Hi,
Lets keep it civilized (ironic considering what we are talking about). From what I hear, the decision was based on multiple "incidents" and I don't think the decision was made lightly and I certainly don't think the decision was made with a vicious intend. I know the people from the leadership at least well enough to know that this is a certainty.
On the other hand I hope that CB:84356 was not the deciding factor, since that could have just as well been me. And as far as I can see the "discussion" in that patch was already "on fire" without nicos involvement. And as far as I can see he was the one that wanted the patch to go through. Sure the heated discussion didn't help, but that is just the way it sometimes goes. As long as everyone cools off at some point, I don't see the harm.
And I hope that my last arguments didn't give of a wrong impression. I think that there is a bunch of people in coreboot that communicate in the same way Nico does (for better or worse). It is just a matter thinking of it as a bad or good way of communication. I personally think it slides into both and I don't think I am any different in that way.
greetings Max
On October 4, 2024 8:53:16 AM UTC, Sergii Dmytruk sergii.dmytruk@3mdeb.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 06:09:19AM +0000, David Hendricks via coreboot wrote:
- This particular issue was not brought to the attention of coreboot
leadership by anybody at Google or Intel. Someone in coreboot's small business ecosystem asked us to look into CB:84356 (https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/84356), which later spawned other patches. The subtext is that upstream development is very difficult and spending days squabbling over a tiny part of a spec that we don't control (FSP in this case, but the same is true of SBI, TFA, UEFI, etc) is counterproductive.
Looks like you jumped at the opportunity to limit Nico's involvement in the project.
- We acknowledge that Nico has a certain communication style, and
like others in this thread we've each been on the receiving end of it and have rationalized brushing it off for one reason or another.
No, I did not say that for sure. Please don't misrepresent what people have wrote to make your point of view look supported.
However, this does not work in aggregate within a community or organization where many people can take it many different ways, especially given that we're a global organization with people of varying levels of language proficiency.
That is a terrible excuse for a bad decision. Those who have issues with understanding a language are the ones responsible for fixing them. You don't incorporate all possible typos into English to make it friendly for people who can't spell.
One can create a hostile environment even without overt actions such as hitting someone, yelling profanity, inappropriate contact, etc. To put this in another context, imagine the storm that would ensue if your company's HR department responded to complaints of sexual harassment by a guy named Bob in the sales department by saying "We've known for years that Bob likes to flirt with his coworkers and we have asked him to tone it down. Some have told us that they don't mind too much, and those who complain probably just misunderstand his communication style. Besides, a lot of people like Bob and he is a really great salesman!" Eventually it comes crashing down with more and more collateral damage the longer it's left unchecked.
Why not compare Nico to Hitler right away? This is just ugly and I "expect better from everyone, especially senior members of the community." _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org