Paul Koning <paulkon...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Apr 15, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk> wrote:
...
responding in general to this part of the thread.
* The GCC environment is not hostile, and has not been for the 15 or so
years I’ve been part of the community.
* We would notice if it became so, I’m not sure about the idea that the
wool
can be so easily pulled over our eyes.
responding to the thread in general..
* Please could we try to seek consensus?
- it is disappointing to see people treating this as some kind of
point-scoring game
when to those working on the compiler day to day it is far from a game.
I'm not sure what the consensus is you're looking for.
Let us start from the observations above and try to add in the issues that
have
arisen in the recent threads - and end with a proposal....
* One could be glib and suggest that discussions about governance and project
process should be directed to a different (new) mailing list
- but that does not solve the problem(s) it just moves them.
- (however, it might still be valuable to folks who wish to have an automatic
filter
for these topics or have no interest in them).
* I think we are all clear about the primary role of the gcc@ and
gcc-patches@ lists
- primarily technical discussion about current and future projects and patch
review
respectively.
- we have a history of politely redirecting usage questions to the help list
(while
often answering them anyway), likewise with the irc channel.
- I believe we also have a history of encouraging input and discussing the
technical
issues (reasonably) calmly.
- to the best of my recollection I have never seen an idea excluded on any
basis than
technical content.
* Without a specific list to process input on governance and project
process, this
list is a reasonable choice.
———
The observations above, copied from my first email, together with a belief
that most of
the current and potential contributor to GCC would prefer to function in a
constructive
environment, lead to the following proposition:
* that, since the lists are generally constructive without additional
management,
(OK. there are occasional heated technical debates), it implies that this
community
by-and-large is already able to function without heavy-handed moderation.
* It has been postulated that there could be valued technical input from
people who
have difficulty in interacting in a constructive manner (through no fault of
their own).
* no-one else would be making valued input, either they would be a spammer or
intentionally acting in a destructive manner.
- Let us propose that someone capable of working on a complex system such as
a
compiler would be able to read and act on a set of guidelines.
- ergo, I propose that we have a set of guidelines to which someone who is
being
disruptive can be pointed.
* (Probably?) no-one has any issue with a spammer being thrown off the list,
for which
I guess there is a process already - it would be reasonable to expect that
genuine
contributors (even with difficulties) would make an effort to follow
guidelines - and
that someone who was making no effort to do so is not really any different
from a
spammer.
Of course, guidelines require debate (but I doubt that the right set would
be much
different from the obvious for this group).
is seems to me that most of the strife in the last two weeks comes from a few
key
things:
- attacking the person delivering a message rather than debating the message
- introducing topics spurious and unrelated to the actual debate
- trying to equate the process of this project with party or international
Politics.
===
So .. in summary:
1/ I propose that we do have written guidelines, to which someone behaving
in a
non-constructive manner can be pointed.
2/ if those guidelines *are the consensus* of this group and someone is
unable to
follow them (given some reasonable chance to amend as is customary in
matters
such as employment law here, at least), then they are treated no
differently from
any other spam.
* although one might lose some notionally valuable input, the judgement here
is that
the net benefit of such input is negative.
3/ I would recommend on the basis of another online community (about music)
to
which I belong, to suggest that Politics (party or international) and
Religion are better
discussed in other forums and are exceedingly unlikely to affect a technical
decision
on the progress of GCC - such discussions almost never end well.
(I’d believe that any valid exception to the need to heed some political
situation would
be readily recognised by the participants here).
4/ It is likely that we can extract much of the basic guidelines from any
other writing on
communicating constructively - after all, it is how 99.99% of this list
traffic is managed
without intervention.
my 0.02GBP only, "patches welcome",
Iain
