I think you’ve missed what the sin was, as well as the context of the players.
The sin was not the bad code. Let me say it one more time for clarity: the issue was not the code
The issue was that, when presented with the defect (inevitable outcome of any software project: not intrinsically sinful) Mauro started blaming other people on a public mailing list
Mauro, being a maintainer, was in a position of authority. Like a police officer, their bad behaviour reflected poorly on the organization*as a whole.
If a cop was abusing their power (publicly or not), I expect the chief of police to come down on that abuser; to make clear that this abuse is absolutely unacceptable, not only within the accute instance, but within the greater context of the expectation of the behaviour of the whole organization.
Mauro chose the context of his abusive behaviour as the public mailing list.
Him getting slapped down in that same forum is the direct result of his own choices.
In the same way that I would be upset with the chief of police not publicly and harshy denouncing an abusive police officer, so would I be upset with the absence of such a response in this situation
I didn’t miss the sin. The sin isn’t relevant to me. You don’t treat people like that. Whatever you hope to accomplish, you can accomplish without treating people like that. If someone else is being abusive, that’s not license for you to be abusive in response. If a cop was abusing their power would you expect the chief of police to publicly berate and insult him, or would you expect the standards to be enforced without resorting to that?
When you abuse someone for being abusive you don’t make it clear that abuse is unacceptable. In fact, you do the opposite. You establish that abuse is a part of your culture. If I was considering contributing to the kernel and saw this exchange, I’d walk away. I don’t need that shit, not from Mauro, not from Linus, not from the Lord hisownself. It damages the organization long-term.
It was a hash admonishment for the specific choices and actions that the person did that were wrong , and that the person, based on their position of authority should absolutely know to be wrong.
The confluence of factors here are what differentiates this from abuse. By calling this abuse, you’re actually diminishing what actual abuse is.
I think you’ve missed what the sin was, as well as the context of the players.
The sin was not the bad code. Let me say it one more time for clarity: the issue was not the code
The issue was that, when presented with the defect (inevitable outcome of any software project: not intrinsically sinful) Mauro started blaming other people on a public mailing list
Mauro, being a maintainer, was in a position of authority. Like a police officer, their bad behaviour reflected poorly on the organization*as a whole.
If a cop was abusing their power (publicly or not), I expect the chief of police to come down on that abuser; to make clear that this abuse is absolutely unacceptable, not only within the accute instance, but within the greater context of the expectation of the behaviour of the whole organization.
Mauro chose the context of his abusive behaviour as the public mailing list.
Him getting slapped down in that same forum is the direct result of his own choices.
In the same way that I would be upset with the chief of police not publicly and harshy denouncing an abusive police officer, so would I be upset with the absence of such a response in this situation
I didn’t miss the sin. The sin isn’t relevant to me. You don’t treat people like that. Whatever you hope to accomplish, you can accomplish without treating people like that. If someone else is being abusive, that’s not license for you to be abusive in response. If a cop was abusing their power would you expect the chief of police to publicly berate and insult him, or would you expect the standards to be enforced without resorting to that?
When you abuse someone for being abusive you don’t make it clear that abuse is unacceptable. In fact, you do the opposite. You establish that abuse is a part of your culture. If I was considering contributing to the kernel and saw this exchange, I’d walk away. I don’t need that shit, not from Mauro, not from Linus, not from the Lord hisownself. It damages the organization long-term.
This wasn’t abuse, though.
It was a hash admonishment for the specific choices and actions that the person did that were wrong , and that the person, based on their position of authority should absolutely know to be wrong.
The confluence of factors here are what differentiates this from abuse. By calling this abuse, you’re actually diminishing what actual abuse is.