On 15/04/2021 10:40 am, Frosku wrote:
On Wed Apr 14, 2021 at 9:49 PM BST, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
My answer is "it depends". More precisely, in the past I would have
favored those who decline because the environment is unpleasant -- with
the implied assumption being that their objections are
> That would surely only be relevant if people wanted to use their
> telephones to compile code?
That's not completely clear. It would certainly be true if the compiler
were included on the phone, whether or not the compiler was actually used.
But I was more addressing the general comment that
On 20/04/2021 16:15, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
>> Just for the record, Google has no problem with the GPLv3. Google stopped
>> working on GCC because they made a company decision to use clang instead.
>> That decision was made for technical reasons, not licensing reasons.
>
> But note that so
> Just for the record, Google has no problem with the GPLv3. Google stopped
> working on GCC because they made a company decision to use clang instead.
> That decision was made for technical reasons, not licensing reasons.
But note that some cellphone manufacturers (e.g, Samsung) have taken
steps
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 12:54 AM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Check the git logs, Google employees are minor contributors these
> days. The GPLv3 scared Google away from GCC years ago.
>
Just for the record, Google has no problem with the GPLv3. Google stopped
working on GCC because they ma
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 04:47, Frosku wrote:
>
> On Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 4:06 PM BST, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> > Google doesn't pay anybody to work on GCC all day. You know nothing
> > about
> > GCC or the "problems" you're complaining about. Your input to this
> > conversation is not constructive.
>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:47 PM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Thomas Rodgers" , "Jonathan Wakely"
>
> Cc: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 4:06 PM BST, Thomas Rodg
On Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 4:06 PM BST, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> Google doesn't pay anybody to work on GCC all day. You know nothing
> about
> GCC or the "problems" you're complaining about. Your input to this
> conversation is not constructive.
This feels like that moment in 8Mile, "pay attention, you
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:06 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers"
> To: "Jonathan Wakely"
> Cc: "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On 2021-04-18 23:29, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
>
> > On M
On 2021-04-18 23:29, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, 02:41 Frosku, wrote:
On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly
conclude
their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because
On Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 7:29 AM BST, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, 02:41 Frosku, wrote:
>
> > On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> > > That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
> > > their opinions are consensual, or majo
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, 02:41 Frosku, wrote:
> On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> > That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
> > their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've
> > driven dissenters into silence.
>
>
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 1:10 PM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Alexandre Oliva" , "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc"
>
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> > That&#
On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 9:22 PM BST, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
> their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've
> driven dissenters into silence.
The problem is, Alex, that the trolls mostly haven't
On Sun Apr 18, 2021 at 8:13 PM BST, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> Utter nonsense, Alex. I think it's clear I don't agree with most of
> your posts on this list in the past month, but it would be silly to
> suggest that you should not be allowed to post here, given your track
> record. Dave didn'
On Apr 18, 2021, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> "Just ignore them" allows the trolls to dominate the discussion
*nod*
That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've
driven dissenters into silence.
V
On Apr 18, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Dave didn't say who he thinks should or shouldn't be moderated,
Shall we ask him to confirm what I read between the lines?
Shall we ask Nathan?
Shall we ask you?
> it would be silly to suggest that you should not be allowed to post
> here, given your
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 19:54, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
> That you claim some are entitled to share their opinions, because
> they've contributed code (and you agree with them), and that others are
> not because they haven't (and you disagree with them), but you do not
> disqualify those who
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 at 16:32, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> "Don't feed the trolls" might have worked once, but sometimes they
> start talking to each other, and it becomes difficult for a bystander
> to tell that everyone else is ignoring them, and it keeps threads like
> this one alive.
>
> I reject t
David,
On Apr 18, 2021, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> I reject the idea that those of us who work on GCC have to put up with
> arbitrary emails from random crazies on the internet without even the
> simple recourse of being able to put individuals on moderation.
All sides in this multi-threade
ent: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 2:51 AM
> From: "David Malcolm via Gcc"
> To: "Ian Lance Taylor"
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 09:10 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> Sorry for prolonging thi
On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 09:10 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Sorry for prolonging this thread-of-doom; I'm loathe to reply to Eric
because I worry that it will encourage him. I wrote a long rebuttal to
his last email to me about his great insights into the minds of women
but didn't send it in the ho
Hi Kenner
On April 18, 2021 12:42:25 PM UTC, ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu wrote:
> > So I think it's quite reasonable to expect that their employers
> could
> > read the SC's secret exchanges (since they technically CAN read them).
>
> I'm a bit lost here. What do you think is the content of "the
Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc :
> This conversation has moved well off-topic for the GCC mailing lists.
>
> Some of the posts here do not follow the GNU Kind Communication
> Guidelines (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html).
>
> I suggest that people who want to continue this thre
> So I think it's quite reasonable to expect that their employers could
> read the SC's secret exchanges (since they technically CAN read them).
I'm a bit lost here. What do you think is the content of "the SC's
secret exchanges"?
in foreign politics AND of
violations in human rights.
I have no doubt about your good faith and good will.
But I'm not naive enough to believe that good people will can balance
systemic issues and perversse incentives in the environment they work.
This clarification was important and
This conversation has moved well off-topic for the GCC mailing lists.
Some of the posts here do not follow the GNU Kind Communication
Guidelines (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html).
I suggest that people who want to continue this thread take it off the
GCC mailing list.
T
On 17/04/2021 13:56, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Hi Gerald,,
>
> On April 17, 2021 9:09:19 AM UTC, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
>>> In my view, if people employed by a small number of American
>> companies
>>> succeed in disassociating GCC from GNU/FSF, which is represen
gt; From: "Aaron Gyes via Gcc"
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> > I wasn't even implying that these cultures are 'good' or 'bad', just
> > that they exist and differ from the various regional cultures which
>
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 9:41 PM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Giacomo Tesio" , "Andrew Pinski" ,
> "Andrew Pinski via Gcc"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:08 AM BST, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 11:56 PM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio"
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Gerald Pfeifer" , "Frosku"
>
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> Hi Gerald,,
>
> On April 17, 2021 9:09:19 AM UTC, Gerald Pfeifer wrote
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 9:25 PM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Aaron Gyes" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:04 AM BST, Aaron Gyes via Gcc wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 2021, at 1:36 AM, Frosku
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 9:09 PM
> From: "Gerald Pfeifer"
> To: "Frosku"
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
> > In my view, if people employed by a small number of Ameri
在 17/04/2021 16.27, Aaron Gyes 写道:
As far as I understand it Chris Punches lives in North America.
Only 2% of the world population lives in the US, indeed, most live in China.
It’s interesting the unkind reaction Liu Hao received in this very thread
when they encountered the arguments making a
Hi Gerald,,
On April 17, 2021 9:09:19 AM UTC, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
> > In my view, if people employed by a small number of American
> companies
> > succeed in disassociating GCC from GNU/FSF, which is representative
> > of the free software grassroots communi
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:08 AM BST, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> But in fact, millions of people outside the US would feel excluded.
> And threatened. But we are all "jerks", right?
>
> ...
>
> Such culture is also dominated by RICH men, but it's unable to see the
> problem in term of global and local d
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:29 AM BST, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Beware with what you desire, Frosku.
>
> On April 16, 2021 11:15:57 PM UTC, Frosku wrote:
> >
> > I can't speak for others, but for me at least, replacing ties with GNU
> > with ties to another well-respected (non-corporate) entity in th
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:08 AM BST, Aaron Gyes via Gcc wrote:
> > I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just
> > my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural
> > norms.
>
> Can you not imagine… some people have already felt that way for quit
Beware with what you desire, Frosku.
On April 16, 2021 11:15:57 PM UTC, Frosku wrote:
>
> I can't speak for others, but for me at least, replacing ties with GNU
> with ties to another well-respected (non-corporate) entity in the free
> software world like Debian or the Apache foundation would go
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 10:04 AM BST, Aaron Gyes via Gcc wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2021, at 1:36 AM, Frosku wrote:
> > I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just
> > my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural
> > norms. This is not normal. Just b
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
> In my view, if people employed by a small number of American companies
> succeed in disassociating GCC from GNU/FSF, which is representative of
> the free software grassroots community
I find this insistant focus by some on "American companies"
interesting - a
> I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just
> my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural
> norms.
Can you not imagine… some people have already felt that way for quite some
time, and became excluded? That it is not a hypothetical for them
Hi Andrew and GCC,
On April 17, 2021 5:04:55 AM UTC, Andrew Pinski via Gcc
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:56 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 5:05 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 PM Frosku wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When I refer to a 'California
On Apr 17, 2021, at 1:36 AM, Frosku wrote:
> I feel imposed upon when, as a volunteer, I'm expected to submit not just
> my volunteered time but all of my time in every venue to your cultural
> norms. This is not normal. Just because some of you are paid very nice
> salaries to hack on free softwa
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 9:27 AM BST, Aaron Gyes via Gcc wrote:
> Give me a break Forsku.
>
> Could you care to share how you feel imposed upon or feel
> disenfranchised by
> this discussion not being sensitive to your culture? How does a code of
> conduct,
> or how would discouraging “micro-aggressi
> I wasn't even implying that these cultures are 'good' or 'bad', just
> that they exist and differ from the various regional cultures which
> exist all over the world. I think people were quite touchy at my line
> of questioning. I recognise that there are differences between i.e.
> LA and Seattle
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 7:21 AM BST, Chris Punches wrote:
> I've lived in most states in the US and can confirm exclusionary
> regional cultures not only exist but are more common than the absence
> of them.
>
> You might not see it in Sioux City, but you'll see it in LA, you'll see
> it in Dallas,
On 4/16/2021 10:08 PM, Frosku wrote:
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 5:05 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 PM Frosku wrote:
When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not prescriptive. It's
just a reference to the fact that a *lot* of the SC live in Californi
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:56 PM Frosku wrote:
>
> On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 5:05 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 PM Frosku wrote:
> > >
> > > When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not
> > > prescriptive. It's
> > > just a reference to the fact tha
On Sat Apr 17, 2021 at 5:05 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not prescriptive.
> > It's
> > just a reference to the fact that a *lot* of the SC live in California, and
> > any
> > cult
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:16 PM Frosku wrote:
>
> When I refer to a 'California cultural standard', that's not prescriptive.
> It's
> just a reference to the fact that a *lot* of the SC live in California, and
> any
> culture prescribed by the steering committee will be overly influenced by that
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 11:15 AM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Ian Lance Taylor"
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 5:28 PM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 15
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 5:28 PM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:08 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, I also think that a project which goes too far in
> > policing speech, especially speech unrelated to the project, will drive away
> > talented people who are more
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 23:42 Iain Sandoe via Gcc wrote:
> it is essential (IMO) that review of code is carried out on a fair and
> technical basis without personal attack or harrassment (or
> unwelcome unrelated attention).
>
Is this not the case on gcc-patches?
>
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:08 PM Frosku wrote:
>
> On the other hand, I also think that a project which goes too far in
> policing speech, especially speech unrelated to the project, will drive away
> talented people who are more than willing to comply with the project's norms
> within the project'
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 9:09 PM Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> Ian Lance Taylor :
> > Patronizing or infantilizing anybody doesn't come into this at all.
>
> I am not even *remotely* persuaded of this. This whole attitude that if
> a woman is ever exposed to a man with less than perfect American
> up
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 2:42 AM
> From: "Iain Sandoe via Gcc"
> To: "GCC Development"
> Cc: "Thomas Koenig"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> Kalamatee wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 11:05, Kalamatee wrote:
>
Kalamatee wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 11:05, Kalamatee wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 10:42, Iain Sandoe via Gcc wrote:
It is already a considerable leap for many engineers to post code for
public
review; it is essential (IMO) that review of code is carried out on a fair
and
technical
On 16.04.21 10:54, Iain Sandoe via Gcc wrote:
This forum (barring the current discussion where, frankly, the dissent
is not
coming from people who are actually active contributors),
Maybe I should have been less diplomatic :-)
I dissent, strongly.
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 10:39 AM BST, Kalamatee via Gcc wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 05:59, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> > Ian Lance Taylor :
> > > Patronizing or infantilizing anybody doesn't come into this at all.
> >
> > I am not even *remotely* persuaded of this. This whole attitude that if
>
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 05:59, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor :
> > Patronizing or infantilizing anybody doesn't come into this at all.
>
> I am not even *remotely* persuaded of this. This whole attitude that if
> a woman is ever exposed to a man with less than perfect American
> upper
Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:02 PM Frosku wrote:
We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to
succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many
are, you can choose to spend your time on the project where you have
to short-stop
Ian Lance Taylor :
> Patronizing or infantilizing anybody doesn't come into this at all.
I am not even *remotely* persuaded of this. This whole attitude that if
a woman is ever exposed to a man with less than perfect American
upper-middle-class manners it's a calamity requiring intervention
and m
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 4:19 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:02 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > > We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to
> > > succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many
> > > are, you can choose to spend your t
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:02 PM Frosku wrote:
>
> > We want free software to succeed. Free software is more likely to
> > succeed if more people work on it. If you are a volunteer, as many
> > are, you can choose to spend your time on the project where you have
> > to short-stop unwelcome advances
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 3:47 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
> This is about work. There are social aspects to free software, but
> it's not fundamentally a social activity. It's about getting
> something done, and for many people it's their job. For the sake of
> argument, I'm going to temp
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 4:29 PM Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> *grumble* Get *over* yourselves. You want to be "welcoming" to
> women? Don't patronize or infantilize them - respect their ability to
> tell off RMS for themselves *and then keep working with him*!
Thank you for sharing your experience
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 12:16 PM
> From: "Joseph Myers"
> To: "Frosku"
> Cc: e...@thyrsus.com, "Christopher Dimech" , "GCC
> Development"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wro
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 11:52 AM
> From: "Eric S. Raymond"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "Frosku" , "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> Christopher Dimech via Gcc :
> > The commercial use
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 1:16 AM BST, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
>
> > Right now, the ultimate oversight of GCC sits with GNU &
> > FSF -- both institutions with a mandate to represent the ecosystem based
> > on level of membership and time spent fighting for free softwa
Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 11:28 AM
> From: "Eric S. Raymond"
> To: "David Malcolm"
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Nathan Sidwell" , "Joseph Myers"
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
> Right now, the ultimate oversight of GCC sits with GNU &
> FSF -- both institutions with a mandate to represent the ecosystem based
> on level of membership and time spent fighting for free software.
I think the oversight of glibc by development working throug
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:52 AM BST, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Christopher Dimech via Gcc :
> > The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When people
> > at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use it,
> > and maybe distribute it themselves or encoura
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021, Frosku wrote:
> There is a colossal difference between commercial use and commercial
> entities buying control of projects currently governed by entities
> which are answerable to the grassroots (GNU) and then toppling that
RMS's notion of GNU is as something under his person
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:52 AM BST, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 2021, at 7:44 PM, Frosku wrote:
> >
> > On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:36 AM BST, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >>
> >> The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When
> >> people
> >> at IBM began to come to
Christopher Dimech via Gcc :
> The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When people
> at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use it,
> and maybe distribute it themselves or encourage other people to distribute
> it for them, we did not criticise th
> On Apr 15, 2021, at 7:44 PM, Frosku wrote:
>
> On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:36 AM BST, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>>
>> The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When
>> people
>> at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use
>> it,
>> and maybe dis
On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:36 AM BST, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When
> people
> at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use
> it,
> and maybe distribute it themselves or encourage other people to
> distribu
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 11:11 AM
> From: "Frosku"
> To: "Ian Lance Taylor" , chris.punc...@silogroup.org
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 9:51 PM BST, Ian Lance Taylor via G
David Malcolm :
> > I will, however, point out that it is a very *different* point from
> > "RMS has iupset some people and should therefore be canceled".
>
> Eric: I don't know if you're just being glib, or you're deliberately
> trying to caricature those of us who are upset by RMS's behavior.
M
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 6:30 PM David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 16:26 -0400, Chris Punches wrote:
> > What I see here in sum is another high level tightly integrated Red
> > Hat
> > employee saying the gist of "I'm really not saying it out of my
> > employer's interest and it
On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 9:51 PM BST, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:26 PM Chris Punches via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > Every single proponent of this argument that I have seen so far is
> > employed by one of the same 5 companies and "really isn't doing it on
> > behalf of my
On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 3:40 PM BST, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> I intended the weaker observation that driving away a large number of
> smart autistic assholes (and non-assholes with poor social skills)
> is not necessarily a good trade for the people the project might
> recruit by being "more welcomi
On 4/15/2021 2:26 PM, Chris Punches via Gcc wrote:
What I see here in sum is another high level tightly integrated Red Hat
employee saying the gist of "I'm really not saying it out of my
employer's interest and it has nothing to do with my personal
feelings".
Every single proponent of this arg
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 21:26, Chris Punches via Gcc wrote:
>
> What I see here in sum is another high level tightly integrated Red Hat
> employee saying the gist of "I'm really not saying it out of my
> employer's interest and it has nothing to do with my personal
> feelings".
>
> Every single pro
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 17:31 -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 21:48 +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
[...snip...]
> > > Perhaps a pronouncement like: "try to make everything be
> > consumable as
> > > libraries with APIs, as well as as standalone binaries" might
> > have
>
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 21:48 +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> David,
>
> for some reason or other, I did not get your mail, so I will
> just reply copying in from the archive.
>
> First, thanks for injecting some sanity into the discussion.
Thanks Thomas
> I will not discuss RMS' personal shortcomi
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:04 PM Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
>
> David,
>
> for some reason or other, I did not get your mail, so I will
> just reply copying in from the archive.
>
> First, thanks for injecting some sanity into the discussion.
>
> I will not discuss RMS' personal shortcomings or t
On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 16:26 -0400, Chris Punches wrote:
> What I see here in sum is another high level tightly integrated Red
> Hat
> employee saying the gist of "I'm really not saying it out of my
> employer's interest and it has nothing to do with my personal
> feelings".
I'm not sure I'm "high
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 8:51 AM
> From: "Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc"
> To: chris.punc...@silogroup.org
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:26 PM Chris Punches via Gcc wrote:
> >
>
> >> ===
> >>
> >> So .. in summary:
> >>
> >> 1/ I propose that we do have written guidelines, to which someone behaving
> >> in a
> >> non-constructive manner can be pointed.
> >>
> >> 2/ if those guidelines *are the consensus* of this group and someone is
> >> unable to
> >> follow them
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:26 PM Chris Punches via Gcc wrote:
>
> Every single proponent of this argument that I have seen so far is
> employed by one of the same 5 companies and "really isn't doing it on
> behalf of my company I swear".
>
> Why is it almost exclusively that specific crowd saying i
What I see here in sum is another high level tightly integrated Red Hat
employee saying the gist of "I'm really not saying it out of my
employer's interest and it has nothing to do with my personal
feelings".
Every single proponent of this argument that I have seen so far is
employed by one of the
Christopher Dimech wrote:
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 7:21 AM
From: "Iain Sandoe"
To: "GCC Development"
Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
Paul Koning wrote:
On Apr 15, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
...
responding in general to this part of th
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 12:45 PM Christopher Dimech via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Proposing the guidelines essentially means that the community accepts the fact
> that many of us are incapable of navigate everyday problems and dilemmas by
> making
> “right” decisions based on the use of good judgment and va
David,
for some reason or other, I did not get your mail, so I will
just reply copying in from the archive.
First, thanks for injecting some sanity into the discussion.
I will not discuss RMS' personal shortcomings or the lack of them.
In today's toxic political climate, such allegations are of
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 7:21 AM
> From: "Iain Sandoe"
> To: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> Paul Koning wrote:
> >> On Apr 15, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 5:31 AM
> From: "David Malcolm via Gcc"
> To: e...@thyrsus.com, "Joseph Myers"
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 09:49 -0400, Eric S. Ray
Paul Koning wrote:
On Apr 15, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
...
responding in general to this part of the thread.
* The GCC environment is not hostile, and has not been for the 15 or so
years I’ve been part of the community.
* We would notice if it became so, I’m not sure about the
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:31 AM David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
>
> I still admire much of what RMS has written, and have spent much of my
> career trying to implement part of a vision inspired by him. I'm sad
> about the way things have turned out. Twitter seems to turn everything
> into a pitche
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
