Too many lords, not enough stewards
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 1, 2018 17:28 UTC (Thu) by jubal (guest, #67202)In reply to: Too many lords, not enough stewards by msnitzer
Parent article: Too many lords, not enough stewards
Whatever you feel, your reply shows very explicitly that you're part of the problem.
(Log in to post comments)
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 1, 2018 18:51 UTC (Thu) by ttelford (guest, #44176) [Link]
It's clear that Daniel Vetter is creating problems of his own as well: His stated attitude that anybody who isn't willing to help in his crusade is complicit is, quite frankly, offensive. It's an all-too-common declaration that everybody should to bow to some petty tyrant's will; it's even in Star Wars when Anakin declared "If you're not with me, you're against me."Complicity requires being actively involved in making things worse, which is quite different from more mundane things like a lack of time, energy, or motivation.
The bottom line is everybody has the right to pick the fights they do not want to be a part of, and it's not cool to vilify those who opt out.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 1, 2018 19:17 UTC (Thu) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]
> When you chat with many of the people who have been around kernel development for a long time and challenge them about problematic people, toxic behavior, or "maybe we should do this better" the response is often "it is what it is and you just deal with it". In his view, this makes them complicit.
I think you're interpreting that comment differently. There's a huge difference between not having the bandwidth to deal with the problem and not acknowledging that there's a problem. I can *absolutely* sympathize with anyone who does not have the time or energy to solve the problem themselves; that's not inherently wrong. But that's not the same thing as saying there *isn't* a problem, or that the current ecosystem is working just fine, or pointing at the pace of development and figuring that people just need to "grow a thicker skin" and "just deal with it". Or, even worse, *defending* the current state of affairs and attacking people who try to identify and address problems with it.
Nobody here has said "if you're not with me, you're against me". The problem is people who are, in fact, against fixing the problem, against talking about the problem, or against the idea that there's a problem at all.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 1, 2018 21:58 UTC (Thu) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link]
Yet many of the maintainers want to improve the community starting with their little piece. Calling the Linux community names like "appalling" or "toxic" might have been a Twitter sport for some time now, but a sweeping generalization saying that the usual, expected maintainer behavior can be likened to abuser-victim relationships? That's a first, and I think it crosses a line---so much for bragging that your subsystem has a code of conduct.
_No one_ deserves that, among Linux developers or anyone else. I have never felt as uneasy (in a work setting of course), as listening to Daniel's talk made me feel.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 1, 2018 22:11 UTC (Thu) by msnitzer (guest, #57232) [Link]
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 1, 2018 23:05 UTC (Thu) by airlied (subscriber, #9104) [Link]
But why does make you uneasy? Do you think there is some truth in it, if you are pretty confident there is no parallels between maintainer behaviour and abuser-victim relationship then you'd have no reason to fell uneasy and could just dismiss Daniel's comments out of hand.
I've been on the receiving end of my fair share of Linus fits, and I've describe my reaction to those to a few people who definitely drew parallels to an abusive relationship. My excuse was I was staying for the kids.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 1, 2018 23:36 UTC (Thu) by msnitzer (guest, #57232) [Link]
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 1, 2018 23:44 UTC (Thu) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link]
From the guy calling people "snowflakes."
I think the problem here is the talk cuts too close to the bone for you.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 1, 2018 23:57 UTC (Thu) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link]
Would you enjoy it?
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 3:04 UTC (Fri) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link]
And given my career has been spent poking computers in newspapers and finance, I'm very used to people making sweeping generalisations. Why would I take it to heart, unless I thought they were fair and accurate?
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 4:49 UTC (Fri) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link]
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 6:12 UTC (Fri) by ashkulz (subscriber, #102382) [Link]
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 6:16 UTC (Fri) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link]
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 0:27 UTC (Fri) by msnitzer (guest, #57232) [Link]
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 0:46 UTC (Fri) by airlied (subscriber, #9104) [Link]
Let's calm down
Posted Feb 2, 2018 0:50 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]
Second request: I honestly think it's time to take a break and let things calm down a bit. Please?
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 1:31 UTC (Fri) by msnitzer (guest, #57232) [Link]
(I've emailed David to reinforce that I wasn't directing my comment to him.. but that aside, I fully accept I've done more harm than good in these comments; and yes I'm "done". Apologies for the noise Jon)
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 2:57 UTC (Fri) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link]
It's quite a contrast, and it might be useful to think empathically about the fact that you have more in common with the people you're dismissing than you realise.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 4:00 UTC (Fri) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
If you want to avoid being toxic in your communications, you simply have to recognize how terms are used and the associations in place. The fact that pepe the frog looks cute doesn't mean that wearing him on your shirt to work every day won't cause problems.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 5:43 UTC (Fri) by ttelford (guest, #44176) [Link]
Clearly, the term means something very different in your worldview.
That’s fine, but please do not make the mistake of attacking anybody who doesn’t see the world through your lens.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 5:50 UTC (Fri) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link]
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 6:17 UTC (Fri) by ttelford (guest, #44176) [Link]
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 3, 2018 1:37 UTC (Sat) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
And it's used to imply that, crassly, about anyone they disagree with, in a lazy way that tries to shut down communication rather than engage in it.
That's the standard usage.
Lord of Snowflakes
Posted Feb 8, 2018 5:55 UTC (Thu) by Garak (guest, #99377) [Link]
The relevant quasi-paranoid thought I have here is that prior to Snowden, I had never heard the 'snowflake' term used in those ways. Close, but not the same. Prior to Snowden, had I encountered it, I would have interpreted its use as referring to the 'myth' of all snowflakes being unique, and something a compassionate person might use to encourage a sense of self-importance in a person who at the time was feeling as if they didn't matter much, because they were just a single person on a planet of billions. Then, curiously (to me), somewhat shortly after Snowden, I started seeing it used in the way you described in internet comments. Slashdot or SoylentNews, I think I saw it used by someone in the same comment as outright racist (perhaps trolling) comments. Then as time went on I saw occasional use of it in the way you described. I do think however that an adequate exploration of the term is indeed key to this entire topic, including the long comment thread. I must also admit that about the closest I ever came to kernel development was some participation in dm-devel, where an idea I made was dismissed. Before reading this thread I was certainly content to believe it likely that my idea indeed was not good, or not explained well. However I also happen to have a ruthless-jungle darwinian view of linux kernel 'politics', and a non-mainstream view that forking should be viewed with positive rather than negative connotation. Thus I was always perfectly content with the idea that I was able and free to fork and demonstrate the utility of the idea independent of any official maintainer. And even though I think this thread is the best evidence one could imagine for Linus to demote/fire msnitzer, I have to admit that part of my understanding of the political issue around Linus's 'colorful' methods of critically commenting, can pretty much be summed up by this 'snowflake' usage. Namely I've never seen any quotes from him on LWN that make me wish he would be out of the picture. Unlike about a dozen in this thread from msnitzer. Yet at the same time, I also have a paranoid theory that intelligence agencies threatened by Snowden's revelations may have pushed this particular 'snowflake' trigger/meme in a mass-psyop tactic. I hope within a couple hundred years some AI does a plot of instances of uses of the term in internet comments, perhaps to flesh out that theory. $0.02...
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 1, 2018 23:48 UTC (Thu) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link]
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 1, 2018 23:53 UTC (Thu) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]
I cannot speak for Paolo, but it made *me* uneasy because I felt it was painting a distorted picture, which had just enough truth in it the people might believe the whole. I think that would be harmful.
I don't go the LCA to hear how the world is broken. I go to hear what people are doing to fix it - maybe I can join them or learn from them.
This talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3HNeoFuSH0 is only 13 minutes long, and is about working *with* the community, and is certainly worth watching.
> I've been on the receiving end of my fair share of Linus fits,
I learned to laugh at bullies long ago; usually under my breath - I'm not stupid. Laughing at them doesn't change them, but it sure helps me. Pity might be an even healthier response, but it is more challenging.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 0:05 UTC (Fri) by airlied (subscriber, #9104) [Link]
I think Daniel might have overpainted the doom and gloom about it all, but maybe the LF can pay for a qualified psychologist booth at the next conference and we can describe our interactions with other community members in private and see what they say.
I know I don't do as much kernel maintainer interaction as I used to because it kinda burned me out each time, Daniel (with my support and shielding from upstream) has pretty much constructed a really good sub community in graphics and he has done more to fix this than giving a talk to explain it's broken. I do wish he'd gone into more detail on the what we can do to fix things, but really there are so many entrenched interests in the wider maintainer community that having anything reduce their standing is hard work, it's like getting politicians to pay themselves less money.
We can't even agree on a way to report bugs in a central manner, never mind what a commit msg should look like. Maybe we need maintainer training sessions.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 0:35 UTC (Fri) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]
This here. This is the problem. Maintainers are not like politicians.
Politicians have power because the constitution gives it to them.
Maintainers have power only because we, the community, give it to them.
Anyone who wants to can fork the kernel. Linus only has power because people trust him more than they trust anyone else in this very specific role. He doesn't have an army to suppress uprisings, or a state controlled media to convince us that, while all animals are equal, some are more equal than others. All he really has is demonstrated competence and commitment. Same goes for other maintainers.
If you keep telling yourself that the maintainers rule the world and that you have no choice than to bow to their whims or hide under a rock, then it is *you* who are giving them power, and you share some responsibility if they misuse it.
Have you seen the movie "The Help"? "You is strong, you is kind, you is important." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H50llsHm3k) You can use your strength and change the world, or you can just be a victim. Be the change you want to see, then infect others with it.
I'm not at all surprised that Daniel has been doing great things in his sub-community. He did hint at that in the talk. I would have liked to hear more about that.
> how do you avoid bullies when it's your job to deal with them though?
I guess avoidance isn't such a good strategy after all. I'll stick to laughing, and practicing compassion (a better word than 'pity' I think).
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 0:55 UTC (Fri) by airlied (subscriber, #9104) [Link]
The method of their use of that power is only formalised through the documentation. At least politicians have some documentation on how they are meant to do things I suppose.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 3, 2018 22:29 UTC (Sat) by jani (subscriber, #74547) [Link]
Yes, but who in their right mind would want to? The community keeps preaching everyone who cares to listen, and probably many who don't care, about working upstream. Carrying local patches is expensive. I don't think forking the kernel is a viable option to bypass maintainers at any level.
Or I just didn't understand what you mean by forking in this context.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 4, 2018 5:47 UTC (Sun) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]
Yes it is - long term. Short term it is very cheap.
Apparently working with certain maintainers is also expensive (with others it is a joy).
Depending on your particular needs at a particular time it makes sense to perform a cost/benefit analysis and decide what the best course of action is.
Maybe the best approach is to persist with the maintainer.
Maybe it is to try to route around them.
Maybe it is to fork and maintain a separate tree for a while, and then try to merge again in 6-12 months when circumstances might have changed.
Maybe it is to fork permanently.
Key point is that you have options and you can take control within the parameters of those options. You cannot force other people to change their behaviour, but you can choose how you will behave, and it is valuable to have a clear view of all of the options.
How a person chooses to behave typically speaks more loudly than unsolicited opinions they might choose to present.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 4, 2018 8:36 UTC (Sun) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link]
> Yes, but who in their right mind would want to?
Are the people who work at or on Red Hat, SuSE, Google, Amazon, Debian and Oracle? Alan Cox was insane (news to the people who found years of -ac kernels vastly better than Linus kernels)?
The hyper-majority of Linux users are no-where near a mainline kernel, and many developers only touch it to pull patches into their own trees.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 4, 2018 14:20 UTC (Sun) by jani (subscriber, #74547) [Link]
> Alan Cox was insane (news to the people who found years of -ac kernels vastly better than Linus kernels)?
>
> The hyper-majority of Linux users are no-where near a mainline kernel, and many developers
> only touch it to pull patches into their own trees.
Yet most prefer being as close to upstream as possible, carrying local patches for their chosen stable release, downstream, perhaps to provide "value add" for their customers. Contrast this with, say, hardware vendors or individual developers forking upstream to bypass the maintainer structure, and trying to convince the above mentioned downstreams to carry their out-of-tree patches to deliver to the end users.
I suppose you can argue some level of downstream forking happens all the time, but I just don't see it as a relevant argument in the discussion at hand.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 4, 2018 21:26 UTC (Sun) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]
It is not unheard of for a hardware vendor to partner with an distro to work on getting hardware support upstream - each side brings different skills for mutual benefit. They work together on a fork when circumstances prevent them from working together upstream.
If an individual developer is having trouble getting a patch upstream, it may make perfect sense to submit a bug report/feature-request to their favourite distro and say "I have a bug, I have a fix, I cannot git it upstream, could you take it directly?". This distro maintainer might do that, or might help get it upstream, or might do both.
This is all part of "routing around".
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 3:00 UTC (Fri) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link]
Maybe maintainers are doing too much: release management, coding, technical direction, and people leading appear to be what the maintainers would *ideally* do, and in most of the software dev world that's three to four different jobs. On top of that there's always the chance (as Daniel pointed out) of making the front page of The Register if Linus goes on one of performance art excursions to express displeasure with your work.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 1, 2018 23:49 UTC (Thu) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link]
I'm trying to find some evidence of your concern for people having abuse publicly heaped on them by, for example, Linus, and I can't. You seem to have a very one-sided set of concerns.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 1:40 UTC (Fri) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link]
Now that I've swallowed bait, hook and line, will you please stop trolling, thanks.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 1, 2018 22:08 UTC (Thu) by ttelford (guest, #44176) [Link]
"It is what it is and you just deal with it" is not complicity. There is such a thing as neutral ground - shrugging your shoulders and staying out of the fight. We all get to pick our battles, and vilifying those who just want to stay out of it isn't helping the cause.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 11:37 UTC (Fri) by jubal (guest, #67202) [Link]
Complicity does not require being actively involved; it's enough to just do nothing (“the standard you walk past is the standard you accept”).The subsystem maintainers are the leadership of the kernel development; as much as they might want to, they can't absolve of their responsibility for the style, tone and the general behaviour of the development community. Cf. Gen. Morisson's message to the Australian army. (Original video of the speech on youtube.)
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 15:51 UTC (Fri) by ttelford (guest, #44176) [Link]
The Oxford Dictionary states “Involved with others in an activity that is unlawful or morally wrong.”
Mariam Webster has “helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way”
That’s quite different from inaction and/or choosing to be uninvolved.
By your definition, a pacifist is responsible for the horrors of war because they didn’t join up and defeat the enemy faster.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 18:48 UTC (Fri) by tao (subscriber, #17563) [Link]
Complicit is the wrong word, no doubt about it (but Daniel Vetter is, TTBOMK, not a native English speaker), but the point he's trying to make is clear: that not protesting when you witness something wrong (in this case toxic behaviour or abuse) means that you accept it.
Pacifists typically refuse to partake in the conflicts in a rather vocal manner, so your comparison doesn't hold water.
The question is, if you observe toxic behaviour or abuse, and you don't do anything about it, who do you expect will? Maybe you don't have to be the one to do so every time you observe something, but why not set a good example at least once?
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 19:09 UTC (Fri) by blackwood (guest, #44174) [Link]
I did not say that silent contributors are complicit, since that would indeed be a rather silly notion. I even spent a full slide explaining why it's really hard for those silent masses of contributors to affect any change, and why it's unrealistic to expect them to work towards that.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 2, 2018 23:52 UTC (Fri) by himi (subscriber, #340) [Link]
The quote from General Morrison is extremely apposite: "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept" - right now at least some of the standard setters in the kernel culture are walking past what are clearly abusive behaviours, and as community leaders they need to accept responsibility for that choice, and for the results of that choice.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 3, 2018 0:41 UTC (Sat) by ttelford (guest, #44176) [Link]
For what it's worth, that is not the impression I got listening to the YouTube recording - I thought you were a native speaker.
> I did not say that silent contributors are complicit, since that would indeed be a rather silly notion.
I was actually rather puzzled, my thinking was along the lines of 'He just said those that don't intervene are complicit, and then gave reasons why contributors don't intervene?' In spite of my overall agreement of the ideas presented, that point stuck out to me as more than a little wrong.
This clarification changes my understanding significantly, and I do appreciate the time you spent in your response, and in the talk. Your talk was overall thought provoking and definitely worth my time.
For a bit of my own background: I originally come from a place where the culture has expectations of community involvement. It's common for people to come around asking for support in whatever their cause célèbre happens to be, and I faced retaliation when I din't want to get involved (or, even worse in their view, felt their course of action was wrong).
I still have deep scars from the experience, and it left me with a strong conviction that shaming people who just want to stay out of a fight can be deeply hurtful; to me, accusations of "complicity" are often a different flavor of manipulation and abuse.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 3, 2018 6:51 UTC (Sat) by blackwood (guest, #44174) [Link]
>I was actually rather puzzled, my thinking was along the lines of 'He just said those that don't intervene are complicit, and then gave reasons why contributors don't intervene?' In spite of my overall agreement of the ideas presented, that point stuck out to me as more than a little wrong.
Ah I understand now why this wasnt clear enough, I didn't emphasis enough that I mean different people. And I also didn't emphasis enough that I think the problematic aspect of apologizing/excusing is when it's done by people with influence and power, like maintainers or very long-term contributors.
Trying to press the mass of general contributors (who don't have any real power to stand up) into supporting anything is indeed problematic, since it's essentially a flavour of victim-blaming. With your background I understand why you reacted strongly to that idea.
Too many lords, not enough stewards
Posted Feb 3, 2018 16:34 UTC (Sat) by ttelford (guest, #44176) [Link]
I think we understand each other. It’s been a pleasure chatting with you.