5 ms·

> How _not_ to interact with your community 101. On the contrary, I think he handled it perfectly. I've become exhausted with most discussions on social media

> How _not_ to interact with your community 101. On the contrary, I think he handled it perfectly. I've become exhausted with most discussions on social media, because conversations frequently get hijacked by loud people with strong opinions that don't express them in good faith. Without strict moderation, it can become impossible to have a rational discussion on certain topics. For example, pretty much anything on HN involving Google devolves into worthless noise. In the case discussed in the OP, Poettering clearly has no intention of changing the default configuration (at least based on the reasons given in the issue), and has provided a way of modifying the configuration for those that care enough to change it. There's no value in further debate, and closing the issue to further discussion keeps Poettering and other contributors from getting distracted/burned out by unproductive conversation. If people don't like it, they're free to fork Systemd or start up their own competing software project, and then they can handle community interaction for their own project in whatever way suits them. Frankly, I wish more discussion were handled this efficiently.

KaiserPro 6y ago
Its not really efficiently. Something like: "we've discussed this a number of times, see #12345" closing now would have closed the ticket and not made the front page. By being a top draw dick about it (when the originator was at least being earnest) the debate rolls on. He had given a full answer, he could have left it there, but chose not to. its this kind of "rock star" and cheerleaders that give IT a bad smell.
- bad_user 6y ago
  Are you talking about the comment that closed the ticket [1]? Are we not seeing the same thing, because that's not a "top draw dick" I'm seeing. He was perfectly reasonable. And I don't know if you've ever managed any popular open source projects, however it's best to close tickets fast instead of letting them linger on, especially when you have over 1000 opened issues and especially if, as a maintainer, you know that you won't change your mind about that issue. Then he got accused of being funded by Google. He actually showed restraint. [1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/12499#issuecomment-490057558 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/12499#issuecomment...
  - wtallis 6y ago
    > Are we not seeing the same thing, because that's not a "top draw dick" I'm seeing. > He was perfectly reasonable. The original complaint had the form "this default should be changed for reason X". Poettering's response was "our defaults are Y, and you can change them". That's not perfectly reasonable. It's a non sequitur. Poettering's response passively-aggressively ignores what the original complaint was all about, instead of simply issuing a direct rejection.
    - bad_user 6y ago
      It isn't a non-sequitur, he offered a solution for users that would like different settings, while choosing not to engage in pointless arguments. While professional courtesy is recommended, maintainers don't really owe an explanation for their work when provided for free. Put that man on a payroll and you might deserve a more detailed answer.
      - wtallis 6y ago
        It is absolutely a non-sequitur to tell someone what the defaults are when they are complaining that they do not like what the defaults are. "Choosing not to engage in pointless arguments" would be not responding at all, rather than responding in a manner that is implicitly insulting. Poettering phrased his response as if he was answering a different issue than the one he was actually responding to. Deliberately misinterpreting someone's question instead of directly saying he didn't want to get into that matter is poor behavior.
        growse 6y ago
        If they don't like the defaults, they could just fork the project.
      - KaiserPro 6y ago
        Its more basic than that. He chose not to give a _detailed_ answer, and diverted from the original point. Thats perfectly fine then to go off on one here: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/12499#issuecomment-642645878 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/12499#issuecomment... its just being a dick. Its not even entertaining.
bad_user 6y ago
It is regrettable that this comment got down-voted (at the moment of writing this). I very much agree — and I would add that there's a strong entitlement complex among loud non-contributors. If you don't contribute anything but opinions, then be respectful, respect the author's choices, or start your own fork, which is what open source is about.
- ghostpepper 6y ago
  Name calling is never productive, and the maintainer of a project sets the tone for the interaction of the entire community.
wtallis 6y ago
> In the case discussed in the OP, Poettering clearly has no intention of changing the default configuration (at least based on the reasons given in the issue), Poettering never even acknowledged that there are privacy concerns. Simply saying "if you don't like the defaults, change it yourself" is in no way equivalent to saying "I don't care about or share your privacy concerns, but here's how to override the defaults if they bother you".
falcolas 6y ago
Handled perfectly would be "No, reference bug #X, closing" and closing/locking the thread. Question gets answered, nobody gets insulted. Denigrating your community as the "script kiddie peanut gallery" is, at best going to piss off your community and at worse make them less likely to work with you in the future.
- esgwpl 6y ago
  To be fair to Poettering, someone accused the systemd devs of being on Google's payroll, if I were him I'd be annoyed as well.
  - wtallis 6y ago
    > if I were him I'd be annoyed as well. Especially when he had to answer in the affirmative, that there is indeed a conflict of interest, but it's a really tiny one that hardly anyone would be bothered by.
  - laumars 6y ago
    The original question was stupid. We all get that. We’ve all suffered that on occasions at work. But that doesn’t justify his grossly unprofessional response.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    Google has a well known, and well documented history of donating to open source projects to get their own products added as defaults. Combine with a for-profit company (RedHat) who does not disclose all of their financials (and that’s their prerogative), and it’s a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

KaiserPro 6y ago

Its not really efficiently. Something like: "we've discussed this a number of times, see #12345" closing now would have closed the ticket and not made the front page. By being a top draw dick about it (when the originator was at least being earnest) the debate rolls on. He had given a full answer, he could have left it there, but chose not to. its this kind of "rock star" and cheerleaders that give IT a bad smell.

bad_user 6y ago
Are you talking about the comment that closed the ticket [1]? Are we not seeing the same thing, because that's not a "top draw dick" I'm seeing. He was perfectly reasonable. And I don't know if you've ever managed any popular open source projects, however it's best to close tickets fast instead of letting them linger on, especially when you have over 1000 opened issues and especially if, as a maintainer, you know that you won't change your mind about that issue. Then he got accused of being funded by Google. He actually showed restraint. [1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/12499#issuecomment-490057558 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/12499#issuecomment...
- wtallis 6y ago
  > Are we not seeing the same thing, because that's not a "top draw dick" I'm seeing. > He was perfectly reasonable. The original complaint had the form "this default should be changed for reason X". Poettering's response was "our defaults are Y, and you can change them". That's not perfectly reasonable. It's a non sequitur. Poettering's response passively-aggressively ignores what the original complaint was all about, instead of simply issuing a direct rejection.
  - bad_user 6y ago
    It isn't a non-sequitur, he offered a solution for users that would like different settings, while choosing not to engage in pointless arguments. While professional courtesy is recommended, maintainers don't really owe an explanation for their work when provided for free. Put that man on a payroll and you might deserve a more detailed answer.
    - wtallis 6y ago
      It is absolutely a non-sequitur to tell someone what the defaults are when they are complaining that they do not like what the defaults are. "Choosing not to engage in pointless arguments" would be not responding at all, rather than responding in a manner that is implicitly insulting. Poettering phrased his response as if he was answering a different issue than the one he was actually responding to. Deliberately misinterpreting someone's question instead of directly saying he didn't want to get into that matter is poor behavior.
      - growse 6y ago
        If they don't like the defaults, they could just fork the project.
    - KaiserPro 6y ago
      Its more basic than that. He chose not to give a _detailed_ answer, and diverted from the original point. Thats perfectly fine then to go off on one here: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/12499#issuecomment-642645878 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/12499#issuecomment... its just being a dick. Its not even entertaining.

bad_user 6y ago

It is regrettable that this comment got down-voted (at the moment of writing this). I very much agree — and I would add that there's a strong entitlement complex among loud non-contributors. If you don't contribute anything but opinions, then be respectful, respect the author's choices, or start your own fork, which is what open source is about.

ghostpepper 6y ago
Name calling is never productive, and the maintainer of a project sets the tone for the interaction of the entire community.

wtallis 6y ago

> In the case discussed in the OP, Poettering clearly has no intention of changing the default configuration (at least based on the reasons given in the issue), Poettering never even acknowledged that there are privacy concerns. Simply saying "if you don't like the defaults, change it yourself" is in no way equivalent to saying "I don't care about or share your privacy concerns, but here's how to override the defaults if they bother you".

falcolas 6y ago

Handled perfectly would be "No, reference bug #X, closing" and closing/locking the thread. Question gets answered, nobody gets insulted. Denigrating your community as the "script kiddie peanut gallery" is, at best going to piss off your community and at worse make them less likely to work with you in the future.

esgwpl 6y ago
To be fair to Poettering, someone accused the systemd devs of being on Google's payroll, if I were him I'd be annoyed as well.
- wtallis 6y ago
  > if I were him I'd be annoyed as well. Especially when he had to answer in the affirmative, that there is indeed a conflict of interest, but it's a really tiny one that hardly anyone would be bothered by.
- laumars 6y ago
  The original question was stupid. We all get that. We’ve all suffered that on occasions at work. But that doesn’t justify his grossly unprofessional response.
- falcolas 6y ago
  Google has a well known, and well documented history of donating to open source projects to get their own products added as defaults. Combine with a for-profit company (RedHat) who does not disclose all of their financials (and that’s their prerogative), and it’s a perfectly reasonable question to ask.