Too many lords, not enough stewards

Posted Feb 2, 2018 18:48 UTC (Fri) by tao (subscriber, #17563)
In reply to: Too many lords, not enough stewards by ttelford
Parent article: Too many lords, not enough stewards

"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

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?

(Log in to post comments)

Too many lords, not enough stewards

Posted Feb 2, 2018 19:09 UTC (Fri) by blackwood (guest, #44174) [Link]

I'm indeed not a native speaker, but I think "complicit" is the correct word. What I pointed out are maintainers who apologize and excuse toxic behaviour, both on stage and in the hallway track. That's active behaviour and an active choice, and in aggregate (despite each individual's very minor contribution) is what enables toxic behaviour to continue. In my understanding of English, this is captured with "complicit".

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]

Complicit is strong language in this context, but I got the feeling from the talk that it was the word Daniel meant to use, and that he was using it in a very considered fashion. I've heard it used this way in the context of abuse of various kinds, particularly regarding institutional responses to abuse. The leadership of the community sets the standards, and they have to take responsibility for the standards that they set either explicitly or implicitly, through their choices about what behaviour they call out and what behaviour they permit to go by unchecked.

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]

> I'm indeed not a native speaker

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 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.

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.

Mar	APR	Jan
	28
2022	2023	2024