Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

lunduke.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 447 posts

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#421

Post by mjevans »

aeturnum wrote: post #387
mjevans wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part under discussion appears to be a quoted earlier message; HOWEVER I would much prefer a link to a message plausibly at least to be from the same server as ESR's other messages. I would like a link to the source, rather than someone saying a given source happened to send X. I could not in a quick 5 min of searching through Eric S. Raymond posts on that thread, see the actual source that is quoted.

In the same previous thread, people say that the offending emails were deleted from the OSI archive[1]. This seems, to me, like a very bad move for exactly the reasons you're highlighting here. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22518473

This is problematic because as I point out without an __IMPARTIAL__ __witness__ that I can trust to relay the truth, no matter how horrid, all I (we) have to go on is the hearsay of others.

For example, the source you link may have just attempted to reconstruct the message based on what can be seen in the reply. However the chain of authenticity has been extended to contain those who may have motive to unfaithfully reproduce or even fake a/the message. We can't know as the transparency of the archive is now also in question.

Edit:

Under the assumption the reproduction is faithful, my own personal OPINIONs...

Calling someone a loonytoon is uncouth, deserving a brief lecture for attacking someone rather than debating the ideals they happen to believe in at the current time (or in the past if it's a clear reference to such). (Edit 2:) Also in that paragraph, there's a term I'd hesitate to Google for not knowing it's meaning offhand... I'm not sure how good/bad it might actually be.

The vividly disgusting and offensive description (which could very easily have been added in the quoted reply) of rat* (censored) is something that a rational adult just shouldn't use on such a forum. If that's what OSI acted on, they really should be more transparent about it as well as their decision process.

Most of the version you linked on TechRights is otherwise speech that should be protected and encouraged. It is a protest and valid expression of feelings; save for some charged language.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#422

Post by zozbot234 »

chx wrote: post #420
zozbot234 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think projects like Linux are short on maintainers and reviewers? They even have multiple maintainers for the same pieces of code, each keeping their own, preferred version of the kernel "tree". And this is an inherently-scalable process, that only needs new, prospective sub-maintainers to demonstrate good judgment in "signing off" incoming patches. Many eyes making all bugs shallow, to user a rather well-known (…

> And this is an inherently-scalable process If this thread didn't already include https://lwn.net/ml/linux-fsdevel/20200217001153.GE10776@drea... titled "FS Maintainers Don't Scale" ... from someone much, much more qualified to judge that topic than either of us unless of course you are also a kernel maintainer because the author of that email sure is. Of course this is nothing new. For example, https://opensource.c…

> also at https://lwn.net/Articles/703005/

Um, that article includes quotes stating that cautiously expanding commit rights to the submaintainer's tree can help solve this scalability problem? And the more recent email you quote says this about the underlying reason this sometimes fails (and the lead developer can't cope with incoming patch volume, thus tending to burn out in the process - this is the "can't scale" they're talking about):

"...they [others] don't want to do it because they are scared of making a mistake and being yelled at by Our Mighty Leaders. That is a result of the fact that a Linux Maintainer is seen as a _powerful position_ because of the _control and influence_ it gives that person. It's also treated like an exclusive club (e.g. invite-only conferences for Maintainers) ... How many people do you know who have voluntarily given up a Maintainer position because they really didn't want to do it or they thought someone else could do a better job?"

So I fail to see how contentiousness and being more confrontational than not is helping there. The linux-kernel developers are in fact doing a pretty good job of not yelling at the real newcomers (which is what most people calling for CoC's usually focus on) yet the newcomers' patches still go unreviewed. And fiddling with rules of conduct is supposed to change this for the better, how? The more you do that, the less maintainers will be inclined to renounce their formally-acknowledged influence over the project.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#423

Post by mikekchar »

latk wrote: post #382
mikekchar wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, personally, it would be easier to accept a good faith answer if they explained what "sharp tone" led to the expulsion. I mean, I can completely understand if threats were made, or if disparaging comments against protected categories (i.e. sexist, racist, etc comments). Or hate speech, or content that is clearly against policy (i.e. links to pornography). Personal attacks, doxing, stalking, extended periods of…

ESR was not banned for having the wrong opinion – many others expressed similar opinions both before and after his messages. But ESR, over the course of a few days where he returned to the mailing list, was increasingly unable to express those opinions in a professional manner. While the moderators never stated their rationale, an unfortunate combination of off-list and on-list replies leaked one of ESR's blocked ema…

Thanks for giving some context. I really believe that if you are banning someone you should explain your rationale. Personal attacks are not good and if that email is to be believed then it certainly seems like a justified decision. Hopefully the moderators will be able to improve on the optics of their decisions in the future.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#424

Post by VectorLock »

kragen wrote: post #404
VectorLock wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Classy" in this case doesn't mean "class." Some people are turned off by vulgar language.

You say, '"Classy" in this case doesn't mean "class." Some people are turned off by vulgar language.' Your two statements seem to contradict each other; the first one is incorrect, and the second one is correct. Perhaps you do not know what the word "vulgar" means; it means "of the common people", that is to say, the lower class.

Despite the pedantic definitions of the words, the point the commenter was trying to make wasn't about class distinctions, it was that they were perceiving it to be offensive.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#425

Post by lmm »

root_axis wrote: post #389
lmm wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is wrong. The "magic" (i.e. the thing that distinguishes it from social pressure) is threat of violence or imprisonment from the state if you don't comply with the law. Again, though, any violence is ultimately going to be carried out by humans for social reasons. While these online outrage mobs are, as yet, nowhere near as powerful as governments, they're already making credible threats of violence, so that's…

> any violence is ultimately going to be carried out by humans for social reason Every interaction with another human falls under the label of "social", the word ceases to mean anything when used to describe everything, abusing that rhetorical ambiguity to equate tweets on the internet with civil order enforced by armed agents of the state is absurd. > While these online outrage mobs are, as yet, nowhere near as powe…

> Correct, not even close, and never will be in any conceivable future. The idea that a twitter mob could somehow ever be comparable in power to a government demonstrates a serious disconnection from reality and the power that governments exercise over their people all around the world and all through the annals of history.

That's a trick of definitions: when an organisation acquires particular kinds of power we call it a "government", regardless of how it's structured or operates. Historically it's completely normal for states to be taken over by religious groups, by social movements, by corporations, by criminal gangs. And in most of history there has been very little respect for freedom of speech, for the right to say unpopular things and not suffer devastating personal consequences, for the idea that there's such a thing as a loyal opposition, or an honest mistake. If we believe that's important - and I do - then it's not enough to just protect speech from governments. Maybe 200 years ago only governments and major religions wielded enough power to ruin lives, and so constitutional protections and strict laws on freedom of religion were enough. But in these days of megacorps and large social movements that's no longer true.

> So what are you proposing?

That firings should be required to be for cause, and there should be reasonable protections even for fired workers in terms of notice periods, payments and the like - similar to the way it works in France (or most developed countries really). That really vital things (in particular, healthcare) should be done by a provider that's obliged to serve everyone rather than a private company that's permitted to arbitrarily withdraw coverage.

> An asshole is not a "class" of people, it's a behavioral disposition.

Or it's anyone you don't like. In any case, the rationale for protected classes isn't about the fact that they're classes, it's about the risk of suffering coordinated action from others - which nowadays applies to people who've said unpopular things too.

> Nobody needs to be an asshole.

Nobody needs to be a particular religion, but that's still a protected class.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#426

Post by chx »

zozbot234 wrote: post #422
chx wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And this is an inherently-scalable process If this thread didn't already include https://lwn.net/ml/linux-fsdevel/20200217001153.GE10776@drea... titled "FS Maintainers Don't Scale" ... from someone much, much more qualified to judge that topic than either of us unless of course you are also a kernel maintainer because the author of that email sure is. Of course this is nothing new. For example, https://opensource.c…

> also at https://lwn.net/Articles/703005/ Um, that article includes quotes stating that cautiously expanding commit rights to the submaintainer's tree can help solve this scalability problem? And the more recent email you quote says this about the underlying reason this sometimes fails (and the lead developer can't cope with incoming patch volume, thus tending to burn out in the process - this is the "can't scale" t…

You are constantly moving the goalposts. I have tried to challenge your position of the Linux kernel not having enough maintainers stating the maintainer system is not as scalable as you say. I even found a scientific paper studying this.

You acknowledged nothing of this, rather singled out one email and spout nonsense:

> So I fail to see how contentiousness and being more confrontational than not is helping there.

What the hell, everything I talked about up to now is being LESS confrontational.

This was my last reply, don't bother replying to me, I am not engaging further. This was a waste of my time.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#427

Post by [deleted] »

kragen wrote: post #412
threatofrain wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does one’s intuition bring up classiness of all values at play....

Well, this is precisely a class conflict: the lower-class values of liberty, competence, autonomy, and honesty on Raymond's side, and the upper-class values of purity, etiquette, exclusion of the wrong sort of people†, and getting along well with the right sort of people, on Ehmke's side — although you might say that her etiquette is "more honored in the breach than in the observance", in our modern mangling of the p…

[deleted]

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#428

Post by kragen »

fancyfredbot wrote: post #415
kragen wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word didn't exist in Webster's time, so it's unclear which dictionary you're referring to, but in any case the definition is so incomplete as to be wrong. Etymonline says, "pertaining to or characteristic of a (high) class," from 1891. https://www.etymonline.com/word/classy GCIDE says, "having elegance or taste or refinement in manners or dress," and "exhibiting refinement and high character. Opposite of low-clas…

I think all social classes today would consider the term ratfucking obscene, and believe that using obscenities is inconsistent with a high standard of behaviour? It's interesting to look at the older roots of the word and see links to social class there but I'm not using the term in that sense. The definition I referred to is a modern one from Mirriam Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/classy

On the contrary, there are many people who consider using obscenities to be praiseworthy or even obligatory under certain circumstances. Generally they belong to social classes that you evidently have carefully avoided having any experience with.

The ideological line you're laying down here is a specifically upper-class ideology, as revealed by its content, not just the words you use. Your lack of awareness of the origin of that ideology comes from does not liberate you from that origin; on the contrary, it enslaves you to it, making you an instrument of agendas you do not understand and cannot question. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22551881

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#429

Post by kragen »

VectorLock wrote: post #424
kragen wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say, '"Classy" in this case doesn't mean "class." Some people are turned off by vulgar language.' Your two statements seem to contradict each other; the first one is incorrect, and the second one is correct. Perhaps you do not know what the word "vulgar" means; it means "of the common people", that is to say, the lower class.

Despite the pedantic definitions of the words, the point the commenter was trying to make wasn't about class distinctions, it was that they were perceiving it to be offensive.

The reason they perceive it to be offensive is that they are unconsciously enacting a dynamic of class domination that they cannot even question due to their lack of awareness, as further explained in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22551881

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#430

Post by iron0013 »

kazinator wrote: post #113
iron0013 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well okay, if you insist: Eric S. Raymond is a toxic loonytoon. And there’s plenty of evidence to support that assertion.

By the "takes one to know one" principle, we should pay attention to Raymond when the calls out another toxic loonytoon.

Except it obviously doesn’t take one to know one. Are we having an actual conversation or just lobbing empty rhetoric
Post reply on HN