On being welcoming
akihana at gmail.com
Sat Dec 19 17:21:23 UTC 2015
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Torbjörn Granlund <tg at gmplib.org> wrote:
> [To gmp-discuss readers: This started at gmp-bugs, first as a couple of
> reports about assumed GMP bugs, then with the subject used here.]
> ludo at gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> I think it is crucially important that you as a community recognize that
> this behavior is not acceptable. There’s nothing personal in doing
> that; it’s the behavior that we should condemn, not the person.
> Let's not exaggerate; sending sloppy bug reports might be considered as
> disrespectful, but I wouldn't go so far as calling "this behavior"
> "unacceptable". We're making a mistake if we assume malice when we read
> something we do not like.
To an outsider, who is perhaps unfamiliar with common software development
practices, sloppy bug reports are easy mistakes to make. I doubt that the
reporter had any ill intent.
> Mike Mohr <akihana at gmail.com> writes:
> I have seen many examples of this type of conduct from him, both
> towards myself as well as others. I am a software engineer who
> works in Silicon Valley, and I cannot imagine working with someone
> who is frequently abrasive and disparaging. Such an individual
> would not last very long on my team.
> We're all humans and I shall not exaggerate my critisism of sloppy bug
> reports, and I shall not sink to making an ad hominem response.
> [I'm going back to doing productive work now. I will not respond further
> to this thread, but I respect that others might want to continue, and I
> will read the contributions. Please use gmp-discuss, the gmp-bugs list
> is for bug reports.]
Torbjörn, I sincerely apologize if my initial response was interpreted as
an ad hominem attack. It was certainly not intended as such. I actually
spent a good amount of time weighing whether I should respond at all,
followed by writing and rewriting several parts of the response. The
initial paragraph, where I mention how valuable your contributions are to
the GMP project, is missing from your inline response. The second
paragraph seems harsher than I intended when read out of context.
Your response to the original bug report was accurate; there was
insufficient information in it. I am very aware of how frustrating
incomplete bug reports can be, especially when working on a project for
free in your spare time. My only intent was to share constructive
criticism regarding how you responded to the reporter.
> Please encrypt, key id 0xC8601622
> gmp-discuss mailing list
> gmp-discuss at gmplib.org
More information about the gmp-discuss