3 ms·

I’m sorry that I implied that you were acting in bad faith; that’s just the phrase I’m familiar with that describes the style of listening that I recognsed in y

I’m sorry that I implied that you were acting in bad faith; that’s just the phrase I’m familiar with that describes the style of listening that I recognsed in your replies. If I understood your argument correctly, your position is that both Lennart and Linux exhibit aggressive, egotistical, “asshole” behavior. This makes them equally bad and thus condemning Lennart more that Linux is unfair. I recognse this style of argument as the Continuum Fallacy: that if two things fall into the same scale of badness, then as a whole they are equally bad. I disagree with this argument, and think it is possible for someone to complain & take action against one problem without being obliged to do the same against another similar problem. I also think that people can choose which problem to address, and do not necessarily have to only address the most egregious issue. As I understand it, your complaint is that people complain about Lennart’s antisocial behaviour but remain silent on Linus’. I think that, since this topic is regarding systemsd, people will take about Lennart, and as the topic is not about the Linux kernel, people won’t talk about Linus. So, there may be lots of comments addressing Linus’ behaviour, but I wouldn’t expect to see them here. Finally, I think the thing that makes Linus more acceptable than Lennart is that Linus is open about mistakes and has grown a developement community which encourages collaboration, and his outbursts are directed at changes which don’t match his expectations (which are fairly well established: run tests, check for merge conflicts, etc.). I hope I have been clearer, and that this helps you make sense of some of the behaviour you have seen that you think is inconsistent/irrational.

KirinDave 9y ago
> that’s just the phrase I’m familiar with that describes the style of listening that I recognsed in your replies. The word you're looking for is "non-sympathetic." I certainly am that. > This makes them equally bad and thus condemning Lennart more that Linux is unfair. Parsing this, you've subtly mistaken my position. I'll return your gesture in kind: The Free Software as a whole is wracked with a plague of toxic leaders who copy the general lkml-style of aggressiveness, often promoting the fallacy of strictly-correct technological solutions and tying the production of such magical solutions to the capability of an individual as opposed to the capacity of the group. In this context, the systemd project doesn't particularly stand out. It seems quite normal within a world that nourishes and rewards toxic social ecosystems. Discarding Systemd uniquely is in this climate for Lennart's behavior is difficult to justify. You can argue his behavior is different and you yourself have a distinct objection to this. As I've said; that's your prerogative. You can in fact decide to give Linus a pass but not Lennart. But I submit that this process of deciding who can be cruel and who cannot is inherently unfair. It's axiomatically unfair. To further extend that to the basis of technology decisions (that in most cases people far more expert than either of us in the specific field of linux distro maintenance) is to essentially undermine the very reasoning that supports the "meritocracy" that supposedly undermines this ecosystem. You CAN draw a differentiation, I'm not denying that. They do subtly different things. I in no way defend Lennert's attitude. If I had my way, I'd throw the lot of them out of their respective projects and install someone more level headed. I genuinely wish we could do that. For me, the good outcome is that people wake up and realize, "Wow, ALL these people are reprehensible and we should lose them all." > I think the thing that makes Linus more acceptable than Lennart is that Linus is open about mistakes and has grown a developement community which encourages collaboration, This is you, handing out a pass for bad behavior to Linus. Because "he can grow." Okay, sure. But I've been watching him since the start of the project. I don't think he's grown very much at all except where it financially benefits him. I think this process of granting dispensation and refusing to censure specific people in the technology community is an epidemic of hero worship. It's an epidemic that leads us to small mistakes (bad mailing list management & tech decisions made against the advice of the principles we claim to cherish) up to large mistakes (Clinkle, Uber, and Github's management was all run with this principle at the fore, and it had disastrous results). > I think that, since this topic is regarding systemsd, people will take about Lennart, and as the topic is not about the Linux kernel, people won’t talk about Linus. A bold assertion, given that people are naturally drawing comparisons to that end outside this thread without prompting from me. I take this as evidence the cognitive dissonance of passing Torvalds and condemning Poettering weighs on people when they consider it, and they seek to rationalize it.
- falsedan 9y ago
  > non-sympathetic I would use this to describe someone who clearly didn't care about the other person's point of view; you seem to be completely ignoring what they said and misrepresenting them to be arguing for a case you have prepared a counter-argument for. E.g. when I say "I had a bad day" to my boss & they reply "tough, deal with it", they're not listening sympathetically; when they reply "you would have an easier time if you stopped creating so many bugs", then they're listening in bad faith. > Parsing this, you've subtly mistaken my position. I'm using a technique called 'active listening', where you repeat back to the person what you think they mean. This way, they can respond "yeah that's right", or "no, I see when I said <blah> it could be interpreted as <blah blah> but I meant <blah blah blah>". I think your response is using my misunderstanding of your position to score points & promote your agenda, instead of clarifying what you said so I understand it better. > This is you, handing out a pass for bad behavior to Linus. I didn't say that Linus gets a pass from me. I haven't mentioned any of my preferences regarding specific developers and their aggressive behaviours. My thesis is, "it's ok to call out a person on bad behaviour when other people also show that bad behaviour". > Because "he can grow." I didn't say that. If you're paraphrasing my statement, I meant the community has grown.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    > I think your response is using my misunderstanding of your position to score points & promote your agenda, instead of clarifying what you said so I understand it better. If you find my restating of my position—attempting to clarify it and put it in context—is "scoring points" then I only see 2 things: 1. Upon understanding it better you find my arguments more tailored to the argument and think this represents an unfair action. 2. You would rather I just agree with you rather than write honest responses. The idea that I have any standing TO disagree is evidence of "an agenda," an inappropriate thing to bring at all. Not sure how a constructive conversation can continue, based on this. I reject your premise. You reject mine. This conversation is only growing thornier and more tedious, and it's only out of respect to you that I have continued in good faith thus far. Perhaps this is where we agree to disagree and move on?
    - 9y ago

KirinDave 9y ago

> that’s just the phrase I’m familiar with that describes the style of listening that I recognsed in your replies. The word you're looking for is "non-sympathetic." I certainly am that. > This makes them equally bad and thus condemning Lennart more that Linux is unfair. Parsing this, you've subtly mistaken my position. I'll return your gesture in kind: The Free Software as a whole is wracked with a plague of toxic leaders who copy the general lkml-style of aggressiveness, often promoting the fallacy of strictly-correct technological solutions and tying the production of such magical solutions to the capability of an individual as opposed to the capacity of the group. In this context, the systemd project doesn't particularly stand out. It seems quite normal within a world that nourishes and rewards toxic social ecosystems. Discarding Systemd uniquely is in this climate for Lennart's behavior is difficult to justify. You can argue his behavior is different and you yourself have a distinct objection to this. As I've said; that's your prerogative. You can in fact decide to give Linus a pass but not Lennart. But I submit that this process of deciding who can be cruel and who cannot is inherently unfair. It's axiomatically unfair. To further extend that to the basis of technology decisions (that in most cases people far more expert than either of us in the specific field of linux distro maintenance) is to essentially undermine the very reasoning that supports the "meritocracy" that supposedly undermines this ecosystem. You CAN draw a differentiation, I'm not denying that. They do subtly different things. I in no way defend Lennert's attitude. If I had my way, I'd throw the lot of them out of their respective projects and install someone more level headed. I genuinely wish we could do that. For me, the good outcome is that people wake up and realize, "Wow, ALL these people are reprehensible and we should lose them all." > I think the thing that makes Linus more acceptable than Lennart is that Linus is open about mistakes and has grown a developement community which encourages collaboration, This is you, handing out a pass for bad behavior to Linus. Because "he can grow." Okay, sure. But I've been watching him since the start of the project. I don't think he's grown very much at all except where it financially benefits him. I think this process of granting dispensation and refusing to censure specific people in the technology community is an epidemic of hero worship. It's an epidemic that leads us to small mistakes (bad mailing list management & tech decisions made against the advice of the principles we claim to cherish) up to large mistakes (Clinkle, Uber, and Github's management was all run with this principle at the fore, and it had disastrous results). > I think that, since this topic is regarding systemsd, people will take about Lennart, and as the topic is not about the Linux kernel, people won’t talk about Linus. A bold assertion, given that people are naturally drawing comparisons to that end outside this thread without prompting from me. I take this as evidence the cognitive dissonance of passing Torvalds and condemning Poettering weighs on people when they consider it, and they seek to rationalize it.

falsedan 9y ago
> non-sympathetic I would use this to describe someone who clearly didn't care about the other person's point of view; you seem to be completely ignoring what they said and misrepresenting them to be arguing for a case you have prepared a counter-argument for. E.g. when I say "I had a bad day" to my boss & they reply "tough, deal with it", they're not listening sympathetically; when they reply "you would have an easier time if you stopped creating so many bugs", then they're listening in bad faith. > Parsing this, you've subtly mistaken my position. I'm using a technique called 'active listening', where you repeat back to the person what you think they mean. This way, they can respond "yeah that's right", or "no, I see when I said <blah> it could be interpreted as <blah blah> but I meant <blah blah blah>". I think your response is using my misunderstanding of your position to score points & promote your agenda, instead of clarifying what you said so I understand it better. > This is you, handing out a pass for bad behavior to Linus. I didn't say that Linus gets a pass from me. I haven't mentioned any of my preferences regarding specific developers and their aggressive behaviours. My thesis is, "it's ok to call out a person on bad behaviour when other people also show that bad behaviour". > Because "he can grow." I didn't say that. If you're paraphrasing my statement, I meant the community has grown.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  > I think your response is using my misunderstanding of your position to score points & promote your agenda, instead of clarifying what you said so I understand it better. If you find my restating of my position—attempting to clarify it and put it in context—is "scoring points" then I only see 2 things: 1. Upon understanding it better you find my arguments more tailored to the argument and think this represents an unfair action. 2. You would rather I just agree with you rather than write honest responses. The idea that I have any standing TO disagree is evidence of "an agenda," an inappropriate thing to bring at all. Not sure how a constructive conversation can continue, based on this. I reject your premise. You reject mine. This conversation is only growing thornier and more tedious, and it's only out of respect to you that I have continued in good faith thus far. Perhaps this is where we agree to disagree and move on?
  - 9y ago