From: Thomas Rast <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:57:41
Ramkumar Ramachandra [off-list ref] writes:
Michael Haggerty wrote:
quoted
Thank you for drafting a proposed CommunityGuidelines document; I think
such a document would be helpful. But I don't like the overall flavor
of your proposal; frankly, it sounds to me more like
Documentation/GuidelinesForCommunityToBendOverBackwardsToLiveWithFCsProvocations
It has nothing to do with Felipe. I've merely documented repeating
patterns in fire threads as violations, in an attempt to avoid fires.
I have not worked forward from axioms to derive "transcendentally
desirable behavior", but rather backwards from a disaster to derive
"patterns that have been shown to lead to large fires". Why? Because
it's easier to derive unambiguous statements using my approach; as I
will show shortly, there are various problems with your arguments.
What gives you the impression that I documented everyone else's
violations, but not Felipe's? ;)
It has become clear, also in discussion on IRC, that your preferred
approach is to fight the fires, attempting to extinguish flames as they
happen.
My approach -- and in my perception also that preferred by most of the
regulars who have spoken in this whole mess -- is that since there is a
fire hazard, it would be more effective firefighting to just remove the
hazard, thus preventing future fires.
I infer that in your view, there is an inalienable right for the fire
hazard to remain part of the community that you are not willing to give
up. I for one no longer have such qualms in this instance.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
It has become clear, also in discussion on IRC, that your preferred
approach is to fight the fires, attempting to extinguish flames as they
happen.
Incorrect. I am interested in minimizing occurrences, which is why I
started this thread: to calmly and rationally discuss how to achieve
that. I have listed many concrete proposals, and justified them with
reason.
My approach -- and in my perception also that preferred by most of the
regulars who have spoken in this whole mess -- is that since there is a
fire hazard, it would be more effective firefighting to just remove the
hazard, thus preventing future fires.
Presumably, Felipe is the "fire hazard" that we are talking about, and
nobody else is to blame. He must be "removed" to prevent future
fires. This is the "perception of the regulars", correct?
Then why haven't you removed him yet? What are you waiting for? You
don't need my "approval".
Is it because you have realized deep down that you have absolutely no
rational argument, and are arguing with an ill-formed "majority
opinion"? I have words, you have words. Why are you incapable of
using your words to counter my arguments rationally?Are you so blind
that you cannot see the consequences of acting without reason?
Tomorrow the majority opinion will dictate that I am a fire hazard and
must be removed. Soon, anybody who disagrees with the majority
opinion will be removed, and the community will be reduced to a
handful of circlejerking yes-men. The git project will die a sad
death. And the blood will be on your hands.
I infer that in your view, there is an inalienable right for the fire
hazard to remain part of the community that you are not willing to give
up. I for one no longer have such qualms in this instance.
Incorrect. There is no "transcendental inalienable right" that
dictates that "fire hazards" must remain part of the community. I
never made such an irrational argument. I already gave you the
example of the survivors on the boat with limited food/water on IRC:
it is you who stupidly refused to throw anyone overboard, killing all
the survivors; I am the one who said that I would get them to draw
sticks to "fairly choose" who to throw overboard, maximizing the
chances of survival of the others. I am making a pragmatic argument,
based on what is best for the community; not some stuck-up idealistic
bullshit. Further, I tried to help you think through the justice
problem, by recommending an accessible course. You have either not
gone through it, or have gone through it and learnt nothing.
What should I "give up"? My rationality?
Man up, and stop hiding being the veils of "majority opinion". _Your_
opinion is that Felipe must be removed from the list without reason.
Don't talk for the others. I'm sick of you "supporting" another
person's opinion. Stand up and speak for yourself; leave Haggerty out
of it.
You have embarrassed yourself and the entire git community today.
From: Michael Haggerty <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:57:41
On 06/11/2013 03:40 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Is it because you have realized deep down that you have absolutely no
rational argument...Why are you incapable of
using your words to counter my arguments rationally?Are you so blind
that you cannot see the consequences of acting without reason?
Ram, you are insulting Thomas the human being rather than addressing his
points. Please stop.
Tomorrow the majority opinion will dictate that I am a fire hazard and
must be removed. Soon, anybody who disagrees with the majority
opinion will be removed, and the community will be reduced to a
handful of circlejerking yes-men. The git project will die a sad
death. And the blood will be on your hands.
It is not disagreement that is causing problems; it is the inflammatory
tone of the discussion. Civil and constructive disagreement is
completely welcome here. But hurtful and offensive discussion is not,
even if it is in support of the "party line" (haha as if there were such
a thing).
And yes, I know that the word "offensive" is subjective, but for the
sake of this discussion let's take it to mean "offensive to the vast
majority of a community". Not "controversial", not "contrarian", not
even "stupid"; I don't think anybody is proposing to prohibit dissent or
stupidity. But there is no reason for discussion that is gratuitously
aggressive, insulting, or derogatory; such discussion is what I mean by
"offensive".
[...] I already gave you the
example of the survivors on the boat with limited food/water on IRC:
it is you who stupidly refused to throw anyone overboard, killing all
the survivors; I am the one who said that I would get them to draw
sticks to "fairly choose" who to throw overboard, maximizing the
chances of survival of the others. I am making a pragmatic argument,
based on what is best for the community; not some stuck-up idealistic
bullshit. Further, I tried to help you think through the justice
problem, by recommending an accessible course. You have either not
gone through it, or have gone through it and learnt nothing.
Your idea that you can assign Thomas "homework" in ethics and call him
stupid for coming to a different conclusion than you is presumptuous in
the extreme.
[...]
You have embarrassed yourself and the entire git community today.
This is also presumptuous, not to mention extremely ironic. In my
opinion Thomas's email was calm and reasonable while yours is beyond the
pale.
Ram, don't just take my opinion on this matter. At the risk of being
presumptuous myself, I suggest that you show a copy of your email to
somebody whom you know and respect in the real world, somebody who is
not immersed in the Git community meltdown. For example, somebody like
your mother or father, or a teacher whom you respect, or a member of
clergy if you are so inclined. Ask that person's opinion about your email.
It is so easy to lose perspective in the Internet.
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
From: Felipe Contreras <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:57:41
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Thomas Rast [off-list ref] wrote:
My approach -- and in my perception also that preferred by most of the
regulars who have spoken in this whole mess -- is that since there is a
fire hazard, it would be more effective firefighting to just remove the
hazard, thus preventing future fires.
You would make an excellent evil dictator.
A benevolent dictator like Linus Torvalds knows better, in the LKML
"fire hazards" are not removed, they are ignored before any flames go
up. This achieves the best of both worlds; if the person is truly
vicious, nothing happens, but if there's something to it, a person
that doesn't offend so easily might have a fruitful discussion, while
the rest ignore the thread.
In a flamewar everyone is guilty. Apparently you never learned that
"but he started it!" is not a defense worthy of an adult, hell, even
most children know that.
--
Felipe Contreras
From: Felipe Contreras <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:57:41
Hi,
Before going to your arguments, can you stop conveniently *ignoring*
my argument and answer this questions?
When two children fight, who has the blame? The one that threw the
first punch? Or the one that returned it?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Michael Haggerty [off-list ref] wrote:
On 06/11/2013 03:40 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
quoted
Is it because you have realized deep down that you have absolutely no
rational argument...Why are you incapable of
using your words to counter my arguments rationally?Are you so blind
that you cannot see the consequences of acting without reason?
Ram, you are insulting Thomas the human being rather than addressing his
points. Please stop.
How is Ram insulting Thomas? By implying that Thomas is a human being?
That he is imperfect and is making a mistake?
My gosh! How offensive!
quoted
Tomorrow the majority opinion will dictate that I am a fire hazard and
must be removed. Soon, anybody who disagrees with the majority
opinion will be removed, and the community will be reduced to a
handful of circlejerking yes-men. The git project will die a sad
death. And the blood will be on your hands.
It is not disagreement that is causing problems; it is the inflammatory
tone of the discussion. Civil and constructive disagreement is
completely welcome here. But hurtful and offensive discussion is not,
even if it is in support of the "party line" (haha as if there were such
a thing).
The difference between the two is totally and completely subjective,
and only a despot would be conformable parting judgment about which is
which.
And yes, I know that the word "offensive" is subjective, but for the
sake of this discussion let's take it to mean "offensive to the vast
majority of a community".
Rule of the mob. How wise.
quoted
[...] I already gave you the
example of the survivors on the boat with limited food/water on IRC:
it is you who stupidly refused to throw anyone overboard, killing all
the survivors; I am the one who said that I would get them to draw
sticks to "fairly choose" who to throw overboard, maximizing the
chances of survival of the others. I am making a pragmatic argument,
based on what is best for the community; not some stuck-up idealistic
bullshit. Further, I tried to help you think through the justice
problem, by recommending an accessible course. You have either not
gone through it, or have gone through it and learnt nothing.
Your idea that you can assign Thomas "homework" in ethics and call him
stupid for coming to a different conclusion than you is presumptuous in
the extreme.
He didn't call him stupid, he said he was acting stupidly, big difference.
quoted
[...]
You have embarrassed yourself and the entire git community today.
This is also presumptuous, not to mention extremely ironic. In my
opinion Thomas's email was calm and reasonable while yours is beyond the
pale.
Of course it would be. In a witch hunt nobody sees what's wrong with
burning the witch... until you become it.
It's fine for Thomas Rast to call me a fire hazard, which ironically
is itself an inflammatory comment. But it's not OK for Ramkumar to say
that Thomas is acting stupidly *in this particular instance*.
Double standards much?
Ram, don't just take my opinion on this matter. At the risk of being
presumptuous myself, I suggest that you show a copy of your email to
somebody whom you know and respect in the real world, somebody who is
not immersed in the Git community meltdown. For example, somebody like
your mother or father, or a teacher whom you respect, or a member of
clergy if you are so inclined. Ask that person's opinion about your email.
I can offer my own perspective; I think Ramkumar's tone is not
particularly useful, but to concentrate on *how* he is saying things,
instead of *what* he is saying is an even bigger mistake, specially
because it's *you* the one that is making it. You should concentrate
on what *you* do, not what others do. Otherwise you will be forever
frustrated.
You have chosen to ignore *all* of Ramkumar's arguments, and all your
arguments can be summarized as "I don't like your tone", and by doing
that, you have lost even more touch of the discussion than what you
accused Ramkumar of doing.
You have even violated two your own guidelines:
* Conduct disagreements on a technical, not a personal, level.
* It is not OK to use these guidelines as a stick with which to beat
supposed violators.
You have also violated some of Ramkumar:
0. You do not take offense, no matter what.
In this particular case, you are taking offense by proxy, which might
be even worst.
1. You do not take sides or vote.
2. You stop pointing fingers.
I would also suggest another guideline based on Paul Graham's guide
How to Disagree[1].
* Do not respond to tone. Concentrate on *what* is being said, not
*how* it is being said. If the worst thing you can say about something
is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. A "bad tone" is
highly subjective, and it's not really relevant in a discussion, it
matters whether the author is right or wrong. Is the author flippant,
but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. Keep your eye on the
ball.
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
--
Felipe Contreras
This is an exercise. I can easily be more tactful (as evidenced by
other threads), but I'm choosing not to be. I want you to focus on
the argument, and not the tone.
Michael Haggerty wrote:
Ram, you are insulting Thomas the human being rather than addressing his
points. Please stop.
He doesn't have a point! He makes the assumption that the "perception
of the regulars" is that a "fire hazard" must be "removed" from the
community. There are absolutely no rational arguments in his email,
he violated virtually every rule that we were working towards, and he
made an inflammatory comment by calling Felipe a "fire hazard". Yes I
was particularly harsh, because Rast was particularly irrational. I
did not "insult" him as a human being; I "criticized" his email which
was completely devoid of reason.
In case you're wondering, this is what an ad hominem looks like:
You are studying a subject that requires extensive application of
logic: combinatorial structures and algorithms at ETH Zurich. You
live in a well-to-do progressive society. I live in this poor country
called India, am much younger than you, and have studied nothing.
Yet, you make the irrational argument, while I make the rational
argument.
As you can clearly see, I focused on his argument; not on him.
It is not disagreement that is causing problems; it is the inflammatory
tone of the discussion. Civil and constructive disagreement is
completely welcome here. But hurtful and offensive discussion is not,
even if it is in support of the "party line" (haha as if there were such
a thing).
Incorrect. The problem is that Rast is made an irrational argument,
and that you are "supporting" him now. If you were "fair" you would
have criticized Rast's inflammatory comment about classifying Felipe
as a "fire hazard", without justification. But you didn't. _You_ are
making my "tone" the subject of discussion now, and claim that I have
been hurtful and offensive. My email was very much "constructive
disagreement", in that I have laid out why one should not perform
actions without reason; I even assigned him homework, because I _want_
him to understand justice and argue rationally. How could I have been
more constructive?
I do not "support" Felipe, or "defend" him. I do not share his exact
opinions, and often criticize him. I am fair in that I praise
rational arguments, and criticize irrational arguments. I don't want
to speak for him, but I believe that he gives me the same treatment,
and I thank him for that.
I do not appreciate this ganging-up one bit. I'm one person arguing
against an opaque "majority opinion" veil. For the last time, stop
taking sides, and make a goddamn rational argument!
And yes, I know that the word "offensive" is subjective, but for the
sake of this discussion let's take it to mean "offensive to the vast
majority of a community". Not "controversial", not "contrarian", not
even "stupid"; I don't think anybody is proposing to prohibit dissent or
stupidity. But there is no reason for discussion that is gratuitously
aggressive, insulting, or derogatory; such discussion is what I mean by
"offensive".
You have made the same argument that I criticized over and over again:
"majority opinion". If you agree that tone is subjective, why are you
trying to objectively criticize it by using majority opinion as the
basis? You might not like a piece of artwork personally, and the
majority of the git list might "agree" with you, but that does not
mean you can authoritatively claim that the piece of art is junk. You
have every right to dislike it personally, but that is an entirely
different matter.
quoted
[...] I already gave you the
example of the survivors on the boat with limited food/water on IRC:
it is you who stupidly refused to throw anyone overboard, killing all
the survivors; I am the one who said that I would get them to draw
sticks to "fairly choose" who to throw overboard, maximizing the
chances of survival of the others. I am making a pragmatic argument,
based on what is best for the community; not some stuck-up idealistic
bullshit. Further, I tried to help you think through the justice
problem, by recommending an accessible course. You have either not
gone through it, or have gone through it and learnt nothing.
Your idea that you can assign Thomas "homework" in ethics and call him
stupid for coming to a different conclusion than you is presumptuous in
the extreme.
Incorrect. I used "stupid" to describe his solution to the
survivors-in-the-boat problem. I gave him homework (and this is
Harvard Justice, by the way), in an attempt to get him to think
clearly and come up with less "stupid" solutions to similar problems.
If you are defending throwing modern justice theories out the window,
and replacing it with a crude irrational argument, I have nothing more
to say.
quoted
[...]
You have embarrassed yourself and the entire git community today.
This is also presumptuous, not to mention extremely ironic. In my
opinion Thomas's email was calm and reasonable while yours is beyond the
pale.
Yes, I did exercise my freedom of expression. And yes, I was
perfectly calm. Please do not suffocate me to death.
Let us get two simple things straightened out first:
1. Was Thomas being irrational or not?
2. Are you being fair or not?
They're yes-or-no questions. Hint: My "tone" has nothing to do with
the answers.
Ram, don't just take my opinion on this matter. At the risk of being
presumptuous myself, I suggest that you show a copy of your email to
somebody whom you know and respect in the real world, somebody who is
not immersed in the Git community meltdown. For example, somebody like
your mother or father, or a teacher whom you respect, or a member of
clergy if you are so inclined. Ask that person's opinion about your email.
I respect all of you on the Git list. And yes, I have done what you
asked: I showed it to several friends of mine on IRC and in real life.
They were not at all surprised: they know me to be a very polite,
gentle, and reasonable person. My stern rational disagreement has
nothing to do with any of those things.
And yes, as Felipe pointed out: you entire email has complained about
my "tone" and _completely_ ignored content.
From: Michael Haggerty <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:57:41
On 06/11/2013 08:16 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
This is an exercise. I can easily be more tactful (as evidenced by
other threads), but I'm choosing not to be. I want you to focus on
the argument, and not the tone.
I stopped reading your email here. I've read enough tactless emails
over the last few days, but to be asked to read an email that was
*intentionally* written tactlessly is too detrimental to my quality of life.
In German there is an expression "Der Ton macht die Musik": "the tone
makes the music", by which they mean that the *way* something is said is
at least as important as what is said. The tone *is* an integral part
of the message and (1) the writer will be much more effective by making
the tone agree with the literal words of the message and (2) for this
particular reader, the effort of accommodating writers who are unwilling
to do so has become too exhausting.
I naively thought that I might be able to help calm the situation, but I
have concluded that nothing I can say or do will have that effect.
Therefore I bow out of this part of the conversation and hope either
that it will fizzle out or that perhaps a deus ex machina will appear.
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
I stopped reading your email here. I've read enough tactless emails
over the last few days, but to be asked to read an email that was
*intentionally* written tactlessly is too detrimental to my quality of life.
I'm sorry, but the problem has no solution then.
The "problem" we are dealing with is irrational and/or out-of-tone
emails. Unless you possess some mind-control mechanism that will get
all contributors to write emails that conform to your standards, there
is no solution. If you feel strongly that everyone must conform to
your standards, you must "remove" the members that do not conform to
that standard.
I have no desire to be suffocated to conform to your standard, so I'm
ready to leave.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Michael Haggerty [off-list ref] wrote:
At the risk of being
presumptuous myself, I suggest that you show a copy of your email to
somebody whom you know and respect in the real world, somebody who is
not immersed in the Git community meltdown. For example, somebody like
your mother or father, or a teacher whom you respect, or a member of
clergy if you are so inclined. Ask that person's opinion about your email.
It is so easy to lose perspective in the Internet.
Such excellent advice. Even if the advice is not taken literally, it
is probably enough to just imagine how that person whom you respect
would respond to the words in your emails. I am sure I do not do this
enough in my own communications.
I just wanted to draw attention to this wonderful suggestion again.
Sometimes it is necessary to take a step back when discussions get
heated, to regain perspective.
-Brandon
From: Felipe Contreras <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:57:42
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Michael Haggerty [off-list ref] wrote:
On 06/11/2013 08:16 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
quoted
This is an exercise. I can easily be more tactful (as evidenced by
other threads), but I'm choosing not to be. I want you to focus on
the argument, and not the tone.
I stopped reading your email here.
Yeah, you are ignoring the arguments, what a surprise.
In German there is an expression "Der Ton macht die Musik": "the tone
makes the music", by which they mean that the *way* something is said is
at least as important as what is said.
I know you don't care about reality, but you are committing the
is-ought fallacy. You are describing the way things are, not the way
things should be.
Yes, most people can't handle rational arguments, or truth, and need
hypocrites to hide things from them. That's why politics is surrounded
by people who never say the truth.. not really.
That doesn't mean that's the way things _ought_ to be, specially not
the way *you* should act.
--
Felipe Contreras
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:10:11PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Presumably, Felipe is the "fire hazard" that we are talking about, and
nobody else is to blame. He must be "removed" to prevent future
fires. This is the "perception of the regulars", correct?
Then why haven't you removed him yet? What are you waiting for? You
don't need my "approval".
He (and you) get "removed" when individuals who have decided the vast
majority of their e-mails shed more heat than light, and so people
decide that it's not worth reading their e-mails. I have persionally
made this determination for both you and for Felipe; for you, your
participation in this thread was what set the "bozo bit".
Now, I'm not a major developer for git, so my personal decision
doesn't make a huge amount of difference.
But if people who *are* senior developers in the git community decide,
on their own, that someone isn't worth listening to, there's the
punishment has been inflicted, and this happens without banning
someone from posting or removing them from the mailing list.
Please stop.
Regards,
- Ted
But if people who *are* senior developers in the git community decide,
on their own, that someone isn't worth listening to, there's the
punishment has been inflicted, and this happens without banning
someone from posting or removing them from the mailing list.
Yes, I have already been punished by several people. As a result of
my arguments on this thread, everyone will treat me like a troll in
the future.
As a rational person, why have I inflicted this upon myself? To make
a point about how increased tolerance is the way to reduce fires? No,
it is not worth it. Either way, I have failed miserably: by being
deliberately untactful, I have only aggravated the community.
Please stop.
I have no desire to constantly exhibit deviant behavior that offends a
large majority.
Sorry.
From: Felipe Contreras <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:57:42
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Theodore Ts'o [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:10:11PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
quoted
Presumably, Felipe is the "fire hazard" that we are talking about, and
nobody else is to blame. He must be "removed" to prevent future
fires. This is the "perception of the regulars", correct?
Then why haven't you removed him yet? What are you waiting for? You
don't need my "approval".
He (and you) get "removed" when individuals who have decided the vast
majority of their e-mails shed more heat than light, and so people
decide that it's not worth reading their e-mails. I have persionally
made this determination for both you and for Felipe;
On what basis have you made that determination? Have you made that
determination based on my contributions?
% git shortlog -n -s --no-merges --since '3 months ago'
221 Felipe Contreras
83 Junio C Hamano
69 Jeff King
62 Michael Haggerty
48 Ramkumar Ramachandra
35 Thomas Rast
33 Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
32 John Keeping
30 René Scharfe
21 Kevin Bracey
Have you read each and every one of my 800 patches in the last three
months? Plus all my replies?
Or have you made that determination based on the tiny subset of those
that are controversial?
--
Felipe Contreras