On the 28th of July 2021 I received an email from Git’s Project Leadership Committee saying that my recent behavior on the mailing list was found to be in violation of the Code of Conduct. This was a complete surprise to me.
What was particularly surprising to me is the fact that I’m very familiar with the Code of Conduct, not only have I reported CoC violations in the past, but I’m the only person who has sent a patch to try to improve it, not only to the git mailing list, but the upstream project Contributor Covenant as well. It is because of this that I know the document doesn’t demand the examples of positive behavior in the section titled “Our Standards”, so the only objective reason why a project leader could argue that I violated the CoC would be if I had committed an action on the list of examples of unacceptable behavior:
- The use of sexualized language or imagery, and sexual attention or advances of any kind
- Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
- Public or private harassment
- Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or email address, without their explicit permission
- Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting
Did I do any of those things? You will be the judge.
If you don’t like drama then don’t read this post. Although there’s some technical discussion, it’s mostly an analysis of my alleged CoC violations and their context. According to the Project Leadership Committee the following ten emails–which I will list as exhibits–violated the CoC.
This is a common debate tactic known as “shifting the burden of proof”.
Ævar does not need to prove that your patch is undesirable, you have to prove that it is desirable.
You have the burden of proof, so you should answer the question.
In this mail I am telling Johannes Schindelin my opinion about what is the default position regarding any patch: the patch is not needed. This is not even contentious. The first thing Junio C Hamano (the maintainer) does is ask: why is this patch needed? If this question is not answered to his satisfaction the patch is rejected. And I’m not the only one that has argued precisely this point:
I don’t need that data. You are proposing a change so it is your duty to support your claim that the change is worthwhile.Michal Suchánek
Otherwise it’s a change just for the sake of change.
How is my comment remotely close to any of the examples of unacceptable behavior? For that matter, isn’t Michal’s behavior worse? Not to mention that it’s a response to Johannes’s comment, which is objectively way more aggressive:
> Why put this in an ifdef?
Why not? What benefit does this question bring to improving this patch series?Johannes Schindelin
Johanness is avoiding a well-intentioned question by doubting the good faith of Ævar, and it became even more clear later on in the thread:
You still misunderstand. This is not about any “opinion” of yours, it is about your delay tactics to make it deliberately difficult to finish this patch series, by raising the bar beyond what is reasonable for a single patch series.
And you keep doing it. I would appreciate if you just stopped with all those tangents and long and many replies that do not seem designed to help the patch series stabilize, but do the opposite.Johannes Schindelin
How am I the bad guy here? And for the record, Ævar is part of the Project Leadership Committee.
This is loaded language. You are inserting your opinion into the text.
Don’t. The guidelines are not a place to win arguments.
Note that this sounds ungrammatical and unnatural to some people.
And it sounds ungrammatical because it is ungramatical, not only to native English speakers, but professional linguists.Felipe Contreras
This is part of a long discussion in which Derrick Stolee attempted to change the guidelines to explicitly avoid any and all gendered language (he/she) for ungendered (they).
One argument that Derrick kept repeating is that only non-native English speakers find the singlar “they” ungrammatical, but I kept repeating that’s not true, and as example I used the test the American Heritage Dictionary used in their usage note regarding “they”:
We thank the anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments.
58% of the panel found the sentence unacceptable. The Usage Panel is comprised of writers, professors, linguists, editors, and multiple Pulitzer Prize winners.
Derrick ignored all my feedback, and for the record he also ignored all the feedback from Ævar, and in fact native speakers in the mailing list stated that they found these sentences ungrammatical too.
Regardless of on which side you are on, Derrick tried to win the argument by adding this to the guidelines:
Note that this sounds ungrammatical and unnatural to readers who learned English in a way that dictated “they” as always plural, especially those who learned English as a second language.
All I said is that he shouldn’t insert his opinion into the guideline, and instead should use something neutral he knows everyone can agree with:
Note that this sounds ungrammatical and unnatural to some people.
Once again, how is stating my opinion “unacceptable”?
Yeah, now you are starting to see the problem.
How many more failed attempts do you need to go through before accepting that the approach you thought was feasible is in fact not feasible?
The solution is simple and self-documenting:
In my 8,200-word article git update: the odyssey for a sensible git pull I explored around 13 years of discussions in the mailing list regarding problems with
git pull, and the first and more obvious solution is my proposed
pull.mode configuration which was a direct competitor to different solutions proposed by Junio C Hamano.
For some reason Junio didn’t accept this proposal in 2013 even though other people were in favor of it. I tried again in 2020 multiple times, and after trying all the approaches other people proposed I became convinced it was the only feasible solution.
Elijah Newren–who we will later see is an important actor in this story–decided to try to fix the problem by himself, but every patch series he sent struck a dead end. It became clear to me that Elijah started to see the problem:
However, even if the above table is filled out, it may be complicated enough that I’m at a bit of a loss about how to update the documentation to explain it short of including the table in the documentation.Elijah Newren
Yes, that’s precisely the reason why I opted for a solution that was a) easy to understand, b) easy to document, c) easy to test, and d) easy to program:
Elijah ignored all my feedback to all his patch series, which is why he still hasn’t realized his patches will break behavior current users rely on. I ran a poll on r/git and 19% of users responded that they rely on the behavior Elijah plans to break, and 15% said even though they don’t use it, they know what it should do.
All Elijah is achieving by ignoring me is at best wasting time, and at worst hurting users. Either way it’s not my fault.
How is my comment unacceptable? I’m just stating facts and my opinion. Even if my opinion is wrong that doesn’t make my comment “unacceptable”.
That is a problem specific for your shop.
The defaults are meant for the majority of users. If a minority of users (who happen to be working under the same umbrella) have a problem with the defaults, they can change the defaults.Felipe Contreras
I understand why some people might think this is an attack on Randall S. Becker, but it’s really not.
Randall is a contributor that often sends reports when the latest git version breaks something in his platform: NonStop OS. I think it’s fair to say this is a relatively obscure OS. Even a smaller subset are the people that work with git inside his company.
Now, of course git should consider the NonStop platform, and of course it should consider all the users inside Randall’s company, but they are probably not even 0.01% of all git users, so why should 99.99% of users suffer at their expense?
No. The defaults are for 99.99% of users, if people in Randall’s company have a problem with the defaults and want to avoid
git rebase like the plague, they can configure git anyway they want. That’s what the configurations are for: for the minority.
My opinion is that the defaults are for the majority.
If anyone has a problem with my opinion, we can debate it, but how is stating my opinion “unacceptable behavior”?
In the cover letter of my patch series: doc: asciidoctor: direct man page creation and fixes (brian’s version), I explained the reasons why I was sending it, but mainly it’s because Junio continued to refuse to drop brian’s version and include mine, even though brian himself told Junio to drop his version.
Now, if you look at my comments on the patches you could say I trashed them, but this is not my fault: brian stated plenty of things are just not true. Just on the first patch:
- We generally require Asciidoctor 1.5, but versions before 1.5.3 didn’t contain proper handling of the apostrophe… Not true
- [GNU_ROFF] for the DocBook toolchain, as well as newer versions of Asciidoctor, makes groff output an ASCII apostrophe instead of a Unicode apostrophe in text… Not true
- These newer versions of Asciidoctor (1.5.3 and above) detect groff and do the right thing in all cases… Not true
- Because Asciidoctor versions before 2.0 had a few problems with man page output… Not true
The changes were correct, but I was the one that originally wrote the patch, brian merely changed the commit message and took authorship because I objected to his text.
I understand that some people have trouble hearing that they are wrong, but this is not my problem. If you send a patch to the mailing list you should be prepared to hear all the ways in which it’s wrong. And brian m. carlson is not some rookie, he is the top #5 contributor to the Git project in the past five years, he shouldn’t need training wheels.
I do not blame brian for all these inaccuracies tough, there’s way too many details in the documentation toolchain, and the only reason why I know he was wrong is that I spent several man-days investigating these details. I explained part of the story in my post: Adventures with man color.
Moreover, if you think I’m lacking tact, remember that this is the second time I’m bringing these issues, the first time brian argued back all my suggestions and did not implement a single one. Eventually he just stopped responding to me.
Now, regarding integration: the “seen” branch is an integration branch which is maintained by Junio and contains all the topic branches that are currently being discussed and Junio is considering merging. Junio picked brian’s branch even though it was full of inaccuracies and in my opinion the commits were not properly split (each commit was doing four to five different things at once).
On the other hand my commit message did not contain inaccuracies, I wrote the original patch, my patches were properly split, contained patches from other people–including Jeff King and Martin Ågren–and in addition contained plenty of cleanups and more fixes to the output of the documentation.
If that was not enough, just the commit message of first patch (doc: remove GNU troff workaround) took me several hours of investigation to write.
It’s not my fault that brian decided to stop arguing any further, it’s not my fault that Junio decided to carry brian’s version for two months and ignore my version which was objectively superior. Those are the facts, and I was merely stating them.
Suppose that I’m wrong, let’s suppose that brian’s version is superior, in that case my statement of fact is incorrect. OK, but how is that “unacceptable behavior”?
I meant that I meant what he said I meant.Felipe Contreras
I understand how this clarification I sent to Junio might look like to some people, but it’s simply a convoluted way of saying “what he said”. SZEDER Gábor said “I think you meant X”, I replied “yes, I meant Y, which in practical terms means what you said (X)”, and Junio (who has a habit of rewriting what I write) asked if my previous statement said “yes, yours is better and I’ll use it in an update, thanks”, but I don’t agree with Junio’s restatement.
I meant Y, which in practical terms means what SZEDER said I meant (X). So I meant either of these:
- Y: Otherwise commands like ‘for-each-ref’ are not completed correctly by
- X: Otherwise options of commands like ‘for-each-ref’ are not completed.
Which one of these is really “better”? I don’t know, and to be honest I don’t care. I’ve been sending this patch for nine months now and in truth the original “Otherwise commands like ‘for-each-ref’ are not completed” is good enough for me.
The important thing is the fix, and the code continues to be broken to this day.
Additionally, it’s not uncommon for Junio to update the commit messages himself, in fact he did so for my last patch (doc: pull: fix rebase=false documentation), even though I sent an updated commit message he ignored my suggested modification and used his own. So why can’t he simply do the same here with a simple “
s/commands/options of commands/” as I suggested?
To me this simply looks like an excuse not to merge the series, which I’ve sent eleven times already.
To avoid problems I re-sent the patch series nine minutes after Junio sent his message, and I used SZEDER’s suggestion. That was on June 8, and to this day Junio keeps repeating this on his status mails:
* fc/completion-updates (2021-06-07) 4 commits - completion: bash: add correct suffix in variables - completion: bash: fix for multiple dash commands - completion: bash: fix for suboptions with value - completion: bash: fix prefix detection in branch.* Command line completion updates. Expecting a reroll. cf. <email@example.com>
I’ve already replied multiple times that I did the reroll immediately after, and after that I’ve re-sent the series four times since then.
Now, I understand if Junio took my reply in a way that I did not intend, but why should git users suffer? The problems these patches fix are real. SZEDER Gábor has already reviewed part of the series, and David Aguilar has tested it and he confirmed the problems exist, and the fixes work.
I have plenty more fixes on top of these (41), the reason why I kept this series small was to maximize the possibility of them getting merged, and now it turns out the reason Junio hasn’t merged them is because he didn’t like one comment I said?
To me this seems like pettiness. We are adults, if he found one of my replies objectionable, he could have simply stated so on the mailing list, or he could have sent me a personal reply (he has never done so). He could have said “I don’t like your tone, so I’m going to drop this series”, but instead he made me waste my time resending patches he was never going to merge. He kept his disapproval for himself, and only used it for ammunition to justify a future ban.
The slowness from Junio to accept these and other patches is why I chose to start the git-completion project, which is a fork of the bash and zsh completion stuff. For the record I was the one that started the zsh completion, and I started the bash completion tests in order for the completion stuff to be first-class citizens of the git project, which Junio has refused to accept as well.
Choosing to knowingly hurt git users because he didn’t find one comment palatable does not seem to me to be a behavior fit for a project leader.
I foresee that some people will conclude that I’m being petty too, but I don’t think that’s the case. I found the problems, I wrote the patches, I sent the patches, I addressed the feedback, and I updated the patches with the feedback. I’ve been trying to get them merged for nine months. What more do you want? If Junio has any further problems with the patches, he can just let me know and I’ll address them. But instead he says nothing.
To exemplify even more how Junio’s pettiness is hurting users, Harrison McCullough reported a regression with the
__git_complete helper (which I wrote) on June 16, and it was caused by a change from Denton Liu which introduced a variable
__git_cmd_idx, but he forgot to initialize it in
__git_complete. Initially I fixed the problem by initializing
__git_cmd_idx to 1, and Harrison reported that my fix indeed got rid of the issue. Two days later Fabian Wermelinger reported the same issue but sent a patch that initialized
__git_cmd_idx to 0. Initially I thought he made a mistake, but upon further reflection I realized that 0 was more correct, so I updated my patch.
My patch is superior because it fixes the regression not only for bash, but for zsh too. In addition it mentions Harrison McCullough reported the issue, and it’s also simpler and more maintainable too. Junio picked Fabian’s patch and ignored my patch, and my feedback, therefore the regression is still present for zsh users. This is a fact.
Ignoring me is objectively hurting users. I’ve resent my fix on top of Fabian’s patch, so all Junio has to do to fix the regression is pick it.
How does the fact that Junio is primed against me make my convoluted statement “unacceptable behavior”?
That makes me think we might want a converter that translates (local)main -> (remote)master, and (remote)master -> (local)mail everywhere, so if your eyes have trouble seeing one, you can configure git to simply see the other… Without bothering the rest of the word.Felipe Contreras
Once again I can see how people might misinterpret what I said here, but it’s nothing nefarious.
The rename of the “master” branch has been one of the most hotly debated topics of late (this has nothing to do with me as I didn’t even participate in the discussion). Even today it’s not entirely clear what’s the future of this proposal. If you are not familiar with the debate, you can read my blog post: Why renaming Git’s master branch is a terrible idea.
But what I attempted to do was achieve what the original poster–Antoine Beaupré–wanted to achieve but in another way. I listened to Antoine, and I proposed a different solution, that’s all.
What Antoine wanted (as I understand it) was to change all his “master” branches to “main” so that he didn’t have to see “master” everywhere. But he wanted to do this properly, so he wrote a python script to address as many renaming issues as he could.
I see some value in what Antoine wanted to do, but he literally said: “I am tired of seeing the name “master” everywhere“, if that was literally the problem, then a mapping of branch names would fix it. And this is not even that foreign to me.
When I wrote git-remote-hg and git-remote-bzr one of the main features people wanted was a way to map branch names. So for example a branch named “default” in Mercurial could be mapped to “master” in Git (this was done by default, but you get the point).
Even if this didn’t help Antoine, I thought this would help other people, say for example that some Linux developers couldn’t manage to convince Linus Torvalds to rename the master branch to “main”, but for some reason they found the name “master” offensive. Well, with my patch they didn’t have to convince Linus, they could simply configure a branch mapping so they “never had to see the name “master”“.
After listening to my reply Antoine did a more adult approach than Junio, and actually replied his discontent to my comment:
I guess that I’ll take that as a “no, not welcome here” and move on…Antoine Beaupré
This saddened me. It was never my intention to shit on Antoine’s idea, and in fact I never intended to act a representative of the Git community, so I explained very clearly to Antoine that he shouldn’t just give up:
Do not take my response as representative of the views community.
I do believe there’s value in your patch, I’m just not personally interested in exploring it. I don’t see much value in renaming branches, especially on a distributed SCM where the names are replicated in dozens, potentially thousands of repositories. But that’s just me.Felipe Contreras
However, brian m. carlson either didn’t read my response, or chose to not factor it in, because he replied:
There is a difference between being firm and steadfast, such as when responding to someone who repeatedly advocates an inadvisable technical approach, and being rude and sarcastic, especially to someone who is genuinely trying to improve things, and I think this crosses the line.brian m. carlson
I wasn’t trying to be “rude and sarcastic”, I was simply trying to suggest a different approach. It did’t even need to be a competing approach, because both approaches could be implemented at the same time. I explained that to brian, did he respond back? No.
Now, even if you remove me from the picture nobody else responded to Antoine, so how exactly did my responses hinder in any way the community?
If you think my response was “rude and sarcastic” I would love to debate that, but the fact of the matter is that only I know what my intentions were, and they were definitely not that.
Moreover, I don’t believe in being offended by proxy. If Antoine Beaupré had a problem with my comment, I would listen to his objection, and even though I think I have already clarified what I meant, I would even consider apologizing to him. But I will not apologize to brian m. carlson who I’m pretty sure got offended by proxy.
Also, for the record, reductio ad absurdum arguments are not uncommon in the Git mailing list, and they don’t necessarily imply anything nefarious. Here’s one recent example from Junio:
I am somewhat puzzled. What does “can imagine” exactly mean and justify this change? A script author may imagine “git cat-file” can be expected to meow, but the command actually does not meow and end up disappointing the author, but that wouldn’t justify a rename of “cat-file” to something else.Junio C Hamano
Can Junio’s response be considered “rude and sarcastic”? Yes. But you can also assume good faith and presume he didn’t intend to offend anyone and simply tried to prove a point using a ridiculous example.
Can my comment be considered “unacceptable behavior”? In this case I’d say yes, but not necessarily so. You can also give me the benefit of the doubt and simply not assume bad faith (and I can tell you no bad faith was intended).
So far the incidents have been pretty sporadic and could easily be reduced to misunderstandings, but the following are not. Elijah Newren decided to wage a personal vendetta against me (literally), and that context is necessary to understand the rest of the evidence.
Spring cleanup challenge
It all started when I sent my git spring cleanup challenge in which I invited git developers to get rid of their carefully crafted git configuration for a month. The idea was to force ourselves to experience git as a newcomer does, and figure out which are the most important configurations we rely on.
This challenge was a success and very quickly we figured out at least two configurations virtually every experienced git developer enables:
rerere.enabled=true. Additionally my contention is that git should also have default aliases (e.g
br => branch), but there was no clear consensus on that.
Take for example the configuration
merge.defaulttoupstream. Back in 2010 while exploring issues with
git pull I proposed that
git merge should by default merge the upstream branch. I later sent the patch in 2011 which received pretty universal support, and there were interesting comments, like:
I totally agree — this would be a good change[*] — but this suggestion has been made before, and always gets shot down for vaguely silly reasons…Miles Bader
Just a few days later Jared Hance sent his own version of the patch by introducing
merge.defaultupstream to activate the new behavior. Jared sent in total five versions and implemented all the suggestions from everyone, including Junio, but in the end Junio decided to rewrite the whole thing, take authorship, not mention that Jared wrote the original version of the patch (see the final commit), nor the fact that originally the idea came from me.
I personally do not care too much. I had an idea and the idea got implemented, that’s mostly all I cared about. However, it wouldn’t have costed anything to Junio to add “Original-idea-by: Felipe Contreras” as it’s customary (here’s an example).
Then in 2014 I realized that before git 2.0 (which was meant to break backwards compatibility) it was the perfect time to enable
merge.defaulttoupstream by default (literally no one disabled it anyway), so I sent a patch for that and other defaults. Junio disagreed and excluded these from 2.0, but in the end he ended up merging them.
So finally in git 2.1
git merge ended up merging the upstream branch by default.
What I find interesting is that in 2021 (7 years later), Ævar–a prominent git developer–didn’t even know that
merge.defaulttoupstream changed it’s default value, so he still had
merge.defaulttoupstream=true in his configuration. Thanks to my challenge he argued it should be
true by default, and thus realized that was already the case. Additionally I noticed the default value was not mentioned in the documentation, so I sent a fix for that.
At that point my relationship with Elijah was amicable, and he decided to join the challenge in his words “to join in on the fun“.
The problems started when I took it upon myself to try to enable
merge.conflictstyle=diff3 by default. This task turned out to be much more complicated than I initially thought. Flipping the switch is extremely easy, but once you do that a ton of tests that expect the
diff2 format start to fail. No problem, I thought by simply changing
merge.conflictstyle to the old value at the beginning of each test file that fails would solve it. Later on each test file can be updated to expect the
It turned out that didn’t work. Many commands completely ignored the configuration
merge.conflictstyle, and those are clearly bugs. So even before attempting to change
merge.conflictstyle we have to fix those bugs first.
This is what I attempted to do on my patch series: Make
diff3 the default conflict style.
Immediately Johannes Sixt pointed out that such change resulted in a very convoluted output for him. This however I think is just bad luck, since never in all my years of using
diff3 have I ever seen an output similar to that, and that’s because recursive merges are involved.
Jeff King provided a link to a discussion from 2013 regarding the output of
diff3, and that discussion itself lead to other discussions from 2008. It took me a while to read all those discussions, but essentially it boils down to a disagreement between Junio C Hamano and Jeff King (both part of the leadership committee) about whether or not a level higher than
XDL_MERGE_EAGER (1) made sense for
diff3. Junio argued that the output wasn’t proper, but Jeff argued that even though it wasn’t proper, it was still useful. That lead to Uwe Kleine-König–a Linux kernel developer–to implement
zdiff3, which is basically
diff3 but without artificially capping the level as Junio did in order for the output to be proper.
When I said maybe we should consider adding this
zdiff3 mode, Jeff King mentioned his experience with it:
I had that patch in my daily build for several years, and I would occasionally trigger it when seeing an ugly conflict. IIRC, it segfaulted on me a few times, but I never tracked down the bug. Just a caution in case anybody wants to resurrect it.Jeff King
My interpretation of that message is extremely crucial. I am very precise with language, both when writing, and reading. So I read what Jeff said exactly how he said it. First, he said in “several years” (1+ years) he occasionally would try this. Then he said of of the times he tried it, it crashed a few times, but crucially he said “if I recall correctly”, so this means he is not sure. Maybe it crashed more than a few times, or maybe it crashed less than a few times, he is not sure.
Whatever the issue was, Jeff did not find it serious enough to track the bug, since he never tracked down the bug in the several years he was using the patch.
Jeff sent his message on a Thursday, on Friday Elijah Newren said he might investigate the
zdiff3 stuff, and on Sunday I re-sent the 2013 patch from Uwe. I added a note to the patch stating why I was sending it, and what I did to test it. Essentially I ran the entire test suite using
zdiff3 instead of
diff3 and everything passed. This implies that if there’s any issue with
zdiff3 it probably is not that serious.
I sent the patch at 9:30. One hour later Jeff King replied “I take it you didn’t investigate the segfault I mentioned”. I don’t know how I was supposed to investigate that, other than what I already did: run the whole test suite with
zdiff3. Jeff had the idea to recreate all the merges of the git repository using
zdiff3 and after 2500 merges you can find one that crashes. This is a good idea, but it never occurred to me to do that.
The next Monday Elijah Newren started to complain:
This is going to sound harsh, but people shouldn’t waste (any more) time reviewing the patches in this thread or the “merge: cleanups and fix” series submitted elsewhere. They should all just be rejected.Elijah Newren
Elijah provided a list of reasons, none of which were true–like “no attempt was made to test” (I did attempt to test, as I explained in the note of the patch). Additionally he stated that in his opinion my submissions were “egregiously cavalier”.
Egregiously cavalier? I spent several hours on a Sunday trying to find the fix for a patch one of the most prolific git developers didn’t bother to fix for several years, and I actually did it… the very same day.
This was the start of Elijah’s personal vendetta against me. He urged Junio not only to drop Uwe’s patch that I resent, but to drop all my patches:
If I were in charge, at this point I would drop all of Felipe’s patches on the floor (not just the ones from these threads), and not accept any further ones. I am not in charge, though, and you have more patience than me. But I will not be reviewing or responding to Felipe’s patches further. Please do not trust future submissions from him that have an “Acked-by” or “Reviewed-by” from me, including resubmissions of past patches.Elijah Newren
If that wasn’t enough, Elijah accused me of fabricating his endorsement of my patches:
Troubled enough that I do not want my name used to endorse your changes, particularly when I already pointed out that you have used my name in a false endorsement of your patch and you have now responded to but not corrected that problem (including again just now in this thread), making it appear to me that this was no mistake.Elijah Newren
This is blatantly false. Elijah very clearly said “Yes, very nice! Thanks.” to one of my patches, and that can be considered endorsement by many people. I do not take those kinds of accusations lightly, so that prompted me to start an investigation into how many “reviewed-by” commit trailers are explicitly given as opposed to inferred, and I found that 38% of them are not explicit.
Not only that, but I found one example a month earlier in which Derrick Stolee took a “Looks good to me” comment from Elijah and used it as “reviewed-by”. Did Elijah accuse Derrick of “false endorsement”? No.
I don’t know what happened to Elijah, nor why from one day to the next he decided to make me his enemy, but clearly he is not being objective. If he was he would be objecting to Derrick’s behavior as well, since he did exactly the same thing as I. Elijah’s responses are clearly emotional, as can be seen from this reply in which he cites nineteen references, some going back to 2014–a dubious debating technique called Gish gallop, but writing this response he didn’t even pause to see that the links matched what he was referring to. Moreover, the first thing he said: “attacking a random bystander like Alex is rather uncalled for”, was completely off-base because my reply wasn’t even addressed to Alex.
I have absolutely nothing against Elijah, but clearly he does have something against me, and the rest of the reports (and probably all the previous ones) are entirely the result of that antagonism.
If you didn’t mean this patch to be applied then perhaps add the RFC prefix.Felipe Contreras
When Alex Henrie took me up on the challenge to try to fix
git pull, he created a patch that broke 11 test files, each one with many unit tests broken. This is not a huge deal, some people send patches that break the test suite, but generally when they do that they add the “RFC” (request for comments) prefix to make sure this patch is not picked by Junio.
So, assuming good faith there’s two options a) Alex didn’t see the tests breaking, or b) he knew the tests were breaking, but didn’t know he had to add RFC in that case. I simply said if this was case b), RFC should have been added.
Only a person already primed to presume malice would have seen a problem with my comment.
Wouldn’t you consider sending a patch without running ‘make test’ “cavalier”?Felipe Contreras
This response was directed to Elijah Newren, not Alex Henrie, and I wrote it because I was genuinely curious to see if Elijah was capable of seeing the obvious discrepancy between his response to Alex, and his response to me.
The patch I sent (which wasn’t even my patch):
- Did not break any tests by itself
- Did not break any tests by forcing
- The patch was not going to land on the integration branch “seen”
- The patch doesn’t change anything, so everyone using
diff3wouldn’t see the crashes
- If the patch was applied, and a person manually enables
zdiff3, out of the 16,000 merges in git.git it crashes on 13 of them (0.08%)
- Has already been tested by multiple people for many years
- Was fixed hours later
So the patch was relatively safe by any standard.
On the other hand Alex’s patch:
- Broke a ton of tests by default
- Broke the existing user interface
- Hasn’t been used by anyone
- Was intended to be integrated
Elijah’s response to my patch is that it was “egregiously cavalier”, and his response to Alex’s patch was “thanks for working on this”.
If this is not double standards I don’t know what is.
I did not criticize Alex, I was asking a question to Elijah.
When Alex responded to my response, he thought it was directed to him. I explained to him that it wasn’t and I made sure he knew I didn’t blame him for anything:
I do appreciate all contributions, especially if they were done pro bono.Felipe Contreras
I explained that Elijah’s personal attacks towards me are a different subject that he should probably not attempt to touch, because I didn’t think anything productive could come from that (it’s a matter between Elijah and me).
And just to be crystal clear, I thanked him again:
This has absolutely nothing to do with you, again… I appreciate you used some of your free time to try to improve git pull.Felipe Contreras
In my opinion all the reports that have anything to do with Elijah Newren are primed and could only be judged “unacceptable” if you assume bad faith (and probably not even in that case).
I have been a moderator on pretty big online communities, therefore I’m familiar on how justice is supposed to be dispensed outside of the justice system.
The single most important thing is the presumption of innocence. The accused should not be considered guilty until evidence against him has been presented and he has had a chance to defend himself. Even in something as silly as Twitch chat, the people that get banned have the opportunity to appeal those decisions.
The leadership committee not only did not allow me to present my case, they weren’t interested in the least, when I asked them about presenting my case their response was “this isn’t a trial”. I was presumed guilty and that’s that.
My punishment was to avoid all interaction with 17 people for three months. That included Junio C Hamano and the entire leadership committee. If I engage in any “unwanted interaction” with any of these people or if I say something similar to the alleged violations above, then I’ll get banned.
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason offered to be my “point of contact”, that means he was the only person I was allowed to ask questions to. While initially Ævar did a good job of keeping an open dialog with me, eventually he stopped responding because he went on vacation.
Other than the initial email I only received one response from the leadership committee.
However Ævar did manage to respond to a few questions for this blog post (as himself):
- Do you believe there’s a possibility the PLC might have made a mistake?
Sure, but I think that’s more in the area of how we’d deal with clashes like this generally than that nothing should have been done in this case. Did we do the optimal thing? I don’t know.
- Do you believe the PLC could have done more to address this particular situation?
Yes, I think it’s the first case (at least that I’m aware of) under the CoC framework that’s gone this far.
That’s a learning process, one particular thing in this case I think could have gone better is more timely responses to everyone involved. That’s collectively on us (the PLC), harder when there’s little or no experience in dealing with these cases, everyone volunteering their time across different time zones etc.
- Do you believe the identify of the person(s) who reported the complaints had an effect on the final verdict?
I wouldn’t mind honestly answering this for my part at least (and not for other PLC members), but feel I can’t currently due to our promise that CoC reports and identities of reporters etc. not be made public unless on their request.
While I’m thankful for Ævar’s responses these did not answer the particulars of what I asked, especially the last one, which he could very well be answered without revealing the identity of the people who reported the “violations”.
At the end of the day I’m still fairly certain that the person who did the vast majority of the reports (if not all of them) was Elijah Newren, and it’s only because he is a big name (#7 contributor in the past 5 years) that those reports were taken seriously. Additionally he sent as many as he could as an eristic technique–Gish gallop–because he knew that way nobody in the leadership team would investigate any single one at depth.
Ultimately I do not blame Elijah: if he thinks my comments violated the code of conduct, he is entitled to believe so and report them. But I do blame the leadership team because they didn’t do their job. They didn’t investigate any of the reports carefully enough, and they did not do the minimum job any judge should do (inside or outside a real courtroom); hear the defendant.
Not only did they not do their job, but they didn’t even want to attempt to do it, and even more… it seems they don’t know what their minimum job is.
Linus Torvalds once said in a TED interview:
What I’m trying to say is we are different. I’m not a people person; it’s not something I’m particularly proud of, but it’s part of me. And one of the things I really like about open source is it really allows different people to work together. We don’t have to like each other — and sometimes we really don’t like each other. Really — I mean, there are very, very heated arguments. But you can, actually, you can find things that — you don’t even agree to disagree, it’s just that you’re interested in really different things.Linus Torvalds
You may not like my style of communication, but “being abrasive” is not a crime. The question is not “can Felipe be nicer?”, the question is “did Felipe violate the code of conduct?”. I believe any objective observer who carefully investigates any of the reports would have to conclude that no violation actually took place. You would have to believe that I was trolling, insulted people, threw personal attacks, or harassed people; none of that actually took place.
I debate with people all the time, and this particular issue comes up very often, but it’s a fallacy called tone policing. Any time anybody focuses on the way somebody states an argument instead if what the argument itself is, that person is being unproductive.
I often bring Paul Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement, where tone policing is the third lowest level of “argumentation”, right after ad hominem attacks.
Nobody benefits by my tone being policed, especially the Git community. My patches not only provide much needed improvements to the user interface, but fixes clear bugs that have already been verified and tested, not to mention regressions. Ignoring me only hurts git users.
And even if in your opinion the tone I used in the reports above is not acceptable, it’s worth nothing that these are merely the worst ten instances out of two thousand emails, that’s just 0.5%.
And let’s remember that unlike the vast majority of git developers: I’m doing this work entirely for free.
Moreover, if anyone is violating the code of conduct I would venture to say it’s other members of the community:
- Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences
It is very clear other members of the community do not respect my opinions. I have suggested that this particular point should be tolerance, not respect (see Cambridge University votes to safeguard free speech), but even if you lower the requirement from respect to tolerance, not even that is happening: other members do not tolerate my opinions.
Why am I being punished because other members (who happen to be big names) can’t tolerate my opinions?
The Git community claims to be inclusive, but as this incident shows that’s not truly the case since the most important diversity is not welcomed: diversity of thought.