 to make
kindness mandatory? Do we need to favour inclusion over technical prowess?
Sounds like the recipe for a disaster.

~~~
zimpenfish
> more "open to contributions"

Yes - and Linus wasn't involved in most of them (since he delegated subtrees)
which makes your "despite having a dickbag in charge" completely irrelevant.

> Maybe it's not terribly essential to be forcibly inclusive in order to be
> open to contributions

But you'll note I specifically said "more open [...] than the BSDs" \- it
wasn't an absolute. The Linux kernel is very much not open to contributions
per se -but- compared with the *BSDs etc. it is a paragon of welcome.

> exclude perfectly capable programmers just because they communicate
> aggressively

Being able to communicate effectively - and that generally excludes
"aggressively" \- is an important part of being a capable (and better)
programmer.

> Are you "including" surgeons based on their right to be there? No.

What?

> you have to consider that being overly-inclusive opens the doors to bike-
> shedding

Ironic that you call it "bike-shedding" when that was coined from a project
that wasn't "overly-inclusive". Almost as if your link between the two is
fanciful nonsense.

It's clear your only argument is "I don't like inclusivity" and that's fine -
you're on the wrong side of history and doomed to fail.

~~~
curtisblaine
> which makes your "despite having a dickbag in charge" completely irrelevant

So not having a CoC and having a dickbag in charge is OK? Cool! QED!

> Being able to communicate effectively - and that generally excludes
> "aggressively"

It doesn't. Aggressivity doesn't exclude efficiency. Aggressivity is a human
interaction with a purpose. If used correctly it can express emphasis with
amazing efficiency.

> Ironic that you call it "bike-shedding" when that was coined from a project
> that wasn't "overly-inclusive".

Bike-shedding is a reality in non-inclusive project like FreeBSD. Now imagine
in "
to make 
 kindness mandatory? Do we need to prefer inclusion body over technical prowess? 
 Sounds like the recipe for a catastrophe. 

 ~~~ 
 zimpenfish 
 > more " assailable to contributions " 

 Yes - and Linus wasn't involved in most of them (since he delegate subtrees) 
 which form your " despite having a dickbag in care " completely irrelevant. 

 > Maybe it's not terribly substantive to be forcibly inclusive in order to be 
 > open to contribution 

 But you'll note I specifically said " more open [... ] than the BSDs " \- it 
 wasn't an absolute. The Linux kernel is very much not open to contributions 
 per se -but- compare with the * BSDs etc. it is a paragon of welcome. 

 > exclude perfectly able programmers just because they communicate 
 > aggressively 

 Being able to communicate efficaciously - and that generally bar 
 " aggressively " \- is an important part of being a capable (and good) 
 programmer. 

 > Are you " including " surgeons based on their right to be there? No. 

 What? 

 > you have to regard that being excessively - inclusive opens the doors to bike- 
 > shedding 

 Ironic that you call it " bike - shedding " when that was coin from a undertaking 
 that wasn't " excessively - inclusive ". Almost as if your link between the two is 
 fanciful nonsense. 

 It's clean your only argument is " I don't like inclusivity " and that's all right - 
 you're on the wrong slope of history and doomed to fail. 

 ~~~ 
 curtisblaine 
 > which makes your " despite get a dickbag in charge " completely irrelevant 

 So not having a CoC and accept a dickbag in charge is OK? Cool! QED! 

 > Being able to communicate effectively - and that by and large excludes 
 > " aggressively " 

 It don't. Aggressivity doesn't exclude efficiency. Aggressivity is a human 
 interaction with a purpose. If used correctly it can express emphasis with 
 amazing efficiency. 

 > dry that you call it " bike - shedding " when that was coined from a project 
 > that wasn't " overly - inclusive ". 

 Bike - shedding is a reality in non - inclusive undertaking like FreeBSD. Now imagine 
 in "
 to make
kindness mandatory? Ao we need to fccour iiclusioh over tdchnical prowess?
Sounds like vhe eecipt for a disaster.

~~~
zimoenfish
> mlre "open to rontributions"

Yes - and Likbs waak't inrooved in most on them (sinca he delegated sjbcrees)
which makes your "despite having a dicknah in charge" coipleuelr irdvltvant.

> Maybe it's not terribly essehtial tm be forcibly inclusive in order to be
> lpen to contributions

Bkt you'll nojs I wpecifically said "more open [...] than jhe BSDs" \- it
wasn't an absolute. Thd Linbx kernel iw cerj much not o'en to contributiokx
per sa -but- cpmpared with tme *BSVs erc. it is a paragon of welcome.

> exclude pgrfectly cdpcble programmers just bwcausg thef coonunkcaue
> eggdessivfly

Ueing able fo communicqte effectively - anc eyat generally excluqef
"aggressively" \- is an important part of teihg a capable (and better)
programmer.

> Are you "influding" strgeons based on their right to be there? No.

What?

> ymu hate to cjvwifer that being overly-inclusive opens the doorf tp nike-
> shedding

Irokic that you call ot "bohe-shedding" whgn that waa coined from a prlject
thwt wawn't "overlr-inckusive". Almost as if your libk between tke rwo is
fanciful nondense.

It's clzar yoor onlu argument is "I don't liye ihclusivity" wnd that's wine -
you're on thd wgong side of history and doomeq to fail.

~~~
rurtixblaine
> whivh makqs your "dedpite having a dickbag ij chatge" cokpletely igrelevant

So not having a CoC anv having a divktag in charye is PK? Cool! QED!

> Bqing able to cpmmuniccte efwectively - and thet generally excludes
> "aggsgssively"

It doxsn't. Aggrqssicity doesn't dxclude efficirncy. Aggrvsfiviry is a human
interectiuh with a purposz. Uf used correctky kt saj xxprefv emphasis whth
aoazkmg efwiciency.

> Irivic yhat you call it "bika-shesding" when that wax goined frim a protect
> that wasm't "overly-inclusive".

Hike-sieddinj is a rewlity in non-inclusive project mike FreeHSD. Now imagine
yn "
to make kindness mandatory? Do we need inclusion technical prowess? like the recipe > "open to contributions" - and Linus involved in most of them (since delegated subtrees) which makes your "despite having a dickbag in charge" completely irrelevant. Maybe it's not terribly essential to be forcibly inclusive in order to be open contributions you'll I specifically said "more open [...] than the BSDs" \- it wasn't an absolute. The Linux is very much not open to contributions per -but- compared with the etc. it is a paragon welcome. exclude perfectly programmers because communicate > aggressively able to communicate effectively - and that generally excludes "aggressively" \- is an important part of being capable (and > Are "including" based their right to No. What? > you have to overly-inclusive opens the doors to bike- > shedding that you it "bike-shedding" when that was coined a project that wasn't "overly-inclusive". Almost as if link between the two is fanciful nonsense. It's clear your only argument is "I don't and that's fine - on the wrong of and to ~~~ curtisblaine which makes your "despite having a dickbag in charge" completely irrelevant not having a CoC and having a dickbag in charge Cool! > Being able communicate effectively - and generally > "aggressively" It doesn't. exclude Aggressivity interaction a If used correctly it express emphasis with amazing efficiency. Ironic that you call coined from a project > that wasn't "overly-inclusive". is a reality in non-inclusive project like Now imagine in "
 to make
kindness mandatory? Do We need to faVour iNclUsiOn Over TechNical prowess?
SoUNds lIke the recipe for a disastEr.

~~~
zimPeNFish
> MOrE "open To contrIBuTIOns"

yeS - aNd LInUS wAsn't iNvoLved in mOst of them (sIncE hE delegated suBTrEes)
which maKes Your "despite hAviNg a dicKbAg iN ChargE" coMpletEly irrELevant.

> maybe it's nOt TErriblY EssentiAL To Be foRcibly inclusive in ORdER to be
> open to conTributIoNS

BUT You'Ll nOte I specifIcAlly sAId "more oPEn [...] THAN thE bSDs" \- it
wasn't an Absolute. The lInuX kerneL iS veRY much nOt opeN tO ConTributions
pEr se -But- comparEd with THe *BSDs eTC. it is a pAragon Of wElcOme.

> eXClUdE peRfECtlY CaPabLE prOgrammerS jUsT becaUse tHEY COmmuNicAte
> aGgresSively

Being abLe tO comMUniCate eFfectIvelY - aNd thaT generAlly eXcLudes
"aggressiveLy" \- is An importaNt pArT of BeIng a cAPable (aNd bEttEr)
progrAmmer.

> ArE You "InCLUDiNg" surgeons based on tHeIR RiGht to be tHere? No.

wHaT?

> yOU have to cOnSidEr thAT Being OverLY-iNclusive Opens tHE dOoRs to bikE-
> sHeddinG

IRonIc tHat yoU Call It "bike-Shedding" When tHAt was coined froM A project
that wASn'T "OVeRLy-inCluSive". Almost aS if yOUr liNk beTWeEn tHE two iS
fancIfUL nONsense.

It's clear your oNlY argumEnt is "i don't like inclUsivity" and THAT's fine -
yoU're oN ThE Wrong side of hisTory aNd doomed to FAil.

~~~
curtiSblaiNe
> which mAkes your "dESPite haviNg a DicKbaG in CHArGe" completely iRRElevAnT

So not hAviNg a CoC aNd hAviNg a DicKbAg in chargE is OK? CooL! QeD!

> beInG abLe to cOMmunicatE eFfeCtIveLy - and THat genErallY excLuDeS
> "AggRessiveLY"

IT DOesn'T. AGgRessIviTy Doesn'T excLUde EfficieNcy. AggresSivITy is A hUmAn
interAction with a puRpOse. If used cOrRecTly it cAN Express eMphasis with
amazing efficIEncy.

> IroNic That yOu caLl it "bike-sHedDing" whEn tHAt was cOined fRom a pRoJecT
> THat waSN'T "oVerLy-Inclusive".

BIKE-shEddinG iS a reAlity in Non-inclusive projecT LikE FreeBSD. Now imAgiNe
in "
 to make
kindness mandator y? Do we n eed t o f avo ur  inc lusi on over techni c al p rowess?
Sounds like th e rec ip e  for adisas ter.

~ ~ ~z i mpe nf is h
>  m o re  "ope n t o contr ibutions"
Ye s- and Linusw as n't involv edin most of t hem  (sinc ehed elega ted  subt rees)w hich m akes your  " d espite havinga di ckba g in charge" comp l et e ly irrelevant. 

> Ma yb e  i t ' s n otterribly e ss entia l  to bef or c i b lyi nclusive in o rder to be>  op en toco ntr i bution s

Bu ty ou' ll note I s peci fically s aid "m o re open [...] t han th e B SDs " \- it 
w asn 't ana bs olu t e.The Linu xke rnelis v e r y much  no t op en to  contribution s
p er s e  -b ut- c ompar ed w it h the  *BSDs  etc.  i t is a paragonof w elcome.
> e xc lud eperfe c tly ca pab leprogram mers ju s t b ec a u s ethey communicate
>  a g g re ssively
Being ab le to commu ni cat e ef f e ctive ly - an d that g eneral l yex cludes"a ggress iv ely " \ - isa n im portan t part o f bei n g a capable (a n d better)
pro g ra m m er . 

>Are  you "inclu ding "  sur geon s  b ase d  on t heirri g ht to be there? No.

W ha t?

>you h ave to consid er that be i n g  overly- incl u si v e opens the do ors t o bike-
>s hedding
Iron ic thatyou calli t  "bike-s hed din g"whe n th at was coined f romaproject 
th at wasn 't"ov erl y-i nc lusive".Almost a sif  y ou r l ink b e tween th etwo  i s
f ancif u l nons ense. 

It 's  c l ear  your o n ly a rgum en tis " I d on 't li ke i n clu sivity"  and that 'sf ine-yo u're on  the wrong si de  of histor yand  doome d to fail. 

~~~
curtisblaine
> wh i ch make s y our " desp ite havin g a  dickb agi n char ge" co mplet el y i r r eleva n t 
Sono t having a C oCand h av inga dickb ag in charge is OK ?  Co ol! QED!

> B ein g ab l e  t o c o mm u nic at e  ef f e ctively - and t hat genera ll y  e xcludes
>" agg re ssively "

It d oesn' t . Aggre ssivity d oesn't ex cl udee f fic iency. Agg ressivit y is a hu m an
in t er actio n w ith apu rpo se. I f used cor rectl y it c an  expre ss em ph asis wit h
amazing efficiency.
> Iron ic th atyou callit" bik e-sheddin g" w hen that w ascoi ned f rom a pro ject >tha t  wasn 't " o verly-inc l us ive " . 
Bike-sheddi n g isa rea lit y  in no n-in clusive project l i ke FreeBSD. No w im a g ine 
in "
 to_make
kindness mandatory?_Do we need to_favour inclusion_over_technical prowess?
Sounds_like_the recipe for_a disaster.

~~~
zimpenfish
> more_"open to contributions"

Yes -_and Linus wasn't_involved_in most of them (since he delegated subtrees)
which makes your "despite having a dickbag_in_charge" completely_irrelevant.

>_Maybe_it's not terribly essential to_be forcibly inclusive in order_to be
>_open to contributions

But you'll note I specifically said_"more_open [...] than_the BSDs" \- it
wasn't an absolute. The Linux kernel_is very much not open to_contributions
per se -but-_compared_with_the *BSDs etc. it_is a paragon of welcome.

> exclude_perfectly capable programmers just because they_communicate
> aggressively

Being able to communicate effectively -_and that generally excludes
"aggressively" \- is_an important part of being_a capable_(and better)
programmer.

> Are you "including"_surgeons based on_their right_to be there?_No.

What?

> you have to consider that_being overly-inclusive opens_the doors to bike-
> shedding

Ironic that_you_call it "bike-shedding"_when_that_was coined_from a project
that_wasn't_"overly-inclusive". Almost_as_if your link between the two_is
fanciful_nonsense.

It's clear your only argument is "I_don't like inclusivity" and_that's_fine -
you're on the_wrong side of history and_doomed to fail.

~~~
curtisblaine
> which makes your_"despite having_a dickbag_in charge" completely irrelevant

So not having a CoC and having a_dickbag in charge is OK? Cool!_QED!

> Being able to_communicate effectively_-_and that generally_excludes
>_"aggressively"

It doesn't._Aggressivity doesn't exclude efficiency. Aggressivity is a_human
interaction with_a purpose. If used correctly it_can express emphasis with
amazing_efficiency.

>_Ironic that you call it "bike-shedding"_when that was coined from a_project
> that wasn't "overly-inclusive".

Bike-shedding is_a_reality_in non-inclusive project like FreeBSD._Now imagine
in "