[bhouston]

In real-life, outside of 10,000 word github issues, one should call those you are having problems with and talk about it. That is how you resolve these issues. You show empathy, you show understanding, you take more responsibility that you deserve because you have a strong ego, you focus on the future and how best to achieve joint success, you show some flexibility, you get a mutually beneficial resolution or an agreed plan of action that should lead to a better outcome. This is best done on a one-by-one basis. And people come to your side or at least understand you.

You need to not be accusatory, nor defensive.

This is the age old way of dealing with issues in a productive fashion. Read getting to "Getting to yes" or try getting married.

What I read in this github issue is just immature, very ineffective problem solving from I guess someone who doesn't know better.

[echaozh]

When people defame you in the public, to talk to people in the private don't solve all the problems. The public need to hear from both sides.

You don't like to hear the defense, all right. Just don't try to stop other people from hearing it.

[bhouston]

> When people defame you in the public, to talk to people in the private don't solve all the problems. The public need to hear from both sides.

Only if you want to run a negative sum game for all involved. This is a horrible strategy to engage in. You only end up also wrecking your own reputation and others and wasting a ton of time.

The socially mature thing to do is resolve this behind closed doors and be flexible as I suggested.

He may get some success by playing the martyr, but it will be success that occurs by his aggression, stubbornness and by expending more efforts in polemics than others. In the end he might still be standing but everyone around him will be wounded metaphorically because of this (mostly via huge wastes of time because of difficult conversations and departures of people from the project.)

Anyone who wants to run a company focused on results and to avoid unnecessary drama should avoid this type of character like the plague.

This behavior he is currently engaging in is a huge red flag if you recognize it for what it is.

Again, he is engaging in a strategy that forces everyone into a negative sum game, which is itself a form of aggression -- and it is easy to recognize from this github issue as I've seen this before close up. It is not a smart thing to do and should have been avoided by doing things differently long ago.

He can still pull up by basically retracting all of this and re-engaging in a mature and flexible manner that shows some contrition/empathy -- but that requires a strong ego, social maturity, and flexibility which may not be something that is possible on his part at this time. Everyone he is dealing with would love that I am sure, even at this stage, because it will stop the negative sum game.

[phiskk]

This isn't unnecessary drama on Rod's part. He is standing in the line of fire to shield the rest of his community from a McCarthyesque witchhunt conducted by SJWs, who are the real source of the drama.

[CrystalLangUser]

Once someone drags your name through the mud in public, it's well past the point of having a private chat. His behavior isn't a huge red flag in the slightest; he's responding to what's essentially a public attack of his character. Responding to something like that publicly when it's already a public situation isn't a form of aggression.

You are projecting WAY too much of your own bias and opinion into what was simply a response. It's telling that you're suggesting he needs to have social maturity when the allegations levied against him are pretty unsubstantiated- see the "evidence" of him retweeting an article discussing free speech concerns on college campuses.

Are you genuinely so obtuse as to scorn a man who's attempting to merely respond to being accused of something?

[bhouston]

If the allegations were unsubstantiated it would not have gotten this far, especially if he dealt with this in a mature fashion by engaging and showing he is just a reasonable person. If they were totally unsubstantiated the only way it would get to this point is because he dealt with it in the worst ways possiblle.

People wouldn't have quit to make what is essentially a useless fork if it were truly unsubstantiated. Those people are truly angry about what happened. This means there was something to resolve but it wasn't resolved, we just get grandstanding and massive effort into polemical defenses.

He tactically argues like a really smart guy, but his overall strategy is the wrong one.

[freeone3000]

This reads akin to the logic behind a witch hunt - a bunch of people are very upset at a person, therefore the person must be a witch. I disagree with the premise.

The people are indisputibly angry. They may have reason to be angry. I don't see it, but they may have it. But the entire line that "he's accused, therefore he must be guilty" is flawed.

[CrystalLangUser]

If it was substantiated there would be evidence. I see nothing beyond inane things that aren't worth this fuss.

It seems like another example of CoCs being used maliciously to hunt someone out of bias.

[_kyjg]

bhouston's statements are far more nuanced than saying that they don't want to hear the defense or attempting to prevent others from hearing it.

[phiskk]

Perhaps you should be telling this to those who launched a witchhunt against Rod because he undermined their oppression tool. They certainly didn't try to "call those you are having problems with and talk about it."