Hacker News Reader

Comment by taneq | Hacker News Reader

If the author feels they can't be part of a community because of some code containing a suggestively-named (in their particular culture) variable, then that's their choice and more power to them.

The response from this Duncan guy was probably unnecessarily rude, and while I mostly agree with the content of his response, he certainly came across as a bit of a dick.

That said, I fail to see why we should care. A person was part of a community until they had a snit and left it. Okay.

(Edit: As rightly pointed out below, the author was effectively kicked out of their role after complaining about said variable. So fair enough, I'm upgrading Duncan & co. from 'bit of a dick' to 'complete dick who shouldn't be in charge'. In which case we should definitely care about a project's admin abusing their power in that way.)

View on HN

If Ironholds didn't have an history of stirring shit for the sake of stirring shit, and being kicked of projects for doing so (see his Wikimedia Foundation history), you'd have a point.

No one was feeling excluded by that properly named variable (even if kinda unfortunate, but the most it can extract from someone is a smile), and certainly not the author. Also, filling a bug report was improper as it certainly wasn't a bug, so the quotes around "bug report" in the answer were well justified. The CRAN maintainer chose not to feed the troll by not engaging and cutting contact. It's usually the way to go, as they do it for the attention. This discussion is proof of his talent...

If the author feels they can't be part of a community because of some code containing a suggestively-named (in their particular culture) variable

This is very obviously not an accurate description of events. In reality – author feels (rightly or wrongly) offended, submits a patch to resolve this, and in response is essentially kicked out of a core position.

That's not just 'unnecessarily rude' – it's a stupid and broken way to run a community.

That said, I fail to see why we should care

Because I think generally we want to encourage reasonably welcoming open source communities, and responses like this seem generally disproportionate.

After a re-read, you are indeed correct. And I agree, that kind of behaviour does warrant warning potential contributors away from the project.

> essentially kicked out of a core position [snip] > That's not just 'unnecessarily rude' – it's a stupid and broken way to run a community.

The project owner was harsh, but I respect his pragmatism. The perpetually aggrieved are never satisfied. Anyone who complains about something as trivial as the variable name in question is someone who lives for attention-seeking and virtue signaling. It's better to immediately and fully separate yourself from that kind of person, even if it involves a short-term reputation hit, than allow that person to gain influence and endanger your project's existence.

I do understand why he behaved this way. Look at the recent attempts to coerce various high-profile projects into adopting a particular code of conduct. These attempts invariably introduce identity politics and drama into a previously purely meritocratic community, and result in a huge amount of wasted time and lost productivity.

Regardless, I don't think he went about it the right way. It would have been more effective to simply reject the patch with a note stating that the variable name was appropriate in context (assuming it was so).

I wish more project maintainers would emulate the good example Duncan set here. Identity grievance is a terrible disease for an organization to contract, but the prognosis is good with early and aggressive treatment.

Let's be clear – it is not pragmatism to kick productive members of the community out of it over minor issues. If anything, it's the opposite.

Anyone who complains about something as trivial as the variable name in question is someone who lives for attention-seeking and virtue signaling

As I've pointed out elsewhere, I find the complaint ridiculous. I'm also keenly aware that my view is not the only legitimate one; there appears to have been an number of other people who felt the same way about this particular issue.

It's bad community management to tell participants that their views are not valid, and to unilaterally kick them out. One of the authors points is important – it creates a perception that complaints or suggestions will not be taken seriously. And that's not useful to a community.

De jure you are correct re community management. But in the context of a person who has a history of stirring drama, stopping said person in his tracks is probably the better decision.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com