On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:21 PM, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequ...@gmail.com> 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. Like, say, "don't be a jerk" or "don't use personal insults when reviewing code". Linus Torvalds can continue being a jerk as much as he likes, just not in the context of the community. Unless, of course, he can, in which case the community loses people. Case in point. Beyond the other issues with what Linus is saying in general (which were explained earlier in this thread) the entire argument about not trying to "change people" or "people are people" and all that stuff is absolutely a red herring. This is not what she (and others who try to change the culture in these communities) is doing, nor what they aim to do. The hint that she was attempting to "oppress" his character is, quite frankly, extremely ironic. 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. Everything we know about social interactions tells us that abusive behavior does not create better professionals. We see it everywhere except the army, where abusive behavior is intended for a very specific outcome that I doubt we want to reproduce in any other community. That is the bottom line of this. What kind of community do we *want* to have, and who in this community do we want to encourage? The ones who pound their chests and bully others? If so, then we must understand we do this at the expense of others who can't stand it, even if they're much better contributors. We need to make a choice. > > > On 7 October 2015 at 22:33, Moriel Schottlender <mor...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:44 PM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com >> > 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&m=137392506516022&w=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. >>> >> >> She didn't try to change Linus Torvalds. She left. >> >> The question in every community is really quite simple when we talk about >> these things; If we want to let people be personally confrontational, >> unwelcoming or abusive because we want to let people who they are, then we >> lose people who have no patience or desire to be abused in their capacity >> as volunteers. >> >> I think what Linus Torvalds is missing is empathy to others who aren't >> like *him* (ironically), but he's far from being the only one in the field >> to apparently lack that, especially in these type of discussions. >> >> >>> >>> rupert >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > I wish that we had a proven solution for that kind of issue in online >>> > communities in general. It's quite disappointing. Thanks for >>> forwarding that >>> > post. >>> > >>> > Pine >>> > >>> > On Oct 7, 2015 6:44 AM, "Jason Radford" <jsradf...@uchicago.edu> >>> 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 > -- No trees were harmed in the creation of this post. But billions of electrons, photons, and electromagnetic waves were terribly inconvenienced during its transmission!
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
