Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Leo Prikler <leo.prikler@student.tugraz.at>]

Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 23:13 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
> Hi Leo,
> 
> I took the liberty of refilling the quotations in your email to make
> them more readable.
Please do.
> 
> Leo Prikler <leo.prikler@student.tugraz.at> writes:
> 
> > Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 18:12 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
> > > Can you please point out which of my words led you to conclude
> > > that I was assuming bad faith?
> > 
> > I am basing this on the following exchange:
> > 
> > Am Montag, den 26.04.2021, 19:17 +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> > > > I feel an obligation to protect our users, and among other
> > > > things
> > > > that means calling attention to Guix committers that are doing
> > > > things like pushing commits with misleading commit logs (which
> > > > evade proper review) and pushing "cosmetic changes" that remove
> > > > security fixes.
> > > 
> > > That you called attention on these issues is a great service to
> > > all of
> > > us, Mark.  But I have to agree with Ricardo: the harsh accusatory
> > > tone
> > > towards Raghav and Léo was not warranted; please assume good
> > > faith.
> > > 
> > To re-iterate, I believe you were (and are) right to call out
> > commits
> > for their misleading messages, but the unique circumstances of this
> > thread led people to think you were assuming ill intent or
> > something
> > along those lines.
> 
> I asked you to point out which of *my* words led you to conclude that
> I was assuming bad faith, and it seems that you haven't been able to
> do that, nor has anyone else.
> 
> Do you see the problem here?
I am not arguing, that you were assuming bad faith, I'm making the much
weaker argument, that people were led to believe you were.  For me, the
root cause of understanding it this was were Léo's defensive attitudes
coupled with Ludo's statement.  I personally don't think you were
assuming bad faith, especially after your clarification, but I can see
how people might construct that view.  Refer to my response to Giovanni
to see how cherry-picking your messages might result in that.

When asking more generally, however, I'm afraid I can't give you a
definitive answer on this one.  Only Léo can tell why they assumed bad
faith on your part, but looking at the situation, they are emotionally
not able to do so or at the very least not willing.  The best advice I
can give you is to listen to them when they do respond, but also listen
to others when they point out concrete issues with your wording.  For
instance, someone made the case that "Behold" sounded rather sarcastic,
and while I've personally watched enough anime to consider it a
completely normal word, they might have a point.

> > That being said, I think it is fair to argue, that some people read
> > your posts as assuming bad faith from Léo and some did the
> > reverse.  I can't put hard numbers to that, but given the
> > number of participants an existence "proof" ought to suffice.
> 
> It's true that some people have gotten the mistaken impression that I
> assumed bad faith.  The problem is that it's flat wrong.  There's
> *nothing* to back it up, and in fact it's simply false.
> 
> It's unjust to blame me for other people's bogus, evidence-free
> claims about what they *imagine* I assumed.
I don't think I can agree with that.  I think it's good practice to
preempt misunderstandings and to clarify your intent when they happen. 
From what I recall, you did do that, but in that clarification lied
other problems.

For instance:
"It seems to me that the facts speak for themselves, and those
facts naturally cast Raghav and Léo in a bad light."
This phrase only serves to further cast Raghav and Léo in a bad light
and should thus be avoided.  A better way of phrasing this paragraph
(assuming you were focused on the mistake, not who made it):
"With very few exceptions, almost every sentence that I wrote was
purely factual.  I was not aiming to cast Raghav or Léo in a bad light,
commits like these are dangerous regardless of who authors or signs
them.  It is important for us all to learn from this mistake and to not
repeat it."
The above, though not perfect (and I'd be happy for someone to point
out flaws in them), would have taken some emotional weight off of
Raghav and Léo and in my opinion made it easier to respond to the facts
alone, the fact being that a poorly reviewed commit made it onto an
important branch.

> > > For what it's worth, I have *never* assumed bad faith, and I
> > > don't
> > > think I said anything to imply it either.
> > > 
> > > > (or at the very least incompetence, which, if you are the party
> > > > being accused, does not sound too nice either).
> > > 
> > > I pointed out facts.  I did not engage in speculation beyond the
> > > facts.
> > Well, you did fumble on those facts a little, because the true
> > history
> > of the misleading commits was only discovered later.
> 
> I don't think I fumbled on the facts at all.  It's true that I didn't
> yet have _all_ of the relevant facts, but as far as I know, every
> fact that I presented is true.
> 
> If you disagree, can you please provide a counterexample?
In your very first message you made it seems as though Raghav single-
handedly authored and pushed the changes in question and called into
question their reliability as a committer.  The former was based on
"facts", that turned out half-true – Raghav did push that commit, but
they did so thinking that Léo did proper review, which they did not –
and the latter was not a factual statement, but instead a "call for
action" if you will or at least a point to start discussion.

> > Either way, "just pointing out facts" is not an accurate
> > assessment in my opinion; facts are nothing without interpretation,
> > which see.
> 
> I don't understand what you're getting at here.  Can you please
> elaborate?
"Raghav pushed a misleading commit."  This is fact.
"This commit casts Raghav in a bad light".  This is interpretation.
I think it is important to distinguish statements of fact from
statements of interpretation, but again, facts don't tell you how to
interpret them.  Your brain does that for you based on whatever bias
you might or might not have.

> > > Here, I think that you are making your own speculations based on
> > > the facts that I uncovered, and are attributing those
> > > speculations to me.  That's unfair.  Your speculations are not my
> > > responsibility.
> > > 
> > > Moreover, even if it were true that most people would make
> > > similar speculations based on the facts I exposed, that's not my
> > > responsibility either.
> > > 
> > Here, I believe, you are wrong.  If your audience is led to a
> > certain view due to your speech, even if it's not something you
> > explicitly stated, you are still the one who made them hold that
> > view (or reinforced it, if they already held it before and you
> > merely made a claim in support of their view).  From an utilitarian
> > point of view, it is the effects of your actions, that matter.
> 
> For purposes of deciding what actions one should take to achieve a
> certain goal, I certainly agree that what ultimately matters are the
> predictable effects of one's actions, and not the intent behind them.
> So, in that context, I agree with much of what you wrote above.
> 
> However, if you mean to suggest that people should be held
> accountable for all effects of their actions, I must *strenuously*
> object.
> 
> For example, if a speaker at a Black Lives Matter protest gives a
> speech which recounts the many unjustifiable killings of innocent
> black people by police, and later that day some of the people
> attending the protest loot small businesses, I hope that we can agree
> that it would be unjust to hold the speaker accountable for that.
If the speakers encouraged or silently condoned looting, that would be
their moral responsibility.  I personally hold, that human lives matter
more than items, so in my view the looting that the speaker may have
caused is far outweighed by the lesser suffering of black people.  If
someone holds the opposite view, I encourage them to rather give their
life when we start collectivizing toothbrushes.  It will make things
easier.

> If speakers at a protest can be held accountable for the actions of
> every person who attends the protest, then protests would
> *effectively* become illegal, because the opposition can always hire
> infiltrators to *ensure* that someone does something illegal.
Note, that I am making a moral case here, not a legal one.  Also,
morally speaking, the opposition would be responsible not just for the
damage they would cause, but also for the suffering of black people.

To argue this in front of a court of law is harder, in particular as it
requires solid evidence (or in the case that you are the opposition of
a protest, planting thereof).  For instance, I can state, that right-
wing pundits encourage what has become collectively known as stochastic
terrorism, but it would be difficult for me to prove that beyond
reasonable doubt in front of a judge.

> In this case, if I cannot point out a "cosmetic changes" commit that
> removes security fixes without being accused of insinuating that the
> person was acting in bad faith, then effectively it becomes unsafe
> for me to point out breaches such as this one.
You should absolutely point out bad commits, but please do so in a
manner that doesn't cause excessive attention towards author or
committer.  It may have been necessary to state both at the start of
the thread for context, but it should absolutely not have been
necessary to continue doing so as the thread continues.

In the end, I don't know what level of attention was or would have been
appropriate here, but in my personal opinion lighting a focus on who
committed those changes rather than the changes themselves, is a little
distracting.

Regards,
Leo