20 > guidance > to the progress here=2E >=20 > Iain >=20 > > > >> * although one might lose some notionally valuable input, the judg= ement here is that > >> the net benefit of such input is negative=2E > >> > >> 3/ I would recommend on the basis of another online community (about = =20 > >> 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=2E > >> > >> (I=E2=80=99d believe that any valid exception to the need to heed s= ome political situation would > >> be readily recognised by the participants here)=2E > >> > >> 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=2E99% of thi= s list traffic is managed > >> without intervention=2E > >> > >> my 0=2E02GBP only, "patches welcome", > >> Iain >=20 >=20 >