5 ms·

I didn't get that vibe from reading the post at all. On the contrary, I perceive it as a celebration of the person who had invested so much of their (unfortunat

I didn't get that vibe from reading the post at all. On the contrary, I perceive it as a celebration of the person who had invested so much of their (unfortunately ultimately limited) time to their common cause.

phonon 3y ago
"the damage and trauma he caused"? Really? That's a celebration?
- blashyrk 3y ago
  I think it's just honesty. You don't have to pretend that the bad a person did ("bad" being defined by your own perspective, of course) didn't exist in order to celebrate the good. I think the article author managed to balance the feeling of gratefulness towards the person for their contributions, while obviously perceiving that person's worldview as unfathomable in comparison to their own. In that situation, what other choice did the author have? Lie (by omission)? I respect the fact that the author chose to be honest instead. And I think people should appreciate that choice or at least understand it without dismissing it as some kind of character assassination or rudeness. An ever increasing number of people nowadays seem to be very much guilty of the same things the author mentioned in their post (the black and white worldview), it's not exclusive to deeply religious or conservative people. It very much exists on the "other side" as well. They will usually cite their own favorite pieces of dogmatic gospel (e.g. the "paradox of tolerance") to justify dismissing a person outright, based on some "incompatible" worldview or statement. The author, however, didn't resort to this. As someone who obviously has no insight into what the article describes, to me it still absolutely comes across as balanced.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Sorry, but that has absolutely no place in an obituary.
    - caslon 3y ago
      I think it indicates a care and deeper appreciation for the person in a way that anything else wouldn't. "$NAME was $COMPANY's first intern, and went on to stay with $COMPANY for eighteen years. We thank $NAME for $GENDEREDPOSSESSIVE years of service." would feel soulless, as if she didn't know the person at all. It's the sort of obituary a VP at Apple might get; named, but essentially anonymous. A form letter, without any actual sense of appreciation or understanding. I don't particularly like Mitchell's handling of Mozilla, but this obituary is one I'd like to have for myself. It's written in a manner that politely disagrees with the subject while acknowledging perceived harms, in a way that's not dissimilar to his own views on how ideas should be addressed while not falling into the trap of modern pluralism (the acceptance of all beliefs as equally valid) which he personally thought to be harmful.[1] It's a remarkable obituary for what seems like an intensely bright human who was openly disagreeable. [1] https://gerv.net/writings/three-forms-of-diversity/ https://gerv.net/writings/three-forms-of-diversity/
      - latency-guy2 3y ago
        I think it's because you agree with Baker's positions that you're more willing to not see her statements as in poor taste. On the other side where I am, it is a bitch slap and a half. It is very clear to me that Baker actively detests Markham even past his death. That's fine. I also detest people that are long dead. But this blog post is not really something that I would call "good", it truly reads to me as a very bitter person goading about, not a final ribbing between friends. Don't treat something like this as 'remarkable', that's dulling the word.
        caslon 3y ago
        I think that you're actually the one who disagrees with Gerv; as he notes in his writings, a society where all views are seen as equally correct is bad. It's not wrong to draw a line and say, "This person is wrong about this," and it's not a sign of detesting someone; to quote him, distinctions have to be made. You are, ironically, the one completely disagreeing with him, pushing ideological diversity. I don't see the post as a "bitch slap" to him, despite more or less disagreeing with Mitchell's views, but it's probably a "bitch slap" to you.
  - hughesjj 3y ago
    Speaking of spreading personal dogmatic gospels, I'd like to call out that the > "paradox of tolerance" Is better understood as the "peace treaty of tolerance". There's no obligation or expectation to be tolerant of someone who is intolerant to your existence. You can choose to remain tolerant of those who break the treaty, but I personally don't extend that courtesy to those whom I perceive to be consistent belligerents.
  - phonon 3y ago
    It's an obituary of a co-worker/employee, right after his painful drawn out death. It's not a professional biography or a profile. It's ostensibly intended to comfort the bereaved. I truly don't understand a worldview where instead of a) not writing anything at all or b) saying something like "While I strongly disagreed with his religious beliefs, but as a co-worker and employee of many years, he was....", something like this was written. In case it's not clear, the vitriol was solely based on his being an unapologetic Christian. Not at any overt acts as an employee.
    - jijijijij 3y ago
      Have you considered those left-behind to be those who have been hurt, too? Addressing the bad may allow them to process mixed, or even "shameful" feelings about someone's passing. Feelings they can't voice, because of your "you can't speak ill about the dead". > was solely based on his being an unapologetic Christian I have my suspicions what's implied by this... and how that may be perceived as indeed very hurtful and destructive to some.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      https://lwn.net/Articles/762345/ https://lwn.net/Articles/762345/ Does a better job than I ever could to explain what's wrong with that piece.
- dang 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - phonon 3y ago
    I am not sure I understand, or at least I disagree here. Many people (at Mozilla, and outside) were highly offended by Mitchell's brief obituary of a long-time employee, for reasons that are apparent to most on a simple reading. As a follow-up, I picked the worst phrase in the obituary as an example, but there are obviously more. But the entire point of the criticism are those, to many, highly offensive sections, not the anodyne remainder of the obituary.
    - phatfish 3y ago
      Just reading it now (from another post that linked it so not biased by your comment) it was quite touching. A more than charitable attempt I'd wager.
    - dang 3y ago
      I only skimmed the article but it seemed to me that you were cherry-picking a phrase that only appeared at the end and was not the main thrust of the piece. HN has another guideline for this sort of situation: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - phonon 3y ago
        Well, I respectfully disagree, both that it was a cherry picked part of the In Memoriam, (see the below, which I believe is similar, and 20%+ of the piece), and that it was not incredibly notable for such statements to be made in the specific context of a memoriam of a long term (originally as a volunteer) employee who died in such a terrible and anguished way leaving behind a widow and children. When there is ambiguity, I assume the best. I don't believe that applies to the below. I encourage you to read this reaction (in my original post), which articulates my feelings far better than I could. https://lwn.net/Articles/762345/ https://lwn.net/Articles/762345/ ------ Eventually Gerv felt called to live his faith by publicly judging others in politely stated but damning terms. His contributions to expanding the Mozilla community would eventually become shadowed by behaviors that made it more difficult for people to participate. ... Gerv’s default approach was to see things in binary terms — yes or no, black or white, on or off, one or zero. Over the years I worked with him to moderate this trait so that he could better appreciate nuance and the many “gray” areas on complex topics. Gerv challenged me, infuriated me, impressed me, enraged me, surprised me. He developed a greater ability to work with ambiguity, which impressed me. Gerv’s faith did not have ambiguity at least none that I ever saw. Gerv was crisp. He had very precise views about marriage, sex, gender and related topics. He was adamant that his interpretation was correct, and that his interpretation should be encoded into law. These views made their way into the Mozilla environment. They have been traumatic and damaging, both to individuals and to Mozilla overall. ... To memorialize Gerv’s passing, it is fitting that we remember all of Gerv — the full person, good and bad, the damage and trauma he caused, as well as his many positive contributions. Any other view is sentimental. We should be clear-eyed, acknowledge the problems, and appreciate the positive contributions.
hitekker 3y ago
I initially didn't get that vibe but then I re-read it. Yikes. > Gerv challenged me, infuriated me, impressed me, enraged me, surprised me. He developed a greater ability to work with ambiguity, which impressed me. This is manager-speak describing someone who is incompetent. Someone who, only thanks to management, become less incompetent. Should that be in an obituary? On the whole, Mitchell paints Gerv as a great programmer and an unruly religious nutjob. A good worker and, as she conveys, a bad person. Frankly, I'm unsure why she didn't just say a few parting words and leave it at that. I don't think she was his friend, and he probably didn't think of her as his mentor. I suspect her stock in Mozilla depended being seen as a "great community leader", and that this was an opportunity to signal her goodness over a report she couldn't manage and whose views her people hated. It's self-serving, to say the least.

phonon 3y ago

"the damage and trauma he caused"? Really? That's a celebration?

blashyrk 3y ago
I think it's just honesty. You don't have to pretend that the bad a person did ("bad" being defined by your own perspective, of course) didn't exist in order to celebrate the good. I think the article author managed to balance the feeling of gratefulness towards the person for their contributions, while obviously perceiving that person's worldview as unfathomable in comparison to their own. In that situation, what other choice did the author have? Lie (by omission)? I respect the fact that the author chose to be honest instead. And I think people should appreciate that choice or at least understand it without dismissing it as some kind of character assassination or rudeness. An ever increasing number of people nowadays seem to be very much guilty of the same things the author mentioned in their post (the black and white worldview), it's not exclusive to deeply religious or conservative people. It very much exists on the "other side" as well. They will usually cite their own favorite pieces of dogmatic gospel (e.g. the "paradox of tolerance") to justify dismissing a person outright, based on some "incompatible" worldview or statement. The author, however, didn't resort to this. As someone who obviously has no insight into what the article describes, to me it still absolutely comes across as balanced.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Sorry, but that has absolutely no place in an obituary.
  - caslon 3y ago
    I think it indicates a care and deeper appreciation for the person in a way that anything else wouldn't. "$NAME was $COMPANY's first intern, and went on to stay with $COMPANY for eighteen years. We thank $NAME for $GENDEREDPOSSESSIVE years of service." would feel soulless, as if she didn't know the person at all. It's the sort of obituary a VP at Apple might get; named, but essentially anonymous. A form letter, without any actual sense of appreciation or understanding. I don't particularly like Mitchell's handling of Mozilla, but this obituary is one I'd like to have for myself. It's written in a manner that politely disagrees with the subject while acknowledging perceived harms, in a way that's not dissimilar to his own views on how ideas should be addressed while not falling into the trap of modern pluralism (the acceptance of all beliefs as equally valid) which he personally thought to be harmful.[1] It's a remarkable obituary for what seems like an intensely bright human who was openly disagreeable. [1] https://gerv.net/writings/three-forms-of-diversity/ https://gerv.net/writings/three-forms-of-diversity/
    - latency-guy2 3y ago
      I think it's because you agree with Baker's positions that you're more willing to not see her statements as in poor taste. On the other side where I am, it is a bitch slap and a half. It is very clear to me that Baker actively detests Markham even past his death. That's fine. I also detest people that are long dead. But this blog post is not really something that I would call "good", it truly reads to me as a very bitter person goading about, not a final ribbing between friends. Don't treat something like this as 'remarkable', that's dulling the word.
      - caslon 3y ago
        I think that you're actually the one who disagrees with Gerv; as he notes in his writings, a society where all views are seen as equally correct is bad. It's not wrong to draw a line and say, "This person is wrong about this," and it's not a sign of detesting someone; to quote him, distinctions have to be made. You are, ironically, the one completely disagreeing with him, pushing ideological diversity. I don't see the post as a "bitch slap" to him, despite more or less disagreeing with Mitchell's views, but it's probably a "bitch slap" to you.
- hughesjj 3y ago
  Speaking of spreading personal dogmatic gospels, I'd like to call out that the > "paradox of tolerance" Is better understood as the "peace treaty of tolerance". There's no obligation or expectation to be tolerant of someone who is intolerant to your existence. You can choose to remain tolerant of those who break the treaty, but I personally don't extend that courtesy to those whom I perceive to be consistent belligerents.
- phonon 3y ago
  It's an obituary of a co-worker/employee, right after his painful drawn out death. It's not a professional biography or a profile. It's ostensibly intended to comfort the bereaved. I truly don't understand a worldview where instead of a) not writing anything at all or b) saying something like "While I strongly disagreed with his religious beliefs, but as a co-worker and employee of many years, he was....", something like this was written. In case it's not clear, the vitriol was solely based on his being an unapologetic Christian. Not at any overt acts as an employee.
  - jijijijij 3y ago
    Have you considered those left-behind to be those who have been hurt, too? Addressing the bad may allow them to process mixed, or even "shameful" feelings about someone's passing. Feelings they can't voice, because of your "you can't speak ill about the dead". > was solely based on his being an unapologetic Christian I have my suspicions what's implied by this... and how that may be perceived as indeed very hurtful and destructive to some.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    https://lwn.net/Articles/762345/ https://lwn.net/Articles/762345/ Does a better job than I ever could to explain what's wrong with that piece.
dang 3y ago
[flagged]
- phonon 3y ago
  I am not sure I understand, or at least I disagree here. Many people (at Mozilla, and outside) were highly offended by Mitchell's brief obituary of a long-time employee, for reasons that are apparent to most on a simple reading. As a follow-up, I picked the worst phrase in the obituary as an example, but there are obviously more. But the entire point of the criticism are those, to many, highly offensive sections, not the anodyne remainder of the obituary.
  - phatfish 3y ago
    Just reading it now (from another post that linked it so not biased by your comment) it was quite touching. A more than charitable attempt I'd wager.
  - dang 3y ago
    I only skimmed the article but it seemed to me that you were cherry-picking a phrase that only appeared at the end and was not the main thrust of the piece. HN has another guideline for this sort of situation: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - phonon 3y ago
      Well, I respectfully disagree, both that it was a cherry picked part of the In Memoriam, (see the below, which I believe is similar, and 20%+ of the piece), and that it was not incredibly notable for such statements to be made in the specific context of a memoriam of a long term (originally as a volunteer) employee who died in such a terrible and anguished way leaving behind a widow and children. When there is ambiguity, I assume the best. I don't believe that applies to the below. I encourage you to read this reaction (in my original post), which articulates my feelings far better than I could. https://lwn.net/Articles/762345/ https://lwn.net/Articles/762345/ ------ Eventually Gerv felt called to live his faith by publicly judging others in politely stated but damning terms. His contributions to expanding the Mozilla community would eventually become shadowed by behaviors that made it more difficult for people to participate. ... Gerv’s default approach was to see things in binary terms — yes or no, black or white, on or off, one or zero. Over the years I worked with him to moderate this trait so that he could better appreciate nuance and the many “gray” areas on complex topics. Gerv challenged me, infuriated me, impressed me, enraged me, surprised me. He developed a greater ability to work with ambiguity, which impressed me. Gerv’s faith did not have ambiguity at least none that I ever saw. Gerv was crisp. He had very precise views about marriage, sex, gender and related topics. He was adamant that his interpretation was correct, and that his interpretation should be encoded into law. These views made their way into the Mozilla environment. They have been traumatic and damaging, both to individuals and to Mozilla overall. ... To memorialize Gerv’s passing, it is fitting that we remember all of Gerv — the full person, good and bad, the damage and trauma he caused, as well as his many positive contributions. Any other view is sentimental. We should be clear-eyed, acknowledge the problems, and appreciate the positive contributions.

hitekker 3y ago

I initially didn't get that vibe but then I re-read it. Yikes. > Gerv challenged me, infuriated me, impressed me, enraged me, surprised me. He developed a greater ability to work with ambiguity, which impressed me. This is manager-speak describing someone who is incompetent. Someone who, only thanks to management, become less incompetent. Should that be in an obituary? On the whole, Mitchell paints Gerv as a great programmer and an unruly religious nutjob. A good worker and, as she conveys, a bad person. Frankly, I'm unsure why she didn't just say a few parting words and leave it at that. I don't think she was his friend, and he probably didn't think of her as his mentor. I suspect her stock in Mozilla depended being seen as a "great community leader", and that this was an opportunity to signal her goodness over a report she couldn't manage and whose views her people hated. It's self-serving, to say the least.