zlacker

[parent] [thread] 29 comments
1. myname+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-10-02 15:18:02
It’s crazy to think that advocating for reasonable, non-toxic people to work with receives this kind response.

Inclusivity and non-hostile work environments should not be considered “perfect” and “all-inclusive”. They should be basic. The default. The lowest bar possible.

replies(8): >>mid-ki+G >>ectopo+V3 >>aaaaaa+k5 >>zo1+Oa >>throw8+Qa >>zozbot+oo >>lelant+tW >>niscoc+kT1
2. mid-ki+G[view] [source] 2022-10-02 15:22:23
>>myname+(OP)
Just as many people have problems with this form of communication, many people find it hard to clearly express themselves in an environment where they're expected to put people's feelings above all else. What some might perceive as "hostile", others would simply call "honest". It's simply a matter of preference.
replies(2): >>myname+Q2 >>nickm1+zf5
◧◩
3. myname+Q2[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-02 15:34:19
>>mid-ki+G
No, it’s not “simply a matter of preference” when it causes someone else to be in a hostile work environment. At that point, you’re affecting the lives of those around you. Sure, some people have medical conditions that might prevent them from seeing this, but even they put in an effort to be better. It stops being a “preference” when it actively hurts those around you.

If you are an asshole, are known to be an asshole, have no intention of changing that, and are working with others… maybe don’t. You’re free to work alone, but why make people around you miserable by having to deal with you? Go be an asshole to yourself and let everyone else work together.

It’s shocking that advocating for safe and inclusive work environments is such a controversial topic. If he were any other person, his behavior would be quashed in a second.

replies(3): >>LunaSe+A4 >>throw8+2c >>Vt71fc+Up
4. ectopo+V3[view] [source] 2022-10-02 15:40:35
>>myname+(OP)
Which is worse?

a) Having poor communication skills.

b) Describing people as toxic.

replies(3): >>myname+K4 >>ajkjk+E7 >>krater+n9
◧◩◪
5. LunaSe+A4[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-02 15:44:48
>>myname+Q2
Aren't other people joining his project in this case?
replies(1): >>myname+e8
◧◩
6. myname+K4[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-02 15:45:34
>>ectopo+V3
If the shoe fits.

Do you have any actual counter points or were you planning on beating that ad hominem to death?

7. aaaaaa+k5[view] [source] 2022-10-02 15:48:25
>>myname+(OP)
>work environments

It’s not a “work environment”. You can’t report Linus to HR. If you have a problem with him, you can fork the kernel and convince others to follow you. Then you’ll have a mailing list where you can ban Linus for his style. Good luck!

replies(1): >>myname+g7
◧◩
8. myname+g7[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-02 16:00:12
>>aaaaaa+k5
Yes because if he were at any company, he’d have been fired. Decades ago.

Just because it’s not an official “work environment” per your definition does not mean it isn’t hostile or intolerable were it actually one.

But actually countering that point is a lot harder, isn’t it?

replies(4): >>krater+Pa >>throw8+3d >>_dain_+Ff >>aaaaaa+fn
◧◩
9. ajkjk+E7[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-02 16:02:12
>>ectopo+V3
Well the latter isn't a bad thing so the former, I guess?
◧◩◪◨
10. myname+e8[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-02 16:05:34
>>LunaSe+A4
Would it make it more ok if people were?

How many people are joining? How many people are joining because or in lieu of Linus? How many people are joining just because it’s Linux/Git/whatever (although granted that is in part due to Linus making them such big things)? How many people would have joined/wouldn’t have left if he wasn’t there?

replies(1): >>LunaSe+U8
◧◩◪◨⬒
11. LunaSe+U8[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-02 16:08:53
>>myname+e8
That doesn't matter.

It is his project and people are free ton join or start their own.

replies(1): >>myname+Sa
◧◩
12. krater+n9[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-02 16:11:19
>>ectopo+V3
b
13. zo1+Oa[view] [source] 2022-10-02 16:19:36
>>myname+(OP)
I am a nice person and consider myself fair to everyone I work with, everyone gets a fair shot and a clean slate with me. But having to jump through verbal hoops to make my interactions "inclusive" and what these people would call non-hostile is downright hellish for me and way more effort than I think is reasonable. It's not inclusive towards me and is downright hostile towards me.
◧◩◪
14. krater+Pa[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-02 16:19:41
>>myname+g7
Ok, it's intolerable for you how he communicates on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. Are you anyway subscribed to the LKML? Are you kernel developer? Are you developer anyway? Who you are that you want to tell a community how they have to communicate? Why your opinion should matter for this community?
15. throw8+Qa[view] [source] 2022-10-02 16:19:47
>>myname+(OP)
Nope, imo this extreme also excludes many average folks are not so overly poliically correct. I have the feeling we have overshot peak inclusion and are excluding the not so well behaved folks (or simple people who have other problems, or who want to play these games).

Personally I find that Linus here not toxic at all, at most a borderline strong opinion, but come on, as well as we all need to be more empathic, we should also be able to take some harsher critique and make not such a toxicity thing out of an more open and direct opinionated response...

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
16. myname+Sa[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-02 16:19:49
>>LunaSe+U8
Of course it matters. There are many reasons why people might join one of his projects, many of which don’t involve him but instead the project itself. His presence might have stifled or grown involvement in those projects.
replies(1): >>LunaSe+lc
◧◩◪
17. throw8+2c[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-02 16:24:55
>>myname+Q2
> It’s shocking that advocating for safe and inclusive work environments is such a controversial topic. If he were any other person, his behavior would be quashed in a second.

It is not, because that is exactly the problem.. whats your view of safe and inclusive is to some hostile and exclusive.. and until people realize that this extreme creates similar well-behaved assholes: nevermind.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
18. LunaSe+lc[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-02 16:26:25
>>myname+Sa
And that is completely fine.

People don't have a universal right to collaborate to this project, especially on their own terms.

In the same way, these projects will like you said, evolve in positive or negative ways with no God given right to exist and thrive.

◧◩◪
19. throw8+3d[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-02 16:29:42
>>myname+g7
> Yes because if he were at any company, he’d have been fired. Decades ago.

That's a pretty intolerable outright hostile and exclusive judgement :(

◧◩◪
20. _dain_+Ff[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-02 16:42:20
>>myname+g7
> Yes because if he were at any company, he’d have been fired. Decades ago.

And then there would be no Linux kernel. So much for companies.

◧◩◪
21. aaaaaa+fn[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-02 17:25:31
>>myname+g7
>does not mean it isn’t hostile or intolerable were it actually one

It feels hostile and intolerable to you.

There are many people who find the risk-averse non-confrontational corpspeak intolerable.

22. zozbot+oo[view] [source] 2022-10-02 17:30:31
>>myname+(OP)
So an "inclusive" and "non-toxic work environment" should put fantasy above reality? There's nothing inherently toxic in Linus' message; he's making a technical point about how kernel code should be designed, to deal effectively with the sometimes complex and challenging reality of low-level systems.
replies(1): >>nickm1+Ff5
◧◩◪
23. Vt71fc+Up[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-02 17:38:45
>>myname+Q2
>You’re free to work alone, but why make people around you miserable by having to deal with you? Go be an asshole to yourself and let everyone else work together.

You, and the billions of people using linux, are free to fork the code and exclude Linus completley.

>It’s shocking that advocating for safe and inclusive work environments

This isn't a "work enviroment" in the way you seem to be implying. The vast majority of people contributing to the kernel do not work for linux or Linus.

24. lelant+tW[view] [source] 2022-10-02 21:05:38
>>myname+(OP)
You're correct, it should be the default.

But why are you complaining that a group of people who don't want to work in your default environment went off and created their own?

I don't understand what you have to complain about: they have their way of working and you want to change that because it offends you?

Sounds like you're the problem, not them.

replies(1): >>V_Terr+LX
◧◩
25. V_Terr+LX[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-02 21:14:53
>>lelant+tW
Sounds like he's calling them out on an internet forum that they are also free to ignore. Doesn't sound like he's the problem.
replies(1): >>lelant+sk2
26. niscoc+kT1[view] [source] 2022-10-03 05:56:11
>>myname+(OP)
Are you calling Linus unreasonable and toxic?
◧◩◪
27. lelant+sk2[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-03 10:25:01
>>V_Terr+LX
> Sounds like he's calling them out on an internet forum that they are also free to ignore. Doesn't sound like he's the problem.

Well, I don't go around pointing out how random groups, formed by like-minded people voluntarily, are doing collaboration "wrong".

If I did, on some random internet forum, complain that the local Street Rod Enthusiasts Club[1] doesn't do proper agendas for their meetings, or that a book-reading club[1] that I know off isn't properly structured, or that the volunteer SPCA group is using the wrong IM/Chat software to communicate .. well, then I'm the problem.

[1] That I have no intention of joining

◧◩
28. nickm1+zf5[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-04 04:58:42
>>mid-ki+G
The choice between condescension to your collaborators and putting people's feeling "above all else" is a false dichotomy. You can disagree on technical merits without making it personal and calling your collaborators kindergarteners who believe in Santa Claus.
◧◩
29. nickm1+Ff5[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-04 04:59:41
>>zozbot+oo
He is implying that his collaborators are kindergarteners who believe in Santa Claus. It's insulting.
replies(1): >>zozbot+I37
◧◩◪
30. zozbot+I37[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-10-04 17:34:26
>>nickm1+Ff5
He's doing no such thing. He's saying "surely you're well past kindergarten and don't believe in Santa Claus, so why would you ever believe this?" It's a valid argument.
[go to top]