|
mjau posted:So he's not a native english speaker, yet he thought he was qualified to reject changes to the english documentation by someone who is? Or maybe he felt that taking an entire commit to change three words wasn't something worth adding, docs or not.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
return0 posted:It was Ben Noordhuis who reverted the commit, who is Dutch and not a native English speaker. He explains why he reverted it here https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29568172 Holy poo poo his reasoning is even worse. And also if he is that unfamiliar with the English language then he probably should not be rejecting changes to the English language documentation. bnoordhuis posted:commented 14 hours ago This just reeks of "Well it's only there to placate people" and "Fine, I'll just take my ball and go home". I have no idea how this is an adequate explanation. If the difference seems academic because you don't speak the language naively, then the solution would probably be to ask someone who does about it. That being said, the blog post is sort of out of line because calling someone out like that is Not Ok. Although Ben Noordhuis did "publicly chide" the person who pushed the change in the original revert ticket/request thing, so it's not like he's really any better. Not that two wrongs make a right, but he actually was acting like a dick about it. Look Around You fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Dec 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
mjau posted:So he's not a native english speaker, yet he thought he was qualified to reject changes to the english documentation by someone who is? He probably thought he was qualified because it was his role on the project to enforce community standards, which this commit was in violation of? After it has all blown up it is very easy to say "well of course it's a good change and he should have accepted it" and apportion blame, but what if it was a random code change he was unfamiliar with that was committed out of line with the standard procedure, should he be responsible for finding an expert and verifying it (or was it the responsibility of the committer to explain the change, which it seems Isaacs did not do adequately)? It's absurd to blame this guy for correctly applying the established process just because the outcome is unpopular, and especially so for some dickhead to do so this dramatically on a public company blog (so it will appear in google from now on). Look Around You posted:"Fine, I'll just take my ball and go home" To take your ball home means nobody else gets your ball; people still have the project, they just don't get his contributions any more. I think that's pretty reasonable that he doesn't spend his free time contributing to a community that is happy to call him an rear end in a top hat for an obviously genuine mistake. return0 fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Dec 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
The dude made a couple decisions on what amount to procedural grounds and half the internet decided he needed to be burned at the stake because he's a horrible monster who hates women. He sounds a little irate which is pretty understandable. Obviously the change should have been accepted, but the appropriate way to make that happen is to go talk to the guy on IRC or whatever venue they use and explain why the change is being made. Instead it just went straight to the internet lynch mob portion of the program, which is just as socially unhealthy as what they are complaining about.
breaks fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Dec 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
Vasja posted:Or maybe he felt that taking an entire commit to change three words wasn't something worth adding, docs or not. Good point, we might run out of commits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
I mean there's only like 263 of them!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
breaks posted:The dude made a couple decisions on what amount to procedural grounds and half the internet decided he needed to be burned at the stake because he's a horrible monster who hates women. He sounds a little irate which is pretty understandable. Obviously the change should have been accepted, but the appropriate way to make that happen is to go talk to the guy on IRC or whatever venue they use and explain why the change is being made. Instead it just went straight to the internet lynch mob portion of the program, which is just as socially unhealthy as what they are complaining about. Yes but I would argue that he should have spoken to the person who initially made the commit to master instead of just reverting it and publicly "chiding" him over it. Also, the person did have the blessing of a core maintainer, that Issac Schlueter dude, who, by the way, works for Joyent. He should have spoken to both of the people involved in the commit instead of reverting it and being pissy about it in public. He literally said "consider yourself chided" in his reversion ticket, but I'm not sure I can find it anymore. I have a feeling that people aren't just upset over the reversion, but the language used in the reversion and his attitude regarding it. edit: you can still see it: https://github.com/joyent/libuv/commit/804d40ee14dc0f82c482dcc8d1c41c14333fcb48 quote:Revert "doc: Removed use of gendered pronouns" Look Around You fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Dec 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
If their standard procedure is he or the other dude have to approve all commits, he rejects one, and someone else who is not one of those two people immediately commits it anyway, I don't particularly blame him for reverting it or being snarky about it. Nobody is going to die if the commit is not made at that very moment. It's the responsibility of the person who is not following the normal rules to initiate the communication. Obviously, I am assuming that his description of normal procedure was accurate, but I haven't seen anyone dispute it. Anyway, while it appears to me than he's been unfairly tarred and feathered, I'm not trying to say that he is totally blameless. Basically everyone is at fault; the people working on the project for not communicating with each other well, and everyone who piled on for trying to stop the use of socially exclusive language by throwing around a lot of socially exclusive language.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
mjau posted:So he's not a native english speaker, yet he thought he was qualified to reject changes to the english documentation by someone who is? He was enforcing the workflow of the codebase, not judging the change itself. He comes across as perfectly reasonable and it seems like the surrounding ecosystem looks a hell of a lot worse by blowing the response out of proportion. Joyent spokesperson rant was the worst of the bunch, paints software as unprofessional reactionaries, which probably isn't far from truth in some places.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
He is totally blameless. Personally I've hated Joyent since before they even existed. gently caress them, erm, I'm sorry, the word "gently caress" is insensitive to rape victims. Sorry, I mean, I hope they get cancer. Erm, that's insensitive to breast cancer havers, isn't it. Well at least it can't go worse, there's nobody else higher on the totem pole of female victim privilegehood. I mean maybe people who got called by the epithet "stewardesses," oh wait, using that word in conversation is insensitive to users of the inferior qwerty keyboard layout. I'm so sorry everybody. And before you criticize me for having an opinion as a male programmer, note that I'm not male. I'm a porpoise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:He was enforcing the workflow of the codebase, not judging the change itself. https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29538615
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
He decided it was a trivial change because, as a non-native English speaker, he probably wasn't aware of the minefield he was stepping into regarding gendered pronouns. It wasn't out of any blatant misogyny or insensitivity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Opinion Haver posted:Good point, we might run out of commits. You're a core contributor with a fairly decent understanding of English. You get a commit that changes three words, and you don't really understand why. You know it screws with git blame and is just one more freaking CLA you have to read that day. You reject it. A few minutes later, some guy pushes that commit through without consulting you. You get a little miffed, since only you and one other person have rights to push these commits, so you revert the change and tell him to stop being a dick. Is this really an unreasonable line of logic?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
See also https://github.com/joyent/libuv/commit/804d40ee14dc0f82c482dcc8d1c41c14333fcb48 (that's the now-unreachable commit that reverted the first acceptance of the patch).quote:Us maintainers tend to reject tiny doc changes because they're often more trouble than they're worth. You have to collect and check the CLA, it makes git blame less effective, etc. Add an apology and delete the flippant remark right after the portion I quoted and he has a perfect summary/explanation right there. Seemed trivial in scope, wasn't trivial in implication, right thing happened in the end (patch got merged), lots of people end up looking stupid. Another weekend in the life of open source being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the rest of the world. Maybe, just maybe, somebody somewhere learned something. Probably not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:See also https://github.com/joyent/libuv/commit/804d40ee14dc0f82c482dcc8d1c41c14333fcb48 (that's the now-unreachable commit that reverted the first acceptance of the patch). No one will learn anything since people can't even properly agree on what is being argued. Gender bias? Sexism? Git Repo Commit Guidelines? Rudeness? Mob Mentality?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
Strong Sauce posted:Gender bias? Sexism? Git Repo Commit Guidelines? Rudeness? Mob Mentality? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
I learned that I want to give everybody involved with node.js development a giant swirlie... but I don't think that's anything I learned today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:See also https://github.com/joyent/libuv/commit/804d40ee14dc0f82c482dcc8d1c41c14333fcb48 (that's the now-unreachable commit that reverted the first acceptance of the patch). Definitely not. His apology struck me as the same kind of apology that politicians make, e.g. an "I'm sorry I offended someone" apology rather than a real consideration of the issue at hand. I understand if, being a non-native English speaker, he might have rejected it out of hand, but I think that speaks more for him overreaching his expertise rather than anything else. The fact remains that the commit should have been merged without any argument and he's kind of a douche for not accepting it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:Definitely not. What if he had rejected a pull request that had just fixed 3 typos? Someone changed 3 pronouns. I actually agree with the sentiment that it was a trivial change and see no problem with opting to not merge it. Unfortunately, it was the wrong 3 words and now it's a big, dumb shitstorm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:Definitely not. Keep in mind there are lots of people commenting on the commits and on the pull request, and there are lots more people watching from the sidelines. Odds are pretty decent that one spectator saw this shitshow and thought "hey, what I do/say/write affects other people in ways I didn't realize" and grew a bit. I know I've learned things from watching spectacular internet shitshows. In fact, it's probably easier to learn something if it's not happening to you. It's instinctual to get defensive or to just walk away if you're getting yelled at (no matter who you think is right). Ithaqua posted:What if he had rejected a pull request that had just fixed 3 typos? Someone changed 3 pronouns. I actually agree with the sentiment that it was a trivial change and see no problem with opting to not merge it. Unfortunately, it was the wrong 3 words and now it's a big, dumb shitstorm. A short Levenshtein distance does not imply an irrelevant commit. And unless the committer said "heads I'll accept, tails I'll reject" then flipped a coin, no fortune was involved in the rejection and subsequent reversion of the pull request.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
Wouldn't the correct response to "this seems like a trivial change, rejecting" be, I don't know, explaining why you don't consider it to be trivial? If this was an actual behaviour-changing code commit that was rejected by the maintainer, and someone else with commit access pushed it anyway behind their back because they disagreed with the rejection, there wouldn't even be an argument - the commit would be backed out, the person who did the push would probably lose their commit access (assuming they knew it was rejected and pushed it anyway), and no-one would argue because the process is there for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:The fact remains that the commit should have been merged without any argument and he's kind of a douche for not accepting it. That's not a fact, that's you unironically proclaiming somebody to be a douche, when in fact it is people like you who are the problem. P.S. In case anybody hasn't figured this out yet, the original committer is the problem and the person who should be shamed, for trying to use an open source software project to publicly project himself as a gender isomorphist and wasting the project maintainers' time with what is, in fact, a completely trivial and pointless change. Edit: Wow, it should be no surprise that it turns out the original committer is indeed somebody who tends to go out of his way to make himself publicly visible. shrughes fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Dec 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
I agree, the removal of gender-exclusionary language from an open-source project is trivial and pointless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
shrughes posted:That's not a fact, that's you unironically proclaiming somebody to be a douche, when in fact it is people like you who are the problem. Of course, gender neutrality has no place in OSS. In other news, women should always wear ankle length skirts so as not to offend the men-folk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
shrughes posted:That's not a fact, that's you unironically proclaiming somebody to be a douche, when in fact it is people like you who are the problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:I agree, the removal of gender-exclusionary language from an open-source project is trivial and pointless. Yes let's purify the project of its hateful anglonormative past and make everybody spend time on my pet issues. Pilsner posted:Can you post some links of the SJW douche's antics, just for laughs? I have no idea what SJW means.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:Definitely not. The reason that you are incorrect is that in a functional community, the community itself acts as a check and balance against improper applications of standard protocol. The maintainer reacted entirely reasonably to an out-of-band forced through commit that did not have proper authorisation, but then the community indicated to the maintainer that the change, while small, is significant. At this point the maintainer could then accept the commit. The problem is that the node community is apparently deeply dysfunctional and cynical, and people are so eager to self-aggrandise that they will post Internet tough-guy rhetoric about how they would totally fire this guy for his sexist attitude. No fucks seem to be given that the guy was just applying established norms, or that this reaction will leave a public trail of underserved invective about his character (despite him giving up his own time to be a core-maintainer), or that it makes the community itself look bad. Like seriously why is the guy a douche? Blinkz0rz posted:Of course, gender neutrality has no place in OSS. Nobody at all is saying this, you know this is an asinine strawman so why bother? The problem here is a bunch of people cynically riling up others to attack a guy who reverted a docs change, as he was compelled to by convention, because he didn't understand the significance of the content. This is very anglocentric (and possibly racist?). I don't think anyone is saying that the content of the change is bad in and of itself, it is better docs content; the problem is all the other poo poo. Like if this guy forced through a code commit and it fixed a bug but it was reverted as it jumped the queue, nobody would give a gently caress right? But because it's a docs issue (so everyone can understand it) and because it's a contentious issue, the guy becomes the villain. But it's the same in both cases; applying standards to your version control history. return0 fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Dec 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Strong Sauce posted:... That kissed a girl thing is hilarious! No wonder Sun is so lovely! This whole gendered pronoun thing has been handled incredibly poorly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
return0 posted:The reason that you are incorrect is that in a functional community, the community itself acts as a check and balance against improper applications of standard protocol. The maintainer reacted entirely reasonably to an out-of-band forced through commit that did not have proper authorisation, but then the community indicated to the maintainer that the change, while small, is significant. At this point the maintainer could then accept the commit. Ok, then the community are a bunch of douches because gender neutrality is kind of an important thing. Computing in general, much less the software development community has a serious "boys' club" stigma that needs to be broken. Acting like it's not a big deal that there's a serious lack of female developers does a disservice to gender equality and general and just perpetuates the stereotype that software developers are a bunch of sweaty men living in basements. return0 posted:Nobody at all is saying this, you know this is an asinine strawman so why bother? The problem here is a bunch of people cynically riling up others to attack a guy who reverted a docs change, as he was compelled to by convention, because he didn't understand the significance of the content. This is very anglocentric (and possibly racist?). I don't think anyone is saying that the content of the change is bad in and of itself, it is better; the problem is all the other poo poo. Saying something is Anglocentric (and possibly racist?) is missing the point (because, you know, gender issues are an international concern) and is really doing a disservice to the actual issue at hand. return0 posted:Like if this guy forced through a code commit and it fixed a bug but it was reverted as it jumped the queue, nobody would give a gently caress right? But because it's a docs issue (so everyone can understand it) and because it's a contentious issue, the guy becomes the villain. But it's the same in both cases; applying standards to your version control history. People care because it's a real issue. Code issues are one thing, but gendered pronouns and gender equality in general are serious societal issues that transcend software development. If you don't understand that then you really need to get take a break from development and step out into the real world. Blinkz0rz fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Dec 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:gender neutrality is kind of an important thing. Computing in general, much less the software development community has a serious "boys' club" stigma that needs to be broken. Acting like it's not a big deal that there's a serious lack of female developers does a disservice to gender equality and general and just perpetuates the stereotype that software developers are a bunch of sweaty men living in basements. Nobody except shrughes disagrees with this sentiment. The question is how the situation should have been handled, not what the correct resolution was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:Saying something is Anglocentric (and possibly racist?) is missing the point (because, you know, gender issues are an international concern) and is really doing a disservice to the actual issue at hand. The issue at hand is that Bryan Cantrill is cynically exploiting a community who care about gender equality by riling them up to abuse someone who made a genuine mistake (if you could call consistent application of the community policy a mistake!) for personal benefit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
return0 posted:The issue at hand is that Bryan Cantrill is cynically exploiting a community who care about gender equality by riling them up to abuse someone who made a genuine mistake (if you could call consistent application of the community policy a mistake!) for personal benefit. What personal benefit can he possibly get out of this situation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
shrughes posted:Yes let's purify the project of its hateful anglonormative past and make everybody spend time on my pet issues. Objection to gender-exclusive language in documentation not a "pet issue" and it is super weird that you would say that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:What personal benefit can he possibly get out of this situation? http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/18/can-this-startup-steal-node-from-joyent-vcs-bet-8m-on-it/
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:Nobody except shrughes disagrees with this sentiment. The question is how the situation should have been handled, not what the correct resolution was. I would like to see evidence supporting the idea that use of gender neutral pronouns would have a positive effect on the ratio of female to male engineers. Absent of evidence I prefer picking a gender and sticking with it because of the awkward phrasing caused by the absence of a neuter third person plural personal pronoun in english.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
shrughes posted:http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/18/can-this-startup-steal-node-from-joyent-vcs-bet-8m-on-it/ Yes, Bryan Cantrill is calling Ben Noordhuis out for gendering pronouns because he's afraid he's going to lose control of the node project. That makes perfect sense. God, give it up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Dren posted:the absence of a neuter third person plural personal pronoun in english. Time to learn about a little friend called "they"!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
For me the irony in the matter was that the blog linked to a helpful slideshow on dealing with assholes that clearly states "set some ground-rules first" which only got half-way done as a fix-up measure not as prevention. The language in that CONTRIBUTING.md is terribly unclear and will probably lead to more misunderstandings down the road.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:Time to learn about a little friend called "they"! I'm guessing he meant singular, in which case 'thon' is the answer. http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2079
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
Cantrill wouldn't write such a drooling morass of nonsensicality if it was a friend of his or some random developer. Ben Noordhuis isn't some hateful pronoun-genderer, and there isn't any sort of negativity on the surface of or underlying his communication.Amarkov posted:Nobody except shrughes disagrees with this sentiment. The question is how the situation should have been handled, not what the correct resolution was. It still amazes me how people (in particular, you) can be so unrepentantly willing to come out of the closet and out themselves publicly as members of the internet retard squad, incapable of fairly dealing with the nuances of people's opinions. I still remember the first time I learned about gendered pronouns, in pre-school, when using the word "he" to complain about a girl taking my spot in line at the water fountain. I thought they were stupid. You can see in my communications over the past years that I habitually use "they" as a third-person singular pronoun. Looking back in my personal blog (through like 4 or 5 pages of posts) I can find one use of third-person singular "they" and no uses of third-person singular "he" in situations where the gender is indeterminate. Probably there's such rare use of indeterminate third-person singular pronouns because I instinctively reroute my phrasing to avoid third-person singular pronouns with indeterminate gender. (I know I do this quite often nowadays -- my blog is kind of old so I don't have fresh memories of my editing my posts back then.) Yet somehow you've come to the conclusion that I don't think gender neutrality is an important thing. And you're right. And since you apparently think it is an important thing, you're wrong. While I certainly instinctively shy towards gender neutrality in language, I definitely don't think it's an important issue. It's a first world feminist problem. You know what is really an important issue? AIDS, the use of condoms, actual womens' rights issues around the world, that extend deeper than kowtowing to their intolerance of nerds, et. cet. er. a. How about we make a deal. You can go worrying about pronouns and join the self-promoting white knight brigade, while I call you a human being and worry about the spread of communicable diseases in Africa and freedom of speech on the blogosphere. We'll see who contributes more to the world. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2013 02:12
|
|