I think you're running afoul of something that I was trying to explain at What you refuse to see, is your worst trap. Which is that if someone puts a lot of themselves into anything, there is a tendency to become emotionally invested in it, at which point they are likely to take technical criticism very personally. This is true no matter how obscure the technical point is. And no, I don't know of a solution. However being aware of the possibility of this failure mode helps me recognize when it is happening, and can sometimes help when I encounter it.

For instance you strongly present your view that Perl 5 should release more often. The people who have done the pain of releasing are likely to hear that as, "You're doing a crappy job." When you talk about how well your projects do on this and how much Perl 5 sucks at it, they are likely to hear, "You're not putting enough effort in." After that point it doesn't matter how much energy you put into pointing out that you're talking about process, not people. Because once people's egos have been hurt, they tend not to read clearly. And they tend to lash back emotionally. As much as we all might wish it were different, this is a natural human reaction.

As a result I strongly disagree with your belief that personal attacks are a more effective way of driving people away from projects than discussing technical decisions and goals and priorities. The most effective way of driving people away is to say things that they take personally. In many cases pointed criticism of someone's technical decisions gets taken more personally than obvious attempts at personal attacks. In those cases technical criticism is much more likely to result in problems than personal attacks. (I've experienced this from both sides, and watched others go through it as well. It is not fun from any perspective.)

It is a very strange phenomenon which made no sense to me for years. But when you review this incident later, I'd suggest focusing on how many times you made technical points and got emotional responses. The solution to that isn't to try to make the technical point more clearly. It is to try to understand where the emotion is coming from, and address the emotional point.

Update: erix pointed out that the singular of phenomena is phenomenon. Fixed.

In reply to Re: How to Drive Away a Contributor by tilly
in thread When comment turns into disaster by Tux

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.