> Otherwise, if a person is generally toxic enough, they will be worked around.
This comes at a large cost of a lack of any kind of formal consensus process or coordination. It is very hard to run a large ship when it's not organized, and that decision often ends up reflected in how projects evolve.
Compare and contrast programs like Krita/Blender that have formal processes that keep them aligned with artist interests with either free-for-all or "benevolent dictator" Open Source projects that much have less direction. You give something up when you decide that your design/contribution process is going to be totally anarchistic; you lose the ability to keep a program/project focused on a singular goal and to plan for the future.
> Linux has changed the world -- in a very substantial way and much for the better -- even though Linus flew off the handle at people for years.
Note that Linus being toxic doesn't mean he wasn't heavily moderating Linux. Linus's personality problems weren't a problem of lack of moderation, they were a problem of how Linus moderated and what he moderated. In many ways, Linus's toxic behavior was a form of moderation/gatekeeping: it demanded a certain style of contribution and interaction when you entered into the mailing lists. Far from being a free-for-all, Linus demanded (and still does, although he's trying to be better about the way he demands it) a lot of focus on code quality, standards, and communication style when submitting and describing contributions.
> For better or worse, competency often makes people a little rougher around the edges.
I think we would save some time if we recognized that opposition to moderation policies often comes down to disagreements about specific social debates (is it OK to be a jerk if you're good at your job, are certain words OK to use, what communication styles should people use), rather than philosophical disagreements about the nature of moderation in general.
It's also worth noting that the assumption here that the mod team's complaint is about people being rough around the edges is just an assumption. The mod team has not given a public complaint other than that there were incidents that they felt were mishandled, and that they felt they were out of alignment with the core team on moderation direction. We don't know what happened.
This comes at a large cost of a lack of any kind of formal consensus process or coordination. It is very hard to run a large ship when it's not organized, and that decision often ends up reflected in how projects evolve.
Compare and contrast programs like Krita/Blender that have formal processes that keep them aligned with artist interests with either free-for-all or "benevolent dictator" Open Source projects that much have less direction. You give something up when you decide that your design/contribution process is going to be totally anarchistic; you lose the ability to keep a program/project focused on a singular goal and to plan for the future.
> Linux has changed the world -- in a very substantial way and much for the better -- even though Linus flew off the handle at people for years.
Note that Linus being toxic doesn't mean he wasn't heavily moderating Linux. Linus's personality problems weren't a problem of lack of moderation, they were a problem of how Linus moderated and what he moderated. In many ways, Linus's toxic behavior was a form of moderation/gatekeeping: it demanded a certain style of contribution and interaction when you entered into the mailing lists. Far from being a free-for-all, Linus demanded (and still does, although he's trying to be better about the way he demands it) a lot of focus on code quality, standards, and communication style when submitting and describing contributions.
But make no mistake, Linux moderates: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/22/22398156/university-minne...
----
> For better or worse, competency often makes people a little rougher around the edges.
I think we would save some time if we recognized that opposition to moderation policies often comes down to disagreements about specific social debates (is it OK to be a jerk if you're good at your job, are certain words OK to use, what communication styles should people use), rather than philosophical disagreements about the nature of moderation in general.
It's also worth noting that the assumption here that the mod team's complaint is about people being rough around the edges is just an assumption. The mod team has not given a public complaint other than that there were incidents that they felt were mishandled, and that they felt they were out of alignment with the core team on moderation direction. We don't know what happened.