On kernel mailing list behavior [LWN.net]

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 18, 2013 16:52 UTC (Thu) by tjc (guest, #137)
In reply to: On kernel mailing list behavior by mjg59
Parent article: On kernel mailing list behavior

Perhaps a venn diagram will help:

 -------    -------
 |     |    |     |
 |  A  |    |  B  |
 |     |    |     |
 -------    -------

Group 'A' are those who think coarse language is fine. Group 'B' are those who think it is boorish. Why slice off the support of group 'B' when you don't have to, especially when there is nothing to be gained in return?

to post comments

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 18, 2013 17:05 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (8 responses)

A group that refuses to support something they agree with because of the way the argument was presented is (based on experience) unlikely to be of any significant use in the first place.

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 18, 2013 17:22 UTC (Thu) by mgalgs (guest, #85461) [Link] (5 responses)

The point is you usually don't use the `F-word' at work (or in most `professional' settings), so it is a bit of a foot-shooting. Unfortunate, because she has some very valid points...

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 18, 2013 17:28 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

Her concern is clearly the use of insulting or abusive language, not the use of swearing. Do you really think anyone would read what she wrote and think "Well, I agree that we should behave in a more respectful manner towards each other, but because she said fuck I'm going to go and insult some patch submitters instead"?

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 19, 2013 9:31 UTC (Fri) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]

> The point is you usually don't use the `F-word' at work (or in most `professional' settings)

I do.
Most of my coworkers do.
My direct (one or two levels) managers will. I don't have enough contacts with higher-up so I don't know if they do.

(We actually don't use F-words because we don't speak english)

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 26, 2013 9:52 UTC (Fri) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link] (2 responses)

Really?
I've never worked anywhere that saying 'fuck' was off limits.

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 27, 2013 22:02 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

As with so many things it depends on the context. It is acceptable in the UK to say 'fuck' as a response cry, e.g. after you stubbed your toe (if they banned that they'd have nobody with English as their native language left that could work for them at all). It is borderline acceptable to call code fucking awful (I tended to do it as a self-deprecating joke for code I wrote myself, but even then it's best not to do it if members of high management are around as they had their senses of humour surgically removed). It is defintely not acceptable to e.g. call another person, especially a coworker and *most* especially a customer a 'useless fucker' let alone anything more severe.

So it's all contextual.

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 29, 2013 13:13 UTC (Mon) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]

I meant the word itself.

Many many words can be used in ways that are workplace-unacceptable. Or even human-being-unacceptable.

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 18, 2013 20:33 UTC (Thu) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] (1 responses)

Citation needed

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 18, 2013 20:42 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

Well, despite asserting that you think Sarah has valid points, your contribution to the discussion has been to pick on her use of language rather than helping to figure out ways to improve things. Would you have been if she'd left out the word "fucking" in her email?

On kernel mailing list behavior

Posted Jul 19, 2013 12:19 UTC (Fri) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link]

"Group 'A' are those who think coarse language is fine. Group 'B' are those who think it is boorish. Why slice off the support of group 'B' when you don't have to, especially when there is nothing to be gained in return? "

Why slice off the support of the existing group 'A' when you don't have to ?
especially since group 'A' is what you have gained, and they seems to be doing a pretty good job at developing a very successful kernel.

This whole line of argument is predicated on the postulate that a puritan-hypocritical form of communication is 'better' and would be universally accepted.