3 ms·

> Just because it was discussed way back when doesn't mean everyone has to accept the resolution from that. People obviously think it wasn't addressed in a good

> Just because it was discussed way back when doesn't mean everyone has to accept the resolution from that. People obviously think it wasn't addressed in a good way. That's precisely it, and why we also usually call behavior like Ted's "passive aggressive", and why Steve is right to call it out as seemingly made in bad faith. The person to whom he should address his complaints is the decider, the BDFL, Linus Torvalds, not anyone else. Snipping, delay tactics, bureaucratic maneuvering, and endless bike shedding can poison projects. If you think Rust in the kernel is a mistake (not -- you think, in good faith, this implementation detail or that is technically incorrect), you need to plainly express that view to the person who makes the decisions, instead of whining to and about the people doing good work, endorsed by project leadership. It's fine to be on record that "this thing will never work". It's less fine to work non-constructively to kill something before it gets an opportunity to work.

arp242 2y ago
Eh, it's no longer allowed to voice discontent in public once Linus has spoken? What a bizarre thing to say. This is never how kernel dev worked, or indeed, how most projects work. Linus is not and has never been a "I have decided, now everyone heed my edict"-type of BFDL. A long-term contributor with a great deal of investment in the project phrased things in the moment in a way that perhaps wasn't too brilliant (he was clearly emotional/nervous/whatever, as can be heard from his voice), and now he's somehow a bad faith actor trying to poison the project? Again just completely bizarre. You come out here with some pretty big accusations based on basically nothing other than "he strongly disagrees". Well, he, ehm, he is allowed to state those views. If you want to radically change how kernel dev works and expect people who have been working on this for 3 decodes to just nod and smile and voice disagreement only in the Approved Way™, then I think you will end up bitterly disappointed. That's not how it works anywhere. You need to actually convince people. And yes, sometimes people will phrase things in a suboptimal way, but that doesn't mean they're acting in bad faith. Bizarre thing to claim with such aggression and force. > Snipping, delay tactics, bureaucratic maneuvering, and endless bike shedding can poison projects. So do your baseless accusations that border on character assassinations, or dismissing people's concerns as "bike shedding" that they're somehow no longer allowed to bring up. If you want to hold people to high standards of kind, empathic, and careful communication, then start by employing those standards yourself. That is: it's okay to criticise Ted for how he handled things. It's not okay to guess at his motivations, dismiss his views outright, and things like that. One is (hopefully constructive) criticism. The other is a personal attack and exactly the sort of thing that toxifies these discussions.
- mustache_kimono 2y ago
  > Eh, it's no longer allowed to voice discontent in public once Linus has spoken? What a bizarre thing to say. I'm sorry you misunderstood me, because I said nothing about simply voicing one's discontent. I guess it needs to be stated explicitly: Everyone, including Ted T'so, please feel free to voice your discontent. My argument was only: When you do voice your discontent, please direct it to the right/responsible person (Linus) and not someone else. Or if it's easier for you: Don't shoot the messenger. Which I thought was clear when I said: >> The person to whom he should address his complaints is the decider, the BDFL, Linus Torvalds, not anyone else. > You come out here with some pretty big accusations based on basically nothing other than "he strongly disagrees". I'm sorry, but recall you said: >>> Just because it was discussed way back when doesn't mean everyone has to accept the resolution from that. People obviously think it wasn't addressed in a good way. I only agreed with you about what I thought we both believed the problem to be: Ted, like some others, is frustrated by Rust being included in Linux, and is venting his frustration at the Rust for Linux maintainer, not Linus. > So do your baseless accusations that border on character assassinations, or dismissing people's concerns as "bike shedding" that they're somehow no longer allowed to bring up. To be very clear -- I didn't say these were examples of Ted's behavior, although I do think they are examples of bad behavior that have been directed at the Rust for Linux project. I thought was I clear in all my comments about what I believe the problem was re: Ted's behavior. I said Ted not taking his concerns directly to project leadership (Linus), and instead directing his ire at Wedson, was passive aggressive. > It's not okay to guess at his motivations, dismiss his views outright, and things like that. One is (hopefully constructive) criticism. Again -- I'm befuddled -- because I was responding to your own statement of the situation, quoted herein. If you read things differently now, 3 hours later, or you regret making that comment, because it was the first to guess at Ted's motivations, I'm fine to leave it here, but please refer to your own comment, before you start preaching to anyone else about good manners.
  - arp242 2y ago
    > When you do voice your discontent, please direct it to the right/responsible person (Linus) He is not "the right person". The disagreement was on how to best integrate Rust in the filesystem code. That's up to the filesystem people. The great success from Linux comes from Linus not doing that kind of micromanagement. This is not how kernel dev works or has ever worked. If "assume good faith and don't dismiss arguments as bad faith" is guessing at people's motivations then I guess I am shrug.

arp242 2y ago

Eh, it's no longer allowed to voice discontent in public once Linus has spoken? What a bizarre thing to say. This is never how kernel dev worked, or indeed, how most projects work. Linus is not and has never been a "I have decided, now everyone heed my edict"-type of BFDL. A long-term contributor with a great deal of investment in the project phrased things in the moment in a way that perhaps wasn't too brilliant (he was clearly emotional/nervous/whatever, as can be heard from his voice), and now he's somehow a bad faith actor trying to poison the project? Again just completely bizarre. You come out here with some pretty big accusations based on basically nothing other than "he strongly disagrees". Well, he, ehm, he is allowed to state those views. If you want to radically change how kernel dev works and expect people who have been working on this for 3 decodes to just nod and smile and voice disagreement only in the Approved Way™, then I think you will end up bitterly disappointed. That's not how it works anywhere. You need to actually convince people. And yes, sometimes people will phrase things in a suboptimal way, but that doesn't mean they're acting in bad faith. Bizarre thing to claim with such aggression and force. > Snipping, delay tactics, bureaucratic maneuvering, and endless bike shedding can poison projects. So do your baseless accusations that border on character assassinations, or dismissing people's concerns as "bike shedding" that they're somehow no longer allowed to bring up. If you want to hold people to high standards of kind, empathic, and careful communication, then start by employing those standards yourself. That is: it's okay to criticise Ted for how he handled things. It's not okay to guess at his motivations, dismiss his views outright, and things like that. One is (hopefully constructive) criticism. The other is a personal attack and exactly the sort of thing that toxifies these discussions.

mustache_kimono 2y ago
> Eh, it's no longer allowed to voice discontent in public once Linus has spoken? What a bizarre thing to say. I'm sorry you misunderstood me, because I said nothing about simply voicing one's discontent. I guess it needs to be stated explicitly: Everyone, including Ted T'so, please feel free to voice your discontent. My argument was only: When you do voice your discontent, please direct it to the right/responsible person (Linus) and not someone else. Or if it's easier for you: Don't shoot the messenger. Which I thought was clear when I said: >> The person to whom he should address his complaints is the decider, the BDFL, Linus Torvalds, not anyone else. > You come out here with some pretty big accusations based on basically nothing other than "he strongly disagrees". I'm sorry, but recall you said: >>> Just because it was discussed way back when doesn't mean everyone has to accept the resolution from that. People obviously think it wasn't addressed in a good way. I only agreed with you about what I thought we both believed the problem to be: Ted, like some others, is frustrated by Rust being included in Linux, and is venting his frustration at the Rust for Linux maintainer, not Linus. > So do your baseless accusations that border on character assassinations, or dismissing people's concerns as "bike shedding" that they're somehow no longer allowed to bring up. To be very clear -- I didn't say these were examples of Ted's behavior, although I do think they are examples of bad behavior that have been directed at the Rust for Linux project. I thought was I clear in all my comments about what I believe the problem was re: Ted's behavior. I said Ted not taking his concerns directly to project leadership (Linus), and instead directing his ire at Wedson, was passive aggressive. > It's not okay to guess at his motivations, dismiss his views outright, and things like that. One is (hopefully constructive) criticism. Again -- I'm befuddled -- because I was responding to your own statement of the situation, quoted herein. If you read things differently now, 3 hours later, or you regret making that comment, because it was the first to guess at Ted's motivations, I'm fine to leave it here, but please refer to your own comment, before you start preaching to anyone else about good manners.
- arp242 2y ago
  > When you do voice your discontent, please direct it to the right/responsible person (Linus) He is not "the right person". The disagreement was on how to best integrate Rust in the filesystem code. That's up to the filesystem people. The great success from Linux comes from Linus not doing that kind of micromanagement. This is not how kernel dev works or has ever worked. If "assume good faith and don't dismiss arguments as bad faith" is guessing at people's motivations then I guess I am shrug.