Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

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 emails[1] although there were possibly others. Given the context of the discussion, ESR is not only deeply unprofessional here, but also making personal attacks against Coraline Ada Ehmke. Disagreement is OK, attacks are not.

And as Gil notes in that email, how ESR is promoting his cause is actually hurting and undermining open source, not rescuing it. I'd add that such attacks are even more unacceptable when they come from an ex-President or Cofounder.

If I had been the moderator to make that call, I'd even have considered banning ESR without any particular evidence. That guy isn't new to the scene but has a long history of troublesome behavior. Even his first message upon return did not provide anything new to the discussion, so there was no reason to believe that keeping him around would provide any value to anyone. When his messages were largely brushed off (because they contributed no novel points aside from BeInG wRiTtEn By ThE cOfOuNdEr) that only seemed to encourage him to get more extreme, thus running straight into a ban. If not after that message, surely after the next.

[1]: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists....

I’m guessing you’re referring to https://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004 I came across it a while ago and bookmarked it to read later (but never found the time). I didn’t realise they were trying to get Matz to resign. I’m neither a Ruby developer – nor on Twitter so wouldn’t be too up-to-date on these issues.

What does “triangulation” mean in this context?

What does "feminist" mean in this context? Many of the people who claim to be radically feminist on places like Twitter, etc. are in practice quite hostile to the bulk of female engineers and developers, especially to those who aren't very vocally aligned with their political stance. It's not real feminism, it's just extreme hypocrisy and pushing fringe politics.

Can you provide examples of the "unprofessional" messages or the "personal attacks"?

> Ever hear the expression "Your right to your fist only extends as far as my face?"

I have. A "community guideline" or social disapproval of threatening violence may disallow those sorts of expressions, but they're quite common in certain communities (sports, games, etc - may be known as "trash talking").

> In order to express ideas openly, even firmly and directly, one does not need to be explicitly RUDE to others, and apply personal insults and attacks.

I agree. What one person interprets or intends as "explicitly RUDE" may be interpreted or intended differently by another individual, though, so an open community should assume good faith, correct the socially-determined, arbitrary language violation, and try to focus on the content of the message rather than delivery mechanism.

If you'd like to share examples of what makes you believe ESR[0] is unable to differentiate between a stupid idea and a stupid person, I'd be happy to examine them with you. I myself used Linus as an example of someone who can be famously insulting[1], yet I'm unaware of him actually permanently banning people from submitting new patches to the Linux kernel because he flipped out in a code review.

Indeed, as I think everyone can agree they've been polemic regardless of how you agree with them, the fact that they've engaged with the public at large seems contrary to your statement that they revel in personal attacks rather than engaging a free marketplace of ideas: They share an unambiguous position and offer defense of their ideas against all comers. I suspect most of this defense is done today by the organizations and the legacy they've created rather than them personally, which is why it's more noteworthy when they feel the need to make such strong statements.

> turns out that you don't HAVE to be a jerk, and you can express your strong beliefs in an idea without calling someone a looneytune.

You don't "HAVE" to be a jerk, but you may. I will listen to the content of your words rather than the appearance of your statement, and I believe ESR is aggressively asserting his position the Open Source Initiative should do the same.

I find it interesting you used "looneytune", because I don't see any message from ESR in the month of February using that word.[2][3] Quoting Russell McOrmond later in the thread[4] that does use the word "loonytoon", "ESR tried to post a message where he named and shamed some individuals and activities which he considers to be seriously problematic not only in society as a whole, but software communities as well. The moderators rejected his email to this list. Some might even suggest he is being de-platformed by being blocked from expressing personal political views. I'm not suggesting this, as I'm advocating strongly that those who wish to use software and software licenses to discriminate be invited (strongly if required) to go elsewhere than the OSI mailing lists."

[0]: Or Linus, I suppose, though that's less relevant to the specific topic

[1]: https://www.fudzilla.com/media/k2/items/cache/7a3a7dc8bbb8eb... - I don't mean to insult him and use/appreciate his work/writings practically every day!

[2]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists...

[3]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists... is quoting a message that was rejected by the moderators. It appears ESR rephrased without public discussion and it never went out to the list.

[4]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists...