[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Harrassment on this list

From: Alexandre François Garreau
Subject: Re: Harrassment on this list
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 03:42:04 +0100

Le lundi 24 février 2020, 03:26:17 CET DJ Delorie a écrit :
> Alexandre François Garreau <> writes:
> > Yet expressing it directly, without filter, it has already been
> > said, is unkind.
> I agree, and I think this is a key point to understand.  The FSF has

Wait why “the FSF”? until now we were only speaking about GNU, not about 
the FSF.

> stated that it will accept work from anyone regardless of what they

This is strange as I never saw a such statement from FSF.  FSF is a 
politically non-neutral charity, it would be to be expected from its 
member (not necessarily to its donators, such as google/etc.) to uphold 
and believe in their values.  This is like charities work… and why most of 
them work by voting of their members.

> Kindness is about what people SAY.  I don't think there's a
> conflict there.

There still can be, if you are picky: because you can *believe* things 
about what you say: you can believe about the meaning you intent, about 
the meaning you understand, about the meaning you want to convey, about 
the meaning you believe is important conveying, about what is correct to 
say or not, what is kind or not, etc.

“say” is pretty much near “think”, because we think with words pretty much 
often, and we say what we think also often (otherwise we are secret (it’s 
a cultural and personality trait) or lying/hypocritical).

Yet there is “do” which is much further from what we say.  This is the 
kind of thing such obligations are about.

> You can believe in something and choose not to talk about it if you know
> the audience would react poorly to what you say or how you say it, that
> is kindness.

It is also intelligence x)

> Choosing to say something that would hurt someone else is
> unkind, even if you belive it is true.

It depends of your relationship with the person, and what you believe the 
result will be.  Personally, I will always want to know what people 
believe about me, even if it hurts.  I would be all too scared to one day 
be surprised about something people thought, or even told in my back, 
about me, all that time, and never told me, until it, one day, have 
practical consequences I wouldn’t ever had the time to act upon…

> It's not about what you
> believe, it's about how you choose to talk about that belief. 
> Communication happens best when both sides choose carefully how they
> communicate.

Good point.

> I have never heard the FSF say "we'll accept patches from anyone, no
> matter how they behave on our mailing lists".

FSF can’t accept patch, as far as I know they don’t run any software 
project… do they? maybe their website can be considered as one… but do 
they update it with patches?

Anyway from what I heard FSF’s mailing-lists are more harshely censored 
than GNU’s one.

However a patch is a better example of “do” which is further from “think” 
and even “say”… but I find shocking to propose the idea to refuse someone’s 
technical contributions over their past declarations… even if it’s 
constructive? how childish is that?! is that like a punition? or what? 
what does it have to do with? what’s the relationship?

I am to recall very well that really interesting contribution to the 
discussion from Samuel: he said sometimes someone is “toxic” in a certain 
place/circumstances, but not in others… it would be stupid not to profit 
from the ones where that person wouldn’t cause trouble! even the opposite! 
that’d make them used to work with other, to communicate properly, to feel 
the satisfaction of getting things done, efficiently (that requires proper 
communication), and maybe would learn, or at least get the incentive, to 
do that in other places where they would have got bad behavior!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]