You know, this really sucks for me personally. Not the ban, but the sorts of things Eric appears to stand for. I read The Cathedral and the Bazaar when I was 13, and it was probably my gateway into advocating for open source. Somewhere around that age, I ended up speaking on a panel, among other OSS advocates, that successfully sold one of the local school divisions on OSS (we also helped them integrate it, on-site :). To be honest, I don’t quite remember the book or quite what I thought of it, but I know it had a profound influence on me at the time.<p>Then I see Eric write this:<p>> Usually (and in this case) accompanied by a lot of bafflegab about “inclusion” and “diversity” so thay anyone who isn't a fan of the new, censorious rules can be cast as some sort of bigot.<p>:/ Eric, we can have it both ways. I hammer it home into the engineers I’ve lead that code is the ultimate source of truth. I‘ll guide them from, for example, “do we need a mutex here” through to object code to generated assembly through to an intel reference manual, because I want to demonstrate that as engineers, we are in full control of our creations. The engineers I work with all challenge each other, and ask difficult questions, and put ideas through difficult tests. Because we’re mature adults, we can do so with language more advanced than “this is shit” (an open source favorite). It’s real easy. How about, “what happens when <state concern>” or “have you considered <alternate approach>”.<p>In fact, by soliciting <i>more</i> feedback and criticism, you are being <i>more</i> inclusive - as long as the conversations play out in a constructive way! Yes, it can be hard to teach that, but that’s why we pay people managers and technical leads to do a job.<p>Honestly, though, what sucks most of all is when you see that people who were so influential to you early in life would apparently look down on the person you are, just because you would ask to be respected in return.