Open Stack

On 02/11/2015 06:20 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Nikola Đipanov's message of 2015-02-11 05:26:47 -0800:
>> On 02/11/2015 02:13 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>>>
>>> If core team members start dropping off external IRC where they are
>>> communicating across corporate boundaries, then the local tribal effects
>>> start taking over. You get people start talking about the upstream as
>>> "them". The moment we get into us vs. them, we've got a problem.
>>> Especially when the upstream project is "them".
>>>
>>
>> A lot of assumptions being presented as fact here.
>>
>> I believe the technical term for the above is 'slippery slope fallacy'.
>>
> 
> I don't see that fallacy, though it could descend into that if people
> keep pushing in that direction. Where I think Sean did a nice job
> stopping short of the slippery slope is that he only identified the step
> that is happening _now_, not the next step.
> 
> I tend to agree that right now, if core team members are not talking
> on IRC to other core members in the open, whether inside or outside
> corporate boundaries, then we do see an us vs. them mentality happen.
> It's not "I think thats the next step". I have personally seen that
> happening and will work hard to stop it. I think Sean has probably seen
> his share of it too,  as that is what he described in detail without
> publicly shaming anyone or any company (well done Sean).
> 

There are several things I don't agree with in Sean's email, but this
one strikes me as particularly annoying, and potentially dangerous. You
also reinforce it in your reply.

Both of you seem to imply that there is the "right" way to do OpenStack,
and be "core" outside of following the development process. The notion
is annoying because it leads to exclusivity that Flavio complains about,
and is making our community a worse place for that. Different people who
can be valuable contributors, have wildly different (to name only a
few): personal styles of working, obligations to their own employer,
obligations to their family, level of command of the English language,
possibility to travel to remote parts of the world, possibility to cross
boarders without additional strain on time and finances, possibility to
engage in a real-time written discussion, possibility to engage in a
real time discussion in person in a language that is not their own in a
room full of native speakers of the used language, possibility to engage
in real-time discussions effectively. Need I go on...

Not only does your and Sean's argument not acknowledge these differences
that can easily lead to exclusion of valuable contributors - you
actually go as far as to say that unless everyone does it "the right
way", the community will be worse for it, and try to back it up with
made up stuff like "local tribe effects" (really?! We are talking about
adult professional people here).

So yes there is a "us" and "them" - but the divide is not where you
think it is. This is why I believe an argument like this dropped smack
in the middle of a discussion like the one Flavio started is deeply
toxic, all fallacies aside.

>> We can and _must_ do much better than this on this mailing list! Let's
>> drag the discussion level back up!
> 
> I'm certain we can always improve, and I appreciate you taking the time
> to have a Gandalf moment to stop the Balrog of fallacy from  entering
> this thread. We seriously can't let the discussion slip down that
> slope.. oh wait.
> 

LOL on the LOTR reference (I look nothing like Gandalf though I may
dress like that sometimes). I hope I explained what I meant when I said
that this kind of argument really has no place in a discussion about
making the community more open by nurturing open communication.

> That said, I do want us to talk about uncomfortable things when
> necessary. I think this thread is not something where it will be entirely
> productive to stay 100% positive throughout. We might just have to use
> some negative language along side our positive suggestions to make sure
> people have an efficient way to measure their own behavior.
>

By all means - I only wish there would be more level-headed discussion
about the negatives around here.

N.