So you don't know who ESR is, and you're going to act like the man who has put his entire life into this effort as though he's not "acting in good faith". Wow.
If anything, I'd question whether everyone else on the list even knows what 'good faith' is, as they voluntarily proceed to censor themselves.
However, that's still a ridiculous email, and inappropriate for any context where grownups are trying to have a serious conversation about adult matters.
First off, it's unprofessional. But even beyond that, the email is either intended to persuade through facts and reasoned argument, or bully though shouting. It's clearly not written to persuade (there are no facts or reasoned arguments), ergo its intended to bully.
> Its originator is a toxic loonytoon who believes "show me the code" meritocracy is at best outmoded and in general a sinister supremacist plot by straight white cisgender males.
"Show me the code" is a good principle, and not just in programming. Hard data is much better than ad hominems or making arguments from authority. It is, therefore, sadly ironic that ESRs linked email is purely comprised of ad hominems, and the best his defenders can do is to make arguments from authority. Your code isn't automatically right because you're the CTO, and your arguments aren't automatically right because you're the co-founder, and the more heated and inflated your claims get, with no citations or links or proof, the less time I have for you.
ESR remains correct on the principles he has spent his life advocating for. His email is still garbage, and I fully support the removal of anyone who authors emails like that from a mailing list until they apologise and commit to behaving better in the future.
This isn't a profession. It's a volunteer effort. ESR has spent enough time talking about this now that expecting every single email he writes to include a total re-encapsulation of the entire effort is ridiculous. Of course, this is why arguing with these sorts of people is such a pain; they forget everything you've ever said, and any point ever admitted-to is forgotten the next day like as though no such admission had ever been made.
I would suggest that is a distinction without a (in this context) relevant difference.
Also, you didn't address my other, larger point.
Or at the very least explaining rationally why you feel the other person is not acting in good faith.
These people are HUGE fans of triangulation, their supporters will tear you a new one on twitter if you don't toe the line.
What does “triangulation” mean in this context?
Triangulation refers to when your primary aggressor has their associates perform social pressures (sometimes without them applying much themselves.)
For lack of a better example, consider the aspect of Shunning in some religions/cults; If the leader thinks someone is out of line, word quickly spreads, and the entire group will focus their behavior on making the target feel unwelcome.
Source: dealt with more culty shit than I ever wanted to, which is why these movements creep me out so much.
>Ratfucking is an American slang term for political sabotage or dirty tricks
And now he is banished.
Are you really arguing against this?
ESR could be acting within the community standards of OSI, in which case I don't think he should be banned.
I also find the way he engages to be more hostile than I'm comfortable with and probably wouldn't want to work an environment where it was the norm.
I'm not an expert on government and law, but it is my understanding that due process is rooted in the recognition that circumstances are often more nuanced than laws can accommodate, and so evaluation of the circumstances are necessary for every case.
I'm not saying OSI actions should follow the same due process as criminal courts, but my point is no, saying the things he said at countless companies, corporations, environments, under some context or another, would not result in firing.
> toxic loonytoon
> The actual goal of the movement behind the ESD
> banishing contributors for wrongthink
> The "Persona Non Grata" clause is best understood as an attempt to paralyze resistance to such political ratfucking
Like I said I don't know the OSI culture (or this context) but nothing about this message strikes me as someone who's acting in good faith. There's lots of nonsense out there, but engaging in good faith is about taking what people say in collaborative environments as given in good faith.
I'm open to being wrong and this tone being appropriate. I don't mean ESR has to be nice to people he doesn't like outside of the official policy discussion. But if people are trying to do work this doesn't seem like an appropriate way to engage.