You can't have it both ways either. If you want quality journalism it has to be paid for, either by adverts or by subscription.
I'm okay with that - the internet worked fine prior to the days of ads. It worked fine *for* *me*, though; viewers who want to simply see cat videos should cough up for their favourite cat video site. Those of us who wanted to discuss metalworking, or gardening, etc could do so both for free AND without advertisements.
In short - sites that cannot find enough paying customers *should* die. Sites that don't need paying customers will still survive.
Incorrect - the internet was filled with information even when no website advertised. It will continue being filled with information if ads go away. The ad-supported sites are no longer needed due to their decreasing signal/noise ratio. Even cracked.com has become pointless. Let them become paywalls and we'll pay for the ones that deserve to live.
that you don't like. Not sure I see the problem. You decide what's fair. If it's not fair don't go to those sites. You don't have to participate. It's not like anyone (outside of malware authors) is forcing you. If a site does things you don't like, stop typing their addy into your URL bar...
It appears to me that that is what advertisers are actually complaining about - 1) we block their ads, 2) they attempt to bypass our blocks, 3) we move on to a different site, 4) the site complains about freeloaders.
It's really very simply - if buzzfeed and co. went away the world would be a better place. They know it. We know it. They know we know it. So now they're engaging in a PR war rather than the technology war to get us to view their ads.
Less than 100 IQ is supposed to be 1/2 the population, but it rarely works out that way.
My psychology professor administered a "demonstration" IQ test in class, possible scores ranged from 100 if you got everything wrong to 130 if you got everything right. Actual IQ tests aren't this bad, but they are skewed in this direction.
If you did disenfranchise 1/2 the population, it would likely be the 1/2 of the population that's easily manipulated and motivated to revolt... I like to avoid revolting political systems when I can.
Good luck - IME all political systems are revolting;-)
You always consider your argument "won" - even when you don't actually "win" anything
The point whee you give up on any semblance of reasonableness and start simply making up stuff that you claim I've said---any reasonable person would consider the argument won.
Basically if you've got nothing left but lies you have lost.
HAND.
Luckily my posting history is available to all; never once made up a thing. Of course, this is not the first time you accuse me of making something up, so, yeah - I'm used to it. After all, in this very thread you say that I claimed stuff that you did not claim - and this thread itself shows no such thing:-)
What's hard to understand is the rationale that because 0.001% of $FOO owners are responsible, we need to take away $FOO from the other 99.99% of $FOO owners. It doesn't matter what $FOO actually is - when you propose that the state bans something that is responsibly used by 99.99% of owners you better have a damn good reason, especially when the numbers show that residential swimming pools have a death rate roughly 4-5 *TIMES* higher than residential fiream ownership.
Yes it matters what $FOO actually is. It depends on what the thing is used for. Let's do a $FOO=Nuclear weapon, I would think most nuclear weapon owners would be responsible so why ban civilians owning nuclear weapons? What about $FOO=Sarin gas?. You can see your line of reasoning is ridiculous.
Did you just equate a single firearm with a nuclear weapon?
If you've got a good reason for why you'd want to ban guns but not residential swimming pools when the death rate for guns is lower, I'd like to hear it.
Because guns are designed to kill people, that's why. Swimming pools are not designed primarily to kill people, they actually have other purposes. But yes if swimming pools have a high death rate it also means we need more regulations for swimming pools and how they are designed and safety concerns for them, but that only means we need regulation for both swimming pools AND guns.
The swimming pool death rate is 4x-5x higher than firearm death rate. There is no "IF" about it - both numbers are on the CDC website (different pages on the same website). If we restrict the stats to children only, then the swimming pool death rate is around 20x the firearm death rate.
Regardless of what $FOO is "designed for", if it is measured, in practice and over the course of decades, to be safer than swimming pools then what it is designed for is irrelevant - it may be designed for killing but if it isn't any more dangerous than a swimming pool then you can't really call it a killing machien, now can you? It kills far fewer people than innocuous equipment.
Yes context does matter, which is why you're a fool for pretending it does not.
"they are hostile".
Ah this is the point where having lost the argument thoroughly you simply resort to making up stuff that I never said. My arguments with you always end this way. At the point you simply start making stuff up, I generally consider the argument won.
You always consider your argument "won" - even when you don't actually "win" anything:-) Unfortunately for you the thread is still here for all to see your pointless and repeated insults arguing about why other people cannot insult. LKML is, after all, a voluntary association, just like/.
Ah. The abstinence approach to guns... Why would you think abstinence works with guns? We've seen it not work with sex. What *did* work in reducing teenage pregnancies was sex education, not preaching abstinence.
That is because sex and guns are not the same things. Just like drugs, there is a chemical element to it that motivates you physically to have sex. You can't ban sex and expect it to just work, because your body (teenagers especially) is constantly pumping out hormones to make you want to have sex. If there was no chemical element to it, banning it would be really easy. In the same way totally banning all drugs isn't going to work in the long run.
I don't see why this is so hard to understand, just because you don't like it, banning or limiting guns is a possibilty.
What's hard to understand is the rationale that because 0.001% of $FOO owners are responsible, we need to take away $FOO from the other 99.99% of $FOO owners. It doesn't matter what $FOO actually is - when you propose that the state bans something that is responsibly used by 99.99% of owners you better have a damn good reason, especially when the numbers show that residential swimming pools have a death rate roughly 4-5 *TIMES* higher than residential fiream ownership.
If you've got a good reason for why you'd want to ban guns but not residential swimming pools when the death rate for guns is lower, I'd like to hear it.
Let me refresh your memory: in a thread about hostile communications
This is your typical intellectually dishonest method of arguing: you like to conflate wildly different things and present the result as a black and white issue.
The LKML is a technical mailing list to facilitate kernel development.
Slashdot is a forum to facilitate arguing.
The thing is, at this point you've either admitted that you're so stupid you can't tell the difference between the two or so dishonest that you'll pretend to know there is no difference when you actually know there is.
Lovely - when you do it "context matters", when others do it "they are hostile".
If you play chess, you join the chess club. You can even have competitions with other schools. But it's not a sport and it's not sponsored by the athletics competition and no one was inane enough to invent the word "cSports". What's wrong with being "an official club" as opposed to "an official club sport"?
But then again, fox hunting is considered a sport even when you're guaranteed a kill.
They're all games and they're all equally trivial in the grand scheme of things. I see no major difference between American Football/Basketball/Hockey and candy-crush/angry-birds/WoW (except that the latter has orders of magnitude more players than the former while the former has orders of magnitude more viewers than the latter).
Seriously, too many people forget that their favourite sport is ultimately just another game.
No it's not the same as guns. Guns are physical objects, encryption is not. Encryption is nothing else than a few mathematical formulas. It is impossible to ban thoughts and speech however you can ban guns.
Ah. The abstinence approach to guns... Why would you think abstinence works with guns? We've seen it not work with sex. What *did* work in reducing teenage pregnancies was sex education, not preaching abstinence.
81 people and 0% recidivism at this point. It doesn't appear for it to have been in place long enough for that to be a truly valuable metric. Usually they go by a five year time period when calculating recidivism. Hopefully the metrics hold true over a longer time frame. It looks like a nice program and I hope that it's being well funded or adequately funded. I'd like to see more programs like that and I don't think we need to wait for the official numbers to try it on a larger scale.
As an aside, according to the FBI statistics, murders and sex offenders are the two groups least likely to re-offend. Two of the worst crimes on the planet and they're the least likely to re-offend. I'm not sure why that is.
Dunno about sex offenders, but it makes sense for murderers: most murders are crimes of passion. Once the object of that passion is dead, well, the murderer can't kill them again, now can they?
But not all. This is therefore not just a problem with the way women communicate.
not my argument..
You ignored what I wrote: you had no argument to attack.
Perhaps I should swoon now:-)
huh?
Oh, wait, you do not remember what you said?
Let me refresh your memory: in a thread about hostile communications, in which you are arguing that the communication is too hostile, you write this:
You are intellectually dishonest and suffer deeply from confirmation bias, not to mention being a poster child for the backfire effect.
Nice going there, being polite in your correspondence - you ever think that maybe you're part of the problem? You trash talk like the rest, but blame everybody else for chasing away women... Nice.
You see "chasing away the good devs", they see "keeping the accountable devs".
Even Linus admits he alienates developers. There's also numerous accounts of good developers who have left the project, sick of the toxicity. This isn't exactly a contentious point! The worst of the bunch even agrees with me here. I can only assume that you either don't know or that you're in denial.
(It's also no secret that they're perpetually short on reviewers. Why do you think that's the case?)
All OSS projects are perpetually short on staff - even the the ones like Gnome, who have an outreach program for women. Are you also willing to argue that it's due to their policies that result in their short staffing problem?
I'm in a discussion with you, somebody who regularly lambasts others for not following your ideology, and yet.... I'm not threatened at all. If I was indeed threatened I will happily go off and start a new discussion.
You were speaking as much/as little for one whole gender as the previous poster.
Nope, I took care to insert the word "general" in there, which you may have skipped over in your haste to respond. You should attempt as much care when reading as I do when writing.
I like how after declaring men and women generally communicate differently you completely ignored my comment pointing two men who have left over the same problems.
Lots of men have left. Ulrich, Alan Cox. In the offline world people leave too, you know. The great thing about *this* particular organisation is that it is completely voluntary. You can say that the invisible green men told you to leave - still doesn't mean much. It's all voluntary.
You are intellectually dishonest and suffer deeply from confirmation bias, not to mention being a poster child for the backfire effect.
Personal attacks, attacking me personally and not my argument... you *do* realise that you're responding in a thread titled "[...]be more sensitive", right? Where's this legendary sensitivity when you need it?
Only if the behaviour is harmful to the project. There is no evidence that this is the case.
Except for all of the evidence. Developers leaving, numerous accounts of developers refusing to contribute due to the hostility found on LKML, the unimaginable waste of time from the needless flame wars that list is famous for producing. The list goes on.
Linux thrives in spite of the hostility, which has very obviously harmed the project.
This "fact" is not obvious. What is obvious is that they are *thriving*. You see "chasing away the good devs", they see "keeping the accountable devs".
You are actively avoiding the point that open-source is the ultimate meritocracy - anyone who whines that they do not feel welcome in project $FOO is free to start a project $BAR.
It's completely irrelevant to the point under discussion here. If you're unhappy with the topic, stop whining about it and go start your own discussion.
You are asking "Why aren't more women joining projects?", we are asking "Why aren't more women starting projects?".
So why hijack this discussion? If you want to talk about something else, go start your own discussion!
You inadvertently proved my point - I'm in a discussion with you, somebody who regularly lambasts others for not following your ideology, and yet.... I'm not threatened at all. If I was indeed threatened I will happily go off and start a new discussion. I will not accuse you of bigotry just because you want to discuss one question and I want to discuss another.
Back to the issue you're really trying to avoid - if existing OSS projects make women feel uncomfortable, why *aren't* they motivated enough to start their own? This is an individual decision for each person; they are either motivated enough to start a project or they are not. If they are not motivated enough to even start (regardless of gender) then OSS might not be a good fit for them anyway.
It's all about motivation. Men are highly motivated to start things. Maybe you should use your platform to motivate females instead of trying to get millions of individuals scattered throughout the world to adopt your ideology.
With sports teams you can compile enough information to make an educated guess about which teams have an advantage. No matter how much historical data you compile on an individual player, there is no way to predict within a reasonable margin how well they will perform from week to week.
How are individual players unpredictable but teams predictable? The team is comprised of 46 players. If you can't even predict the performance of one player, how can we say that you can predict the performance of a combination of 46 of them?
Because while you may not be able to predict the motion of a single person you can much more easily predict the motion of a mob. Groups are always easier to predict than individuals.
You're missing the point entirely. I'd say intentionally.
The sort of adolescent behavior you're defending not only contributes nothing, but is actively harmful to any project.
Citation needed. People being dicks have managed teams that produce the most well-known products on the planet, continuing over decades - see Linus, RMS and Jobs. Asshole-ish behaviour gets rewarded by the masses *because* it produces what people want.
This is very simple. By allowing or encouraging that behavior, you're actively working against the best interests of the project.
Only if the behaviour is harmful to the project. There is no evidence that this is the case.
All other issues aside, you can not justify that behavior on any rational or technical grounds. It's simply not possible.
You're telling me to build something. Well, I have. So have many other people. We've done it without waving our dicks around and grunting.
Well, so have I. I've actively contributed to the Linux kernel too. And other stuff (opensource) too. So what?
We've done it without alienating potential contributors or fellow coworkers. We've done it without abusive language, bullying, or intimidation.
Those things are not only unnecessary, they're harmful to the project.
Citation needed.
By harmful I mean directly harmful.
Agitated developers don't work as efficiently. Time spent chest-thumping and dick-measuring is time not spent working toward the project's goals. It also happens to chase out developers who don't want to waste their time dealing with petulant children when they could be contributing something.
I build things. You waste time with petty insults. Go Build Something and quit all this whining and complaining. It's not productive.
You are actively avoiding the point that open-source is the ultimate meritocracy - anyone who whines that they do not feel welcome in project $FOO is free to start a project $BAR.
It only takes a single developer to start an open-source project that is independent of existing projects. If none/few are started by your favoured $CLASS of people you cannot blame the existing projects for not being welcoming to your $CLASS of people.
It only takes one person to start a project. You are asking "Why aren't more women joining projects?", we are asking "Why aren't more women starting projects?". In the latter question there is no FUD around "toxic environments", "brogrammer culture", etc - yet the women aren't there in numbers anyway.
Then you aren't using agile. Or not correctly at least.
We hear this all the time when agile projects fail. What makes you think that the success of other agile projects is due to agile?
One of the most important concepts of agile is to identify problems in the process and eliminate them.
If JIRA is slowing the dev team down, that should be identified in a retrospective & addressed.
Also, a 6 hour sprint planning for 1 week sprints is excessive. The "out of the box" number is 2 hours/week.
Finally, 1 week sprints are quite fast. Typically they should be used for prototyping or by a startup. In either of these cases, the planning "overhead' is usually minimized as everyone should already have a pretty clear idea what is being built.
If everyone has a pretty clear idea of what is getting built, why would you need an agile process?
Slashdot Mirror
You can't have it both ways either. If you want quality journalism it has to be paid for, either by adverts or by subscription.
I'm okay with that - the internet worked fine prior to the days of ads. It worked fine *for* *me*, though; viewers who want to simply see cat videos should cough up for their favourite cat video site. Those of us who wanted to discuss metalworking, or gardening, etc could do so both for free AND without advertisements.
In short - sites that cannot find enough paying customers *should* die. Sites that don't need paying customers will still survive.
What did I say that indicated I didn't know about half the people would be excluded?
I responded to nospam007, not to you. nospam007 said:
As you don't seem to realize that this would hit _half_ the voters,
and I said:
Actually, slightly less than half will not be able to vote.
Nospam007 did not realise that "IQ less than 100" means "less than half the population" and does not mean "half the population".
[Then you'll have paywalls] and nothing else.
Incorrect - the internet was filled with information even when no website advertised. It will continue being filled with information if ads go away. The ad-supported sites are no longer needed due to their decreasing signal/noise ratio. Even cracked.com has become pointless. Let them become paywalls and we'll pay for the ones that deserve to live.
that you don't like. Not sure I see the problem. You decide what's fair. If it's not fair don't go to those sites. You don't have to participate. It's not like anyone (outside of malware authors) is forcing you. If a site does things you don't like, stop typing their addy into your URL bar...
It appears to me that that is what advertisers are actually complaining about - 1) we block their ads, 2) they attempt to bypass our blocks, 3) we move on to a different site, 4) the site complains about freeloaders.
It's really very simply - if buzzfeed and co. went away the world would be a better place. They know it. We know it. They know we know it. So now they're engaging in a PR war rather than the technology war to get us to view their ads.
Less than 100 IQ is supposed to be 1/2 the population, but it rarely works out that way.
My psychology professor administered a "demonstration" IQ test in class, possible scores ranged from 100 if you got everything wrong to 130 if you got everything right. Actual IQ tests aren't this bad, but they are skewed in this direction.
If you did disenfranchise 1/2 the population, it would likely be the 1/2 of the population that's easily manipulated and motivated to revolt... I like to avoid revolting political systems when I can.
Good luck - IME all political systems are revolting ;-)
Less than 100 IQ, can't vote.
50% of the population can't vote based on a test that you can easily improve at simply by practising.
It would not be 50%. It would be less than 50%.
"IQ is certainly not a perfect metric but if we use it only in a simple way it could be used. Less than 100 IQ, can't vote."
As you don't seem to realize that this would hit _half_ the voters, I'm glad you won't be able to vote with that system.
Actually, slightly less than half will not be able to vote.
You always consider your argument "won" - even when you don't actually "win" anything
The point whee you give up on any semblance of reasonableness and start simply making up stuff that you claim I've said---any reasonable person would consider the argument won.
Basically if you've got nothing left but lies you have lost.
HAND.
Luckily my posting history is available to all; never once made up a thing. Of course, this is not the first time you accuse me of making something up, so, yeah - I'm used to it. After all, in this very thread you say that I claimed stuff that you did not claim - and this thread itself shows no such thing :-)
What's hard to understand is the rationale that because 0.001% of $FOO owners are responsible, we need to take away $FOO from the other 99.99% of $FOO owners. It doesn't matter what $FOO actually is - when you propose that the state bans something that is responsibly used by 99.99% of owners you better have a damn good reason, especially when the numbers show that residential swimming pools have a death rate roughly 4-5 *TIMES* higher than residential fiream ownership.
Yes it matters what $FOO actually is. It depends on what the thing is used for. Let's do a $FOO=Nuclear weapon, I would think most nuclear weapon owners would be responsible so why ban civilians owning nuclear weapons? What about $FOO=Sarin gas?. You can see your line of reasoning is ridiculous.
Did you just equate a single firearm with a nuclear weapon?
If you've got a good reason for why you'd want to ban guns but not residential swimming pools when the death rate for guns is lower, I'd like to hear it.
Because guns are designed to kill people, that's why. Swimming pools are not designed primarily to kill people, they actually have other purposes. But yes if swimming pools have a high death rate it also means we need more regulations for swimming pools and how they are designed and safety concerns for them, but that only means we need regulation for both swimming pools AND guns.
The swimming pool death rate is 4x-5x higher than firearm death rate. There is no "IF" about it - both numbers are on the CDC website (different pages on the same website). If we restrict the stats to children only, then the swimming pool death rate is around 20x the firearm death rate.
Regardless of what $FOO is "designed for", if it is measured, in practice and over the course of decades, to be safer than swimming pools then what it is designed for is irrelevant - it may be designed for killing but if it isn't any more dangerous than a swimming pool then you can't really call it a killing machien, now can you? It kills far fewer people than innocuous equipment.
Lovely - when you do it "context matters"
Yes context does matter, which is why you're a fool for pretending it does not.
"they are hostile".
Ah this is the point where having lost the argument thoroughly you simply resort to making up stuff that I never said. My arguments with you always end this way. At the point you simply start making stuff up, I generally consider the argument won.
You always consider your argument "won" - even when you don't actually "win" anything :-) Unfortunately for you the thread is still here for all to see your pointless and repeated insults arguing about why other people cannot insult. LKML is, after all, a voluntary association, just like /.
Ah. The abstinence approach to guns... Why would you think abstinence works with guns? We've seen it not work with sex. What *did* work in reducing teenage pregnancies was sex education, not preaching abstinence.
That is because sex and guns are not the same things. Just like drugs, there is a chemical element to it that motivates you physically to have sex. You can't ban sex and expect it to just work, because your body (teenagers especially) is constantly pumping out hormones to make you want to have sex. If there was no chemical element to it, banning it would be really easy. In the same way totally banning all drugs isn't going to work in the long run.
I don't see why this is so hard to understand, just because you don't like it, banning or limiting guns is a possibilty.
What's hard to understand is the rationale that because 0.001% of $FOO owners are responsible, we need to take away $FOO from the other 99.99% of $FOO owners. It doesn't matter what $FOO actually is - when you propose that the state bans something that is responsibly used by 99.99% of owners you better have a damn good reason, especially when the numbers show that residential swimming pools have a death rate roughly 4-5 *TIMES* higher than residential fiream ownership.
If you've got a good reason for why you'd want to ban guns but not residential swimming pools when the death rate for guns is lower, I'd like to hear it.
Let me refresh your memory: in a thread about hostile communications
This is your typical intellectually dishonest method of arguing: you like to conflate wildly different things and present the result as a black and white issue.
The LKML is a technical mailing list to facilitate kernel development.
Slashdot is a forum to facilitate arguing.
The thing is, at this point you've either admitted that you're so stupid you can't tell the difference between the two or so dishonest that you'll pretend to know there is no difference when you actually know there is.
Lovely - when you do it "context matters", when others do it "they are hostile".
Seriously. Someone just fucking shoot me now. This whole "eSport" bullshit is just a demonstration of how stupid society's become.
And the superbowl isn't?
If you play chess, you join the chess club. You can even have competitions with other schools. But it's not a sport and it's not sponsored by the athletics competition and no one was inane enough to invent the word "cSports". What's wrong with being "an official club" as opposed to "an official club sport"?
But then again, fox hunting is considered a sport even when you're guaranteed a kill.
They're all games and they're all equally trivial in the grand scheme of things. I see no major difference between American Football/Basketball/Hockey and candy-crush/angry-birds/WoW (except that the latter has orders of magnitude more players than the former while the former has orders of magnitude more viewers than the latter).
Seriously, too many people forget that their favourite sport is ultimately just another game.
No it's not the same as guns. Guns are physical objects, encryption is not. Encryption is nothing else than a few mathematical formulas. It is impossible to ban thoughts and speech however you can ban guns.
Ah. The abstinence approach to guns... Why would you think abstinence works with guns? We've seen it not work with sex. What *did* work in reducing teenage pregnancies was sex education, not preaching abstinence.
81 people and 0% recidivism at this point. It doesn't appear for it to have been in place long enough for that to be a truly valuable metric. Usually they go by a five year time period when calculating recidivism. Hopefully the metrics hold true over a longer time frame. It looks like a nice program and I hope that it's being well funded or adequately funded. I'd like to see more programs like that and I don't think we need to wait for the official numbers to try it on a larger scale.
As an aside, according to the FBI statistics, murders and sex offenders are the two groups least likely to re-offend. Two of the worst crimes on the planet and they're the least likely to re-offend. I'm not sure why that is.
Dunno about sex offenders, but it makes sense for murderers: most murders are crimes of passion. Once the object of that passion is dead, well, the murderer can't kill them again, now can they?
Lots of men have left.
But not all. This is therefore not just a problem with the way women communicate.
not my argument..
You ignored what I wrote: you had no argument to attack.
Perhaps I should swoon now :-)
huh?
Oh, wait, you do not remember what you said?
Let me refresh your memory: in a thread about hostile communications, in which you are arguing that the communication is too hostile, you write this:
You are intellectually dishonest and suffer deeply from confirmation bias, not to mention being a poster child for the backfire effect.
Nice going there, being polite in your correspondence - you ever think that maybe you're part of the problem? You trash talk like the rest, but blame everybody else for chasing away women... Nice.
You see "chasing away the good devs", they see "keeping the accountable devs".
Even Linus admits he alienates developers. There's also numerous accounts of good developers who have left the project, sick of the toxicity. This isn't exactly a contentious point! The worst of the bunch even agrees with me here. I can only assume that you either don't know or that you're in denial.
(It's also no secret that they're perpetually short on reviewers. Why do you think that's the case?)
All OSS projects are perpetually short on staff - even the the ones like Gnome, who have an outreach program for women. Are you also willing to argue that it's due to their policies that result in their short staffing problem?
I'm in a discussion with you, somebody who regularly lambasts others for not following your ideology, and yet .... I'm not threatened at all. If I was indeed threatened I will happily go off and start a new discussion.
The proble
You were speaking as much/as little for one whole gender as the previous poster.
Nope, I took care to insert the word "general" in there, which you may have skipped over in your haste to respond. You should attempt as much care when reading as I do when writing.
I like how after declaring men and women generally communicate differently you completely ignored my comment pointing two men who have left over the same problems.
Lots of men have left. Ulrich, Alan Cox. In the offline world people leave too, you know. The great thing about *this* particular organisation is that it is completely voluntary. You can say that the invisible green men told you to leave - still doesn't mean much. It's all voluntary.
You are intellectually dishonest and suffer deeply from confirmation bias, not to mention being a poster child for the backfire effect.
Personal attacks, attacking me personally and not my argument... you *do* realise that you're responding in a thread titled "[...]be more sensitive", right? Where's this legendary sensitivity when you need it?
Perhaps I should swoon now :-)
Men and women have different general preferences for communications style.
Tell that to Matthew Garrett and Con Konvilas who also both left after getting fed up with your supposed "male communication style".
You're in the minority on this - you do not talk for all males,
Do you appreciate the irony of speaking for all males and telling someone how they don't?
I was careful not to speak for all males - see the word "generally" there? Ever wonder what it means?
Only if the behaviour is harmful to the project. There is no evidence that this is the case.
Except for all of the evidence. Developers leaving, numerous accounts of developers refusing to contribute due to the hostility found on LKML, the unimaginable waste of time from the needless flame wars that list is famous for producing. The list goes on.
Linux thrives in spite of the hostility, which has very obviously harmed the project.
This "fact" is not obvious. What is obvious is that they are *thriving*. You see "chasing away the good devs", they see "keeping the accountable devs".
You are actively avoiding the point that open-source is the ultimate meritocracy - anyone who whines that they do not feel welcome in project $FOO is free to start a project $BAR.
It's completely irrelevant to the point under discussion here. If you're unhappy with the topic, stop whining about it and go start your own discussion.
You are asking "Why aren't more women joining projects?", we are asking "Why aren't more women starting projects?".
So why hijack this discussion? If you want to talk about something else, go start your own discussion!
You inadvertently proved my point - I'm in a discussion with you, somebody who regularly lambasts others for not following your ideology, and yet .... I'm not threatened at all. If I was indeed threatened I will happily go off and start a new discussion. I will not accuse you of bigotry just because you want to discuss one question and I want to discuss another.
Back to the issue you're really trying to avoid - if existing OSS projects make women feel uncomfortable, why *aren't* they motivated enough to start their own? This is an individual decision for each person; they are either motivated enough to start a project or they are not. If they are not motivated enough to even start (regardless of gender) then OSS might not be a good fit for them anyway.
It's all about motivation. Men are highly motivated to start things. Maybe you should use your platform to motivate females instead of trying to get millions of individuals scattered throughout the world to adopt your ideology.
You guys! Can I just get a clear car analogy already??
The sports analogy isn't good enough?
Can I get a Tolkien analogy?
You need to ask for this using a car analogy first.
How about a cycle analogy?
With sports teams you can compile enough information to make an educated guess about which teams have an advantage. No matter how much historical data you compile on an individual player, there is no way to predict within a reasonable margin how well they will perform from week to week.
How are individual players unpredictable but teams predictable? The team is comprised of 46 players. If you can't even predict the performance of one player, how can we say that you can predict the performance of a combination of 46 of them?
Because while you may not be able to predict the motion of a single person you can much more easily predict the motion of a mob. Groups are always easier to predict than individuals.
You're missing the point entirely. I'd say intentionally.
The sort of adolescent behavior you're defending not only contributes nothing, but is actively harmful to any project.
Citation needed. People being dicks have managed teams that produce the most well-known products on the planet, continuing over decades - see Linus, RMS and Jobs. Asshole-ish behaviour gets rewarded by the masses *because* it produces what people want.
This is very simple. By allowing or encouraging that behavior, you're actively working against the best interests of the project.
Only if the behaviour is harmful to the project. There is no evidence that this is the case.
All other issues aside, you can not justify that behavior on any rational or technical grounds. It's simply not possible.
You're telling me to build something. Well, I have. So have many other people. We've done it without waving our dicks around and grunting.
Well, so have I. I've actively contributed to the Linux kernel too. And other stuff (opensource) too. So what?
We've done it without alienating potential contributors or fellow coworkers. We've done it without abusive language, bullying, or intimidation.
Those things are not only unnecessary, they're harmful to the project.
Citation needed.
By harmful I mean directly harmful. Agitated developers don't work as efficiently. Time spent chest-thumping and dick-measuring is time not spent working toward the project's goals. It also happens to chase out developers who don't want to waste their time dealing with petulant children when they could be contributing something.
I build things. You waste time with petty insults. Go Build Something and quit all this whining and complaining. It's not productive.
You are actively avoiding the point that open-source is the ultimate meritocracy - anyone who whines that they do not feel welcome in project $FOO is free to start a project $BAR.
It only takes a single developer to start an open-source project that is independent of existing projects. If none/few are started by your favoured $CLASS of people you cannot blame the existing projects for not being welcoming to your $CLASS of people.
It only takes one person to start a project. You are asking "Why aren't more women joining projects?", we are asking "Why aren't more women starting projects?". In the latter question there is no FUD around "toxic environments", "brogrammer culture", etc - yet the women aren't there in numbers anyway.
Then you aren't using agile. Or not correctly at least.
We hear this all the time when agile projects fail. What makes you think that the success of other agile projects is due to agile?
One of the most important concepts of agile is to identify problems in the process and eliminate them.
If JIRA is slowing the dev team down, that should be identified in a retrospective & addressed.
Also, a 6 hour sprint planning for 1 week sprints is excessive. The "out of the box" number is 2 hours/week.
Finally, 1 week sprints are quite fast. Typically they should be used for prototyping or by a startup. In either of these cases, the planning "overhead' is usually minimized as everyone should already have a pretty clear idea what is being built.
If everyone has a pretty clear idea of what is getting built, why would you need an agile process?