removing toxic emailers

[Iain Sandoe]

Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> wrote:

>
>> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 7:21 AM
>> From: "Iain Sandoe" <iain@sandoe.co.uk>
>> To: "GCC Development" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
>> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>>
>> Paul Koning <paulkoning@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 15, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Iain Sandoe <iain@sandoe.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> responding in general to this part of the thread.
>>>>
>>>> * The GCC environment is not hostile, and has not been for the 15 or so
>>>> years I’ve been part of the community.
>>
>>>> * We would notice if it became so, I’m not sure about the idea that the
>>>> wool
>>>> can be so easily pulled over our eyes.
>>
>>>> responding to the thread in general..
>>>>
>>>> * Please could we try to seek consensus?
>>>>
>>>> - it is disappointing to see people treating this as some kind of
>>>> point-scoring game
>>>> when to those working on the compiler day to day it is far from a game.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what the consensus is you're looking for.
>>
>> Let us start from the observations above and try to add in the issues that
>> have
>> arisen in the recent threads - and end with a proposal....
>>
>> * One could be glib and suggest that discussions about governance and  
>> project
>>   process should be directed to a different (new) mailing list
>>
>>   - but that does not  solve the problem(s) it just moves them.
>>   - (however, it might still be valuable to folks who wish to have an automatic filter
>>      for these topics or have no interest in them).
>>
>> * I think we are all clear about the primary role of the gcc@ and
>> gcc-patches@ lists
>>
>>   - primarily technical discussion about current and future projects and patch review
>>     respectively.
>>
>>   - we have a history of politely redirecting usage questions to the help list (while
>>    often answering them anyway), likewise with the irc channel.
>>
>>   - I believe we also have a history of encouraging input and discussing the technical
>>     issues (reasonably) calmly.
>>
>>   - to the best of my recollection I have never seen an idea excluded on any basis than
>>    technical content.
>>
>> * Without a specific list to process input on governance and project
>> process, this
>>   list is a reasonable choice.
>>
>> ———
>>
>> The observations above, copied from my first email, together with a belief
>> that most of
>> the current and potential contributor to GCC would prefer to function in a
>> constructive
>> environment, lead to the following proposition:
>>
>>   * that, since the lists are generally constructive without additional management,
>>     (OK. there are occasional heated technical debates), it implies that this community
>>     by-and-large is already able to function without heavy-handed moderation.
>>
>>  * It has been postulated that there could be valued technical input from people who
>>    have difficulty in interacting in a constructive manner (through no fault of their own).
>>
>>  * no-one else would be making valued input, either they would be a spammer or
>>    intentionally acting in a destructive manner.
>>
>>    - Let us propose that someone capable of working on a complex system such as a
>>     compiler would be able to read and act on a set of guidelines.
>>
>>    - ergo, I propose that we have a set of guidelines to which someone who is being
>>    disruptive can be pointed.
>>
>>   * (Probably?) no-one has any issue with a spammer being thrown off the list, for which
>>     I guess there is a process already - it would be reasonable to expect that genuine
>>     contributors (even with difficulties) would make an effort to follow guidelines - and
>>    that someone who was making no effort to do so is not really any different from a
>>     spammer.
>>
>> Of course, guidelines require debate (but I doubt that the right set would
>> be much
>> different from the obvious for this group).
>>
>>  is seems to me that most of the strife in the last two weeks comes from a few key
>>  things:
>>
>>   - attacking the person delivering a message rather than debating the message
>>   - introducing topics spurious and unrelated to the actual debate
>>   - trying to equate the process of this project with party or international Politics.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> So .. in summary:
>>
>> 1/ I propose that we do have written guidelines, to which someone behaving
>> in a
>>     non-constructive manner can be pointed.
>>
>> 2/ if those guidelines *are the consensus* of this group and someone is
>> unable to
>>     follow them (given some reasonable chance to amend as is customary in matters
>>     such as employment law here, at least), then they are treated no differently from
>>     any other spam.
>
> Proposing the guidelines essentially means that the community accepts the  
> fact
> that many of us are incapable of navigate everyday problems and dilemmas  
> by making
> “right” decisions based on the use of good judgment and values rather  
> than sterile
> sets of rules and conventions that typically disregard the individual,  
> the particular,
> or the discrete.

However, that isn’t what I wrote - what I wrote was the opposite; that  
history shows
that almost everyone communicating on these lists can do so constructively  
*without*
recourse to written guidelines.

It is not the general case that has precipitated this discussion but,  
rather, the exceptional.

>  Thusly, it is wrong to suggest that the problems are simply associated with RMS, FSF and GNU.

My mail contains no reference to any of these, but simply to identifying  
processes
that have failed to work in discussions (about those topics, granted).

> Human beings have the capacity to be wise and develop their thoughts on  
> wise
> decision-making skills that evolve from a combination of experience,  
> empathy,
> and intellect.  Many times, this means having the capacity to break those
> guidelines and rules.

“rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men”?

As noted above, 99.99% (guessed of course) of the list traffic is carried  
out in
the guise you mention, and probably would continue to be so…

… the proposal is to have a mechanism to deal with the exceptional.

> In the World Trade Center Disaster, many people who were used  to following
> the rules died because they did what they were told by authority figures.
> I know about these things as part of my industrial work experience.

Probably almost no-one “here” would be able to substantiate or deny this -  
am I to
take it that it is a serious data point suggesting that absence of control  
is a better
process?

There is no counter experiment to determine the outcome in the case that  
there
were no authority figures and no rules (nor would anyone wish to conduct  
such an
experiment).

To me this is spurious input, I cannot see how it could be used to make any  
guidance
to the progress here.

Iain

>
>>    * although one might lose some notionally valuable input, the judgement here is that
>>    the net benefit of such input is negative.
>>
>> 3/ I would recommend on the basis of another online community (about  
>> music)
>> to
>>    which I belong, to suggest that Politics (party or international) and Religion are better
>>    discussed in other forums and are exceedingly unlikely to affect a technical decision
>>    on the progress of GCC - such discussions almost never end well.
>>
>>   (I’d believe that any valid exception to the need to heed some political situation would
>>    be readily recognised by the participants here).
>>
>> 4/ It is likely that we can extract much of the basic guidelines from any
>> other writing on
>>   communicating constructively - after all, it is how 99.99% of this list traffic is managed
>>   without intervention.
>>
>> my 0.02GBP only, "patches welcome",
>> Iain