> This is IMO embarrassing and unprofessional behavior for an adult. Most engineering managers or architects in most jobs would be reprimanded or fired
I don't understand why I keep hearing complaints about "professional behaviour" in an open source context, where it's most likely not the "profession" of the people involved.
Please stop asking open source maintainers to behave professionally, until you are paying them a full time salary.
Just like we expect our neighbors to be respectful to us even when we don’t pay them for the privilege, there’s nothing surprising that users ask a maintainer to be respectful of their time. Yes, the users can go somewhere else, just like how we can move if we have a bad neighbor, but that’s just not a good way of going about things.
No, that's not how it works.
I'm free to publish something and completely ignore bugreports.
There is no such responsibility principle. Some people, out of goodness of their hearths, follow up on things. But they have no obligation to do so.
No we can't agree on that. There is no obligation to be polite.
Of course I wouldn't expect people to love me for that, and it's not how I personally act; but if someone felt like acting in this way, it would be fully within his/her rights to do so.
My point is that the way he chooses to behave is in the long run damaging to the community that he founded and leads.
You are somehow deciding that collaboration is needed and wanted by every maintainer.
That's your (wrong) assumption.
This entitled attitude that maintainers owe their users anything is visibly driving people away from that work.
Periodically, they usurp huge contributions from outsiders and market the success to their employers as a project success without mentioning the actual author. Then they boss around the author until he/she rage-quits.
And while they were young, they were entirely rude and unprofessional. CoCs are a political tool to protect the inner circle.
At least RMS is not a hypocrite. Neither is Torvalds.
Are you paying RMS for work rendered? If not, you have no standing to demand RMS act professionally.
Not to mention, FOSS by its own definition excludes all facets of money and is in practice primarily driven by volunteers. You can't and shouldn't demand professional behaviour from people who are not professionals.
“The skill, good judgment, and polite behavior that is expected from a person who is trained to do a job well” Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional
("professionally" also redirects to the above URL.)
---------------------------------
professional adjective
pro· fes· sion· al | \ prə-ˈfesh-nəl , -ˈfe-shə-nᵊl \
Definition of professional (Entry 1 of 2)
1a: of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession
b: engaged in one of the learned professions
c(1): characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession
(2): exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace
2a: participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs
a professional golfer
b: having a particular profession as a permanent career
a professional soldier
c: engaged in by persons receiving financial return
professional football 3: following a line of conduct as though it were a profession
a professional patriot
professional noun
Definition of professional (Entry 2 of 2)
: one that is professional
especially : one that engages in a pursuit or activity professionally
---------------------------------
The phrase you are looking for is perhaps "act like a gentleman", among many other ways to describe behaviour that is mature and reasonable, but in any case RMS is not a professional and thusly none of us can demand he act professionally.
"workplace" is defined as "a place (such as a shop or factory) where work is done"[1].
"work" in the context of "workplace" is defined[2] as follows under definition 1:
---------------------
1a: to perform work or fulfill duties regularly for wages or salary
works in publishing
b: to perform or carry through a task requiring sustained effort or continuous repeated operations
worked all day over a hot stove
c: to exert oneself physically or mentally especially in sustained effort for a purpose or under compulsion or necessity
---------------------
Definition 1a is a direct reference to monetary payment for work rendered. Definition 1b describes the act of working itself. Definition 1c loosely refers to some sort of goal or need, which may or may not include money, as a motivator for working.
So in a very, very liberal context you can pedantically use "professional" in a non-monetary sense, but there are much more accurate ways to describe what you want to convey such that you wouldn't need to be liberal with your choice of words.
RMS isn't a professional, so he can't be demanded to act professionally.
The way I used the words "behave professionally" is very common in American English. You could use this phrase to describe a student, a volunteer, or even a dog at a dog show.
However, slang is slang. Officially, the definition of a professional is whether you make money for work rendered. The slang usage of "professional" is incorrect.
The slang usage might get added to the dictionary and become correct some day, language evolves, but as far as I'm aware today is not yet that day.
That's not the definition in question here. This is:
> exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace
A. adj.1. Relating to or marking the occasion of entrance into a religious order. Cf. profession-ring n. at profession n. Compounds. Obsolete. rare.
2. Of or relating to a profession or declaration; that is avowedly (but sometimes falsely) the thing specified; professed. Obsolete.
II. Senses relating to or derived from (the conduct of) a profession or occupation.
3.
a. Of a person or persons: that engages in a specified occupation or activity for money or as a means of earning a living, rather than as a pastime. Contrasted with amateur. Sometimes applied disparagingly to a person who makes a trade or profession of something usually associated with higher motives.
b. Of an event, activity, occupation, etc. (now esp. a sport): undertaken or engaged in for money; engaged in by professionals (as distinct from non-professionals or amateurs).
c. In humorous or derogatory use. Of a person: habitually making a feature of a particular activity or attribute, esp. one that is generally regarded with disfavour; inveterate.
4. Of, belonging to, or proper to a profession.
a. Relating to, connected with, or befitting a (particular) profession or calling; preliminary or necessary to the practice of a profession. professional examination.
b. Engaged in a profession, esp. one requiring special skill or training; belonging to the professional classes.
c. Characteristic of or suitable for a professional person; (now esp. of equipment) of a type used by professionals.
d. That has or displays the skill, knowledge, experience, standards, or expertise of a professional; competent, efficient.
5. That has knowledge of the theoretical or scientific parts of a trade or occupation, as distinct from its practical or mechanical aspects; that raises a trade to a learned profession. Now rare except as merged with senses at A. 4.
6. Physiology. Designating or relating to a cell which is specialized for the ingestion of particles by phagocytosis, such as a macrophage or neutrophil (as distinct from a cell capable of occasional phagocytosis).
III. Senses related to the office of professor.
7. = professorial adj.Now rare.
B. n. 1. a. A person who engages in a specified activity, especially a sport, as a paid occupation. Frequently opposed to amateur.
b. Chiefly colloquial. A prostitute.
2. A person engaged in a profession, esp. one requiring special skill or training; a professional person, or a member of the professional classes.
3. Scottish University slang. Short for ‘professional examination’
4. A person who does something with a high level of competence, commitment, or expertise.
-----
So the use in this case can be construed to be entirely correct, c.f. Sense II §4 and Sense III §2 and §4
I think when you get down to debating definitions you’ve probably lost some of that professionalism.
As a manager I probably would be reprimanding people debating definitions like this. We should be asking: “do we understand each other?”
The point of this entire argument is Stallman isn’t paid, dedicates his life to this work, probably is overworked and runs his org and does so completely openly (ie you’re likely to see lots of good and some bad). He’s not a professional; he’s a passionate, often crazed and zealous leader of an organization with an extreme position (free software being the exception not the rule).
I frankly wouldn’t expect anything from Stallman. Manners, personal relationship, etc.
I posted this to highlight the absurdity of the original posting of another definition. I perhaps could have been more explicit, but I thought that my tongue being in my cheek was established by making the point that the original excerpt was taken from an American-English dictionary. Should've started with "Akshually..."
Yes, perhaps this pattern of behavior is to be expected from someone who's staked out such an uncompromising position and stuck to it for ~30 years.
But it's also really sad that, in acting this way, he undermines his own goals.
Not so. This is partly where the "Cathedral" nomenclature came from.
OED really goes all the way into their words
(though those who already act professionally already knew it ;) while other people will grasp at straws and try to find technicalities to justify their bad attitude )