On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:21 PM, WereSpielChequers <
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
Those are the words of someone who has tried and tried again before
deciding to leave.
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
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
We need to make a choice.
On 7 October 2015 at 22:33, Moriel Schottlender <moriel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:44 PM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com
to let wikipedia NPOV also have a word, here what
thought about it two years ago:
in a summary, torvalds argues that sarah sharp should accept that
people are different and act different, she should not try to change
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
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.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)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
On Oct 7, 2015 6:44 AM, "Jason Radford" <jsradford(a)uchicago.edu>
> I think folks here will understand this story.
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
No trees were harmed in the creation of this post.
But billions of electrons, photons, and electromagnetic waves were terribly
inconvenienced during its transmission!