4 ms·

Sea-lioning isn't nicely asking someone to elaborate on their view or asking for more specifics. This is not sea-lioning: Person 1: I really think X is bad be

Sea-lioning isn't nicely asking someone to elaborate on their view or asking for more specifics. This is not sea-lioning: Person 1: I really think X is bad because A, B C. Person 2: I disagree, X is fine because D, E, F. Person 1: eh... I disagree. And I think D is problematic too. That's merely a civil discussion. This is sea-lioning: Person 1: I really think X is bad because A, B, and C. Person 2: You're wrong. X is fine. Why don't you explain why its wrong hmm? Person 1: I just said, because A B and C.... Person 2: A B and C are irrelevant; Why don't you explain to me why X is bad. You can't do it! You don't know what you're talking about! Person 1: I'm actually an expert in X, I've worked on it for two decades. I don't understand why you don't see A, B, and C are problematic? Person 2: I highly doubt you know anything about X. If you can't explain why X is bad perhaps its your own limited understanding of X. All you talk about is A B and C but you don't explain why X is bad! (Person 2 isn't providing any real counter-arguments; they are just saying Person 1 is wrong, asking for additional evidence, and then rejecting Person 1's arguments/evidence without explaining why Person 1 is wrong.) Keep in mind the stress here is on the personal opinion - and not statement of fact. For example, whether or not code has "cruft" is entirely a subjective manner. There is no objective measure of "cruft" in code. You cannot "prove" code is crufty. However, you can put a group of engineers in a room, have them examine some code, and they can establish a consensus as to whether or not code is in fact "crufty" despite there being no formal criteria to define it as such. Generally, it means "messy and difficult to maintain". If you are a core maintainer, and your job is to interact with this code on a regular basis, you're the de-facto expert on its quality (albeit with some personal biases). If you think the code you have to work on is bad, and people don't work on that code are saying you're wrong after just skimming it, it's going to drive you insane.

bmn__ 6y ago
> If you are a core maintainer, and your job is to interact with this code on a regular basis, you're the de-facto expert on its quality (albeit with some personal biases). If you think the code you have to work on is bad, and people don't work on that code are saying you're wrong after just skimming it, it's going to drive you insane. What you describe is the usual case, so it's a reasonable thing to assume, but if we examine reality we can make a case for concluding in this particular instance it's reversed. S. is a newcomer, ISTR he started out with XS just a few years before. I just spot-checked the last 200 out of 500 commits, not a single one touches the core C part, it's only documentation and release maintenance. I mention these not because I think they are strong evidence for the case that he is not an expert, but easily verifiable. nwclark, pevans, davem definitely got their fingers dirty with the core of the code base, and were (2 out of 3) also previous release managers, we should consider experts and not "just skimming". > whether or not code has "cruft" is entirely a subjective manner. This was not was the argument was about. It was rather: one party claims the cruft is a big impediment against improvements, the other party claims the cruft is not a big deal in that regard.
Grinnz 6y ago
None of the people directly involved (myself included) are core maintainers beyond the weakest definition of the term, and all of us (including Sawyer) were referencing the stated opinions of actual core maintainers.
bachmeier 6y ago
> Keep in mind the stress here is on the personal opinion - and not statement of fact. I wouldn't have taken issue with your comment if you had stated it that way. The problem was with classifying it as wrong to challenge something simply because it's an opinion. Ridiculous objections and ridiculous requests are of course not deserving of a response, but that's not how you phrased it. A good example is this other reply to my comment: "Please explain, in detail, why you believe there should be a high barrier to entry for expressing opinions, how doing so would lead to anything but an impoverished marketplace of ideas" That is misleading because a reader will infer that I actually said either of those things. Anyone posting something like that should be prepared to justify or withdraw the comment.

bmn__ 6y ago

> If you are a core maintainer, and your job is to interact with this code on a regular basis, you're the de-facto expert on its quality (albeit with some personal biases). If you think the code you have to work on is bad, and people don't work on that code are saying you're wrong after just skimming it, it's going to drive you insane. What you describe is the usual case, so it's a reasonable thing to assume, but if we examine reality we can make a case for concluding in this particular instance it's reversed. S. is a newcomer, ISTR he started out with XS just a few years before. I just spot-checked the last 200 out of 500 commits, not a single one touches the core C part, it's only documentation and release maintenance. I mention these not because I think they are strong evidence for the case that he is not an expert, but easily verifiable. nwclark, pevans, davem definitely got their fingers dirty with the core of the code base, and were (2 out of 3) also previous release managers, we should consider experts and not "just skimming". > whether or not code has "cruft" is entirely a subjective manner. This was not was the argument was about. It was rather: one party claims the cruft is a big impediment against improvements, the other party claims the cruft is not a big deal in that regard.

Grinnz 6y ago

None of the people directly involved (myself included) are core maintainers beyond the weakest definition of the term, and all of us (including Sawyer) were referencing the stated opinions of actual core maintainers.

bachmeier 6y ago

> Keep in mind the stress here is on the personal opinion - and not statement of fact. I wouldn't have taken issue with your comment if you had stated it that way. The problem was with classifying it as wrong to challenge something simply because it's an opinion. Ridiculous objections and ridiculous requests are of course not deserving of a response, but that's not how you phrased it. A good example is this other reply to my comment: "Please explain, in detail, why you believe there should be a high barrier to entry for expressing opinions, how doing so would lead to anything but an impoverished marketplace of ideas" That is misleading because a reader will infer that I actually said either of those things. Anyone posting something like that should be prepared to justify or withdraw the comment.