On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:03 AM Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
FWIW, my own interpretation of Ben and Alissa's intervention (and I
speak as a former SAA) is that it sounded very much like what the
"geek feminism" web sites frequently refer to as "tone policing"[1]
[1] https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/tone-policing-and-privilege/
This is a thorny subject, and I don't want to derail the discussion too much, but criticism of "tone policing" fails the symmetry test. Those who engage in "tone policing" are equivalently engaging in "enforcing their terms of engagement". If I don't want to have a conversation with angry people, that's my choice. If you don't like it, find someone else to argue with. That having been said, candor is absolutely necessary to getting good technical outcomes.
I think the trick is figuring out how to be candid without being rude. Offense is definitely a manifestation in the mind of the reader/listener, so it's not entirely within the power of the writer/speaker to avoid causing offense (nor, would I argue, should people walk around on eggshells to avoid causing offense to the long tail), but certain modes of engagement can certainly have a measurably negative effect on the standards process by pushing out folks who would otherwise make valuable technical contributions but who refuse to engage with those who employ invective as an everyday tool. I don't think it's necessarily a race to the bottom (as a community entirely comprising misanthropes will have a hard time propagating their ideas outside of the group), but it's not clear the equilibrium reached will be optimal.
Basically, my position is that contributors should make frank technical judgments and use clear language without being jerks. There's definitely a grey area, ripe for tussle, but as long as we don't stray too far to one extreme, neither participation nor technical outcomes are likely to suffer greatly.
Kyle
