Re: [Gendergap] Linux's culture problem

[rupert THURNER]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Moriel Schottlender  wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:21 PM, WereSpielChequers
>  wrote:
>> I'm not a member of the Lynux community, though I'm a very grateful user
>> of their software. But I don't read that blogpost as saying that "She didn't
>> try to change Linus Torvalds. She left".
>>
>> I read her words, and especially "I’m posting this because I feel sad
>> every time someone thanks me for standing up for better community norms,
>> because I have essentially given up trying to change the Linux kernel
>> community. Cultural change is a slow, painful process, and I no longer have
>> the mental energy to be an active part of that cultural change in the
>> kernel."
>>
>> Those are the words of someone who has tried and tried again before
>> deciding to leave.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> She didn't try to change Linus, she tried to change the community. There's a
> difference. A person can be whoever they want to be, but in the context of
> the community, there could be basic rules of thumb that guides what the
> community feels should be basic decency.

moriel, i do not agree to the abstraction you introduce here. a
community consists of persons afaik. it is a person which feels, not a
community. if there is a rule for the community its purpose is to
apply to a person part of the community. sarah sharp tried to make a
rule "do not curse or go away". as linus torvalds curses from time to
time it is not rocket science to understand that rule as: (1) linus
please change and do not curse, or (2) linus please leave the
community if you cannot stop cursing.

>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:44 PM, rupert THURNER
>>>  wrote:
 to let wikipedia NPOV also have a word, here what linus torvalds
 thought about it two years ago:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=137392506516022=2
 in a summary, torvalds argues that sarah sharp should accept that
 people are different and act different, she should not try to change
 linus torvalds.
>>>
 > On Oct 7, 2015 6:44 AM, "Jason Radford" 
 > wrote:
 >>
 >> I think folks here will understand this story.
 >>
 >> http://sarah.thesharps.us/2015/10/05/closing-a-door/

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Linux's culture problem

[Moriel Schottlender]

>
> moriel, i do not agree to the abstraction you introduce here. a
> community consists of persons afaik. it is a person which feels, not a
> community. if there is a rule for the community its purpose is to
> apply to a person part of the community. sarah sharp tried to make a
> rule "do not curse or go away". as linus torvalds curses from time to
> time it is not rocket science to understand that rule as: (1) linus
> please change and do not curse, or (2) linus please leave the
> community if you cannot stop cursing.
>

I am simplifying the bottom line, because the bottom line is fairly simple.

When a group of individuals form a community, they are no longer completely
individuals; they have set for themselves a social contract that binds
them. We can discuss the minutia of the social contract forever, of course,
as these arguments went for ages, from John Locke's extensive individual
liberties, to Hobbes' absolute authoritative rule, to Jean Jack Rousseau's
general will -- but that still leaves the conclusion the same: What type of
community do we *want* to have?

I find it somewhat ironic that we are arguing for respecting an almost
absolute individual rights and liberties of people in the community who are
(sometimes self-professed) assholes and bully others, but we neglect the
individual rights and liberties of the people who are being bullied. The
entire point of having a *community* (rather than a disconnected grouping
of individuals) is to find the balance to give the liberties to its members
not on the expense of other members' liberties.

And yet, it seems that in the arguments that are raised, the "sides" keep
being presented as the extreme choices, as if no other middle ground is
available. That is false, and we don't have to read historical
philosophical treatises to see that.

The option is not to either "have liberty" or "be oppressed". That is a
strawman representation of our options. There are many more options, which
many governments and societies around the world adapt -- some more
successfully than others -- without crushing the individual rights of
people who don't seem to care about the individual rights of others.

Sarah Sharp's leaving Linux' community is not about Linus Torvalds'
individual rights to be an asshole. He can continue being an asshole all he
wants, and he, I assume, knows the pros and cons of being an asshole in his
personal life. It's his right, and he deserves to make that personal choice.

The community of people who gathered for a shared purpose, however, needs
to make a conscious, collective decision about the type of community they
care to have. That is the point of having a community in the first place.

It is a very simple give and take, a simple mathematical consideration: You
get one thing on the expense of another, such is life.
*Which is why in life, most often, we look for middle ground rather than
extremes.*

If the social contract the community agrees on implicitly or explicitly
results in making certain sub-groups marginalized, bullied and feel
unwelcome, then these groups will not stay as part of that community.

If the community thinks this is a correct price to pay for absolute
liberties, then all the John Locke for it.

If, however, we recognize that this price is too steep -- and that the
"corrective step" of "don't be a jerk to others" is acceptable -- then the
community should demonstrate it in its social contract and find the balance
between oppressing the bullies and supporting the bullied.

I don't see what's so complicated in this concept, really. We're just
making it complicated by concentrating on the small details.

So I will repeat my paragraph from my first email, the one that makes
everything really really simple:

"If people don't think that having an abusive community is a problem, then
they should understand they are *losing* the people they are abusing, and
keeping the people who are abusing others. That means that we are not
keeping the good contributors and weeding out the lazy/bad contributors --
it means we're keeping the jerks, whether they're effective contributors or
not, and weeding out the ones who give up and don't want to be abused,
whether they're awesome or not."




>
> >>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:44 PM, rupert THURNER
> >>>  wrote:
>  to let wikipedia NPOV also have a word, here what linus torvalds
>  thought about it two years ago:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=137392506516022=2
>  in a summary, torvalds argues that sarah sharp should accept that
>  people are different and act different, she should not try to change
>  linus torvalds.
> >>>
>  > On Oct 7, 2015 6:44 AM, "Jason Radford" 
>  > wrote:
>  >>
>  >> I think folks here will understand this story.
>  >>
>  >> http://sarah.thesharps.us/2015/10/05/closing-a-door/
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> 

Re: [Gendergap] Linux's culture problem

[Pine W]

Maybe! Those of us who are planning to help with recording sessions cam
discuss that with the organizing team once we are all in the same building.

Pine
On Oct 8, 2015 1:11 PM, "Moriel Schottlender"  wrote:

> Is there going to be a way to join remotely? I'd love to do that if
> possible.
> On Oct 8, 2015 12:39 PM, "Pine W"  wrote:
>
>> FWIW, some of us attending WCONUSA are hoping to have an unconference
>> session about incentivizing desirable user behaviors on ENWP, and I imagine
>> that some portions of that discussion will be extensible to other habitats
>> in the Wikimedia ecosystem. If anyone in this conversation online would
>> like to join us at the unconference, please do.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>> visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Linux's culture problem

[Moriel Schottlender]

Is there going to be a way to join remotely? I'd love to do that if
possible.
On Oct 8, 2015 12:39 PM, "Pine W"  wrote:

> FWIW, some of us attending WCONUSA are hoping to have an unconference
> session about incentivizing desirable user behaviors on ENWP, and I imagine
> that some portions of that discussion will be extensible to other habitats
> in the Wikimedia ecosystem. If anyone in this conversation online would
> like to join us at the unconference, please do.
>
> Pine
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Linux's culture problem

[Ryan Kaldari]

On the topic of social contracts and communities, I'd like to invite anyone
who's interested to take a look at the draft version of the Code of Conduct
for Wikimedia Technical Spaces -
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Draft.
Any feedback is welcome on the talk page.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Moriel Schottlender 
wrote:

> moriel, i do not agree to the abstraction you introduce here. a
>> community consists of persons afaik. it is a person which feels, not a
>> community. if there is a rule for the community its purpose is to
>> apply to a person part of the community. sarah sharp tried to make a
>> rule "do not curse or go away". as linus torvalds curses from time to
>> time it is not rocket science to understand that rule as: (1) linus
>> please change and do not curse, or (2) linus please leave the
>> community if you cannot stop cursing.
>>
>
> I am simplifying the bottom line, because the bottom line is fairly simple.
>
> When a group of individuals form a community, they are no longer
> completely individuals; they have set for themselves a social contract that
> binds them. We can discuss the minutia of the social contract forever, of
> course, as these arguments went for ages, from John Locke's extensive
> individual liberties, to Hobbes' absolute authoritative rule, to Jean Jack
> Rousseau's general will -- but that still leaves the conclusion the same:
> What type of community do we *want* to have?
>
> I find it somewhat ironic that we are arguing for respecting an almost
> absolute individual rights and liberties of people in the community who are
> (sometimes self-professed) assholes and bully others, but we neglect the
> individual rights and liberties of the people who are being bullied. The
> entire point of having a *community* (rather than a disconnected grouping
> of individuals) is to find the balance to give the liberties to its members
> not on the expense of other members' liberties.
>
> And yet, it seems that in the arguments that are raised, the "sides" keep
> being presented as the extreme choices, as if no other middle ground is
> available. That is false, and we don't have to read historical
> philosophical treatises to see that.
>
> The option is not to either "have liberty" or "be oppressed". That is a
> strawman representation of our options. There are many more options, which
> many governments and societies around the world adapt -- some more
> successfully than others -- without crushing the individual rights of
> people who don't seem to care about the individual rights of others.
>
> Sarah Sharp's leaving Linux' community is not about Linus Torvalds'
> individual rights to be an asshole. He can continue being an asshole all he
> wants, and he, I assume, knows the pros and cons of being an asshole in his
> personal life. It's his right, and he deserves to make that personal choice.
>
> The community of people who gathered for a shared purpose, however, needs
> to make a conscious, collective decision about the type of community they
> care to have. That is the point of having a community in the first place.
>
> It is a very simple give and take, a simple mathematical consideration:
> You get one thing on the expense of another, such is life.
> *Which is why in life, most often, we look for middle ground rather than
> extremes.*
>
> If the social contract the community agrees on implicitly or explicitly
> results in making certain sub-groups marginalized, bullied and feel
> unwelcome, then these groups will not stay as part of that community.
>
> If the community thinks this is a correct price to pay for absolute
> liberties, then all the John Locke for it.
>
> If, however, we recognize that this price is too steep -- and that the
> "corrective step" of "don't be a jerk to others" is acceptable -- then the
> community should demonstrate it in its social contract and find the balance
> between oppressing the bullies and supporting the bullied.
>
> I don't see what's so complicated in this concept, really. We're just
> making it complicated by concentrating on the small details.
>
> So I will repeat my paragraph from my first email, the one that makes
> everything really really simple:
>
> "If people don't think that having an abusive community is a problem,
> then they should understand they are *losing* the people they are abusing,
> and keeping the people who are abusing others. That means that we are not
> keeping the good contributors and weeding out the lazy/bad contributors --
> it means we're keeping the jerks, whether they're effective contributors or
> not, and weeding out the ones who give up and don't want to be abused,
> whether they're awesome or not."
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:44 PM, rupert THURNER
>> >>>  wrote:
>>  to let wikipedia NPOV also have a word, here what linus torvalds
>>  thought about it two years ago:
>> 

Re: [Gendergap] Linux's culture problem

[Pine W]

FWIW, some of us attending WCONUSA are hoping to have an unconference
session about incentivizing desirable user behaviors on ENWP, and I imagine
that some portions of that discussion will be extensible to other habitats
in the Wikimedia ecosystem. If anyone in this conversation online would
like to join us at the unconference, please do.

Pine
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap