Interesting points, vexed questions, open problems.
I hope this doesn't sound too wankily PC, but please consider the following:
According to Oliver Sachs, the existence of Tourette's Syndrome proves that
the human brain is equipped with something which recognises some speech
patterns as offensive, there's a swear-center in the brain.
One cultural constant is that it's possible to insult or abuse another person,
but what constitutes tolerable levels of abuse, what constitutes an abusive
stimulus are completely determined by the culture you happen to adapt to.
The net seems (to me) to vocally insist upon a particular interpretation of
what constitutes `abuse'. It seems to me that it's generally the U.S.
dominant societal norms which demand most stridently to be recognised, adopted
and universally accepted.
I've noticed that the U.S. *is* a rather polite society (in a fragile kind of
way.) I've often thought that this is because the U.S. culture has handed
over its interpersonal speech to lawyers, while giving its citizens military
weapons. It's a curious inversion, seen from the outside.
I see major problems with Chip's desire for a polite community, simply because
we're not all part of an homogeneous culture.
> According to Richard Gooch:
> And if we're going to be true to our ideals here, all that matters
> is the code, not who wrote it or their behaviour.
> Chip Salzenberg responds:
> I disagree mildly. My experience in the Perl community has taught me
> that tolerating or even celebrating buttheads who happen to be
> technically prolific is, in the end, very costly.
> It creates a skin-thickness requirement.
> Some who might have contributed leave rather than putting up with verbal abuse.
And in your preferred mode, there's a sensitivity requirement. Some who might
have contributed leave rather than be continually told that their habitual,
comfortable, communications style is verbally abusive.
Verbal abusiveness is not an absolute quality. There's no `abusivenessometer'
we can all calibrate and reference, there's no ISO standard unit of
abusiveness (but I'd like to suggest we call it the fuckugram, if someone ever
comes up a way to measure one.)
Some might consider the most abusive thing you can do to them is lie to them.
Others might consider that the most abusive thing is to refuse to engage with
their speech acts as logical arguments (regardless of the mode of expression -
regardless of how florid the swearing, how casual the tone.) I don't think
these are contrived.
> A once-friendly community is be sacrificed on the altar of technical
> advancement... ironically, to the eventual detriment of both.
I guess it depends upon how easily one makes friends.
> Chip goes on:
> Open source development is a cooperative venture. It is therefore
> dangerous to accept a person's contributions without also considering
> the eventual costs of rewarding him and keeping him hanging around.
> 'What does it benefit a [project] to gain [world domination],
> but lose [its own sense of community]?'
Hmmm. A biblical reference. Very persuasive if you happen to belong to a
particular culture. You can almost spot the version of the bible with which
Chip's familiar. It's not KJV, but it's derived from it. Some kind of New
English thing, I think.
I'm an atheist. My counterquote will be `Three things are invisible: water to
fish, air to birds, and humanity to itself.'
I've seen Hans Reiser describe himself as an empiricist, a vice I share with
him. I think one could easily argue that an air of friendliness which
interferes with disinterested observation, logical commentary, reasoned
decision-making, and progress might be profoundly offensive to such a person.
I know it is, to me.
So there it is, Chip, a deconstruction: Your hypothetical culture of friends
necessarily creates an out-group, if only those who value something else more
highly than friendly relations. Your `comfortably friendly culture' is my
`mutual admiration society'. Your politeness is my groupthink. Your
`necessary ostracism of buttheads' is my `imposition of US cultural hegemony'.
The list goes on, it's a fun parlour game.
I have no panacea, except perhaps the inevitability of struggle, and the
possibility that it will perfect the Work. If that sounds like `you're
offended? Cope?' ... well ... umm ... Cope :)
Colin.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:34 EST