Dear coreboot community members,
Recently there was some unpleasant activity on Gerrit which violated our community’s guidelines regarding respectful conduct. In this case the coreboot leadership team determined that the behavior in question fit a long pattern about which the individual had been previously warned. As a result we have decided to remove Nico from our community for a period of 1 year. We hope this will be a sufficient cooling off period and that we will not need to take more drastic steps in the future. As we've said in the past, we trust that developers in our community are acting in good faith and can generally resolve issues on their own. In cases where two sides cannot reach an agreement, for example in a code review, we expect all engagement to be respectful and to help drive toward a solution. For technical matters this often means starting a mailing list discussion, bringing an issue up during the coreboot leadership meeting, starting a task force to tackle a large problem, or other means of gathering input and collaborating. Personal matters should be brought to the leadership team directly. We'll listen to any complaints or frustrations, but cannot tolerate personal attacks made on Gerrit, the mailing list, or other forums. It is always required that we treat others in a professional manner and communicate with respect, regardless of how strongly we may feel about a particular issue. If anybody feels that a discussion has become too heated, or that somebody is not being treated respectfully, or are simply unsure of how to proceed in a difficult situation, please reach out to the coreboot leadership and we will chart a path forward together.
Hi
I am not happy with this decision. We are a community with a lot of passionate individuals that differ in their communication style. Differences in communication styles cause friction, there is no way around it. Commenting beyond the mere technical on how we treat each other in a community is appropriate and not a violation of respectful conduct. To the contrary, sometimes a more heated discussion is to be preferred to be being "nice" all the time.
I remember on one of my first patches in 2016, that Nico commented that the code looked so bad he wanted to cry. It's not "nice" but it was really bad code and I learned a lot since then, thanks to the honest and truthful communication of the community. More direct communication is preferred by lot of people, including myself.
I believe Nico is a good actor in our community and a 1 year ban does more harm than good. I personally thoroughly enjoy having him as a reviewer.
I ask the leadership to revisit this decision. Coreboot is a hard project to get into and driving the most competent people away is not a smart move.
Arthur
On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 9:40 AM David Hendricks via coreboot < coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote:
Dear coreboot community members,
Recently there was some unpleasant activity on Gerrit which violated our community’s guidelines regarding respectful conduct. In this case the coreboot leadership team determined that the behavior in question fit a long pattern about which the individual had been previously warned. As a result we have decided to remove Nico from our community for a period of 1 year. We hope this will be a sufficient cooling off period and that we will not need to take more drastic steps in the future.
As we've said in the past, we trust that developers in our community are acting in good faith and can generally resolve issues on their own. In cases where two sides cannot reach an agreement, for example in a code review, we expect all engagement to be respectful and to help drive toward a solution. For technical matters this often means starting a mailing list discussion, bringing an issue up during the coreboot leadership meeting, starting a task force to tackle a large problem, or other means of gathering input and collaborating.
Personal matters should be brought to the leadership team directly. We'll listen to any complaints or frustrations, but cannot tolerate personal attacks made on Gerrit, the mailing list, or other forums. It is always required that we treat others in a professional manner and communicate with respect, regardless of how strongly we may feel about a particular issue.
If anybody feels that a discussion has become too heated, or that somebody is not being treated respectfully, or are simply unsure of how to proceed in a difficult situation, please reach out to the coreboot leadership and we will chart a path forward together. _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
Hi
I have to agree with Arthur. A 1 year ban seems excessive. Nico is a big contributor to coreboot and although he is sometimes more active aggressive instead of passive aggressive like most others, I don't see a reason for such an extreme decision. Discussion get heated sometimes.
I also enjoy him as a reviewer, because he just tells me what is wrong. Directly. Maybe not always in the nicest possible way, but I personally don't care, because I know he means well. And lets be fair: Most of us are throwing passive aggressive stuff in front of others sometimes. People just shouldn't take comments on their code or their arguments personally. Sometimes it feels like people take it as a stake in their heart when you comment on their code being not perfect or their arguments not being correct... We all suck. I don't see a reason to pretend otherwise. Discussions get heated. People should just accept that and keep their personal feelings out of it as much as possible. Having said that I realize that we all have to try to be nice to each other, but we also have to accept that this just isn't always the case. And as long as you don't throw that at new people/contributors I don't see the harm. We are a community after all. For better or worse. We need to compromise.
greetings, Max
Am Mi., 2. Okt. 2024 um 11:56 Uhr schrieb Arthur Heymans < arthur@aheymans.xyz>:
Hi
I am not happy with this decision. We are a community with a lot of passionate individuals that differ in their communication style. Differences in communication styles cause friction, there is no way around it. Commenting beyond the mere technical on how we treat each other in a community is appropriate and not a violation of respectful conduct. To the contrary, sometimes a more heated discussion is to be preferred to be being "nice" all the time.
I remember on one of my first patches in 2016, that Nico commented that the code looked so bad he wanted to cry. It's not "nice" but it was really bad code and I learned a lot since then, thanks to the honest and truthful communication of the community. More direct communication is preferred by lot of people, including myself.
I believe Nico is a good actor in our community and a 1 year ban does more harm than good. I personally thoroughly enjoy having him as a reviewer.
I ask the leadership to revisit this decision. Coreboot is a hard project to get into and driving the most competent people away is not a smart move.
Arthur
On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 9:40 AM David Hendricks via coreboot < coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote:
Dear coreboot community members,
Recently there was some unpleasant activity on Gerrit which violated our community’s guidelines regarding respectful conduct. In this case the coreboot leadership team determined that the behavior in question fit a long pattern about which the individual had been previously warned. As a result we have decided to remove Nico from our community for a period of 1 year. We hope this will be a sufficient cooling off period and that we will not need to take more drastic steps in the future.
As we've said in the past, we trust that developers in our community are acting in good faith and can generally resolve issues on their own. In cases where two sides cannot reach an agreement, for example in a code review, we expect all engagement to be respectful and to help drive toward a solution. For technical matters this often means starting a mailing list discussion, bringing an issue up during the coreboot leadership meeting, starting a task force to tackle a large problem, or other means of gathering input and collaborating.
Personal matters should be brought to the leadership team directly. We'll listen to any complaints or frustrations, but cannot tolerate personal attacks made on Gerrit, the mailing list, or other forums. It is always required that we treat others in a professional manner and communicate with respect, regardless of how strongly we may feel about a particular issue.
If anybody feels that a discussion has become too heated, or that somebody is not being treated respectfully, or are simply unsure of how to proceed in a difficult situation, please reach out to the coreboot leadership and we will chart a path forward together. _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
Hi
I second that. First Nico was banned from flashrom, now from coreboot. I saw no real basis for the previous decision and see none for this one. I even thought of him being overly nice in our recent interactions.
In general, he seems to care much more about the projects than many others and actually put in the effort. This can result in having strong opinions and disagreements, but that's not a bad thing.
Regards, Sergii
On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 11:55:55AM +0200, Arthur Heymans wrote:
Hi
I am not happy with this decision. We are a community with a lot of passionate individuals that differ in their communication style. Differences in communication styles cause friction, there is no way around it. Commenting beyond the mere technical on how we treat each other in a community is appropriate and not a violation of respectful conduct. To the contrary, sometimes a more heated discussion is to be preferred to be being "nice" all the time.
I remember on one of my first patches in 2016, that Nico commented that the code looked so bad he wanted to cry. It's not "nice" but it was really bad code and I learned a lot since then, thanks to the honest and truthful communication of the community. More direct communication is preferred by lot of people, including myself.
I believe Nico is a good actor in our community and a 1 year ban does more harm than good. I personally thoroughly enjoy having him as a reviewer.
I ask the leadership to revisit this decision. Coreboot is a hard project to get into and driving the most competent people away is not a smart move.
Arthur
On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 9:40 AM David Hendricks via coreboot < coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote:
Dear coreboot community members,
Recently there was some unpleasant activity on Gerrit which violated our community’s guidelines regarding respectful conduct. In this case the coreboot leadership team determined that the behavior in question fit a long pattern about which the individual had been previously warned. As a result we have decided to remove Nico from our community for a period of 1 year. We hope this will be a sufficient cooling off period and that we will not need to take more drastic steps in the future.
As we've said in the past, we trust that developers in our community are acting in good faith and can generally resolve issues on their own. In cases where two sides cannot reach an agreement, for example in a code review, we expect all engagement to be respectful and to help drive toward a solution. For technical matters this often means starting a mailing list discussion, bringing an issue up during the coreboot leadership meeting, starting a task force to tackle a large problem, or other means of gathering input and collaborating.
Personal matters should be brought to the leadership team directly. We'll listen to any complaints or frustrations, but cannot tolerate personal attacks made on Gerrit, the mailing list, or other forums. It is always required that we treat others in a professional manner and communicate with respect, regardless of how strongly we may feel about a particular issue.
If anybody feels that a discussion has become too heated, or that somebody is not being treated respectfully, or are simply unsure of how to proceed in a difficult situation, please reach out to the coreboot leadership and we will chart a path forward together. _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
Hello list,
On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 7:40 AM David Hendricks via coreboot < coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote:
Dear coreboot community members,
Recently there was some unpleasant activity on Gerrit which violated our community’s guidelines regarding respectful conduct. In this case the coreboot leadership team determined that the behavior in question fit a long pattern about which the individual had been previously warned. As a result we have decided to remove Nico from our community for a period of 1 year. We hope this will be a sufficient cooling off period and that we will not need to take more drastic steps in the future.
David, I see you are one of the three members of the leadership team [1]. Could you please provide the following, privately if necessary?
- the minutes for the meeting in which the decision was made (which might contain references to the documents below; if the meeting minutes are not available, I would like to know why) - links to the aforementioned "unpleasant activity on Gerrit" - the guidelines from [2] or [3] (I could not find a document called "community guidelines") that were violated
Not knowing what happened nor why makes me afraid to contribute, lest the same fate befall me as well. Especially considering that Nico has been a role model for me as I was learning the ropes of firmware development, so most of the things about coreboot as well as authoring and reviewing changes I have learned from him.
As we've said in the past, we trust that developers in our community are acting in good faith and can generally resolve issues on their own. In cases where two sides cannot reach an agreement, for example in a code review, we expect all engagement to be respectful and to help drive toward a solution. For technical matters this often means starting a mailing list discussion, bringing an issue up during the coreboot leadership meeting, starting a task force to tackle a large problem, or other means of gathering input and collaborating.
Personal matters should be brought to the leadership team directly. We'll listen to any complaints or frustrations, but cannot tolerate personal attacks made on Gerrit, the mailing list, or other forums. It is always required that we treat others in a professional manner and communicate with respect, regardless of how strongly we may feel about a particular issue.
A tiny remark about professional manner: when interacting with others I know, I like sprinkling a bit of humour in my messages, but without being disrespectful towards anyone (no dark humour and no making fun of others) or compromising my knowledge/abilities (do not overdo it and consider that not everyone might get it). I believe this does not make me unprofessional, but I am happy to listen in case anyone disagrees.
Other than that, I agree with the above, but I also believe it is important to be aware that misunderstandings can and will happen, especially considering that people from all over the world can contribute, each with their own culture and tradition. Not everyone is a native English speaker (even if it does not seem like it, I am not). Not everyone is capable of noticing when a discussion is getting too heated/tense, let alone do something to end it before it is too late (I am trying to get better at this). Not everyone communicates the same way, e.g. autistic people tend to communicate in direct and literal ways that can be misinterpreted by non-autistic people [4] (I am autistic, I have had this happen before), whereas other autistic people have no issues with this communication style.
I believe that the information in [4] (especially the list of 12 rules) is valuable and I would appreciate having them integrated into our own guidelines, although I agree they should be guidelines rather than strictly-enforced rules: misunderstandings are *still* inevitable and will happen. In case of a misunderstanding, I think the most sensible way to proceed is for someone (preferably one of the participants) to notice that "something feels wrong" and remain calm, disengaging from the discussion if needed (e.g. wait before replying to an email or review comment). If possible, try to bring it up without pointing fingers, e.g. "I feel this discussion is heating up: is there anything I can do to help, or am I reading into things?" or (quoting a response) "This sounded quite rude to me, was it intentional?". This requires being able to recognise that tension is building up and restraining one's impulses; I understand this is not trivial to accomplish, especially if one is susceptible to getting angry (e.g. me).
If anybody feels that a discussion has become too heated, or that somebody is not being treated respectfully, or are simply unsure of how to proceed in a difficult situation, please reach out to the coreboot leadership and we will chart a path forward together. _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
Best regards, Angel
[1]: https://www.coreboot.org/leadership.html [2]: https://doc.coreboot.org/community/code_of_conduct.html [3]: https://doc.coreboot.org/contributing/gerrit_guidelines.html [4]: https://warwick.ac.uk/services/socialinclusion/projects/letstalkaboutdisabil...
Hi everyone, Thanks for the feedback, both public and private. As with similar situations in the past this was not an easy decision, and there are arguments on both sides. It's always hard to lose a valued member of the community, even temporarily, but sometimes it becomes necessary. I'll try to elaborate on a few points and respond to the above questions in aggregate below (even then this got really lengthy): *
Contact info for the leadership team can be found at https://coreboot.org/leadership.html (https://coreboot.org/leadership.html). We also have an arbitration team composed of people other than the leadership who you can reach out to for help resolving problems like the ones mentioned in my earlier e-mail. *
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. What caught the leadership team's attention was the introduction of personal insults into the mix which made a heated debate between two individuals much worse. We expect better from everyone, especially senior members of the community. *
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. 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.
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. * With regards to minutes of our meeting, no such document exists. If it did then I would be skeptical of sharing it for legal reasons. Rest assured that we operate in the open as much as possible, and our decisions are recorded in forums such as the periodic leadership meetings. On rare occasions where we make a closed-door decision we post relevant details on this mailing list ASAP. Private meetings are rare and ad-hoc. Some have to do with SFC business such as expense approval or GPL matters, but most of the time they're about reports of misconduct and are often centered around one particular person (this should tell you something). * This enforcement action was not prompted by a single incident, but by many over the last few years. Some people here may recall that Nico's +2/-2 privileges were revoked in response to a previous incident. Earlier this year we met with him at his request to negotiate reinstating these privileges, which we did. Part of the agreement was that he would self-moderate his comments and not get involved in other people's arguments, e.g. don't show up and pour gas on the flames. We were clear about what type of behavior was problematic and what consequences were to be expected.It took about 7 months for this agreement to be violated, which fits into the pattern of past incidents where this individual has received a slap on the wrist only to repeat previous behaviors a few months later. Our default position was that this would result in a permanent ban since this has gone on for so long and softer disciplinary measures abjectly failed. That seemed harsh in this case, so we made a concession to only implement a ban of one year to see if it would make any difference. One year from now the terms will be the same but there will not be any more chances.
October 2, 2024 7:27 AM, "Angel Pons" <th3fanbus@gmail.com (mailto:th3fanbus@gmail.com?to=%22Angel%20Pons%22%20th3fanbus@gmail.com)> wrote: Hello list, On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 7:40 AM David Hendricks via coreboot <coreboot@coreboot.org (mailto:coreboot@coreboot.org)> wrote: Dear coreboot community members,
Recently there was some unpleasant activity on Gerrit which violated our community’s guidelines regarding respectful conduct. In this case the coreboot leadership team determined that the behavior in question fit a long pattern about which the individual had been previously warned. As a result we have decided to remove Nico from our community for a period of 1 year. We hope this will be a sufficient cooling off period and that we will not need to take more drastic steps in the future. David, I see you are one of the three members of the leadership team [1]. Could you please provide the following, privately if necessary? - the minutes for the meeting in which the decision was made (which might contain references to the documents below; if the meeting minutes are not available, I would like to know why) - links to the aforementioned "unpleasant activity on Gerrit" - the guidelines from [2] or [3] (I could not find a document called "community guidelines") that were violated Not knowing what happened nor why makes me afraid to contribute, lest the same fate befall me as well. Especially considering that Nico has been a role model for me as I was learning the ropes of firmware development, so most of the things about coreboot as well as authoring and reviewing changes I have learned from him. As we've said in the past, we trust that developers in our community are acting in good faith and can generally resolve issues on their own. In cases where two sides cannot reach an agreement, for example in a code review, we expect all engagement to be respectful and to help drive toward a solution. For technical matters this often means starting a mailing list discussion, bringing an issue up during the coreboot leadership meeting, starting a task force to tackle a large problem, or other means of gathering input and collaborating.
Personal matters should be brought to the leadership team directly. We'll listen to any complaints or frustrations, but cannot tolerate personal attacks made on Gerrit, the mailing list, or other forums. It is always required that we treat others in a professional manner and communicate with respect, regardless of how strongly we may feel about a particular issue. A tiny remark about professional manner: when interacting with others I know, I like sprinkling a bit of humour in my messages, but without being disrespectful towards anyone (no dark humour and no making fun of others) or compromising my knowledge/abilities (do not overdo it and consider that not everyone might get it). I believe this does not make me unprofessional, but I am happy to listen in case anyone disagrees. Other than that, I agree with the above, but I also believe it is important to be aware that misunderstandings can and will happen, especially considering that people from all over the world can contribute, each with their own culture and tradition. Not everyone is a native English speaker (even if it does not seem like it, I am not). Not everyone is capable of noticing when a discussion is getting too heated/tense, let alone do something to end it before it is too late (I am trying to get better at this). Not everyone communicates the same way, e.g. autistic people tend to communicate in direct and literal ways that can be misinterpreted by non-autistic people [4] (I am autistic, I have had this happen before), whereas other autistic people have no issues with this communication style. I believe that the information in [4] (especially the list of 12 rules) is valuable and I would appreciate having them integrated into our own guidelines, although I agree they should be guidelines rather than strictly-enforced rules: misunderstandings are *still* inevitable and will happen. In case of a misunderstanding, I think the most sensible way to proceed is for someone (preferably one of the participants) to notice that "something feels wrong" and remain calm, disengaging from the discussion if needed (e.g. wait before replying to an email or review comment). If possible, try to bring it up without pointing fingers, e.g. "I feel this discussion is heating up: is there anything I can do to help, or am I reading into things?" or (quoting a response) "This sounded quite rude to me, was it intentional?". This requires being able to recognise that tension is building up and restraining one's impulses; I understand this is not trivial to accomplish, especially if one is susceptible to getting angry (e.g. me). If anybody feels that a discussion has become too heated, or that somebody is not being treated respectfully, or are simply unsure of how to proceed in a difficult situation, please reach out to the coreboot leadership and we will chart a path forward together._______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org (mailto:coreboot@coreboot.org) To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org (mailto:coreboot-leave@coreboot.org) Best regards, Angel [1]: https://www.coreboot.org/leadership.html (https://www.coreboot.org/leadership.html) [2]: https://doc.coreboot.org/community/code_of_conduct.html (https://doc.coreboot.org/community/code_of_conduct.html) [3]: https://doc.coreboot.org/contributing/gerrit_guidelines.html (https://doc.coreboot.org/contributing/gerrit_guidelines.html) [4]: https://warwick.ac.uk/services/socialinclusion/projects/letstalkaboutdisabil... (https://warwick.ac.uk/services/socialinclusion/projects/letstalkaboutdisabil...)
Hi
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. What caught the leadership team's attention was the introduction of personal insults into the mix which made a heated debate between two individuals much worse. We expect better from everyone, especially senior members of the community.
A spec, like any text, needs interpretation which means it can require a
discussion to work with it. How to implement a spec for sure requires discussion. Specs also have flaws and discussions on it are useful to prevent them. Tiny parts of the spec can have important implications, so things can get heated... So I disagree with this statement. (Not sure why but my email editor does not quote the number of the argument correctly. Sorry for that).
The personal insult is basically "did you read the spec". I don't think "RTFM" is particularly insulting and certainly not worth banning someone for a year.
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. 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.
As indicated by this thread a lot of people really like working with Nico.
Do we really want our community to have the lowest common denominator of what everyone can stomach communication-wise, determine who can participate? I don't think so.
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.
Overzealous HR departments can do at least as much damage as leaving
alleged bad actors unchecked. This is precisely what is happening right now.
I think these leadership decisions to ban away the most competent people in our project are poor decisions (it does not seem to be the first time) and have a chilling effect on others. The cost benefit ratio is not good here.
Arthur Heymans
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 8:09 AM David Hendricks via coreboot < coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote:
Hi everyone, Thanks for the feedback, both public and private. As with similar situations in the past this was not an easy decision, and there are arguments on both sides. It's always hard to lose a valued member of the community, even temporarily, but sometimes it becomes necessary. I'll try to elaborate on a few points and respond to the above questions in aggregate below (even then this got really lengthy):
Contact info for the leadership team can be found at https://coreboot.org/leadership.html. We also have an arbitration team composed of people other than the leadership who you can reach out to for help resolving problems like the ones mentioned in my earlier e-mail. 2.
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. What caught the leadership team's attention was the introduction of personal insults into the mix which made a heated debate between two individuals much worse. We expect better from everyone, especially senior members of the community. 3.
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. 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.
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. 4. With regards to minutes of our meeting, no such document exists. If it did then I would be skeptical of sharing it for legal reasons. Rest assured that we operate in the open as much as possible, and our decisions are recorded in forums such as the periodic leadership meetings. On rare occasions where we make a closed-door decision we post relevant details on this mailing list ASAP. Private meetings are rare and ad-hoc. Some have to do with SFC business such as expense approval or GPL matters, but most of the time they're about reports of misconduct and are often centered around one particular person (this should tell you something). 5. This enforcement action was not prompted by a single incident, but by many over the last few years. Some people here may recall that Nico's +2/-2 privileges were revoked in response to a previous incident. Earlier this year we met with him at his request to negotiate reinstating these privileges, which we did. Part of the agreement was that he would self-moderate his comments and not get involved in other people's arguments, e.g. don't show up and pour gas on the flames. We were clear about what type of behavior was problematic and what consequences were to be expected.It took about 7 months for this agreement to be violated, which fits into the pattern of past incidents where this individual has received a slap on the wrist only to repeat previous behaviors a few months later.
Our default position was that this would result in a permanent ban since this has gone on for so long and softer disciplinary measures abjectly failed. That seemed harsh in this case, so we made a concession to only implement a ban of one year to see if it would make any difference. One year from now the terms will be the same but there will not be any more chances.
October 2, 2024 7:27 AM, "Angel Pons" <th3fanbus@gmail.com <th3fanbus@gmail.com?to=%22Angel%20Pons%22%20%3Cth3fanbus@gmail.com%3E>> wrote:
Hello list, On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 7:40 AM David Hendricks via coreboot < coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote:
Dear coreboot community members,
Recently there was some unpleasant activity on Gerrit which violated our community’s guidelines regarding respectful conduct. In this case the coreboot leadership team determined that the behavior in question fit a long pattern about which the individual had been previously warned. As a result we have decided to remove Nico from our community for a period of 1 year. We hope this will be a sufficient cooling off period and that we will not need to take more drastic steps in the future.
David, I see you are one of the three members of the leadership team [1]. Could you please provide the following, privately if necessary?
- the minutes for the meeting in which the decision was made (which might
contain references to the documents below; if the meeting minutes are not available, I would like to know why)
- links to the aforementioned "unpleasant activity on Gerrit"
- the guidelines from [2] or [3] (I could not find a document called
"community guidelines") that were violated Not knowing what happened nor why makes me afraid to contribute, lest the same fate befall me as well. Especially considering that Nico has been a role model for me as I was learning the ropes of firmware development, so most of the things about coreboot as well as authoring and reviewing changes I have learned from him.
As we've said in the past, we trust that developers in our community are acting in good faith and can generally resolve issues on their own. In cases where two sides cannot reach an agreement, for example in a code review, we expect all engagement to be respectful and to help drive toward a solution. For technical matters this often means starting a mailing list discussion, bringing an issue up during the coreboot leadership meeting, starting a task force to tackle a large problem, or other means of gathering input and collaborating.
Personal matters should be brought to the leadership team directly. We'll listen to any complaints or frustrations, but cannot tolerate personal attacks made on Gerrit, the mailing list, or other forums. It is always required that we treat others in a professional manner and communicate with respect, regardless of how strongly we may feel about a particular issue.
A tiny remark about professional manner: when interacting with others I know, I like sprinkling a bit of humour in my messages, but without being disrespectful towards anyone (no dark humour and no making fun of others) or compromising my knowledge/abilities (do not overdo it and consider that not everyone might get it). I believe this does not make me unprofessional, but I am happy to listen in case anyone disagrees. Other than that, I agree with the above, but I also believe it is important to be aware that misunderstandings can and will happen, especially considering that people from all over the world can contribute, each with their own culture and tradition. Not everyone is a native English speaker (even if it does not seem like it, I am not). Not everyone is capable of noticing when a discussion is getting too heated/tense, let alone do something to end it before it is too late (I am trying to get better at this). Not everyone communicates the same way, e.g. autistic people tend to communicate in direct and literal ways that can be misinterpreted by non-autistic people [4] (I am autistic, I have had this happen before), whereas other autistic people have no issues with this communication style. I believe that the information in [4] (especially the list of 12 rules) is valuable and I would appreciate having them integrated into our own guidelines, although I agree they should be guidelines rather than strictly-enforced rules: misunderstandings are *still* inevitable and will happen. In case of a misunderstanding, I think the most sensible way to proceed is for someone (preferably one of the participants) to notice that "something feels wrong" and remain calm, disengaging from the discussion if needed (e.g. wait before replying to an email or review comment). If possible, try to bring it up without pointing fingers, e.g. "I feel this discussion is heating up: is there anything I can do to help, or am I reading into things?" or (quoting a response) "This sounded quite rude to me, was it intentional?". This requires being able to recognise that tension is building up and restraining one's impulses; I understand this is not trivial to accomplish, especially if one is susceptible to getting angry (e.g. me).
If anybody feels that a discussion has become too heated, or that somebody is not being treated respectfully, or are simply unsure of how to proceed in a difficult situation, please reach out to the coreboot leadership and we will chart a path forward together. _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
Best regards, Angel [1]: https://www.coreboot.org/leadership.html [2]: https://doc.coreboot.org/community/code_of_conduct.html [3]: https://doc.coreboot.org/contributing/gerrit_guidelines.html [4]: https://warwick.ac.uk/services/socialinclusion/projects/letstalkaboutdisabil...
coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
It's very late where I live, so I'll keep this brief and reply to other points later. As indicated by this thread a lot of people really like working with Nico.Do we really want our community to have the lowest common denominator of what everyone can stomach communication-wise, determine who can participate?
I don't think so.
See point #5 below (and sorry for the formatting). This is not "the lowest common denominator" at all - We've heard many complaints over several years from others the community, including long-time contributors who have been around much longer than you. A line was drawn, and then subsequently crossed.
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."
Hi Sergii, Please be careful here and use your words wisely. It is always the easiest path to ‘stir up’ emotions and make it “us vs them”, this would end badly for everyone and eventually rip apart all the trust we have built together for so long. Coreboot project survives and thrives based on common respect and resolutions in good faith. I am sure this is not an easy decision for the leadership, there was some misunderstanding yes, and people have voiced out their concerns accordingly. I believe everyone including Nico (I have also talked to Nico and a few people involved) would want the best outcome for coreboot and resolve this in a goodwill. I would suggest to let it cool down and give some space to all parties so they could resolve this situation properly without many heated and unnecessary arguments arose.
Peace. Sheng
On 4. Oct 2024, at 10:54, 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
Hi Sheng,
On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 11:23:31AM +0200, Sheng Lean Tan wrote:
Hi Sergii, Please be careful here and use your words wisely. It is always the
If the leadership provides such wishy-washy explanations for their highly dubious decisions, I will provide my replies.
easiest path to ‘stir up’ emotions and make it “us vs them”, this would end badly for everyone and eventually rip apart all the trust we have built together for so long. Coreboot project survives and thrives based on common respect and resolutions in good faith. I am sure this is not an easy decision for the leadership, there was some misunderstanding yes, and people have voiced out their concerns accordingly. I believe everyone including Nico (I have also talked to Nico and a few people involved) would want the best outcome for coreboot and resolve this in a goodwill. I would suggest to let it cool down and give some space to all parties so they could resolve this situation properly without many heated and unnecessary arguments arose.
Peace. Sheng
On 4. Oct 2024, at 10:54, 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
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
In case it wasn't obvious:
Opinions expressed are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer
On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 11:53:16AM +0300, Sergii Dmytruk 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."
Hi.
Well, this decision is just as terrible as it could possibly be. As a coreboot user and contributor, I fully support Nico, along with everyone else who stands by him. He is one of the most experienced developers and has always been there to help others, including me, with their issues.
On 10/2/24 10:39 AM, David Hendricks via coreboot wrote:
Dear coreboot community members,
Recently there was some unpleasant activity on Gerrit which violated our community’s guidelines regarding respectful conduct. In this case the coreboot leadership team determined that the behavior in question fit a long pattern about which the individual had been previously warned. As a result we have decided to remove Nico from our community for a period of 1 year. We hope this will be a sufficient cooling off period and that we will not need to take more drastic steps in the future.
As we've said in the past, we trust that developers in our community are acting in good faith and can generally resolve issues on their own. In cases where two sides cannot reach an agreement, for example in a code review, we expect all engagement to be respectful and to help drive toward a solution. For technical matters this often means starting a mailing list discussion, bringing an issue up during the coreboot leadership meeting, starting a task force to tackle a large problem, or other means of gathering input and collaborating.
Personal matters should be brought to the leadership team directly. We'll listen to any complaints or frustrations, but cannot tolerate personal attacks made on Gerrit, the mailing list, or other forums. It is always required that we treat others in a professional manner and communicate with respect, regardless of how strongly we may feel about a particular issue.
If anybody feels that a discussion has become too heated, or that somebody is not being treated respectfully, or are simply unsure of how to proceed in a difficult situation, please reach out to the coreboot leadership and we will chart a path forward together.
coreboot mailing list --coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email tocoreboot-leave@coreboot.org
Forgive me for butting in - long time user, lurker and enjoyer of the project. I think I would like to echo Angels sentiments and questions overall. There are some great points raised by him.
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.
On the contrary, robust discussion and points/counterpoints is often productive. It’s not uncommon that the folks who end up stepping in to parent can grow weary of it. But in the professional world, that’s just part of the leadership job. If we have a talented engineer who produces well, but can be a bit of a thorn in the side with their views, we don’t manage them out (or exclude them).
What caught the leadership team's attention was the introduction of
personal insults into the mix which made a heated debate between two individuals much worse. We expect better from everyone, especially senior members of the community.
It is rightly correct that personal insults are not good. However, I’m struggling to see the offending behaviour specifically in the gerrit link given? In the interests of transparency for the community, can you be more specific and point to a specific time/date of comment where this personal insults are? I think everyone reading these threads may be a little confused as to exactly what has crossed the line into unacceptable behaviour and I certainly (at least in my experience of managing communities and engineers for 25+ years) wasn’t able to find anything in the Gerrit link provided that made me go “yep, that deserves some form of serious ban of at least a year.”
Perhaps I’m just not finding it, could you please link to the exact comment that triggered this decision, as myself and others have asked? Without actually calling out the specific trigger behaviour, you are leaving doubt in peoples mind. I do see your point about an ongoing pattern of behaviour, and understand this is not something that happened in isolation - but to point to an event as the final straw to trigger some reaction, then that event needs to be substantial enough to be able to demonstrate clearly why it was the trigger event.
if your company's HR department responded to complaints of sexual
harassment
This is a reach of a comparison and, if I may, I don’t think you are doing yourself much favour here. Comparing some oppositional or combative language - which no one has actually clearly pointed out yet - to sexual harassment in the workplace is not a good look. That is two whole different kettles of fish and I would go as far to say a demeaning comparison to those who are victims of sexual harassment.
While the code of conduct does give the organisers the right to impart any action as a punishment for unacceptable behaviour, a whole year ban as the first punishment does not seem to jive with a reasonable consequence. I feel that others are trying to highlight this point as well. If the leaderships decision is that a ban is imparted, a whole year as a “first consequence” comes across as having a lot of personal emotion driving it, or some other undisclosed motive.
A year just seems, well..... wrong.
Hi List,
Years ago I used to agree with "Linus" style "robust" discussion, but I have since come to realise that all it does is drive others away. If you were a new contributor and you get told "the code looked so bad [he] wanted to cry", that can be severely demotivating.
That feedback is neither polite nor constructive. If the rest of the comment contained useful feedback, then the statement only serves to be upsetting.
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.
Taking action, especially in an open manner such as this, is the right step.
On 2/10/24 15:39, David Hendricks via coreboot wrote:
Dear coreboot community members,
Recently there was some unpleasant activity on Gerrit which violated our community’s guidelines regarding respectful conduct. In this case the coreboot leadership team determined that the behavior in question fit a long pattern about which the individual had been previously warned. As a result we have decided to remove Nico from our community for a period of 1 year. We hope this will be a sufficient cooling off period and that we will not need to take more drastic steps in the future.
As we've said in the past, we trust that developers in our community are acting in good faith and can generally resolve issues on their own. In cases where two sides cannot reach an agreement, for example in a code review, we expect all engagement to be respectful and to help drive toward a solution. For technical matters this often means starting a mailing list discussion, bringing an issue up during the coreboot leadership meeting, starting a task force to tackle a large problem, or other means of gathering input and collaborating.
Personal matters should be brought to the leadership team directly. We'll listen to any complaints or frustrations, but cannot tolerate personal attacks made on Gerrit, the mailing list, or other forums. It is always required that we treat others in a professional manner and communicate with respect, regardless of how strongly we may feel about a particular issue.
If anybody feels that a discussion has become too heated, or that somebody is not being treated respectfully, or are simply unsure of how to proceed in a difficult situation, please reach out to the coreboot leadership and we will chart a path forward together.
coreboot mailing list --coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email tocoreboot-leave@coreboot.org
I support the leadership team in this matter. I know it was a very difficult decision.
On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 7:43 AM Nathaniel Roach via coreboot < coreboot@coreboot.org> wrote:
Hi List,
Years ago I used to agree with "Linus" style "robust" discussion, but I have since come to realise that all it does is drive others away. If you were a new contributor and you get told "the code looked so bad [he] wanted to cry", that can be severely demotivating.
That feedback is neither polite nor constructive. If the rest of the comment contained useful feedback, then the statement only serves to be upsetting.
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.
Taking action, especially in an open manner such as this, is the right step. On 2/10/24 15:39, David Hendricks via coreboot wrote:
Dear coreboot community members,
Recently there was some unpleasant activity on Gerrit which violated our community’s guidelines regarding respectful conduct. In this case the coreboot leadership team determined that the behavior in question fit a long pattern about which the individual had been previously warned. As a result we have decided to remove Nico from our community for a period of 1 year. We hope this will be a sufficient cooling off period and that we will not need to take more drastic steps in the future.
As we've said in the past, we trust that developers in our community are acting in good faith and can generally resolve issues on their own. In cases where two sides cannot reach an agreement, for example in a code review, we expect all engagement to be respectful and to help drive toward a solution. For technical matters this often means starting a mailing list discussion, bringing an issue up during the coreboot leadership meeting, starting a task force to tackle a large problem, or other means of gathering input and collaborating.
Personal matters should be brought to the leadership team directly. We'll listen to any complaints or frustrations, but cannot tolerate personal attacks made on Gerrit, the mailing list, or other forums. It is always required that we treat others in a professional manner and communicate with respect, regardless of how strongly we may feel about a particular issue.
If anybody feels that a discussion has become too heated, or that somebody is not being treated respectfully, or are simply unsure of how to proceed in a difficult situation, please reach out to the coreboot leadership and we will chart a path forward together.
coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-leave@coreboot.org
-
Angel Pons -
Arthur Heymans -
David Hendricks -
Evgeny Zinoviev -
Max -
Maximilian Brune
-
Nathaniel Roach -
ron minnich -
Sergii Dmytruk -
Sheng Lean Tan -
Simon Newton