I agree that casting shade on other fellow group members in the wider Open Source community is always an immature and socially damaging move. Any sort of personal attack is always reprehensible (and having said this, people’s reprehensible behaviour can be carefully called out at the right place and time, with a positive, warm tone, rather than attacking them personally).
As to casting shade on other projects? Well, that’s a more nuanced matter. Please bear with me here.
There will always be those who don’t like the particular ideas/projects that other people come up with, and would like for their own competing ideas/projects to win out instead. It takes careful, well-phrased, and thoughtful critique to pit one competing idea/project against another, without getting personal.
So the trick then is to not take it personally when people don’t like one’s ideas. If one strongly identifies with one’s own ideas, then it will damage one’s ego when people criticize one’s ideas. When one’s emotions get all stirred up, that’s good evidence of such strong views existing, which were deeply challenged or violated.
So I think the takeaway is this:
-
People offering careful constructive criticism need to be very, very careful in their phrasing and attitude, keeping their cool, and address the ideas, not attacking the people who have those ideas (and trying to be sensitive so that they don’t unduly feel attacked, although this isn’t always possible, please see next point). And if you’re not the diplomatic type (and it’s OK to be honest about that), then maybe it’s best to leave your criticisms un-vocalized, as they are likely just to make noise, as everyone gets all stirred up from the drama.
-
People receiving constructive criticism need to do their best to also keep their cool, and not take it personally. It’s just that competing ideas being compared to your own ideas will sometimes come across as an attack. Be ready, with a wise attitude, that of course there will be competing ideas and projects to your own, and those competitors will naturally make known why they think they are right and you are wrong. The question is who will be able to do it in a mature, adult-like manner, and not like immature elementary-school students on a playground.
All back and forth dialog will get out of hand and become a big drama just as soon as either side (giving or receiving the hopefully-constructive criticism) loses their cool, and stops keeping to an objective, calm perspective.