My 0.02 Euro-Cent:
There is a minor problem with contributors being overly harsh/
borderline abusive on the mailing list. In my > 15 years with
the project, I have only had that problem with one single
person, and I have resolved that by never again touching the
system that particular person is
I think (if it matters to anyone what I think) that would be great to
see as long as there was some social/cultural incentive to not elect
"gatekeeper" types. I see alot of folks with very thin skin misusing
the authority they are trusted with in open source communities, it's
just never over any o
On 15/04/2021 11:09 am, Adrian via Gcc wrote:
Eric S. Raymond :
Speaking as a "high functioning autist", I'm aware of the difficulties that
some of us have with social interactions - and also that many of us
construct a persona or multiple personae to interact with others, a
phenomenon known as
> On Apr 14, 2021, at 5:38 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:49 PM Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>
>> This is why I asked the question "who decides?" Given a disagreement in
>> which the proposed remedy is to ostracise a participant, it is necessary to
>> inquire
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 6:19 AM
> From: "Nathan Sidwell"
> To: "Martin Jambor" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On 4/14/21 12:52 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > Hi Nathan,
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 14 2021, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> >> Do we have a policy about rem
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 4:39 PM Frosku wrote:
>
> On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 12:36 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >
> > (And I'm still not sure why you think he would "probably be
> > moderating.")
> >
> > Ian
>
> In my experience, those people who seek code of conducts generally envision
> themsel
On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 12:36 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> (And I'm still not sure why you think he would "probably be
> moderating.")
>
> Ian
In my experience, those people who seek code of conducts generally envision
themselves as the enforcers, not the parties upon which they should be en
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 4:28 PM Frosku wrote:
>
> On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 12:19 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:41 PM Frosku wrote:
> > >
> > > I think, in general, it's fine to leave this decision to moderators. It's
> > > just a little disconcerting when one of the
On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 12:19 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:41 PM Frosku wrote:
> >
> > I think, in general, it's fine to leave this decision to moderators. It's
> > just a little disconcerting when one of the people who would probably be
> > moderating is saying that
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:41 PM Frosku wrote:
>
> I think, in general, it's fine to leave this decision to moderators. It's
> just a little disconcerting when one of the people who would probably be
> moderating is saying that he could have shut down the discussion if he
> could only ban jerks, as
Eric S. Raymond :
> there is actually a value conflict between being "welcoming" in that
sense and the actual purpose of this list, which is to ship code.
Speaking as a "high functioning autist", I'm aware of the difficulties that
some of us have with social interactions - and also that many of us
On Wed Apr 14, 2021 at 9:49 PM BST, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
>
> My answer is "it depends". More precisely, in the past I would have
> favored those who decline because the environment is unpleasant -- with
> the implied assumption being that their objections are reasonable. Given
> the emergency
To provide a face-to-face example of how banning can work without
a formal written policy, I been in the leadership of a social gaming
organization with chapters in various places. Our local group typically
has 30-40 people show up at events and over the 30+ years of our
existence, we've had multi
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 2:24 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
> But yes, I understand your point and it's a good one and I think we can
> probably find some common ground there -- but even so I think banning
> should be a rare event and some official outreach to the offender should
> happen first.
Agreed (ex
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:49 PM Paul Koning wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14, 2021, at 4:39 PM, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:08 AM Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
> >>
> >> once or twice when physical violence with threatened, but that's about
> >> it (aside from spammers
On 4/14/2021 2:39 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:08 AM Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
once or twice when physical violence with threatened, but that's about
it (aside from spammers). I don't think we want to get too deep into
moderation and the like -- IMHO it should be an ex
> On Apr 14, 2021, at 4:39 PM, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:08 AM Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
>>
>> once or twice when physical violence with threatened, but that's about
>> it (aside from spammers). I don't think we want to get too deep into
>> moderation and t
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 21:40, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:08 AM Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > once or twice when physical violence with threatened, but that's about
> > it (aside from spammers). I don't think we want to get too deep into
> > moderation and the
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:08 AM Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
>
> once or twice when physical violence with threatened, but that's about
> it (aside from spammers). I don't think we want to get too deep into
> moderation and the like -- IMHO it should be an extremely rare event.
> As much as I disagree
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 6:32 AM
> From: "Paul Koning via Gcc"
> To: "Nathan Sidwell"
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 2021, at 2:19 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> >
> > On 4/14/21 12:52 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >> Hi Nathan,
> >> O
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 6:27 AM
> From: "Joseph Myers"
> To: "Eric S. Raymond"
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> > I'm not judging RMS's behavior (or anyone else's) one way or
> > another
TL;DR - Join us for a talk on an ongoing project that uses machine
learning to control a newly customizable version of the GCC C compiler
to improve performance for C-FPGA tools. This event in the Red Hat Research
Days monthly series will take place on April 22nd from 11AM to 12:30PM EDT
(5:00PM CE
> On Apr 14, 2021, at 2:19 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
> On 4/14/21 12:52 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> Hi Nathan,
>> On Wed, Apr 14 2021, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>>> Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or
>>> other toxic emails? do we have a code of conduct? Se
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 6:19 AM
> From: "Nathan Sidwell"
> To: "Martin Jambor" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On 4/14/21 12:52 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > Hi Nathan,
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 14 2021, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> >> Do we have a policy about re
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> I'm not judging RMS's behavior (or anyone else's) one way or
> another. I am simply pointing out that there is a Schelling point in
> possible community norms that is well expressed as "you shall judge by
> the code alone". This list is not full of co
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 5:09 AM
> From: "Jeff Law via Gcc"
> To: "Jonathan Wakely" , "Thomas Koenig"
>
> Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
>
> On 4/14/2021 8:49 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 15:39, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
On 4/14/21 12:52 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi Nathan,
On Wed, Apr 14 2021, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or
other toxic emails? do we have a code of conduct? Searching the wiki
or website finds nothing. The mission statement mentio
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 5:42 AM
> From: "Jeff Law"
> To: "Christopher Dimech" , "Toon Moene"
> Cc: "Richard Biener" , "Jonathan Wakely"
> , "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" , "Thomas
> Koenig"
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
>
> On 4/14/2021 10:55 AM, Christopher Dimech wro
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 4:18 AM
> From: "Jeff Law via Gcc"
> To: "Richard Biener" , "Jonathan Wakely"
> , "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" , "Thomas
> Koenig"
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
>
> On 4/14/2021 6:08 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> > On April 14, 2021 12:1
On 4/14/2021 10:55 AM, Christopher Dimech wrote:
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 4:35 AM
From: "Toon Moene"
To: "Jeff Law" , "Richard Biener" , "Jonathan Wakely"
, "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" , "Thomas Koenig"
Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
On 4/14/21 6:18 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc wr
There are many things one can say, but when Richard Stallman talks
about computing, he talks sense. I categorise him with Mathematician
Paul Erdos. Furthermore, when I had disagreements with him, I never
got ousted.
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 1:18 AM
> From: "Eric S. Raymond"
> To: "Na
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 22:54, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, pawel k. via Gcc wrote:
>
> > My best guess is if we could hookify all target code everything callable
> > either from frontends or midend, we could try to severly cut this estimate.
>
> That's a 700-patch series (there are
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, pawel k. via Gcc wrote:
> My best guess is if we could hookify all target code everything callable
> either from frontends or midend, we could try to severly cut this estimate.
That's a 700-patch series (there are about 700 target macros). For every
target macro, it's neces
On 4/14/2021 8:49 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 15:39, Thomas Koenig wrote:
On 14.04.21 15:18, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
A strong norm about off-list behavior and politics being
out of bounds here is also helpful.
That would have banned the whole discussion about the
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 4:35 AM
> From: "Toon Moene"
> To: "Jeff Law" , "Richard Biener"
> , "Jonathan Wakely" ,
> "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" , "Thomas Koenig"
>
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 4/14/21 6:18 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
>
> > On 4/14/2021 6:08 AM,
Hi Nathan,
On Wed, Apr 14 2021, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or
> other toxic emails? do we have a code of conduct? Searching the wiki
> or website finds nothing. The mission statement mentions nothing.
I think that (most?) peo
On 4/14/21 6:18 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
On 4/14/2021 6:08 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
On April 14, 2021 12:19:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
wrote:
N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03, Thomas Koenig
wrote:
- All
On 4/14/2021 6:08 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
On April 14, 2021 12:19:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
wrote:
N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03, Thomas Koenig
wrote:
- All gfortran developers move to the new branch. This
On 4/14/2021 8:08 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 4/14/21 9:18 AM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Nathan Sidwell :
Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send
abusive or
other toxic emails? do we have a code of conduct? Searching the
wiki or
website finds nothing. The mission stat
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 2:08 AM
> From: "Nathan Sidwell"
> To: e...@thyrsus.com
> Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org"
> Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
>
> On 4/14/21 9:18 AM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Nathan Sidwell :
> >> Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusi
Le 14/04/2021 à 16:49, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc a écrit :
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 15:39, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> On 14.04.21 15:18, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>>> A strong norm about off-list behavior and politics being
>>> out of bounds here is also helpful.
>> That would have banned the whole discuss
On Wed Apr 14, 2021 at 12:18 PM BST, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
> > The choice to /not/ have a policy for ejecting jerks has serious costs.
> > One of those costs is the kind of rancorous dispute that has been
> > burning like a brushfire on this list the last few weeks.
>
> Although I agree wi
Nathan Sidwell :
> The choice to /not/ have a policy for ejecting jerks has serious costs. One
> of those costs is the kind of rancorous dispute that has been
> burning like a brushfire on this list the last few weeks.
The situation isn't that symmetrical. The brushfire didn't happen when it
was
> The choice to /not/ have a policy for ejecting jerks has serious costs.
> One of those costs is the kind of rancorous dispute that has been
> burning like a brushfire on this list the last few weeks.
Although I agree with the sentiment, there's a real risk that if we
were heading in that direct
On Wed Apr 14, 2021 at 3:57 PM BST, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 15:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 15:39, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > On 14.04.21 15:18, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > > > A strong norm about off-list behavior and politics being
On 14.04.21 16:49, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 15:39, Thomas Koenig wrote:
On 14.04.21 15:18, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
A strong norm about off-list behavior and politics being
out of bounds here is also helpful.
That would have banned the whole discussion about the
Nathan Sidwell :
> I'd just like to eject the jerks, because they make the place unwelcoming.
I understand the impulse. The problem is that there is actually a value
conflict between being "welcoming" in that sense and the actual purpose
of this list, which is to ship code.
It's a much more dire
On Wed Apr 14, 2021 at 3:54 PM BST, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 4/14/21 10:23 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> >> The choice to have a policy for ejecting jerks has serious costs.
> >> One of those costs is the kind of rancorous dispute that has been
> >> burning like a brushfire on this list the last fe
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 15:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 15:39, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >
> > On 14.04.21 15:18, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > > A strong norm about off-list behavior and politics being
> > > out of bounds here is also helpful.
> >
> > That would have banned the w
On 4/14/21 10:23 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
The choice to have a policy for ejecting jerks has serious costs.
One of those costs is the kind of rancorous dispute that has been
burning like a brushfire on this list the last few weeks.
I agree. Look at the huge ongoing debate about Section 230 in
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 15:39, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> On 14.04.21 15:18, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > A strong norm about off-list behavior and politics being
> > out of bounds here is also helpful.
>
> That would have banned the whole discussion about the potential
> fork from the start.
No, becau
> The choice to have a policy for ejecting jerks has serious costs.
> One of those costs is the kind of rancorous dispute that has been
> burning like a brushfire on this list the last few weeks.
I agree. Look at the huge ongoing debate about Section 230 in the US
that's been going on for at leas
Ok i might have to retract on some of those i unnevessaily got personal. F
course i didnt intend to put not your words into your mouth.
As on your politics for sure it matters though as snowflakes got so
diverged off into murky partition of world where they no longer understand
basic wording and r
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 15:10, pawel k. wrote:
>
> Thank You Jonathan for your very valuable opinions. I was sure the more far
> lefty you are the less you will understand me, if my assumptions about your
> worldviews are correct. If not apologies. Ill review your previous stance on
> rms mess an
Thank You Jonathan for your very valuable opinions. I was sure the more far
lefty you are the less you will understand me, if my assumptions about your
worldviews are correct. If not apologies. Ill review your previous stance
on rms mess and explain.
Ill reply with a quote from one of my tee shir
On 4/14/21 9:18 AM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Nathan Sidwell :
Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or
other toxic emails? do we have a code of conduct? Searching the wiki or
website finds nothing. The mission statement mentions nothing.
I'm not a GCC insider,
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 13:38, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 08:01 +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, 07:50 pawel k. via Gcc, wrote:
> >
> >
>
> [...snip...]
>
> > Very logical argument, thanks for sharing.
>
> Jonathan, it's clear to me that you're bein
On Wed Apr 14, 2021 at 2:28 PM BST, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
> On 14.04.21 15:18, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > A strong norm about off-list behavior and politics being
> > out of bounds here is also helpful.
>
> That would have banned the whole discussion about the potential
> fork from the start
On Wed Apr 14, 2021 at 2:28 PM BST, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
> On 14.04.21 15:18, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > A strong norm about off-list behavior and politics being
> > out of bounds here is also helpful.
>
> That would have banned the whole discussion about the potential
> fork from the start
On 14.04.21 15:18, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
A strong norm about off-list behavior and politics being
out of bounds here is also helpful.
That would have banned the whole discussion about the potential
fork from the start.
Nathan Sidwell :
> Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or
> other toxic emails? do we have a code of conduct? Searching the wiki or
> website finds nothing. The mission statement mentions nothing.
I'm not a GCC insider, but I know a few things about the social
On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 08:01 +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, 07:50 pawel k. via Gcc, wrote:
>
>
[...snip...]
> Very logical argument, thanks for sharing.
Jonathan, it's clear to me that you're being sarcastic, but it might
not be clear to others. Please avoid sarc
Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or
other toxic emails? do we have a code of conduct? Searching the wiki
or website finds nothing. The mission statement mentions nothing.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On April 14, 2021 12:19:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
wrote:
>N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC
>
>On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03, Thomas Koenig
>wrote:
>> - All gfortran developers move to the new branch. This will not
>>happen, I can guarantee you that.
>
N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> - All gfortran developers move to the new branch. This will not
>happen, I can guarantee you that.
This is the part I'm curious about (the rest is obvious, it follows
from there be
On 14.04.21 09:57, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 08:46, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
There is no discussion at the moment. Most people on the fortran
mailing list do not follow gcc. I know of at least two contributors
(myself incluced) who would in all probability stop contri
Hi,
I am a long time user of GCC, and have been keenly observing the recent
thread about GCC's association with FSF. IIUC, the motivation to fork is to
change perception "at large" of GCC (and GNU Tools) being linked to RMS ?
Could that be possibly done in a less invasive way than forking ? I thoug
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 08:46, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
> There is no discussion at the moment. Most people on the fortran
> mailing list do not follow gcc. I know of at least two contributors
> (myself incluced) who would in all probability stop contributing
> in that case.
Do you mind if I
Very good!
Am 14.04.2021 um 07:53 schrieb pawel k. via Gcc:
Hello,
Im multiyear gcc user on many targets. I love the project and wish it all
the best.
Im also senior c/cpp and linux sw devel with 20 years of experience.
Im observing an rms controversy from some perspective and here are my
thoug
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021, 07:50 pawel k. via Gcc, wrote:
> Hello,
> Im multiyear gcc user on many targets. I love the project and wish it all
> the best.
> Im also senior c/cpp and linux sw devel with 20 years of experience.
>
> Im observing an rms controversy from some perspective and here are my
> t
70 matches
Mail list logo
