This is a popular position but software does not rain from the heavens. It is written by people. And the rather convincing argument goes that this sort of behavior drives away many people who could've made valuable contributions.
As far as I can see RMS is a neuroatypical person who just does not have any filters and also applies logic to such interpersonal matters where empathy would be better. I do not think he is malicious but you can't expect women who are constantly harassed to make this distinction -- harassment is just harassment at the end of the day. And this has been made clear to him so many times over the decades and he refuses to change and that's a problem. No matter how much one contributes, they can drive away enough people the lost potential total contribution overweighs that. Trust me, I know :(
This, however, is a hypothetical. For example, when the Linux project introduced the Code Of Conduct, such threats were made, however, at least as far as I am aware, no such departures have actually happened. Please let me know if I am incorrect.
We have multiple reports on people leaving open source or not starting because of RMS. And other toxic people like Linus Torvalds. Like me.
Many people say that people leave bad managers, not bad jobs. The fact that people are still contributing with RMS at the forefront of the FSF indicates that they at least are fine with the way things currently are.
If management changes, there's definitely a chance they won't stick around depending on what they do in terms of the direction of the FSF.
The fact that people are still contributing with RMS at the forefront of the FSF indicates that they at least are fine with the way things currently are.
In Github's 2017 survey, 50% of the 5,500 respondents claimed they had witnessed toxic interactions while working on open-source projects, and that 18% of them had suffered through a negative interaction. Also, 95% of contributors were men and 3% were women.
Are you sure people are still contributing or is it just men who do with very, very few women who is willing to put up with this?
Are you sure people are still contributing or is it just men who do with very, very few women who is willing to put up with this?
The skewed male to female ratio isn't unique to software developed under the FSF. It's the case throughout the industry and even at the high school/college/graduate school level. Therefore, the lack of women contributing to projects within the FSF isn't because of RMS or the FSF board.
This , again , is a skewing of facts: while it is true there is a gender disparity in tech , with about a very low 20% women in tech engineering, in open source it is 10% or even less.
That doesn't mean that there's an inherent bias against women in open source software development. If what you're saying is true, then there must be an inherent bias against males when comparing preschool teachers (2.7% male) versus public school teachers (24% male). I don't believe there's an inherent bias in either case and the skewed gender ratio which varies depending on the area isn't due to a single person or group of people.
Not sure what you mean here. What I am saying, and this is backed by women self reporting, women leaving and statistics is that the toxicity of some of the leaders in open source lead them not start / leave open source.
Basically, I was comparing an example where the percentage of male teachers is lower when comparing preschool teachers versus public school teachers in general, like you mentioned the lower percentage of female developers contributing to open source software versus the percentage of female developers throughout the industry.
Even if a male preschool teacher self-reported perceived bias against him, that doesn't necessarily mean that there's general trend of bias throughout the area. Just like a female self reporting bias they perceived for a particular open source project doesn't mean that there's a general of bias in that area.
LOL'd hard at the Sarah Mei "toxicity" post... she's easily the most toxic person I can think about (at least, her online persona, I'm sure in person she cannot be that bad, and maybe she is even kind).
When people on one hand want to not be harassed for wherever reason and then are harassing someone neuroatypical for neuroatypical behaviour they are not any better themselves.
Your sentence is insidious. What you call "harassing someone neuroatypical" were requests by colleagues and friends to exhibit less behaviors perceived as harassment. You can not conflate the two. Is it harassment to ask to not put a mattress in your university office?
A mattress in his office is the least of what is said about RMS on HN and elsewhere. The point stands that a lot of people are harassing him for being neuroatypical.
Comments
This is a popular position but software does not rain from the heavens. It is written by people. And the rather convincing argument goes that this sort of behavior drives away many people who could've made valuable contributions.
As far as I can see RMS is a neuroatypical person who just does not have any filters and also applies logic to such interpersonal matters where empathy would be better. I do not think he is malicious but you can't expect women who are constantly harassed to make this distinction -- harassment is just harassment at the end of the day. And this has been made clear to him so many times over the decades and he refuses to change and that's a problem. No matter how much one contributes, they can drive away enough people the lost potential total contribution overweighs that. Trust me, I know :(
The other thing to consider is that these movements to replace leadership or boards could drive away people who are currently making contributions.
I believe that losing current contributors is a bigger loss than the, arguably hypothetical, new contributor(s) that could be gained.
This, however, is a hypothetical. For example, when the Linux project introduced the Code Of Conduct, such threats were made, however, at least as far as I am aware, no such departures have actually happened. Please let me know if I am incorrect.
We have multiple reports on people leaving open source or not starting because of RMS. And other toxic people like Linus Torvalds. Like me.
Many people say that people leave bad managers, not bad jobs. The fact that people are still contributing with RMS at the forefront of the FSF indicates that they at least are fine with the way things currently are.
If management changes, there's definitely a chance they won't stick around depending on what they do in terms of the direction of the FSF.
Some people do. Some do not.
https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/994010501460865025
In Github's 2017 survey, 50% of the 5,500 respondents claimed they had witnessed toxic interactions while working on open-source projects, and that 18% of them had suffered through a negative interaction. Also, 95% of contributors were men and 3% were women.
Are you sure people are still contributing or is it just men who do with very, very few women who is willing to put up with this?
https://www.php.net/credits.php here, count the women. Or rather the woman!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life not. a. single. woman.
Not all of this is on Stallman but as he is the figurehead of an entire movement, certainly at least some of it is.
The skewed male to female ratio isn't unique to software developed under the FSF. It's the case throughout the industry and even at the high school/college/graduate school level. Therefore, the lack of women contributing to projects within the FSF isn't because of RMS or the FSF board.
This , again , is a skewing of facts: while it is true there is a gender disparity in tech , with about a very low 20% women in tech engineering, in open source it is 10% or even less.
That doesn't mean that there's an inherent bias against women in open source software development. If what you're saying is true, then there must be an inherent bias against males when comparing preschool teachers (2.7% male) versus public school teachers (24% male). I don't believe there's an inherent bias in either case and the skewed gender ratio which varies depending on the area isn't due to a single person or group of people.
Not sure what you mean here. What I am saying, and this is backed by women self reporting, women leaving and statistics is that the toxicity of some of the leaders in open source lead them not start / leave open source.
Basically, I was comparing an example where the percentage of male teachers is lower when comparing preschool teachers versus public school teachers in general, like you mentioned the lower percentage of female developers contributing to open source software versus the percentage of female developers throughout the industry.
Even if a male preschool teacher self-reported perceived bias against him, that doesn't necessarily mean that there's general trend of bias throughout the area. Just like a female self reporting bias they perceived for a particular open source project doesn't mean that there's a general of bias in that area.
LOL'd hard at the Sarah Mei "toxicity" post... she's easily the most toxic person I can think about (at least, her online persona, I'm sure in person she cannot be that bad, and maybe she is even kind).
When people on one hand want to not be harassed for wherever reason and then are harassing someone neuroatypical for neuroatypical behaviour they are not any better themselves.
Your sentence is insidious. What you call "harassing someone neuroatypical" were requests by colleagues and friends to exhibit less behaviors perceived as harassment. You can not conflate the two. Is it harassment to ask to not put a mattress in your university office?
A mattress in his office is the least of what is said about RMS on HN and elsewhere. The point stands that a lot of people are harassing him for being neuroatypical.
You need to elaborate of what you perceive as harassment.