GGML – AI at the Edge

> I also like how when some controversy erupted on the project he just ejected the controversial people and moved on. Good stewardship

Do you have more info on the controversy? I'm not sure ejecting developers just because of controversy is honestly good stewardship.

Right. More details needed to know if this is good stewardship (ejecting two toxic individuals) or laziness (ejecting a villain and a hero to get rid of the "problem" easily). TikTok was using this method for a while by ejecting both bullies and victims, and it "solved" the problem but most people see the injustice there.

I'm not saying it was bad stewardship, I honestly don't know. I just agree that we shouldn't make a judgment without more information.

> More details needed to know if this is good stewardship (ejecting two toxic individuals) or laziness (ejecting a villain and a hero to get rid of the "problem" easily).

Man, nobody has time for this shit. Leave the games and the drama for the social justice warriors and the furries. People building shit ain't got time for this - ejecting trouble makers is the right way to go regardless of which "side" they're on.

I would agree that there needs to be a balance because wasting time babysitting adults is dumb, but what if one person is a good and loved contributor, and the other is a social justice warrior new to the project that is picking fights with the contributor? Your philosophy makes not only bad stewardship but an injustice. I'm not suggesting this is the only scenario, just merely a hypothetical that I think illustrates my position.

And what do you do when every contributor to the project, including the founder, has been labeled a troublemaker?

> and the furries

Um, what?

>justice

For an individual running a small open source project, there's time enough for coding or detailed justice, but not both. When two parties start pointing fingers and raising hell and its not immediately clear who is in the right, ban both and let them fork it.

Pick the fork that has devs who are focused on contributing code and not pursuing drama.

> More details needed to know if this is good stewardship (ejecting two toxic individuals) or laziness (ejecting a villain and a hero to get rid of the "problem" easily). TikTok was using this method for a while by ejecting both bullies and victims,

This is SOP for American schools. It's laziness there, since education is supposed to be compulsory. They can't be bothered to investigate (and with today's hostile climate, I don't blame them) so they consign both parties to independent-study programs.

For volunteer projects, throwing both overboard is unfortunate but necessary stewardship. The drama either attracts destabilizes the entire project, which only exists as long as it remains fun for the maintainer. It's tragic, but victims who can't recover gracefully are as toxic as their abusers.

The code is MIT licensed. If you don't agree with the direction the project is taking you can fork it and add whatever you want.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for software developers with GitHub accounts to understand.

You've missed the point here more than I've seen anyone miss the point in a long time.

If you know, you know

Right, I for one would also prefer it if people who face harassment and hate would just accept it gracefully and move on. I mean, get over yourself, amiright?

Just because someone can't wring your hand doesn't mean they don't deserve to influence a project. Releasing work under a license like MIT is an act of benevolence since it's giving up leverage and relying on de facto leadership. It's the hardest kind of leader to be, since de facto leaders are only followed on merit. It's not unusual at all for folks who started projects to end up caving to political pressures and getting replaced by the sorts of people you're talking about. But every now and again a Medici comes along.

I'm confused about the scenario you're describing here.

Look, my message is simple and clear: keep the politics and drama out of it. If you partake in politics and drama, you'll be ejected from the project. I don't have the time or the energy to police or play games with people. We're here to build things, not to partake in social activism or sling crap at each other over codes of conduct, pronouns, hair color or magic strings. If you're hurt - fork the project (as long as the license allows for it) and have fun playing somewhere else.

The scenario is a mob of trolls attacking a contributor in bad faith. If you kick out the contributor, what's to stop the mob from picking off someone else?

If a bunch of random strangers (external to the project) are "attacking" your project somewhere on the internet (for example, on Twitter) - just ignore them and move on with your day. They don't have any power over your project and their opinions don't matter. Go on with your life and continue building.

If a bunch of random strangers (external to the project) are messing with your tools and workflows (stirring things up in the issue tracker, creating drama and playing games with silly Pull Requests and comments) - lock down your tools such that they can only be used by trusted members of your team. Close down and remove all bullshit conversations without spending any further time or energy on any of it. Platforms like GitHub blur the lines between "a suite of productivity tools for software development" and "a social network" - so make sure to lock down and limit the "social networks" aspects whilst optimizing for the "software development productivity" aspect. Go on with your life and continue building.

If the "attacks" happens internally within the project (between two or more members of the team) - eject all parties involved because they're clearly not here to build stuff. Go on with your life and continue building.

Your goal should be to spend your energy on building and creating, and collaborating with like-minded people on building and creating. Not on policing, moderating, or playing games with people.