FP estimate functions location

[Robert Finch]

I would like to know where in the ISA to place floating-point estimate functions? For my rendition of a RISCV processor there’s currently (single precision) reciprocal square root estimate, reciprocal estimate, and sigmoid approximation functions. I can image that there may be other estimate or approximation functions that might be handy in some circumstances.

[Andrew Waterman]

Since at least for the time being these are custom extensions, a good place to put them is in one of the major opcodes named "custom" (see Table 25.1).  These opcodes will never be used for future standard extensions.

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 6:41 PM Robert Finch <robf...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would like to know where in the ISA to place floating-point estimate functions? For my rendition of a RISCV processor there’s currently (single precision) reciprocal square root estimate, reciprocal estimate, and sigmoid approximation functions. I can image that there may be other estimate or approximation functions that might be handy in some circumstances.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RISC-V ISA Dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to isa-dev+u...@groups.riscv.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msgid/isa-dev/0b25c347-227c-4626-acd9-10d52d8838bb%40groups.riscv.org.

[lkcl]

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 9:47:04 AM UTC+8, andrew wrote:
> Since at least for the time being these are custom extensions, a good place to put them is in one of the major opcodes named "custom" (see Table 25.1).  These opcodes will never be used for future standard extensions.

Ok so in the SVPrefix format, we need to be able to embed the entirety of the RVC opcode format within the 32 bit opcode format, "prefixed" by I think it's 11 bits of vectorisation context.

The alternative is unthinkable: custom design an entire suite of RVC-Vectorised opcodes, the task would add months to the project completion time and entirely defeat the design paradigm of SV, at the same time.

The only way I could think of to achieve this: take up THREE of the last four major opcodes: one of the custom ones AND both of the RV128 ones.

We still have yet to add texturisation opcodes!

If we also wished to collaborate with Robert and include compatibility with the FP extension that he is creating, *even just in trap emulation*, what do we do?

Also, even without SV, what happens when someone else also wants to implement - publicly - the same functionality as Richard?

What then happens to upstream gcc, llvm and binutils?

L.

[lkcl]

I remember seeing a white paper by MIPS (which ImgTec removed sigh) where they did something similar with FPDIV. 2 result registers to store partially complete results, to be completed and made more accurate if the opcode was called a 2nd time.

For 3D applications it turns out that the much faster less accurate FPDIV answer is "good enough": having say 12 bits of accuracy is enough to represent pixel locations from 0 to 2047 (screen coordinates).

So I would be very interested to see a draft specification of what you have developed, Richard, as it may prove very useful for power saving in embedded applications.

L.

[Andrew Waterman]

The GCC/Binutils RISC-V maintainers sidestep this question by maintaining a policy against upstreaming custom extensions.  We've instead provided basic support for custom instructions in Binutils (the .insn directive), which, while quite primitive, suffices to implement a C intrinsics-style programming model.

At least historically, GNU has not been amenable to a plugin architecture that could help support custom extensions without modifying the compiler code directly, presumably because it could open a GPL escape hatch.  My information could be out of date.  Regardless, LLVM might be a more attractive option for these use cases.

L.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RISC-V ISA Dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to isa-dev+u...@groups.riscv.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msgid/isa-dev/a48af2fc-a782-4c9b-88d9-401e7b79f969%40groups.riscv.org.

[lkcl]

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 2:43:03 PM UTC+8, andrew wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:20 PM lkcl <luke.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What then happens to upstream gcc, llvm and binutils?
>
>
>
> The GCC/Binutils RISC-V maintainers sidestep this question by maintaining a policy against upstreaming custom extensions.  We've instead provided basic support for custom instructions in Binutils (the .insn directive), which, while quite primitive, suffices to implement a C intrinsics-style programming model.

This works extremely well for proprietary vendors, working on proprietary custom extensions, developing proprietary secretive firmware that never sees the light of day.

It also works well for rapid prototyping and R&D.

Where it falls down - the case that I have been trying to get through to the RISC-V Foundation for over 18 months now that a proactive strategy is essential if RISCV is to succeed long-term - is where the custom extensions become *public* world wide common usage.

Under such circumstances the gcc team will feel pressurised by sheer overwhelming user demand and the prospect of hard forks of gcc being downloaded from "unofficial" locations in the tens of thousands.

Once - not if - they "cave in" and include the custom extension as a de-facto standard, there is no going back.

As Jacob Bqchmeyer pointed out 18 months ago: when - not if - that happens four times (once for each custom opcode), the only alternative is to start sharing overlapping opcodes, and RISCV's reputation goes directly into the toilet, alongside PowerPC Altivec/SSE, exactly as ARM's antiRV website said (before it was hurriedly taken down).

Who is going to take responsibility for properly designing and proposing a strategy for mitigating this easily predictable and extremely high probabity scenario, before it is too late?

L.

[Bruce Hoult]

Completely unofficially, just my opinion ...

These will I assume all be single-operand instructions, and there
won't be more than 32 of them. So they need rs1 and rd and somewhere
to put the operation selector. I'd put rd1 and rd in the usual places
and choose the operation using the bits used for rs2 in R-type or the
lower 5 bits of imm12 in I-type. The remaining bits (funct7, funct3,
opcode) can then be a constant that you put in some header or config
file and use to build both your hardware and your tools, thus allowing
you to easily move these instructions to different places. For now,
yes, put them in one of the "custom" major opcodes.

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 6:41 PM Robert Finch <robf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> I would like to know where in the ISA to place floating-point estimate functions? For my rendition of a RISCV processor there’s currently (single precision) reciprocal square root estimate, reciprocal estimate, and sigmoid approximation functions. I can image that there may be other estimate or approximation functions that might be handy in some circumstances.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RISC-V ISA Dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to isa-dev+u...@groups.riscv.org.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msgid/isa-dev/0b25c347-227c-4626-acd9-10d52d8838bb%40groups.riscv.org.

[Bruce Hoult]

There is no possible scheme that allows multiple independent parties
to create extensions (custom or otherwise) that each take up four
major opcodes (12.5% of the entire encoding space) from a 32 bit
instruction that already has the standard ISA in it, and somehow
enable instructions from each of those extensions to be available
simultaneously.

That's just math.

For a private extension that will forever remain private you are of
course entitled to use all the custom major opcodes and the RV128 ones
and whatever other holes you find.

However this is simply not tenable for something that you think you
might one day want to share with others. In this case you should be
using 48 or 64 bit opcodes. (and, yes, the exact scheme for those
isn't yet ratified, but I think Clifford's latest suggestion has a lot
of merit)

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:20 PM lkcl <luke.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RISC-V ISA Dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to isa-dev+u...@groups.riscv.org.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msgid/isa-dev/a48af2fc-a782-4c9b-88d9-401e7b79f969%40groups.riscv.org.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 12:05 AM lkcl <luke.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 2:43:03 PM UTC+8, andrew wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:20 PM lkcl <luke.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > What then happens to upstream gcc, llvm and binutils?
> >
> >
> >
> > The GCC/Binutils RISC-V maintainers sidestep this question by maintaining a policy against upstreaming custom extensions. We've instead provided basic support for custom instructions in Binutils (the .insn directive), which, while quite primitive, suffices to implement a C intrinsics-style programming model.
>
> This works extremely well for proprietary vendors, working on proprietary custom extensions, developing proprietary secretive firmware that never sees the light of day.
>
> It also works well for rapid prototyping and R&D.
>
> Where it falls down - the case that I have been trying to get through to the RISC-V Foundation for over 18 months now that a proactive strategy is essential if RISCV is to succeed long-term - is where the custom extensions become *public* world wide common usage.

You can use a scheme such as I suggested to Robert Finch, where you
decide which bits you want to use yourself (selected in a way likely
to remain compatible with others) and make your tools flexible enough
to allow arbitrary contents of the remaining bots.

There is mathematically no way to parcel out such as limited thing as
a 32 bit space in such a way that everyone in the world gets a unique
and non-overlapping space for their custom extension. The best that
can be done is to allow each custom extension to have its opcodes
easily re positioned depending on what other custom extensions the
user wants available in the same program (without mode switches).

Flags can be provided to compilers giving masks or maybe other
information about where each custom extension is to be places. Linkers
and other object code tools can be written to renumber opcodes for
custom extensions within existing object files.

> Under such circumstances the gcc team will feel pressurised by sheer overwhelming user demand and the prospect of hard forks of gcc being downloaded from "unofficial" locations in the tens of thousands.

I predict they won't.

> Who is going to take responsibility for properly designing and proposing a strategy for mitigating this easily predictable and extremely high probabity scenario, before it is too late?

Strategies that can cope with small custom extensions such as function
estimate instructions are easy to come up with. Strategies that can
cope with custom extensions that each fill four major opcodes are
mathematically impossible.

[Robert Finch]

Bruce’s suggestion sounds good to me. I had been thinking along the same lines, I thought there might be someone else developing custom FP already using a range of instructions that I could steal a few opcodes from. My mind churning away “there has to be someone else working on estimate functions already…” It might take me a while to get there, not being the brightest tool in the shed.

 

Is it better to use a truncation of an accurate algorithm, rather than a table lookup? The only thing I can think of to do, is code them both, run them both, then measure the power consumption somehow.

[lkcl]

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 9:56:18 PM UTC+1, Bruce Hoult wrote:

There is no possible scheme that allows multiple independent parties
to create extensions (custom or otherwise) that each take up four
major opcodes (12.5% of the entire encoding space) from a 32 bit
instruction that already has the standard ISA in it, and somehow
enable instructions from each of those extensions to be available
simultaneously.

there is.  it's called the ISAMUX/ISANS proposal.  it's been discussed several times, and mentioned several times, over the past 18 months.

the little-endian / big-endian proposal is the first official extension that (partly) meets the ISAMUX/NS requirements [the LE/BE field is proposed to be WARL which needs to be fixed and made WLRL]

https://libre-riscv.org/isa_conflict_resolution/isamux_isans/

For a private extension that will forever remain private you are of
course entitled to use all the custom major opcodes and the RV128 ones
and whatever other holes you find.

this is where the approach of the RISC-V Foundation breaks down.  the processor that we are developing is very speciically designed to be mass-volume and, because it is libre, it will be very high profile.  libre means: the entire and full source code *has* to be made public [and all development discussions have to be public, as well.  no exceptions].

However this is simply not tenable for something that you think you
might one day want to share with others. In this case you should be
using 48 or 64 bit opcodes.

we can't.  we're taking up the *entirety* of the 48 and 64 bit opcode space for SV prefixing.

(and, yes, the exact scheme for those
isn't yet ratified,

 that's strange.  there was an announcement (not here, on the risc-v.org website) last week that the spec (2.2? 2.3?) has been ratified.

 

but I think Clifford's latest suggestion has a lot
of merit)

i asked Clifford if he could write an alternative comparative proposal that simply added opcodes to the existing encoding formats listed in section 1.5 of the ISA manual.

i did not receive a response.

the reason i asked for that is because from what i can see, the existing encodings in section 1.5 are extremely bit-efficient.  Clifford's proposal makes *every* encoding beyond 32 bit significantly longer.  even the 48 bit encoding has something like 8 bits mandatorially taken up *in addition* to the actual 0b0111111 prefix.

an alternative comparative proposal which added extended-LUI opcodes would demonstrate that, clearly.

l.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:01 PM lkcl <luke.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 9:56:18 PM UTC+1, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>>
>> There is no possible scheme that allows multiple independent parties
>> to create extensions (custom or otherwise) that each take up four
>> major opcodes (12.5% of the entire encoding space) from a 32 bit
>> instruction that already has the standard ISA in it, and somehow
>> enable instructions from each of those extensions to be available
>> simultaneously.
>>
>
> there is. it's called the ISAMUX/ISANS proposal. it's been discussed several times, and mentioned several times, over the past 18 months.
>
> the little-endian / big-endian proposal is the first official extension that (partly) meets the ISAMUX/NS requirements [the LE/BE field is proposed to be WARL which needs to be fixed and made WLRL]
>
> https://libre-riscv.org/isa_conflict_resolution/isamux_isans/

I am fully aware of this. It is NOT making different extensions
available simultaneously to a program, it requires a mode change to
access different extensions.

> Who is going to take responsibility for properly designing and proposing a strategy for
> mitigating this easily predictable and extremely high probabity scenario, before it is
> too late?

If you're happy to sprinkle your program with mode changes then there
is nothing in opcode space management that needs mitigating and no
design needed.

>> For a private extension that will forever remain private you are of
>> course entitled to use all the custom major opcodes and the RV128 ones
>> and whatever other holes you find.
>
> this is where the approach of the RISC-V Foundation breaks down. the processor that we are developing is very speciically designed to be mass-volume and, because it is libre, it will be very high profile. libre means: the entire and full source code *has* to be made public [and all development discussions have to be public, as well. no exceptions].
>
>
>> However this is simply not tenable for something that you think you
>> might one day want to share with others. In this case you should be
>> using 48 or 64 bit opcodes.
>
> we can't. we're taking up the *entirety* of the 48 and 64 bit opcode space for SV prefixing.

That is *extremely* unfriendly and un-neighborly of you, and likely
completely rules out ever combining your extension with any other
official or unofficial extensions.

Once again, you're entirely welcome to do this for a private design
which will never need to inter-operate with future RISC-V extensions.

>> (and, yes, the exact scheme for those
>> isn't yet ratified,
>
> that's strange. there was an announcement (not here, on the risc-v.org website) last week that the spec (2.2? 2.3?) has been ratified.

It was made very clear exactly what parts of the spec were being
ratified and which parts were not. Encodings for instructions of 48
bits or greater were not up for ratification, as has been discussed
with you previously.

[lkcl]

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 10:06:40 PM UTC+1, Bruce Hoult wrote:

On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 12:05 AM lkcl <luke.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 2:43:03 PM UTC+8, andrew wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:20 PM lkcl <luke.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > What then happens to upstream gcc, llvm and binutils?
> >
> >
> >
> > The GCC/Binutils RISC-V maintainers sidestep this question by maintaining a policy against upstreaming custom extensions.  We've instead provided basic support for custom instructions in Binutils (the .insn directive), which, while quite primitive, suffices to implement a C intrinsics-style programming model.
>
> This works extremely well for proprietary vendors, working on proprietary custom extensions, developing proprietary secretive firmware that never sees the light of day.
>
> It also works well for rapid prototyping and R&D.
>
> Where it falls down - the case that I have been trying to get through to the RISC-V Foundation for over 18 months now that a proactive strategy is essential if RISCV is to succeed long-term - is where the custom extensions become *public* world wide common usage.

You can use a scheme such as I suggested to Robert Finch, where you
decide which bits you want to use yourself (selected in a way likely
to remain compatible with others) and make your tools flexible enough
to allow arbitrary contents of the remaining bots.

There is mathematically no way to parcel out such as limited thing as
a 32 bit space in such a way that everyone in the world gets a unique
and non-overlapping space for their custom extension. The best that
can be done is to allow each custom extension to have its opcodes
easily re positioned depending on what other custom extensions the
user wants available in the same program (without mode switches).

Flags can be provided to compilers giving masks or maybe other
information about where each custom extension is to be places. Linkers
and other object code tools can be written to renumber opcodes for
custom extensions within existing object files.

this is _partly_ what was discussed 18 months ago (Jacob Bachmeyer came up with a similar scheme at the binutils / assembler level).  the idea is sufficiently novel and has sufficient merit to warrant its own page, for a proper and thorough investigation (under its own thread, not in this one).

> Under such circumstances the gcc team will feel pressurised by sheer overwhelming user demand and the prospect of hard forks of gcc being downloaded from "unofficial" locations in the tens of thousands.

I predict they won't.

without ISAMUX/ISANS, they'll fight it, tooth and nail.  if however over a 15 year period they have literally hundreds if not thousands of demands that a particular custom extension be permitted to de-facto dominate a particular opcode, they'll want a way to get those people to shut the hell up.

or... ISAMUX/ISANS can be adopted, and there *is* no fight.  the conflict is resolved, immediately and with no fuss.

 

> Who is going to take responsibility for properly designing and proposing a strategy for mitigating this easily predictable and extremely high probabity scenario, before it is too late?

Strategies that can cope with small custom extensions such as function
estimate instructions are easy to come up with. Strategies that can
cope with custom extensions that each fill four major opcodes are
mathematically impossible.

you've not been following the discussion, bruce.  if you can get up to speed on ISAMUX/ISANS it would be very helpful for the RISC-V community.  the current draft spec is here https://libre-riscv.org/isa_conflict_resolution/isamux_isans/

l.

 

[Bruce Hoult]

Factually incorrect, I have been following it from the start. Kindly
do not assume you know my state of mind, and do not assume that
disagreement with you implies ignorance on the part of the person
disagreeing with you.

[lkcl]

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 8:14:22 AM UTC+1, Bruce Hoult wrote:

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:01 PM lkcl <luke.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 9:56:18 PM UTC+1, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>>
>> There is no possible scheme that allows multiple independent parties
>> to create extensions (custom or otherwise) that each take up four
>> major opcodes (12.5% of the entire encoding space) from a 32 bit
>> instruction that already has the standard ISA in it, and somehow
>> enable instructions from each of those extensions to be available
>> simultaneously.
>>
>
> there is.  it's called the ISAMUX/ISANS proposal.  it's been discussed several times, and mentioned several times, over the past 18 months.
>
> the little-endian / big-endian proposal is the first official extension that (partly) meets the ISAMUX/NS requirements [the LE/BE field is proposed to be WARL which needs to be fixed and made WLRL]
>
> https://libre-riscv.org/isa_conflict_resolution/isamux_isans/

I am fully aware of this. It is NOT making different extensions
available simultaneously to a program, it requires a mode change to
access different extensions.

no, it is not.  you have not been following the discussion properly.

> Who is going to take responsibility for properly designing and proposing a strategy for
> mitigating this easily predictable and extremely high probabity scenario, before it is
> too late?

If you're happy to sprinkle your program with mode changes then there
is nothing in opcode space management that needs mitigating and no
design needed.

bruce: this is disrespectful, not just to me, it's disrespectful to anyone considering using such a scheme.  "sprinkle your program" is belittling the intelligence of people who are working really hard to find ways round the limitations set by people who did *and do not* consult them.

 

>> For a private extension that will forever remain private you are of
>> course entitled to use all the custom major opcodes and the RV128 ones
>> and whatever other holes you find.
>
> this is where the approach of the RISC-V Foundation breaks down.  the processor that we are developing is very speciically designed to be mass-volume and, because it is libre, it will be very high profile.  libre means: the entire and full source code *has* to be made public [and all development discussions have to be public, as well.  no exceptions].
>
>
>> However this is simply not tenable for something that you think you
>> might one day want to share with others. In this case you should be
>> using 48 or 64 bit opcodes.
>
> we can't.  we're taking up the *entirety* of the 48 and 64 bit opcode space for SV prefixing.

That is *extremely* unfriendly and un-neighborly of you, and likely
completely rules out ever combining your extension with any other
official or unofficial extensions.

again: there is no need to take this tone (and if you had followed the discussions, you would know the full story).

given that in the past you have been seriously abusive, and your tone in this message is also using brusque to the point of rudeness, *and* you have not been keeping up-to-date and make others work harder to point out the errors that you are making, *and* are using intellectual-bullying language, i'm reporting you through the newly-created con...@riscv.org process.  this is much a test *of* that process - to see if it is taken seriously - as it is anything else.

l.

[lkcl]

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 8:25:47 AM UTC+1, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> you've not been following the discussion, bruce.  if you can get up to speed on ISAMUX/ISANS it would be very helpful for the RISC-V community.  the current draft spec is here https://libre-riscv.org/isa_conflict_resolution/isamux_isans/

Factually incorrect, I have been following it from the start. Kindly
do not assume you know my state of mind, and do not assume that
disagreement with you implies ignorance on the part of the person
disagreeing with you.

again, i am reporting this message to con...@riscv.org.  it is precisely the kind of intellectual "it's your fault entirely" bullying that i outlined takes place here on the RISC-V lists.  the behaviour was outlined here:

https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msg/sw-dev/OcNyKVHFuaE/0oY-M8NPCwAJ

the sequence of events is as follows:

* target individual makes a sequence of statements

* bully takes issue with statements and "demonstrates" that they are wrong

* target informs bully of errors in their "analysis"

* bully ignores the errors entirely and uses language that bolsters their belief that the bully is "correct" (right).  usually used as a further excuse to be further disrespectful to the target individual.

we cannot have reasonable discussions on these lists whilst this type of behaviour is tolerated.

l.

[lkcl]

robert: with many many apologies, for bruce's bullying to have poisoned this discussion: whilst through my participation it was highly likely for him to be triggered to attack, it was up to him to choose *whether* to attack (or not).

can i suggest creating a new thread, so as to be able to continue discussing the merit of the valuable ideas that you have, without having to read through toxic behaviour by an ongoing persistent bully?

best,

l.

[Christian Brunschen]

(Posting to the list because lkcl appears to be replying to the list, even if messages were posted directly to lkcl, as Robert did)

lkcl,

I've not been involved in any of these discussions other than as an interested reader and observer.

To this outside observer, you are the one who comes across as the bully. 

You frequently use language that comes across as disrespectful, dismissive of others' ideas or experience. Yet when someone then pushes back against you even in a minute degree, you quickly claim to be attacked, and jump to calling them bullies.

In this particular example, I saw Bruce defending themselves against an attack from you. To me, you were the one who were the bully, right from the start, belittling others' experience and knowledge on the topic, and then when people adjusted their tone to match yours, you jump on them and call them bullies.

Again, to me as an outside observer ... you're not in the right here. 

To reiterate: to this outside observer, who has been on the receiving end of bullying ... you are the one who looks like the bully. Including when you accuse others of bullying you – which is a tried and tested tactic used by bullies all over the world whenever their victims finally stand up to them.  

// Christian Brunschen

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RISC-V ISA Dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to isa-dev+u...@groups.riscv.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msgid/isa-dev/f5353b12-3dc1-405b-8656-9231478d33a7%40groups.riscv.org.

[lkcl]

(again, cc'ing con...@riscv.org because relevant context is provided, below).

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 9:23:11 AM UTC+1, Christian Brunschen wrote:

(Posting to the list because lkcl appears to be replying to the list, even if messages were posted directly to lkcl, as Robert did)

lkcl,

I've not been involved in any of these discussions other than as an interested reader and observer.

To this outside observer, you are the one who comes across as the bully. 

i know, christian: i'm aware of this perspective.  i've apologised for it, in the past, made an effort to ask for advice (demonstrated a willingness to accept constructive feedback), sought out and used resources that are specifically designed to help resolve conflict, sought out resources that help with group interactions, define what makes for good communities, and much *much* more, to no avail (i.e., the efforts that i've made have been persistently and consistently ignored, and are beginning to become so exhausting that i've begun to give up on using them).

so can i ask you this very simple question: have you witnessed *any* such efforts by bruce?  have you witnessed *any* efforts on his part to:

(1) apologise

(2) acknowledge other peoples' perspectives

(3) acknowledge his mistakes

(4) ask questions

(5) ask for feedback

You frequently use language that comes across as disrespectful, dismissive of others' ideas or experience. 

Yet when someone then pushes back against you even in a minute degree, you quickly claim to be attacked, and jump to calling them bullies.

the important thing here is to distinguish two groups.

(1) newcomers who do not necessarily know the background (technically, or its forums history of abuse that goes back LONG BEFORE i even joined)

(2) long-time contributors who really should know better (and who consistently and persistently flagrantly engage in abuse and "technical bullying").

the first group: *if* they are open-minded, i am respectful towards them, and go to some lengths to thank them for their contribution and make them generally feel welcome.  given that i (nobody is) am not "in charge" of these forums, being merely a contributor, obviously i cannot do that for every single message and every single person: clearly this is a *group* responsibility.

where someone who falls into that first group demonstrates that they are *not* open-minded: such people are easy to detect.  generally i try to give them "three strikes", and then (honestly) i lose all patience with them.

the second group: yyeah.  i don't need to spell it out (actually, i probably do. *sigh*).

the problems faced by Standards Development are particularly unique.  the consequences of a mistake - a simple ambiguity due to a single missing word - are extreme and severe.  the reputation and value of the *entire ecosystem* can be destroyed overnight through the deployment of one short-sighted modification to a Standard.

past examples (from other architectures that did not get this right) are best quoted, from albert calahan, from 18 months ago:

Yes. Well, it should be blocked via legal means. Incompatibility is a disaster for an architecture. 

The viability of PowerPC was badly damaged when SPE was introduced. This was a vector instruction set that was incompatible with the AltiVec instruction set. Software vendors had to choose, and typically the choice was "neither". Nobody wants to put in the effort when there is uncertainty and a market fragmented into small bits 

Note how Intel did not screw up. When SSE was added, MMX remained. Software vendors could trust that instructions would be supported. Both MMX and SSE remain today, in all shipping processors. With very few exceptions, Intel does not ship chips with missing functionality. There is a unified software ecosystem. 

This goes beyond the instruction set. MMU functionality also matters. You can add stuff, but then it must be implemented in every future CPU. You can not take stuff away without harming the architecture.

that is a huge amount of pressure, and it is really, *really* important that both newcomers *and* the long-time contributors recognise, understand and accept it, and adjust accordingly.

so when i am vocal and outspoken, it is because i *KNOW* what the consequences of mistakes are.  because this *is* a Standards Development Mailing list, i EXPECT other people to KNOW this about long-term Standards Development.  if they don't, then, well... i'm really sorry, but, putting it bluntly and honestly: they need to get educated, drastically fast.  and, again being blunt and honest: that's really not my responsibility: it's theirs.

In this particular example, I saw Bruce defending themselves against an attack from you.

you need to understand that Bruce has been persistently engaging in bullying behaviour for over 18 months, now, to the point where he's actually taken up a "personal crusade" of hunting me down in *other forums* and engaging in either technically-incorrect attacks or just plain slander, both against me and also against the Libre RISC-V project.

these ongoing attacks have resulted in the reputation of RISC-V being tarnished, through Bruce's direct association with SiFive, because people can clearly see the attacks for what they are.

consequently, several extremely prominent and experienced engineers across the world want absolutely *nothing* to do with RISC-V.

so unfortunately, yes: i can see how, without that long-term context, it may indeed look like he is "defending" himself from "attack".  others have made this same mistake in the past, as well, and it's caused me no end of problems.

i've had to "learn" to EXPECT to be attacked, here, and have had to actually change the language to a severely excruciating style that must make reading what i write almost unbearable.  it will be such a huge relief to me to *not* have to expect constantly to be under attack!

so i suspect that, partly, you are noticing this "defensive" language (it's extremely locked-down and is itself combatative language, designed as it is to PREDICT verbal attacks and PRE-EMPT them... thus forcing me to MENTION past attacks, and, therefore, we have the APPEARANCE of the message itself BEING an attack).

... you see how that works?  bottom line: if people stop attacking and bullying me, my messages will no longer need to take that into account, and will stop *appearing* to be bullying in and of themselves.

this is exhausting to have to do, day-in, day-out, and i should never have had to begin to do it in the first place!  not to mention, i'm taking up valuable sponsorship money that i will actually have to explain and account for, publicly!  it is one of the most bizarre / surreal situations i've ever been in.

To me, you were the one who were the bully, right from the start, belittling others' experience and knowledge on the topic, and then when people adjusted their tone to match yours, you jump on them and call them bullies.

Again, to me as an outside observer ... you're not in the right here. 

To reiterate: to this outside observer, who has been on the receiving end of bullying ... you are the one who looks like the bully. Including when you accuse others of bullying you – which is a tried and tested tactic used by bullies all over the world whenever their victims finally stand up to them.  

so to illustrate to you why that is very very specifically not the case: let's do a test [i.e. let's see if Bruce does the same thing].  i am going to ask you this simple question:

i'm sorry for giving that impression: it's not the intent (i.e. was accidental) - how could i have done better?

the very fact that i am willing to even *ask* this question - which is genuine and in good faith - should tell you everything that you need to know, namely that (a) it's a *genuine* apology and (b), it's asking for constructive feedback.  and in case you believe that i am being disingenuous, i'll emphasise it again: *i actually genuinely want to know the answer to that question*.

so i hope that helps provide some very important context, Christian.  and thank you for raising the point that *i* am the one that "looks like a bully".  having been subjected to bullying in all forms since around the age of 11 [it began with boarding school taunting, for five years, with absolutely no chance of escape, and the bullies *actively* hunting me down if i reported them], i'm keenly aware how it makes people feel, so it is consequently one of my absolute worst waking nightmares to be accused of *DELIBERATELY* wishing harm - of any kind - on another human being.

ok that's enough.  i have to get back to developing the processor.

l.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 2:19 AM lkcl <luke.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you need to understand that Bruce has been persistently engaging in bullying behaviour for over 18 months, now, to the point where he's actually taken up a "personal crusade" of hunting me down in *other forums* and engaging in either technically-incorrect attacks or just plain slander, both against me and also against the Libre RISC-V project.

Luke, I don't have either time or desire to "hunt you down" on other
forums. On the contrary, it feels as if you come and find *me*, for
example on an Australasian electrical engineering forum. I'm *from*
Australasia and have been a member of that forum for years. Similarly
I've been a member of reddit for 15 years and an active and I think
fairly well known ("one of the regulars") member of comp.arch for 25
years, to name three places where you have appeared recently.

I'll leave others to decide who is or is not technically incorrect or
slanderous.

[lkcl]

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 7:59:04 PM UTC+1, Bruce Hoult wrote:

 

I'll leave others to decide who is or is not technically incorrect or
slanderous.

so, christian (et al), can you see what he did, there?  it was very clever.  once again he makes it "look like he is in the right".  he *genuinely* has no idea that the words that he's speaking are causing distress and harm to another human being

did you see any evidence in his words of an apology, or ask for feedback, or a promise to do better?  what we saw instead was "excuses".

this is pure pathological behaviour.

even more than that, his response almost seems to suggest that he's confident - *in advance* - that his harmful behaviour will be judged to be acceptable.  we have to ask ourselves, *why* might that be?

to answer that, we have to look at who is behind the new process.  both karsten and i raised concerns about the new process, that it's instigated, driven, policed and judged by people who are simply have too close a link to the perpetrators of unacceptable behaviour, and in some cases *are actually the perpetrators themselves*.

the only reason that i have any confidence that something will get done is because Jeffrey is from the Linux Foundation, and is acting as an advisor to the RISC Foundation Board of Directors.  however, even there, he may end up being over-ruled and disregarded.

i am very deliberately keeping this completely public and transparent because it's extremely important that people witness this process.  i will be publishing the response from the Board of Directors - *in full* - (if there is ever a response) here on these forums, so that the RISC-V Community can see for themselves if the RISC-V Foundation Board of Directors can be trusted.

i have yet to receive an acknowledgement of the initiation of the process.

l.

[Christian Brunschen]

My apologies to everyone else on these lists. 

On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 11:19, lkcl <luke.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

(again, cc'ing con...@riscv.org because relevant context is provided, below).

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 9:23:11 AM UTC+1, Christian Brunschen wrote:

(Posting to the list because lkcl appears to be replying to the list, even if messages were posted directly to lkcl, as Robert did)

lkcl,

I've not been involved in any of these discussions other than as an interested reader and observer.

To this outside observer, you are the one who comes across as the bully. 

i know, christian: i'm aware of this perspective. 

I must wonder, then, why you keep doing the very things that create that perception.

 

i've apologised for it, in the past, made an effort to ask for advice (demonstrated a willingness to accept constructive feedback), sought out and used resources that are specifically designed to help resolve conflict, sought out resources that help with group interactions, define what makes for good communities, and much *much* more, to no avail (i.e., the efforts that i've made have been persistently and consistently ignored, and are beginning to become so exhausting that i've begun to give up on using them).

From my perspective, you may be saying that you're doing all of these positive things, but they do not actually appear to lead to any actual observable change in your ongoing behaviour. That is, you may say the words of apologies, and the words of looking for feedback, but because you say them in a context where you seem to continue to act dismissive and arrogant and, frankly, offensive in the way you talk to people, all those things ring hollow and come across as entirely insincere.

Even if you have asked for all of those things, nothing appears to have resulted in any meaningful change in your behaviour – so your questions actually don't mean anything. In fact, your pointing at the questions just highlights that discrepancy ... and makes it look, to me, like all you care about is asking the questions and trying to make yourself look good.

 

so can i ask you this very simple question: have you witnessed *any* such efforts by bruce?  have you witnessed *any* efforts on his part to:

(1) apologise

(2) acknowledge other peoples' perspectives

(3) acknowledge his mistakes

(4) ask questions

(5) ask for feedback

This is actually an example of another interesting bullying tactic: making specific demands that others "must" meet.

But for example an apology only comes across as sincere when it is also accompanied by a corresponding change in behaviour. You may have said words of apology, but your behaviour has consistently remained the same, abrasive, condescending, arrogant, and sometimes downright offensive; so to me, your apologies fall flat and ring hollow, and thus, your demands of how other people should behave come across as hypocritical at best, and another bullying tactic at worst.

 

You frequently use language that comes across as disrespectful, dismissive of others' ideas or experience. 

Yet when someone then pushes back against you even in a minute degree, you quickly claim to be attacked, and jump to calling them bullies.

the important thing here is to distinguish two groups.

Erm, no. 

For one thing, you're not the one who decides, or gets to dictate, what "the important thing" is.

For another, you have not particularly described the "groups" in a useful way other than based on your biased perception of how you think people may or may not agree with you; thus these groups you 'define' are simply not valid other than to your personal imagination and not only cannot be accepted, but must be rejected.

 

(1) newcomers who do not necessarily know the background (technically, or its forums history of abuse that goes back LONG BEFORE i even joined)

(2) long-time contributors who really should know better (and who consistently and persistently flagrantly engage in abuse and "technical bullying").

the first group: *if* they are open-minded, i am respectful towards them, and go to some lengths to thank them for their contribution and make them generally feel welcome.  

given that i (nobody is) am not "in charge" of these forums,

Indeed you are not – though you often seem to act act as if you were, as if you are placed to make specific demands on what rules people must follow or what "tests" they must take and pass – including in this message.

Plus, there actually is someone in charge of these forums: their owner(s) the RISC-V foundation, as you would appear to realize, as evidenced by the fact that you've contacted the RISC-V foundation regarding other people's conduct in these forums.

 

being merely a contributor, obviously i cannot do that for every single message and every single person: clearly this is a *group* responsibility.

Again, you seem to be demanding what "the group" must or must not do; you seem to be acting as if you and only you know how the group should be run, how people should interact, etc. 

 

where someone who falls into that first group demonstrates that they are *not* open-minded: such people are easy to detect. 

To me it seems that you detect such a "lack of open mind" by someone simply not blindly agreeing with you or accepting your claims – or even worse, daring to voice something against you. 

Whereas in actual fact, someone with an open mind would more likely observe and draw their own conclusions, as I have done - and which may not align with the conclusions that you would prefer them to draw.

 

generally i try to give them "three strikes", and then (honestly) i lose all patience with them.

Please consider that perhaps people are applying a similar strategy towards you – that other people on this list might have lost patience with you. 

 

The next sentence,

 

the second group: yyeah.  i don't need to spell it out (actually, i probably do. *sigh*).

is another example of how you're certainly coming across to me as dismissive and condescending in a way that I feel is pretty offensive and rather counterproductive to having any kind of useful conversation on this list – because you've just pretty much told everyone here that unless they agree with you and accept your specific views, you will group them into "the second group" and thus consider them ripe targets for abusive language and other less-than-pleasant conduct.

And really, the way you group people says more about you than about anyone who might fall into any of the groups you describe – though, again, neither of the groupings are particularly useful. After all, you describe the groups largely in ways that give you an excuse to dismiss people – whilst at the same time you make lots of assumptions about people in those "groups" of yours. 

Separately though, you seem to have rather missed the point of what I wrote. I see you routinely use language that comes across to me as dismissive, condescending, arrogant or similar, even in parts of conversations where you are in agreement with someone - not responding to anyone who is in any disagreement with you. So even when there's no "excuse" of anyone being in any of your "antagonist groups", you come across as arrogant and dismissive.

 

the problems faced by Standards Development are particularly unique. 

 

[ ... quoted example elided because it does not particularly support anything other than pointing out that there exist problems ... ]

that is a huge amount of pressure, and it is really, *really* important that both newcomers *and* the long-time contributors recognise, understand and accept it, and adjust accordingly.

so when i am vocal and outspoken, it is because i *KNOW* what the consequences of mistakes are.  because this *is* a Standards Development Mailing list, i EXPECT other people to KNOW this about long-term Standards Development.  if they don't, then, well... i'm really sorry, but, putting it bluntly and honestly: they need to get educated, drastically fast.  and, again being blunt and honest: that's really not my responsibility: it's theirs.

Your paragraphs above appear a clear example of arrogance and condescension on your part: you seem to presume that other people just don't know things, and that you are the only one who really does (you 'expect' that they have certain specific knowledge and if they don't – i.e, if they don't have exactly your knowledge and perspective or "adjust accordingly", which comes across as saying "you either agree with me or you're wrong" – "then, well..."), and that this somehow gives you license to be abrasive and condescending and to act like a bully (and by the way, claiming that you are "being blunt and honest" when you're being condescending and dismissive and abrasive, is another common bullying tactic).

But none of those things that you claim or presume are actually true, not your claims or presumptions about other people, and not your claims or presumptions about how this then gives you license to act.

In this particular example, I saw Bruce defending themselves against an attack from you.

you need to understand

Again, you presume a lot about a) what I do or do not already understand, and b) what position you are in regarding telling me what I "need" to do. 

 

that Bruce has been persistently engaging in bullying behaviour for over 18 months, now, to the point where he's actually taken up a "personal crusade" of hunting me down in *other forums* and engaging in either technically-incorrect attacks or just plain slander, both against me and also against the Libre RISC-V project.

I have been following this list for a fair while. To me it is not Bruce but you who comes across as engaging in bullying behaviour. So based on that, I have to take any and all of your claim with a suitable amount of salt.

 

these ongoing attacks have resulted in the reputation of RISC-V being tarnished, through Bruce's direct association with SiFive, because people can clearly see the attacks for what they are.

I think you may be misapprehending whose reputation is being tarnished, and why.

 

consequently, several extremely prominent and experienced engineers across the world want absolutely *nothing* to do with RISC-V.

so unfortunately, yes: i can see how, without that long-term context, it may indeed look like he is "defending" himself from "attack".  others have made this same mistake in the past, as well, and it's caused me no end of problems.

You appear to be trying to muddy the waters about what is going on in this instance. 

The sequence of events here was simple and clear. And even if I were to presume for the sake of argument that there had been a long ongoing campaign of harassment against you, this sequence still comes out with you looking like the bully.

i've had to "learn" to EXPECT to be attacked, here, and have had to actually change the language to a severely excruciating style that must make reading what i write almost unbearable.  it will be such a huge relief to me to *not* have to expect constantly to be under attack!

so i suspect that, partly, you are noticing this "defensive" language (it's extremely locked-down and is itself combatative language, designed as it is to PREDICT verbal attacks and PRE-EMPT them... thus forcing me to MENTION past attacks, and, therefore, we have the APPEARANCE of the message itself BEING an attack).

I'm noticing, from you, not 'defensive' language, but generally highly arrogant and dismissive language, and things that are common bullying tactics – including a bully's tactic of desperately casting themselves in a victim role. And these seem to happen in many messages, regardless of other participants in the discussion.

... you see how that works?  bottom line: if people stop attacking and bullying me, my messages will no longer need to take that into account, and will stop *appearing* to be bullying in and of themselves.

Again, you seem to be casting yourself in a victim role in order to justify your own abrasive, condescending, arrogant, and sometimes truly offensive behaviour. That doesn't fly with me – again, based on lengthy and ongoing observation.

 

this is exhausting to have to do, day-in, day-out, and i should never have had to begin to do it in the first place!  not to mention, i'm taking up valuable sponsorship money that i will actually have to explain and account for, publicly!  it is one of the most bizarre / surreal situations i've ever been in.

To me, you were the one who were the bully, right from the start, belittling others' experience and knowledge on the topic, and then when people adjusted their tone to match yours, you jump on them and call them bullies.

Again, to me as an outside observer ... you're not in the right here. 

To reiterate: to this outside observer, who has been on the receiving end of bullying ... you are the one who looks like the bully. Including when you accuse others of bullying you – which is a tried and tested tactic used by bullies all over the world whenever their victims finally stand up to them.  

so to illustrate to you why that is very very specifically not the case: let's do a test [i.e. let's see if Bruce does the same thing]. 

You appear to presume a lot about what position you're in regarding demanding what "tests" the people on this list must take or pass to your satisfaction.

 

i am going to ask you this simple question:

i'm sorry for giving that impression: it's not the intent (i.e. was accidental)

To me that doesn't fly: for example literally just above in this very message, you wrote a paragraph about how you deliberately write messages in "this "defensive" language (it's extremely locked-down and is itself combatative language, designed as it is to PREDICT verbal attacks and PRE-EMPT them." – in other words, you are very much deliberately writing these things, and it is clearly your stated intent to write that "combatative language". By your own words, there was no accident here.

 

- how could i have done better?

the very fact that i am willing to even *ask* this question - which is genuine and in good faith - should tell you everything that you need to know, namely that (a) it's a *genuine* apology and (b), it's asking for constructive feedback.  and in case you believe that i am being disingenuous, i'll emphasise it again: *i actually genuinely want to know the answer to that question*.

I have seen you ask such things before, but only ever in a fashion (like here) that appears more from a position of arrogance rather than humility. It comes across to me as you loudly proclaiming all the effort you're making, and wanting to reap all the best possible reputation benefit from that; and you're even making that explicit: you're demanding that I should interpret your very asking the question in a way that shines the best possible light onto you. But again, you've asked similar questions before, but I've not observed you actually changing any of your behaviours; so your asking the questions seems, well, not to actually lead to the outcome that one might expect – instead, you also still seem to be considering yourself absolutely in the right, and those questions seem perfunctory at best. So again, all of this just falls flat and feels utterly hollow – and I say this based on many interactions between you and other people that I've observed on these lists.

Regarding actually changing your behaviours, might I suggest approaching an actual professional therapist, rather than expecting random people on an internet mailing list to resolve your communications issues? 

so i hope that helps provide some very important context, Christian.  and thank you for raising the point that *i* am the one that "looks like a bully".  having been subjected to bullying in all forms since around the age of 11 [it began with boarding school taunting, for five years, with absolutely no chance of escape, and the bullies *actively* hunting me down if i reported them], i'm keenly aware how it makes people feel, so it is consequently one of my absolute worst waking nightmares to be accused of *DELIBERATELY* wishing harm - of any kind - on another human being.

It is, alas, not at all uncommon that people who have suffered abuse, themselves become abusers – whether they want to or not. 

Keep in mind also the saying that "intent is not magic". You may say or do things with what you consider the best of intent, but still cause significant pain, discomfort, even actual damage.

Indeed, I've seen you point that particular aspect out in other people. 

ok that's enough.  i have to get back to developing the processor.

I think that is an excellent idea.

 

l.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RISC-V ISA Dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to isa-dev+u...@groups.riscv.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msgid/isa-dev/cffd88dc-45f4-4f68-b8e8-1e40d9ebd027%40groups.riscv.org.

[lkcl]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:52 AM Christian Brunschen <chri...@brunschen.com> wrote:

> My apologies to everyone else on these lists. 

 likewise.  i'd like to these forums to be full of technical conversations that are respectful and welcoming, where people feel engaged and empowered to contribute to RISC-V.

>>> To this outside observer, you are the one who comes across as the bully. 

>>
>>
>> i know, christian: i'm aware of this perspective. 
>
>
> I must wonder, then, why you keep doing the very things that create that perception.

 i honestly don't know, christian.  i've asked people for constructive advice, and (perhaps because, as you demonstrate below, people simply don't believe that those requests are genuine), *do not receive any*!  [not quite accurate: around 18 months ago i may have received one or two private responses].

>>
>> i've apologised for it, in the past, made an effort to ask for advice (demonstrated a willingness to accept constructive feedback), sought out and used resources that are specifically designed to help resolve conflict, sought out resources that help with group interactions, define what makes for good communities, and much *much* more, to no avail (i.e., the efforts that i've made have been persistently and consistently ignored, and are beginning to become so exhausting that i've begun to give up on using them).
>
>
> From my perspective, you may be saying that you're 

> doing all of these positive things, but they do not actually

>  appear to lead to any actual observable change in your

>  ongoing behaviour. 

christian: this is... ok, let's go through this.

* person A uses language that causes person B to attack.

* person A does not understand what caused person B to attack.

* person A apologises, looks up, and utilises resources which are designed to reduce conflict.

* person B IGNORES person A's efforts.

three months later:

* person B attacks person A *AGAIN* in a *NEW* conversation.

* person A again deploys conflict-resolution resources to aid and assist in reducing confict.

* person B IGNORES person A's efforts.

six months later:

* person B attacks person A *AGAIN* in *ANOTHER* conversation

* person A is getting pretty sick of this and, due to ill health, physical exhaustion and lack of time and finance, stops using the conflict-resolving resources because they're simply too much (and aren't having any effect)

* persons C, D and E begin to COMPLAIN ABOUT PERSON A *NOT PERSON B*

now, how am i supposed to react in this situation?  how am i supposed to respond?

> That is, you may say the words of apologies, and the words of looking for feedback, but because you say them in a context where you seem to continue to act dismissive and arrogant and, frankly, offensive in the way you talk to people, all those things ring hollow and come across as entirely insincere.

i have absolutely _no_ idea how to respond to this, christian.  as in: if you assume "bad faith" (which, from reading the resources on http://www.crnhq.org is a definite "red flag"), all bets are off.

in other words, christian: sad to say it, but the approach that you're taking with me makes your outside perspective *part of the problem*, not the solution.

> Even if you have asked for all of those things, nothing appears to have resulted in any meaningful change in your behaviour – so your questions actually don't mean anything. In fact, your pointing at the questions just highlights that discrepancy ... and makes it look, to me, like all you care about is asking the questions and trying to make yourself look good.

i spent considerable time composing the message.  towards the end i realised that i had spent considerable effort and needed to get back to focussing on the processor.

so, i said so.

then, i realised, "argh f***, i just *know* someone's going to take that as viewing the ENTIRE genuine request for help as complete s**t.  hmm, what should i do?"

so i went, "ngggggh do i take up yet more of peoples' time (and mine) writing a follow-up?" and in the end i made the decision that peoples' time (and mine) is more valuable.

unfortunately... you did *exactly* what i thought might happen: assumed that i was being completely disingenuous.

i have absolutely no idea how to respond, here.

>> so can i ask you this very simple question: have you witnessed *any* such efforts by bruce?  have you witnessed *any* efforts on his part to:
>>
>> (1) apologise
>> (2) acknowledge other peoples' perspectives
>> (3) acknowledge his mistakes
>> (4) ask questions
>> (5) ask for feedback
>
>
> This is actually an example of another interesting bullying tactic: making specific demands that others "must" meet.

 ???? what??? how on *earth* do you come to that conclusion??  this is getting to be a *really* surreal conversation.

> But for example an apology only comes across as sincere when it is also accompanied by a corresponding change in behaviour.

 christian: i'm getting *really* exasperated here: if somebody fucking well told me what the fucking problem was and actually gave some constructive fucking advice i'd fucking well listen to it, for fuck's sake!

 i haven't had *anyone* give *any* advice other than "shut the fuck up you fucking moron"!

> Separately though, you seem to have rather missed the point of what I wrote. 

quite possibly.  there's a trick which is listed here: https://www.crnhq.org/cr-kit/#empathy

it's the process that i gave up on using, because when i started using it, people completely ignored the responses.  it was as if they *wanted* to maintain a false impression [of me as a fucking moron].

> I see you routinely use language that comes across to me as dismissive,

> condescending, arrogant or similar, even in parts of conversations where 

> you are in agreement with someone - not responding to anyone who is in 

> any disagreement with you. 

 yes.  i'm aware that i do this.  i don't entirely know why.  again, according to the advice on crnhq.org it's part of "empathy".  which, clearly, as someone with asperger's i am clearly lacking in.

 even when talking to people who are in ill-health, i don't respond in a "normal" way.  a friend of mine had an embolism on a plane, collapsed, bounced his head off the floor, and they had to bring the plane down to 10,000 ft for the rest of the flight and put him on oxygen.

my response on him describing this story was, "cool!  hey, have you heard of a health treatment that..." and i began to go straight into something that would help him recover faster.

so - at last - THANK YOU.  THANK YOU for being one of the VERY FIRST people to respond with something USEFUL that i can try to fix.

> So even when there's no "excuse" of anyone being in any of your "antagonist groups",

 i think you may be misunderstanding (assuming bad faith or "victim" mentality when there isn't one).  i described those two groups as simple non-judgemental categorisations.

 the assignment of "antagonism" is in your mind, not mine.

> Your paragraphs above appear a clear example of arrogance and condescension on your part: 

 ok, so this is, according again to the crnhq.org resource on "empathy", where i have made a mistake.  you're viewing what i've written as "excuses".  this is, according to the website, a sign that you believe that i have not listened to you.

following the advice: it says that i should ask you if that is correct, and not do *anything else*, from this point onwards, until i have received a positive acknowledgement.

[however... mmm.... as this is a multi-faceted message, if i cut this message at this point, you *might* perceive that as (and accuse me of) "not listening".  not sure what to do... on balance... decision made: will continue.]

> you seem to presume that other people just don't know things,

 i have absolutely no idea how i give that impression.

> and that you are the only one who really does

 again: i appreciate you expressing this perspective - the problem is that it is so far from my internal... "view-of-self-awareness" (whatever).... that it's causing a distinct "surreality" moment of total and utter confusion.

 i *know* that i do not know enough.  i am so fucking far out of my depth on this project that i'm trying *really hard* to find short-cuts and other ways to make up for the lack.  i was extremely lucky for example to encounter mitch alsup on comp.arch, and spent nearly *six months* researching Out-of-Order designs, often exchanging four to six highly technical messages *a day* with him on that newsgroup.

 the only possible explanation that i can give is that you *might* be misinterpreting the "libre training" that i've engaged in for 22+ years, now.  this basically goes, "once you learn something, explain it to others, so that they can benefit as well".

 as this is something that is pure routine for me, there exists the possibility that you might be perceiving it as "Wants To Tell Everyone He's Right".

 far from it: this is just not how software libre works.  by describing things, publicly, *that's* the opportunity for others to say "you're wrong dude!"

 and guess what? that "you're wrong dude, and here's why" could save the project TEN MILLION in NREs due to a tape-out gone bad.

 far from wanting to demonstrate "TOTAL PERFECTION, BCOZ I AM GOD AND YOU ARE WORTHLESS IGNORANT SAVAGES, HAR HAR" i *want* people to tell me, loudly and clearly, "You're Wrong, and Here's Why", and i will say "thank you" with genuine gratitude.

 

 so i *believe* you may be mis-perceiving things, but i cannot be certain.  does the above make any sense?

> (and by the way, claiming that you are "being blunt and honest" when you're

> being condescending and dismissive and abrasive, is another common bullying tactic).

 again, i am having some difficulty resolving this perspective.  if, due to sheer exhaustion, lack of empathy (asperger's), and ill health i "fall back" to *genuinely* being honest and direct, and you - assuming "bad faith" and DELIBERATE hostile intent - say "no, you are being condescending, dismissive and abrasive, just like any bully", what am i to do?

 i can't get "unexhausted", i can't get more money to pay for medicines, i can't pay for "training courses" to deal with asperger's, i can't pay someone else to vet absolutely every single message i write, i can't move to a more expensive (western) location which would improve my health...

... so what should i do? [and: christian: if you say "ho ho what a total luzah, he's *clearly* acting disingenous here, just like the fucking bully that he is", i'm going to get very pissed off]

> But none of those things that you claim or presume are actually true, 

> not your claims or presumptions about other people, and not your claims

> or presumptions about how this then gives you license to act.

 it's... getting difficult to respond to this, as there's a sufficiently large number of misperceptions mixed in that i'm getting overwhelmed.  i must apologise: replying here has taken up well over an hour already.  i'm going to skip ahead, please do *not* misconstrue that as an attempt to evade the issue, ok?

>>> In this particular example, I saw Bruce defending themselves against an attack from you.
>>
>>
>> you need to understand
>
>
> Again, you presume a lot about a) what I do or do not already understand, and b) what position you are in regarding telling me what I "need" to do. 
>  
>>
>> that Bruce has been persistently engaging in bullying behaviour for over 18 months, now, to the point where he's actually taken up a "personal crusade" of hunting me down in *other forums* and engaging in either technically-incorrect attacks or just plain slander, both against me and also against the Libre RISC-V project.
>
>
> I have been following this list for a fair while. To me it is not Bruce but you who comes across as engaging in bullying behaviour. So based on that, I have to take any and all of your claim with a suitable amount of salt.
>  
>>
>>
>> these ongoing attacks have resulted in the reputation of RISC-V being tarnished, through Bruce's direct association with SiFive, because people can clearly see the attacks for what they are.
>
>
> I think you may be misapprehending whose reputation is being tarnished, and why.
>  
>>
>>
>> consequently, several extremely prominent and experienced engineers across the world want absolutely *nothing* to do with RISC-V.
>>
>> so unfortunately, yes: i can see how, without that long-term context, it may indeed look like he is "defending" himself from "attack".  others have made this same mistake in the past, as well, and it's caused me no end of problems.
>
>
> You appear to be trying to muddy the waters about what is going on in this instance. 
>
> The sequence of events here was simple and clear. And even if I were to presume for the sake of argument that there had been a long ongoing campaign of harassment against you, this sequence still comes out with you looking like the bully.
>
>> i've had to "learn" to EXPECT to be attacked, here, and have had to actually change the language to a severely excruciating style that must make reading what i write almost unbearable.  it will be such a huge relief to me to *not* have to expect constantly to be under attack!
>>
>> so i suspect that, partly, you are noticing this "defensive" language (it's extremely locked-down and is itself combatative language, designed as it is to PREDICT verbal attacks and PRE-EMPT them... thus forcing me to MENTION past attacks, and, therefore, we have the APPEARANCE of the message itself BEING an attack).
>
>
> I'm noticing, from you, not 'defensive' language, but generally highly arrogant and dismissive language, and things that are common bullying tactics – including a bully's tactic of desperately casting themselves in a victim role. And these seem to happen in many messages, regardless of other participants in the discussion.
>
>> ... you see how that works?  bottom line: if people stop attacking and bullying me, my messages will no longer need to take that into account, and will stop *appearing* to be bullying in and of themselves.
>
>
> Again, you seem to be casting yourself in a victim role in order to justify your own abrasive, condescending, arrogant, and sometimes truly offensive behaviour. That doesn't fly with me – again, based on lengthy and ongoing observation.
>  
>>
>> this is exhausting to have to do, day-in, day-out, and i should never have had to begin to do it in the first place!  not to mention, i'm taking up valuable sponsorship money that i will actually have to explain and account for, publicly!  it is one of the most bizarre / surreal situations i've ever been in.
>>
>>
>>> To me, you were the one who were the bully, right from the start, belittling others' experience and knowledge on the topic, and then when people adjusted their tone to match yours, you jump on them and call them bullies.
>>>
>>> Again, to me as an outside observer ... you're not in the right here. 
>>>
>>> To reiterate: to this outside observer, who has been on the receiving end of bullying ... you are the one who looks like the bully. Including when you accuse others of bullying you – which is a tried and tested tactic used by bullies all over the world whenever their victims finally stand up to them.  
>>
>>
>> so to illustrate to you why that is very very specifically not the case: let's do a test [i.e. let's see if Bruce does the same thing]. 
>
>
> You appear to presume a lot about what position you're in regarding

> demanding what "tests" the people on this list must take or pass to your satisfaction.

 NO.  *NOT* to "MY" satisfaction.  absolutely NOT.  i am keenly and constantly aware that these are public PERMANENTLY archived discussions.  it is not MY satisfaction that must be "passed", it is the WITNESSES - the ones who will be reading this discussion, to see how it turns out, as to whether they feel SAFE in participating.  THEY are the ones whom i wrote what i did.

 christian: unfortunately, whilst i appreciate the efforts that you're going to, to provide me with useful feedback, i feel compelled to point out that you're most definitely *not* acting in a "mediator" role:

 https://www.crnhq.org/cr-kit/#medi

Attitudes for mediators
These attitudes are relevant whenever you want to advise, in a conflict which is not your own. It may be a friend telling you about a problem on the telephone. It may an informal chat with conflicting people, together or separately. It may be a formally organised mediation session.
•   Be objective – validate both sides, even if privately you prefer one point of view, or even when only one party is present.
•   Be supportive – use caring language. Provide a non-threatening learning environment, where people will feel safe to open up.
•   No judging – actively discourage judgements as to who was right and who was wrong. Don’t ask “Why did you …?” Ask “What happened?” and “How did you feel?”
•   Steer process, not content – use astute questions, encouraging suggestions from participants. Resist advising. If your suggestions are really needed, offer as options not directives.
•   Win/win – work towards wins for both sides. Turn opponents into problem-solving partners.

what you've done is undermine efforts to show that this isn't going to be solved by me "alone".  it's certainly not going to be resolved by the imposition of a "Code of Conduct" without consultation.  it's going to need *everyone* to sit down express what they would like to see this forum become, *and then everyone work on that*.

>>
>> i am going to ask you this simple question:
>>
>> i'm sorry for giving that impression: it's not the intent (i.e. was accidental)
>
>
> To me that doesn't fly: for example literally just above in this very 

> message, you wrote a paragraph about how you deliberately write

>  messages in "this "defensive" language

 this is conflation in your mind of two separate points, christian.

>> the very fact that i am willing to even *ask* this question - which is genuine and in good faith - should tell you everything that you need to know, namely that (a) it's a *genuine* apology and (b), it's asking for constructive feedback.  and in case you believe that i am being disingenuous, i'll emphasise it again: *i actually genuinely want to know the answer to that question*.

>
>
> I have seen you ask such things before, but only ever in a fashion

> (like here) that appears more from a position of arrogance rather than humility. 

*sigh* this is probably precisely _because_ of the continuous ongoing attacks, the irony is that the change in tone of language to defend *against* such attacks cannot be combined at the same time with such requests.  they *must* be disingenuous, yes?

> It comes across to me as you loudly proclaiming all the effort you're 

> making, and wanting to reap all the best possible reputation benefit 

> from that;

 no.

> But again, you've asked similar questions before, but I've not 

> observed you actually changing any of your behaviours; 

 that's because nobody fucking well responds!  the most likely reason i can think of is that they're so repulsed by the ugliness of the conversation that they're just not willing to even read and get to that point.

 or, as you say, they believe i'm being a fucking disingenous dickhead ho ho so smart to try to make himself "look good" by asking a "genuine" question and then tacking on "this is a genuine question" - what a total fucktard.

 ... something like that, yeah?

> so your asking the questions seems, well, not to actually lead to the outcome that one might expect – instead, you also still seem to be considering yourself absolutely in the right, and those questions seem perfunctory at best. 

 indeed.  i have absolutely no idea what to do about that.

> So again, all of this just falls flat and feels utterly hollow –

> and I say this based on many interactions between you and 

> other people that I've observed on these lists.

 btw have you done any research into my background?  are there any other lists where you've witnessed "exclusive shockingly poor behaviour solely and exclusively by me and me alone, entirely my fault, where others were clearly right and i was clearly being a quotes dick quotes"?  there's lists dating back 22 years - software libre projects that i've run for 3-5 years - so it'll be quite easy to find archives.

> Regarding actually changing your behaviours, might I suggest approaching 

> an actual professional therapist, 

 i would... if had the money to do so.  my income is quite literally a TENTH of that of someone with similar skills.

 when earning under USD 15,000 a year, where is the budget to pay for that?  what should my priority be: pay for food for myself, my partner and my 10-year-old daughter, or pay for therapy?

> rather than expecting random people on an internet mailing list to resolve your communications issues?

>
>> so i hope that helps provide some very important context, Christian.  and thank you for raising the point that *i* am the one that "looks like a bully".  having been subjected to bullying in all forms since around the age of 11 [it began with boarding school taunting, for five years, with absolutely no chance of escape, and the bullies *actively* hunting me down if i reported them], i'm keenly aware how it makes people feel, so it is consequently one of my absolute worst waking nightmares to be accused of *DELIBERATELY* wishing harm - of any kind - on another human being.
>
>
> It is, alas, not at all uncommon that people who have suffered abuse, themselves become abusers – whether they want to or not. 

i'm familiar with this: it's a choice.   the pain that they experience, they seek vengeance on others, as a way to get the stress out of their system.

given that i am aware that seeking vengeange (revenge) causes the human body to generate a neuro-toxin, detectable in saliva, with a chemical formula similar to that of SNAKE VENOM, it would seem highly unlikely that i would *ACTIVELY* engage in such behaviour that would LITERALLY cause me to be poisoned by my own thoughts, would it not?

i was taught an alternative perspective by a very wise friend.  on being abused, the victim may simply state, "wow, i learned from that experience not to do anything like that to another human being".  to your father, you can say, "thank you for being such a dick, i want to grow up NEVER to be such a dick, myself.  thank you, father, for teaching me that lesson".

it's a choice.

> Keep in mind also the saying that "intent is not magic". You may say or do

> things with what you consider the best of intent, but still cause significant 

> pain, discomfort, even actual damage.

 yeahh, i know.  i'm not happy about it.  i expect people to get in touch if it happens, and if they do, i'll apologise.  that's the best anyone can do, i feel.  we do the best we can.

 so - thank you, christian.  there is a lot of confusion and conflation, here, and a lot of extremely surreal moments, however it is still extremely valuable, and i'm really grateful that you took the time to write and show me how much misperception there is.  in particular, for reminding me about the lack of empathy that i display.

 too long, writing and reading this, but important i feel.  thank you to everyone for your tolerance and patience.

l.

[Karsten Merker]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:31:23PM -0700, lkcl wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 7:59:04 PM UTC+1, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> > I'll leave others to decide who is or is not technically incorrect or
> > slanderous.
>
> so, christian (et al), can you see what he did, there? it was very
> clever. once again he makes it "look like he is in the right". he
> *genuinely* has no idea that the words that he's speaking are causing
> distress and harm to another human being
>
> did you see any evidence in his words of an apology, or ask for feedback,
> or a promise to do better? what we saw instead was "excuses".
>
> this is pure pathological behaviour.
>
> even more than that, his response almost seems to suggest that he's
> confident - *in advance* - that his harmful behaviour will be judged to be
> acceptable. we have to ask ourselves, *why* might that be?
>
> to answer that, we have to look at who is behind the new process. both
> karsten and i raised concerns about the new process, that it's instigated,
> driven, policed and judged by people who are simply have too close a link
> to the perpetrators of unacceptable behaviour, and in some cases *are
> actually the perpetrators themselves*.

Luke, stop putting things into my mouth that I have never said
and stop trying to create the impression that I would somehow
agree with your behaviour and with what you are trying to stage
here - I definitely do not; exactly the contrary is true.

I have voiced concerns regarding the wording of specific clauses
of the code of conduct published by the foundation because I
believe that the wording of those clauses is unsuitable for a
code of conduct, and I have expressed criticism regarding the
foundation claiming to speak for the RISC-V community at large in
publishing this specific wording while there has been no
involvement at all of the community at large in the design and
adoption of this specific code of conduct, but I have never
stated anything of what you, Luke, claim above. If somebody
would like to read what I really have written, just take a look
at the sw-dev list archive; the thread starts at
https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!topic/sw-dev/OcNyKVHFuaE

To make that absolutely clear: My aforementioned criticism
regarding the design of this specific code of conduct text is in
absolutely no way to be taken as any form of agreement with your
behaviour on these lists, which I perceive as respectless,
condescending and often outright aggressive against anybody who
isn't willing to dance to your tune.

Christian Brunschen wrote:
>> To reiterate: to *this* outside observer, who has been on the
>> receiving end of bullying ... *you* are the one who looks
>> like the bully. *Including* when you accuse others of

>> bullying you – which is a tried and tested tactic used by
>> bullies all over the world whenever their victims finally
>> stand up to them.

I have to agree with Christian on this. I am also absolutely fed
up with you misrepresenting things that I have written to further
your personal agenda. Please stop it!

Regards,
Karsten
--
Ich widerspreche hiermit ausdrücklich der Nutzung sowie der
Weitergabe meiner personenbezogenen Daten für Zwecke der Werbung
sowie der Markt- oder Meinungsforschung.

[lkcl]

[with apologies for the lack of change of topic, i'm not really sure what to do]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 4:08:26 PM UTC+1, Karsten Merker wrote:

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:31:23PM -0700, lkcl wrote:

 

> to answer that, we have to look at who is behind the new process.  both
> karsten and i raised concerns about the new process, that it's instigated,
> driven, policed and judged by people who are simply have too close a link
> to the perpetrators of unacceptable behaviour, and in some cases *are
> actually the perpetrators themselves*.

Luke, stop putting things into my mouth that I have never said
and stop trying to create the impression that I would somehow
agree with your behaviour and with what you are trying to stage
here - I definitely do not; exactly the contrary is true.

waa!  i'm completely freaked out by this extremely strong reaction, karsten. first, i hear you.  second: let me try to alleviate your concerns.

 "to answer that, we have to look at who is behind the new process.  both 

  karsten and i raised concerns about the new process"

 let's make it a FULL-STOP.  new sentence.  new context.

 

I have voiced concerns regarding the wording of specific clauses
of the code of conduct published by the foundation because I
believe that the wording of those clauses is unsuitable for a
code of conduct, and I have expressed criticism regarding the
foundation claiming to speak for the RISC-V community at large in
publishing this specific wording while there has been no
involvement at all of the community at large in the design and
adoption of this specific code of conduct,

indeed.  this was what i picked up on, and had also noted.

 

but I have never
stated anything of what you, Luke, claim above.

no, i know that - and it was not, now, or ever was, the intention to imply that you had. i apologise for giving an incorrect impression, by not ending the sentence and by not creating a new, separate, paragraph.

 

 If somebody
would like to read what I really have written, just take a look
at the sw-dev list archive; the thread starts at
https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/forum/#!topic/sw-dev/OcNyKVHFuaE

To make that absolutely clear: My aforementioned criticism
regarding the design of this specific code of conduct text is in
absolutely no way to be taken as any form of agreement with your
behaviour on these lists, which I perceive as respectless,
condescending and often outright aggressive against anybody who
isn't willing to dance to your tune.

christian also kindly made that clear, and i am still in a sort-of state of semi-shock and surrealism at the disparity.

 

I have to agree with Christian on this.  I am also absolutely fed
up with you misrepresenting things that I have written to further
your personal agenda.

_what_ personal agenda??  i'm an ethical software libre developer for god's sake!  i'm 49 years old, i'm fucking up my health to deal with seriously unethical issues related to pathological abuse of technology by large corporations, running off of an income that is FIVE to TEN times lower than any acceptable technology salary, why the FUCK would i have a fucking "personal agenda"??  i haven't got TIME for a fucking personal fucking agenda, karsten!

i made a mistake in the use of words, and you jump on it with a...  really violent outburst that's so surreal and so shocking in its vehemence that i'm really, *really* taken aback.

that having been said, i'm grateful that you took the time to do so, that you pointed out the mistake that i made, and that we had an opportunity to correct it.  you could have been a little less agressive, however if you had, that would have masqueraded your true feelings.  so i appreciate your honesty and candour.

yes, we're all pretty fed up, and morale is really low.  can we do better, and how?

l.

[Guy Lemieux]

when any conversation shifts away from being technical, can i please ask those relying to NOT include the list in your reply-all? you’re welcome to have a private side conversation.... but please be aware the rest of us have no interest in that nontechnical content.

if you can’t do this, then I think we need a moderator for these mailing lists.

the signal:noise ratio makes me want to unsubscribe. i’ve held on nearly as long as i can, but it’s getting painful. i know that i’m not alone here, and the whole thing goes downhill if we start losing contributors.

thank you,

Guy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RISC-V ISA Dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to isa-dev+u...@groups.riscv.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/groups.riscv.org/d/msgid/isa-dev/a5bef204-da54-4ae0-bd1e-c6386df102e2%40groups.riscv.org.