[joe_the_user]

Below email is the quoted statement:

ts originator is a toxic loonytoon who believes "show me the code" > meritocracy is at best outmoded and in general a sinister supremacist > plot by straight white cisgender males."

I think open source has a serious problem in the sense that there are a lot of projects headed by single, rather abusive and obsessed individuals. And moreover, where a stream of obscenities in an email is considered a normal way of communicating, accompanied by a "if you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen" attitude. "Show me the code meritocracy" can be more or less this.

My guess is that OSI has been attempting to change the situation. Part of the change would demanding people avoid streams of "strong language" as ESR uses above. Moroever, I suspect people already said "we're aiming for a better standard of communication".

As far the practical value goes, I'm not sure if there is an easy way to change the situation. Installing an ombudsman on projects is kind of hard given the projects are indeed going to belong to those who produce a lot of decent code. People create open source software that scratches their itch, not to conform to others' values.

[tomc1985]

His statements seem more like the words of a man who feels strongly and passionately about his cause. It's a little suprising that the OSI keeps such high standards for decorum if that was the message that got him banned.

It deserves a warning, maybe, but banning him? Cancel culture indeed.

[cosmiccatnap]

If you said that at work how well would it go you think...

[tomc1985]

I don't know where you work but at most--if not all--of my jobs this sort of internal discussion can be somewhat common when things get heated. We hurl epithets about outsiders when we get frustrated, and sometimes speak strongly not unlike what ESR said.

Would that kind of language/dialog be tolerated if it was directed at other people present or on the team? Or towards stakeholders? Of course not.

Of course, our discussions don't get immortalized on a public mailing list for every interested busybody to critique, and that does change the dynamic a bit...

[joe_the_user]

Would that kind of language/dialog be tolerated if it was directed at other people present or on the team? Or towards stakeholders? Of course not.

The ESR comment clearly directed at an OSI "person present" who also was a stakeholder, FYI.

[riffraff]

I wouldn't say such a thing, I believe.

But I think if I was in charge and I had to police behaviour a warning would be my first reaction, rather than an immediate ban.

I mean, aren't we supposed to tell people when they're wrong first, and only resort to harsher means later?

[lolCoraAgainK]

>I think open source has a serious problem in the sense that there are a lot of projects headed by single, rather abusive and obsessed individuals.

The person behind ESD has a history of getting people 'removed' from projects.

To them, I say: physician, heal thyself. I'm really sorry that they've lived a life being bullied so much that they derive such pleasure from doing so to others.

[luckylion]

> I think open source has a serious problem in the sense that there are a lot of projects headed by single, rather abusive and obsessed individuals.

Individuals, who, let's not forget that, are the reason the projects exist in the first place, and who may feel more attachment to the projects than others. That they react more strongly to the impression that some other group is trying to take over their project, often years or decades of their life, and destroy it (by their standards) is understandable, I think.

And also, let's not forget that those seeking control via CoC are often equally abusive, they just strategically limit their abusiveness to Twitter & co and keep it off of official mailing lists to be able to say "I always stayed professional (here, while I was backstabbing everywhere else)".

[joe_the_user]

Individuals, who, let's not forget that, are the reason the projects exist in the first place, and who may feel more attachment to the projects than others.

Absolutely, it's quite a quandary. The thing is, there's a difference between "random tool ten people use and no one would create with person X" and, say, Open Office and there are a variety of shades in between. At some point, the "I created this and I can manipulate it any way I want" thing is really problematic and stands in the way of a semi-important standard/application/library but at other points, there is no easy alternative.

[luckylion]

I don't know. Generally, "it worked out great the past two decades" is, to me, a good indicator that it's going to work out in the future, too. It might not be nice and you might not want to stand in the line of fire, but it's going to be consistent, and if you like what you saw until now, consistency is what you want. Who knows where Linux will go without Linus. Maybe Google will push DRM into the kernel and in five years you can't run adblock any more on a modern Kernel (yes, I'm being hyperbolic).

What I do like about the "there's no place for niceness here" is one thing over all: if you can make it there, you can take the heat. And if you're in a position of responsibility, that's really something that is extremely important. It sorts out the people that can't stand the heat, and that's ugly and hard on those people, but it's good for the project, because you can't have them only experience the heat for the first time when they are in power and Amazon leans on them with their billion dollar law team and the promise of a cushy office job.

I understand the idea of "this madness and chaos got us this far, but we'll have to grow up and start doing it the way the people do it that we didn't like when we started it, it's just too big and too important". It's very similar to what happened in the crypto scene when a bunch of guys did some cool stuff and then they realize that their little project now is worth more than many countries' GDP, that's probably a sobering talk.

I don't know that it's necessarily a good idea, though. So far, benevolent dictators have worked out great, even if some of them ruled with a sharp tongue and an iron fist. Whether the alternative will work as well remains to be seen.

[notyourday]

> I think open source has a serious problem in the sense that there are a lot of projects headed by single, rather abusive and obsessed individuals.

Why not fork those projects and makes those awesome forks full of code with unicorns and glitter?

If those single rather abusive individuals have to compete with code + unicorns + glitter, I'm certainly going to switch to that and I bet the others will too