# git-for-windows supporting public shaming and repressing community's opinion 3 messages from 2020-06-16 to 2020-06-16. Participants: Kaue Doretto Grecchi, Elijah Newren, Jeff King. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/53691 ## Kaue Doretto Grecchi, 2020-06-16 19:28 Subject: git-for-windows supporting public shaming and repressing community's opinion Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAMWmj-w3Z4176kvNi3GQTfCSDBzMMay33ki4xmdPwC3sFqbdzA%40mail.gmail.com ``` 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". ``` ## Elijah Newren, 2020-06-16 20:15 Subject: Re: git-for-windows supporting public shaming and repressing community's opinion Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CABPp-BEGtYky%3D9JNu9ZTdqC6dCww6AkO5vn%2BvUohQP9MFnkfDg%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:30 PM 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) 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 ``` ## Jeff King, 2020-06-16 21:44 Subject: Re: git-for-windows supporting public shaming and repressing community's opinion Message-ID: <20200616214437.GA685107@coredump.intra.peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20200616214437.GA685107%40coredump.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: ``` 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 ```