> In August, a discussion started among GNU package maintainers about
the problem that GNU development often pushes women away
I'm not trying to offend people or anything, but where is the evidence for this in GNU specifically?
I'm not trying to offend people or anything, but where is the evidence for this in GNU specifically?
A certain GNU contributor, let's call her Sal, was voicing concerns with current practices. Someone else replied to her with "Sally," condescendingly talking down to her. To this she said, "I did not invite you to call me by a nickname. Call me Sal."
A sub-discussion then erupted about the etymology of "Sally" and whether or not it was technically correct to someone who preferred "Sal" to be called "Sally" instead. Instead of, you know, just calling people what they want to be called and be done with it. And not be condescending about it.
As for "voicing concerns with current practices", what were those concerns and practices? Technical?
In the general case, telling someone that actually you are the person who has the last word on what they are called is bullying.
And what is the long form then? The only female name I can think of that shortens to Sal is Sally. This whole story seems suspect.
And yet, I almost never see this happening in online communities and have never seen anyone take offence at being referred to by their first name instead, despite the fact that in an in-person context they might do.
I'd love to understand why the two scenarios are different.
It sounds like the issue in the example you state was perhaps the "talking down", not the name.
One helpful approach is to initially grant the benefit of the doubt to the person that you think offended you. I ask myself, "Am I certain the other person meant to be condescending" (or some other offense)? Do they have a history of this? If I respond harshly, will I get a listening ear?
I think Stallman did well by recommending to be kind. We want our collaborations to be productive. If we are quick to take offense, we will destroy relationships and collaboration.
My point is NOT to excuse bad behavior but rather to make sure I am not jumping to conclusions and breaking good collaborative relationships...
Of course we address repeat offenses. Having been gracious initially, those discussions are more likely to be productive. I think Stallman's approach does that well.