git-for-windows supporting public shaming and repressing community's opinion

git-for-windows supporting public shaming and repressing community's opinion

[Kaue Doretto Grecchi]

Recently I've been blocked from the git-for-windows Github repository
because of this
(https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2674#issuecomment-643795833)
comment. At the same time the following user was not blocked and his
comment hasn't been marked "off-topic" until the issue was closed to
"only collaborators" due to the high rate of people disagreeing with
the motivations of the issue.

(https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2674#issuecomment-642049938)

> mlvzk 6 days ago
>
> Agreed. On a side note, GitHub should maintain a repository with a list of developers that still
> use the master/slave terminology. Perhaps that'd be enough of an incentive for some to change - > name and shame!
> We could also have an icon on their profile page that'd flag them as dangerous.

It is appalling that the repo's maintainers kept this comment and
allowed the user to continue interacting, while suppressing and
blocking users who were on-topic, having a civil, respectful
discussion but happened to disagree with the issue's author (dscho -
https://github.com/dscho) reasons.

I am sending this message in the git mailing list because the
git-for-windows project is very closely related to it and because I
wasn't even able to defend myself there.

I don't even want to be unblocked from that repo, as this is the way
things are done there. But all of you should know what's happening and
be aware that "community" doesn't mean what it once used to. Now it's
just "people who agree with PC reasons for doing stuff".

Re: git-for-windows supporting public shaming and repressing community's opinion

[Elijah Newren]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:30 PM Kaue Doretto Grecchi <kauedg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Recently I've been blocked from the git-for-windows Github repository
> because of this
> (https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2674#issuecomment-643795833)

Most your comment looks fine to me, but this part clearly was not:

    "So your argument is really dull and kind of childish."

I'm not part of git-for-windows, but I'd likely also start blocking
people when name calling starts, so I can't fault them for it.  I
don't know what their process is for unblocking people if they amend
their ways or after a cool-down period or whatever, so I can't really
comment further.

> comment. At the same time the following user was not blocked and his
> comment hasn't been marked "off-topic" until the issue was closed to
> "only collaborators" due to the high rate of people disagreeing with
> the motivations of the issue.
>
> (https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2674#issuecomment-642049938)
>
> > mlvzk 6 days ago
> >
> > Agreed. On a side note, GitHub should maintain a repository with a list of developers that still
> > use the master/slave terminology. Perhaps that'd be enough of an incentive for some to change - > name and shame!
> > We could also have an icon on their profile page that'd flag them as dangerous.

I agree with you that this comment looks like it should have been
marked off-topic earlier and seems problematic.  It does avoid being
directly disrespectful and thus might not technically violate the code
of conduct, but I am definitely not a fan of their trying to suggest
that other folks should violate it (their suggestion seems to be that
GitHub should do things that would not fit with using welcoming and
inclusive language, or being respectful of differing viewpoints and
experiences, or showing empathy to other community members, or assume
the best intentions, etc.).

> It is appalling that the repo's maintainers kept this comment and
> allowed the user to continue interacting, while suppressing and
> blocking users who were on-topic, having a civil, respectful
> discussion but happened to disagree with the issue's author (dscho -
> https://github.com/dscho) reasons.

Just my own guess here, but I think calling others' arguments "dull
and kind of childish" is not civil or respectful, and thus that you
missed the reasons for your being blocked.


Hope that helps,
Elijah

Re: git-for-windows supporting public shaming and repressing community's opinion

[Kaue Doretto Grecchi]

> It does avoid being directly disrespectful and thus might not technically violate the code of conduct

The repo's code of conduct (Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct) states that:

> Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
> [...]
> Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
> Public or private harassment

So it does violate the CoC and should have been removed like other
comments. But it was not only kept there, it was not disputed by the
admins even after they deleted 4 other messages following his. I
personally think it says something about their bias and this should be
addressed, even if we don't consider the issue's motivations.

> Just my own guess here, but I think calling others' arguments "dull
> and kind of childish" is not civil or respectful, and thus that you
> missed the reasons for your being blocked.

Stating that *an argument* is "dull and kind of childish" does not
mean I think the same about who wrote it. I was making arguments, the
user stated that *I* would be wary of using the word "cock" in one of
my projects' name as if I was not mature enough. It's a personal,
disrespectful statement that tried to insult and shame me as immature.
From my point of view I was blocking for defending myself while trying
to address the issue's reasoning.

But for the sake of arguing, let's say I did deserve the block. Why
was it made *after* a whole lot of other commentaries and negative
votes on the proposal rather than at the moment it was made? Because
the block has nothing to do with the comment itself nor a will to
enforce the CoC.

Re: git-for-windows supporting public shaming and repressing community's opinion

[Jeff King]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 04:28:03PM -0300, Kaue Doretto Grecchi wrote:

> Recently I've been blocked from the git-for-windows Github repository
> because of this
> (https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2674#issuecomment-643795833)
> comment. At the same time the following user was not blocked and his
> comment hasn't been marked "off-topic" until the issue was closed to
> "only collaborators" due to the high rate of people disagreeing with
> the motivations of the issue.
> 
> (https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues/2674#issuecomment-642049938)

First off, I think it's important to separate the two comments.

If a comment is violating the CoC, or is insulting, unconstructive, etc,
then it's grounds for being marked as such and hidden. Even if somebody
is saying or doing something worse, that still does not excuse bad
behavior.

Of course it's perfectly fine to say "this other comment is violating the
CoC, and please deal with it" as appropriate. But "the person I was
arguing with was also behaving badly" should never be grounds for
justifying poor behavior.

So taking your comment on its own for a moment (I'll post it here
because the direct links don't seem to actually open blocked comments):

> > Nobody's telling you what you can or cannot say.
> 
> Read the whole sentence. "IF we take the reasoning away"*. And that's
> what is being done here, reducing a word to one shallow dualistic
> political meaning even though it has other suitable and acceptable
> meanings. It's just one statement away.
> 
> I don't really care about the branch's name, I care about the reason the change is being made.
> 
> if ... then constructs shouldn't be a problem here.
> 
> > The Git terminology is derived from BitKeeper. Yes, it's a
> > master-slave metaphor.
> > But even if it wasn't, ultimately it doesn't matter. "Cock" is the
> > accepted term for a male bird, but you'd probably be wary of using
> > it in your project name, right?
> 
> Well there is a product called "Bengay" which has nothing to do with
> "gay"... just to name one. So your argument is really dull and kind of
> childish.
> 
> But even if it wasn't, ultimately it doesn't matter.
> 
> That's all folks.

I think the problem is in the second half. Calling the other person's
argument dull and childish is inflammatory and unproductive.

On another topic, in another thread, it's possible that this comment
might not even have been called out. But in an issue thread which was
rapidly becoming heated and deteriorating in the quality of the
communication (by many people), I think it's important for people to be
doubly careful about their communication style. I find it hard to fault
the Git for Windows maintainers for blocking comments that were
contributing to the degrading atmosphere.

I do notice you've also been blocked from the project. AFAICT the hiding
of comments and the blocking of people happened more or less at the same
time (from the perspective of the commenters). IMHO it would be nice to
be given some feedback along the lines of "this isn't an appropriate
communication style for this forum" to give people the opportunity to
adjust their behavior before being banned. If that's the case here, I'd
be in support of giving banned users an opportunity to contribute
constructively.

On to the other comment:

> > mlvzk 6 days ago
> >
> > Agreed. On a side note, GitHub should maintain a repository with a list of developers that still
> > use the master/slave terminology. Perhaps that'd be enough of an incentive for some to change - > name and shame!
> > We could also have an icon on their profile page that'd flag them as dangerous.

I agree this is a harmful comment. We should be able to discuss the
issue in an honest manner without fear of reprisals.

However, that comment _also_ seems to have been marked as off-topic and
hidden. In addition, several people responded directly to the comment
and explained why it wasn't acceptable. Some of those were in turn
hidden, because they were also inflammatory. But I think this response
from Philip gets to the heart of it:

   PhilipOakley 6 days ago
   > On 10/06/2020 15:33, mlvzk wrote:
   > - name and shame!
   Unfortunately that approach would be a vicious circle, rather than a
   virtuous circle of improvement. It can be a form of bullying.

   Let's keep this work positive and supportive.

> It is appalling that the repo's maintainers kept this comment and
> allowed the user to continue interacting, while suppressing and
> blocking users who were on-topic, having a civil, respectful
> discussion but happened to disagree with the issue's author (dscho -
> https://github.com/dscho) reasons.

I'm open to the notion that a maintainer is abusing their power and
silencing dissent under the guise of the CoC. But I don't really see
evidence of that here.

> I am sending this message in the git mailing list because the
> git-for-windows project is very closely related to it and because I
> wasn't even able to defend myself there.
> 
> I don't even want to be unblocked from that repo, as this is the way
> things are done there. But all of you should know what's happening and
> be aware that "community" doesn't mean what it once used to. Now it's
> just "people who agree with PC reasons for doing stuff".

OK. Thank you for making us aware of your viewpoint. It sounds like
there's no specific action you're asking to be taken, so I'll leave it
at this response for now.

-Peff

Re: git-for-windows supporting public shaming and repressing community's opinion

[Jeff King]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 05:52:02PM -0300, Kaue Doretto Grecchi wrote:

> > Just my own guess here, but I think calling others' arguments "dull
> > and kind of childish" is not civil or respectful, and thus that you
> > missed the reasons for your being blocked.
> 
> Stating that *an argument* is "dull and kind of childish" does not
> mean I think the same about who wrote it.

Just to be clear, I think saying something like "your argument is
stupid", even though it does not attack the person _directly_, is still
not up to the level of communication I'd hope in our community. In
particular:

  - it's unconstructive; say what you don't like about the argument in a
    way that can move the discussion forward.

  - it's needlessly inflammatory

> I was making arguments, the
> user stated that *I* would be wary of using the word "cock" in one of
> my projects' name as if I was not mature enough.

I didn't read the original comment that way at all. I read it as a
response to the notion that words have different meanings in different
contexts.  I.e., that while nobody is likely to think the original
writer using "cock" meant the male anatomy and not the bird, the word
carries enough connotations that one might be careful of using it. Even
though the reader can tell you meant one and not the other, it often
puts the image of the other in their mind before they get to that point.

Certainly I think one could argue how often this is or isn't the case
for "master", or what responsibility writers have to avoid this
situation, etc, which might be more constructive directions (though they
also risk hitting unconstructive dead-ends on base assumptions, it can
sometimes be useful to play out the arguments and get a better
understanding).

> It's a personal,
> disrespectful statement that tried to insult and shame me as immature.
> From my point of view I was blocking for defending myself while trying
> to address the issue's reasoning.

I'm sympathetic to that, if that's how you interpreted the comment. In
such a case I find it can sometimes be helpful to explain how you
perceived the comment. That can help clear up misunderstandings. Or if
you did interpret their view correctly, maybe expose the other side more
clearly as a jerk, at which point you're probably better off saying
"please stop being a jerk" and disengaging (again, in my experience).

That's not always easy, of course.

> But for the sake of arguing, let's say I did deserve the block. Why
> was it made *after* a whole lot of other commentaries and negative
> votes on the proposal rather than at the moment it was made? Because
> the block has nothing to do with the comment itself nor a will to
> enforce the CoC.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Maintainers of projects aren't
reading comments in real-time. Nor is their sole job policing comments.
It seems reasonable to me that they might not realize action needs to be
taken in a thread until the thread as a whole has started moving in an
unproductive direction. At which point it may be worth marking any
communication in the thread that isn't up to the project's standard.

But perhaps your question was purely rhetorical in order to make the
final sentence. I don't agree with the conclusion in your answer,
though.

-Peff

Re: git-for-windows supporting public shaming and repressing community's opinion

[Kaue Doretto Grecchi]

I agree about the "he did it first" point and that's not what I'm
bringing up here. The discussion is
drifting from the main statement: the git-for-windows maintainers were
biased and blocked (by *selectively* applying the CoC) people who
disagreed on politically motivated changes, to which the community has
clearly manifested against.

> I do notice you've also been blocked from the project.
A very, very disproportional action. Hiding my comment *when it was
made* would be enough. People are allowed to make mistakes and defend
themselves.

> AFAICT the hiding of comments and the blocking of people happened more or less at the same time (from the perspective of the commenters).
> Maintainers of projects aren't reading comments in real-time.
The repo's crew had plenty of time and opportunity to act on bad
behaviour and when they did, it was selective. If a comment goes
against the CoC, it doesn't go against it *after other comments* or
when the debate gets heated. I understand that the timing of the
events can't be clearly demonstrated from a plain-text message but I'm
very sure of what happened there.

> I'm open to the notion that a maintainer is abusing their power and silencing dissent under the guise of the CoC. But I don't really see evidence of that here.
Just consider that the user mlvzk wasn't blocked or banned from the
project. He did not even have his comment deleted, even it suggesting
some nazi-like actions (come on, icons to identify dangerous people?
What about a yellow star?). And his comment wasn't hidden until some
time after people were blocked. I'd be glad to get the list of users
who liked his comment but it's blocked.

Isn't it disproportional, considering that user A suggests an open
witch hunt and user B uses mild "bad language"?


> OK. Thank you for making us aware of your viewpoint. It sounds like there's no specific action you're asking to be taken, so I'll leave it at this response for now.
I think it was clear that the repo's maintainers, or at least one of
them, is willingly ignoring the community's manifestation using the
CoC as muzzle to enforce his/their political beliefs. This is what my
first message is about. There were 490 downvotes on the first issue's
message and 133 "pro" manifestations. The issue should be closed in
respect to the community.

> I'm not sure what you're asking here.
That the git-for-windows team (or member) should be reprehended for
not accepting the community's decision and opinion and being selective
on their bannings. Their (his) actions send a very nasty message to
the community, that, basically, we don't matter in the discussion. And
that it reflects on git's reputation.