More at The reg...

--jeremy

"I want everyone to change because my feelings get hurt when people are mean."

This is the kind of person, that if in charge, will burn books that are disagreeable to her.

If anyone has the time to burn to read a fair exchange between Sharp and Torvalds can start here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137391223711946&w=2.

Your point being that being mean is the right way to act, and it's not normal to have feelings.

This is an attitude that I'm seeing way too often here.

Your mental transformation of "I would prefer that maintainers find healthier ways to communicate when they are frustrated" into "This is the kind of person, that if in charge, will burn books that are disagreeable to her" speaks volumes about what kind of person you are.

As for the dev in question, she discussed this with Linus and others at length (over a period of years), and then made what she felt was the right decision at the end. I think it's regrettable that the team couldn't keep her, but I see no wrongdoing on anyone's parts.

Not at all. My point being,. a single person walking into a large,. large,. large,. multinational,. worldwide group should not expect everyone in that group to change. Its not realistic. Don't like it? Leave. She did well in my opinion - up until she whined about it.

And I think it is 'normal' to be able to 'ADAPT' to any situation mentally as we have done for ... well ... we've done for tens of thousands of years up until the American baby boomers introduced the 'poor me - i feel hurt - so everyone else should change,' attitude.

A comment from irritation more than a statement of what I believe is actually in the realm of possibility. You'd have to be pretty thick to think that its anything more than an empty insult. But please, continue to judge my ENTIRE character using a single statement I made.

Its not 'wrong.' Not at all. Everyone has a right to air their grievences.

But to me, its sort of like if you and I get into an argument on a forum, and we disagree, so I start petitioning Jeremy to read every post and make sure that no one ever swears or disagrees or gets upset because it hurts my feelings.

Thats all i really have to say about the very public situation she has made. Im sure plenty of people disagree, some agree. Doesn't matter. This is something that isn't worth debating or thinking about any further.

So you agree with her decision then.

http://sagadb.org/laxdaela_saga.en#21
"I think we should follow the counsel of the wisest; for the counsels of foolish men I think will be of all the worseservice for us in the greater number they gather together."

Being blunt and being abusive are not the same thing.

I do not consider it unreasonable to expect a certain level of civility in the workplace, whether it is a paid workplace or a volunteer workplace, even when the discussion is blunt.

I know far more about abuse and abusers than I ever expected or wanted to (no, don't ask). I have found that abusers commonly blame their victims if their victims fight back, because abusers are never wrong and they are always right.

Today, I listened to the most recent Linux Voice podcast, and the LV guys made what I think is a relevant distinction: They theorized that, when Linus goes of on a bit of poorly written code, he goes off on the code, not on the coder, and suggested that others in the Linux kernel community may not have recognized the difference. I commend the discussion to your attention.

This is well known since ages, there no need to "theorize" that.

I think this blog is worth reading. It's the only one I saw that actually cared to quote some snippets of the conversation.

I'm particularly perplexed about this distinction by Sarah Sharp:
I really don't see the difference. If anything, I would consider the second example better, because it actually asks some questions, promoting interaction and giving the maintainer a chance to answer.

First is directed at the code the second the coder.

Well no, it wasn't quite like that. I suggest reading some of the lkml posting rather than the articles about the lkml postings as they're all interspersed with opinion.

She actually made some very good points and maintained that attacking the code was right and proper - expletives and all - if it wasn't up to standard, but personal attacks on developers like this kind of thing (though she used less extreme examples) was not.

It's certainly a 'cultural' thing, which doesn't mean it's necessarily a good cultural thing or that it should continue like that forever.

Why? Just because the grammatical subject is the code vs. the coder? This is bullshit. There's no insult directed to the coder in either of the two examples: the code is the real target, in both of them. And the coder is who is expected to fix his/her behaviour, in both of them.
When the form is more important than the meaning, then you are cultivating and promoting hypocrisy; that's exactly why many people are against political correctness, which is always 100% about political and 0% about correctness.

Political correctness was never mentioned - he was just asked to stop personally insulting his developers and the person asking gave well reasoned arguments - so why do you bring it up?

You asked a question I answered if you wanted folks to agree with you then you should say so.

Maintainer. Why are you <-- This makes it about the person

This code is SHIT! <-- Is about code

There's your difference whether you think people ought to be offended by that is something else all together. I've worked for the military all my life I wouldn't be much offended by either comment (actually I'd probably just fight back) but not everyone is me and the key to leadership is knowing what motivates the people in your team because it's not the same for everyone. Ms. Sharp got bent around the axle about this and took her toys and went home, she probably just should have told Linus to go get bent. In any case, she's gone and took her talent with her and the only thing we can do now is go over the coulda, woulda, shoulda and hope it doesn't continue.