Who controls glibc? [LWN.net]

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 8, 2018 13:01 UTC (Tue) by yshuiv7 (guest, #96631)
In reply to: Who controls glibc? by siddhesh
Parent article: Who controls glibc?

Wait a second. You are saying you can assume someone is agreeing with you, if they don't respond?

I think there might be some problem with this assumption.

to post comments

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 8, 2018 13:14 UTC (Tue) by siddhesh (guest, #64914) [Link]

No it's not as simple as that. Depending on the nature of the change, you as maintainer are trusted to decide how long you'd like to wait for agreement and how many people you'd like to review the change before committing it. Every once in a while you might get it wrong but that's not the end because we can always discuss to gather consensus either way.

Again, I'm simplifying, please read the consensus wiki page (linked in the article) which is way more exhaustive.

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 8, 2018 18:28 UTC (Tue) by sjfriedl (✭ supporter ✭, #10111) [Link]

It's not fair to read no response as "agreement", but it is fair to read it as "not opposed"

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 10, 2018 3:08 UTC (Thu) by bferrell (subscriber, #624) [Link] (1 responses)

> Wait a second. You are saying you can assume someone is agreeing with you, if they don't respond?
> I think there might be some problem with this assumption.

That's actually the concept behind how abstentions are counted... If you abstain, it's not a disagreement, It's counted as if in favor.

At least in areas I've seen it used, which kind of stinks because people thing it means "I disagree, but refuse to vote"

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 10, 2018 9:10 UTC (Thu) by karkhaz (subscriber, #99844) [Link]

Systems that have a compulsory voting system typically have abstention as an explicit option, which allows for the kind of protest you mentioned: it is compulsory to cast a vote, but you may cast a vote for "none of the above".

This is used on a national elections level in Australia, where voting is compulsory. There isn't actually a "none of the above" box but it's perfectly legal to turn up to the polling station and hand in a ruined ballot card, which is the defacto way of abstaining.

It's indeed a bit presumptuous to lump "I don't care" with "I strongly disagree with all options" in the absence of a voting system that doesn't distinguish between those options. However, on a software project mailing list, it's not the case that there are a fixed number of options to vote for---if somebody disagrees with all possible proposals that have already been suggested, they're free to introduce an alternative suggestion. So in that context it does seem reasonable to read an abstention as "I don't care about this issue" or "I agree with whatever the current consensus is".

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 10, 2018 8:53 UTC (Thu) by zenaan (guest, #3778) [Link] (4 responses)

> Wait a second. You are saying you can assume someone is agreeing with you, if they don't respond?

It's called "tacit agreement" - yes, it's agreement by default - it is an effective (whether intentional or not) surrender to the "vocal majority" even though that vocal majority may be an absolute or relative minority.

But, in a public forum (or "modern democracy") tacit consent also implies a high likelihood of the tyranny of the minority - i.e. those who squawk the loudest get to "win" (or get the government benefits, etc).

Those who seek "safe spaces" (whatever the hell they are) are also called cry-bullies.

The SJWs or "social justice warriors" who actively "create safe spaces" by for example (to pick a totally random example) removing a short yet politically incorrect joke from documentation, are often engaged in some level of "white knighting" or virtue signaling and in any case are subsidizing bad behaviour.

Now, what could also arguably be alleged as the "bad behaviour" of a politically incorrect joke, is also a healthy poke in the ribs of the cry bullies, those trigger-ready snowflakes who self proclaim to melt at the sight of any of a million trigger words - and by publishing their melting quality far and wide, publicly and loudly, they are bullying the rest of us.

We owe it to our dignity to NOT surrender our freedom of speech or our "freedom to trigger" in our public, work and play spaces, to the dictates of the covert passive aggressive cry bullies.

And remember folks, EVERYTHING we say, all our speech, is effectively political in some way. Those who remove a short yet politically-incorrect joke from documentation are making a political statement, doing a political action, saying "this is a safe space for cry bullies, you will not pollute our safe space with politically incorrect jokes", even though it is (usually) in the guise of "we want no politics in our docs".

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 12, 2018 14:12 UTC (Sat) by niner (guest, #26151) [Link] (2 responses)

Just in case you don't know: insulting your opponent usually does not help you win an argument and will not convince anyone. All it does is reflect badly on you and reduce your credibility.

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 12, 2018 14:49 UTC (Sat) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] (1 responses)

I submit that someone who unironically links to Zero Hedge doesn't care about credibility in the first place :)

Who controls glibc?

Posted Nov 8, 2018 16:39 UTC (Thu) by deepfire (guest, #26138) [Link]

To clarify, that statement of yours says far more about your opinion of ZH, rather than about the poster.

Who controls glibc?

Posted May 16, 2018 21:09 UTC (Wed) by tartley (subscriber, #96301) [Link]

No bullying occurred at all. A suggestion was made, discussed, and eventually acted on despite some opposition. This is the normal process.

No censorship occurred at all. RMS or anyone else are free to continue making whatever jokes they want, or can publish a fork of the manual with the joke intact.

The "safe spaces" you complain about only require a moderate level of consideration for others.

I absolutely concede that sometimes people abuse that mechanism, petitioning to impose unreasonable burdens on others. In such cases, your objections would have some merit. But that has not remotely happened in this case, and unless it does, being respectful of other people's wishes is a very low bar indeed.

The joke's a bit crass. Some people don't like it. Most people don't care. Delete it and move on. No harm results. Objections to this are just crying wolf. Save it for an instance that genuinely needs attention.