Sharp: Closing a door [LWN.net]

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 5, 2015 17:33 UTC (Mon) by dlang (guest, #313)
In reply to: Sharp: Closing a door by dlang
Parent article: Sharp: Closing a door

In fact, her post refers to:

> The focus on technical excellence, in combination with overloaded maintainers, and people with different cultural and social norms, means that Linux kernel maintainers are often blunt, rude, or brutal to get their job done. Top Linux kernel developers often yell at each other in order to correct each other’s behavior.
>
> That’s not a communication style that works for me. I need communication that is technically brutal but personally respectful. I need people to correct my behavior when I’m doing something wrong (either technically or socially) without tearing me down as a person. We are human. We make mistakes, and we correct them. We get frustrated with someone, we over-react, and then we apologize and try to work together towards a solution.
>
> I would prefer the communication style within the Linux kernel community to be more respectful. I would prefer that maintainers find healthier ways to communicate when they are frustrated. I would prefer that the Linux kernel have more maintainers so that they wouldn’t have to be terse or blunt.

there are no references to any posts tearing her down as a person, and from watching the kernel list for just under two decades now, I think such posts are very rare, and more frequently misinterpreting the post by the person who feels like they are being torn down.

to post comments

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 5, 2015 18:24 UTC (Mon) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link] (5 responses)

Talk about blaming the victim.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 5, 2015 19:03 UTC (Mon) by jmichels (guest, #98352) [Link] (4 responses)

Who is blaming the victim? Can you explain your comment in more detail?

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 5, 2015 22:57 UTC (Mon) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link] (3 responses)

dlang essentially said "if somebody feels they're being abused and/or harassed, they're misinterpreting what has been said". How is that *not* blaming the victim?

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 6, 2015 13:29 UTC (Tue) by jmichels (guest, #98352) [Link]

Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't see him saying that in any of the comments you are replying to. Are you sure you are replying in the right place?

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 9, 2015 18:24 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

> dlang essentially said "if somebody feels they're being abused and/or harassed, they're misinterpreting what has been said". How is that *not* blaming the victim?

Well, unfortunately, far too often when somebody (claims to) feels abused or harrassed, it's the mark of a professional mischief maker :-( (Otherwise known as the Politically Correct Brigade).

Yes, there ARE a fair few cases where offense is given when none is intended, but a little grown-up discussion should solve that. (I originally wrote "adult" rather than grown-up, but that could be misunderstood :-)

The difficulty is telling the difference between the victims where offense is given, and the trouble-makers where offense is taken. But in BOTH cases, I would actually say that blaming the "victim" is often the correct response ... in the trouble-maker case that's obviously the correct response. In the genuine victim case, the victim may well be over-sensitive. And then of course the problem is when the offender, although not intending offense, doesn't care about spraying offense wherever it may land ... :-(

Cheers,
Wol

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 10, 2015 0:44 UTC (Sat) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

> Well, unfortunately, far too often when somebody (claims to) feels abused or harrassed, it's the mark of a professional mischief maker :-( (Otherwise known as the Politically Correct Brigade).

I think this has some merit but in reality the PC Brigade who create the most mischief tend to be the ones protecting and protected by the status quo, who claim to be offended if anyone challenges their ideas or status, as this derails the conversation especially among those who reflexively seek a false balance as they don't seem to want to make qualitative judgements about who is right and who is wrong and believe that "both sides must do it", helping the person who's ideas are being challenged and hurting the challenger.

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 5, 2015 18:40 UTC (Mon) by alvieboy (guest, #51617) [Link] (1 responses)

Honestly, I see nothing unusual on any LKML post that addresses her differently from anyone else.

She just feels uncomfortable, but that I think it's not related to she being a woman.

As far as it concerns me, despite being more than technically able to contribute to Linux Kernel, I chose many years ago not to. Perhaps for the same reasons she now leaves - it's a harsh environment.

Equality of treatment is that. Everyone is treated equal, independently of sex, race, culture, so on.

Now, if Linus (example) would treat her nicely and not treat Greg-KH (example again) the same way, just because she's a woman and her posture as woman (not as herself) would be the cause, that would be discrimination.

However, different people need to be addressed and handled in different ways - but again this relates to the person way of being, not to sex, culture and so on.

Alvie

Sharp: Closing a door

Posted Oct 7, 2015 14:43 UTC (Wed) by malor (guest, #2973) [Link]

>Now, if Linus (example) would treat her nicely and not treat Greg-KH (example again) the same way, just because she's a woman and her posture as woman (not as herself) would be the cause, that would be discrimination.

Presuming that she needs special/gentle treatment because she's female is definitely sexist. Giving her special/gentle treatment because she asks for it is being polite.