7 ms·

GitHub's Code of Conduct

14 points by wwilson 11y ago

Karunamon 11y ago
I'm more a fan of the No Code of Conduct (not to be confused with the awful action movie of the same name): https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC ..at least when it comes to the hacker ethos, which is something, IMO, we should all strive for. Think of it as the WTFPL of the "thou shalt not" world. More to the point, I really fail to understand why documents like the one Github is working on are necessary. Most FOSS projects I'm aware of are quite adept at dismissing dickery in all its forms, rather than adopting a futile (and controversial, and agenda-driven) approach to defining it. (Huh, someone already did something that's a lot more like the WTFPL. Predictably, it's rather acerbic: https://github.com/ciafwywcoc/ciafwywcoc/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT https://github.com/ciafwywcoc/ciafwywcoc/blob/master/CODE_OF...)
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > Most FOSS projects I'm aware of are quite adept at dismissing dickery in all its forms Depends on the projects you work with. Some are good at maintaining a great community (Rust, for instance), and some are quite awful at it, or actively cultivate a hostile community (by welcoming awful people into it with open arms). There are enough awful people who know how to code that it's worth stating up front that "this project doesn't accept awful, hateful people, no matter how interesting their technical contributions". Because otherwise you end up with projects where "well, we'd kick them out, but nobody else knows how to do what they're doing, so...". See also http://www.slideshare.net/dberkholz/assholes-are-killing-your-project http://www.slideshare.net/dberkholz/assholes-are-killing-you... .
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    And then you've entered the quagmire of defining "awful, hateful people". This is not a winnable battle. Some people find being told "no" to be oppressive and horrible. Here's my personal litmus test: Would you accept Linus Torvalds on your project? He's known for his technical ability, but also known for taking little to no crap and calling out said crap with extreme prejudice. If the answer is yes: You clearly value technical ability and Getting Shit Done® over all else. If the answer is no: You clearly value social communication over Getting Shit Done®. Neither of these options are completely right or completely wrong, but again, I lean towards the hacker mindset. Getting stuff done should be more important than not offending people, IMAO :)
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      > And then you've entered the quagmire of defining "awful, hateful people". Which is exactly why codes of conduct do so at length, rather than assuming everyone will agree on a "simple" definition. > This is not a winnable battle. Some people find being told "no" to be oppressive and horrible. They'll get over it or go somewhere else. That's not what codes of conduct are there for, and that's exactly why this issue came up in the first place: some people use a code of conduct as a weapon when they're told that their actions are not acceptable. > Would you accept Linus Torvalds on your project? He's known for his technical ability, but also known for taking little to no crap and calling out said crap with extreme prejudice. Sure, anyone is welcome, right up until the point where they make themselves unwelcome, at which point they don't get a free pass for it for any reason. Even the kernel community seems to be getting somewhat better in that regard, though sadly not nearly fast enough. Note also that criticizing code is not criticizing people. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2zgNfvsh0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2zgNfvsh0 for a great presentation on the various levels of awfulness that often appear in a project. > If the answer is no: You clearly value social communication over Getting Shit Done®. http://www.slideshare.net/dberkholz/assholes-are-killing-your-project http://www.slideshare.net/dberkholz/assholes-are-killing-you... One person can drive off many potential contributors, and a steady flow of contributors is often more critical to a project than any one person.
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        They'll get over it or go somewhere else. I could say the same thing of people who don't like the atmosphere on a given project. There are plenty of projects with plenty of different kinds of communities. Sure, anyone is welcome, right up until the point where they make themselves unwelcome Please answer the question as asked and in the spirit it was intended in. One person can drive off many potential contributors And one bad CoC that legitimizes certain kinds of bad behavior can do the same. The backlash speaks to the truth of that. You keep linking that slideshow - not one of the claims made there are sourced or backed up. Considering one slide goes on about the importance of providing numbers, this is especially galling. More of a general question: Is anyone aware of a FOSS project which was killed due to a lack of contributors brought on by the perceived negative atmosphere of the community?
zxcvcxz 11y ago
I don't even understand the point of this part: >Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding: > ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ > Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you” > Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts > Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial > Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions It's one of the only CoC I've ever read that specifically condones some forms of harassment. No harassment should be acceptable. I've already switched to gitlab and I'm about to go through the list of projects that use this CoC and make sure I don't use their products anymore.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  Short version for the first of those items: quite a lot of people (trolls, particularly) are adept at spewing hate and then attempting to invoke a code of conduct when called on it, because somehow they're being oppressed when told that their behavior is unacceptable. (The same way lots of bullies are adept at choosing the exact moment where someone finally chooses to respond to suddenly appeal to authority and look innocent, in the hopes that at the very least someone in authority will say something monumentally stupid like "I don't care who started it" and punish everyone.) That doesn't mean a project should tolerate any form of hate. It's simply a statement that a code of conduct is not to be subverted and used as another weapon rather than as a form of protection. Also notice that it talks about the "safety" of one group versus the "comfort" of another, not the "safety" of one group versus the "safety" of another. The latter would be quite different. If you like, look at it as a statement about Bayesian priors: "what situation is far more likely, and should be the default assumption?"
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    >That doesn't mean a project should tolerate any form of hate. Here's a better replacement that addresses all concerns: Attacking someone based on their real life identity is not allowed, regardless of what that identity is and furthermore is off topic as this is a technical project, not a sociological one. It has the same effect of banning all -isms by default, is clear enough and unambiguous enough for even a troll to understand and not being able to rules lawyer their way out of (people's identities are off limit, end of discussion), and keeps off topic nonsense out of tech projects.
typomatic 11y ago
This is a bad faith (and/or woefully ignorant) argument about this code of conduct. Remarking that "reverse racism" is not harassment does not preclude minorities from being harassers. It does mean that having (for example) a group dedicated to black people's concerns and telling white people that they are not welcome (or that their opinions are lesser) is not harassment.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  Exactly. Likewise for safe spaces, outreach programs, and other such efforts. Perhaps someday, if all these various efforts are successful, it won't be necessary to have such things. But it'll be a lot easier to get to that point if every attempt didn't have to put up with this kind of "but my free speech!!1!" backlash. I'm part of just about every privileged group possible. I don't need a safe space; the world is my safe space. I don't need an outreach program; I have many opportunities others do not. I don't need a group dedicated to my concerns about inclusiveness and being welcoming; I'm already included and welcome by default. The very least I can do is not complain when others try to deal with that, and to recognize that some of the advantages I have will go away in the process, and that's a good thing. Better yet, I can actually help with that whenever I can.
  - exstudent2 11y ago
    Have you thought that your own privilege might be blinding you to the plight of some people who may have problems with the things you list? There are many white males on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder that are effectively silenced in this discussion. I suspect a lot of the pushback you hear comes from them. There are also minorities that have succeeded in the current system by working hard and being smart that are being told their experience is abnormal/non-existent.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      > Have you thought that your own privilege might be blinding you to the plight of some people who may have problems with the things you list? I'm quite certain it is, which is exactly why I make a point of listening to people who have more of a stake in this than I do. I notice somewhat more than I used to before I educated myself on these issues, but still nowhere near as much as people who live through them personally. > There are many white males on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder that are effectively silenced in this discussion. I suspect a lot of the pushback you hear comes from them. I suspect you suspect wrong, and most of the "pushback" comes from people indignant that their "concerns" are not at the forefront the way they are everywhere else, as well as people who see yet another opportunity to be disruptive. In any case, socioeconomic status is one of many relevant, and it's closely correlated with many other forms of privilege. > There are also minorities that have succeeded in the current system by working hard and being smart that are being told their experience is abnormal/non-existent. Read http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Clawed_my_way_up http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Clawed_my_way_up , which directly responds to the argument you're making. Such experiences are not "non-existent", but they're also not a sign that there's no problem and everyone else can be safely ignored. There are a lot of other smart, hardworking people who have not had the opportunity to succeed.
ineol1 11y ago
Given his support of GamerGate (http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?cat=64 http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?cat=64) I don't really think his opinion on this matter are very fair and balanced...
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  You should probably engage with the argument rather than wave a hate totem around and expect everyone to fall in line. How do you disagree with his opinion?

14 points by wwilson 11y ago

I'm more a fan of the No Code of Conduct (not to be confused with the awful action movie of the same name): https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC ..at least when it comes to the hacker ethos, which is something, IMO, we should all strive for. Think of it as the WTFPL of the "thou shalt not" world. More to the point, I really fail to understand why documents like the one Github is working on are necessary. Most FOSS projects I'm aware of are quite adept at dismissing dickery in all its forms, rather than adopting a futile (and controversial, and agenda-driven) approach to defining it. (Huh, someone already did something that's a lot more like the WTFPL. Predictably, it's rather acerbic: https://github.com/ciafwywcoc/ciafwywcoc/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT https://github.com/ciafwywcoc/ciafwywcoc/blob/master/CODE_OF...)

JoshTriplett 11y ago
> Most FOSS projects I'm aware of are quite adept at dismissing dickery in all its forms Depends on the projects you work with. Some are good at maintaining a great community (Rust, for instance), and some are quite awful at it, or actively cultivate a hostile community (by welcoming awful people into it with open arms). There are enough awful people who know how to code that it's worth stating up front that "this project doesn't accept awful, hateful people, no matter how interesting their technical contributions". Because otherwise you end up with projects where "well, we'd kick them out, but nobody else knows how to do what they're doing, so...". See also http://www.slideshare.net/dberkholz/assholes-are-killing-your-project http://www.slideshare.net/dberkholz/assholes-are-killing-you... .
- Karunamon 11y ago
  And then you've entered the quagmire of defining "awful, hateful people". This is not a winnable battle. Some people find being told "no" to be oppressive and horrible. Here's my personal litmus test: Would you accept Linus Torvalds on your project? He's known for his technical ability, but also known for taking little to no crap and calling out said crap with extreme prejudice. If the answer is yes: You clearly value technical ability and Getting Shit Done® over all else. If the answer is no: You clearly value social communication over Getting Shit Done®. Neither of these options are completely right or completely wrong, but again, I lean towards the hacker mindset. Getting stuff done should be more important than not offending people, IMAO :)
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > And then you've entered the quagmire of defining "awful, hateful people". Which is exactly why codes of conduct do so at length, rather than assuming everyone will agree on a "simple" definition. > This is not a winnable battle. Some people find being told "no" to be oppressive and horrible. They'll get over it or go somewhere else. That's not what codes of conduct are there for, and that's exactly why this issue came up in the first place: some people use a code of conduct as a weapon when they're told that their actions are not acceptable. > Would you accept Linus Torvalds on your project? He's known for his technical ability, but also known for taking little to no crap and calling out said crap with extreme prejudice. Sure, anyone is welcome, right up until the point where they make themselves unwelcome, at which point they don't get a free pass for it for any reason. Even the kernel community seems to be getting somewhat better in that regard, though sadly not nearly fast enough. Note also that criticizing code is not criticizing people. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2zgNfvsh0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2zgNfvsh0 for a great presentation on the various levels of awfulness that often appear in a project. > If the answer is no: You clearly value social communication over Getting Shit Done®. http://www.slideshare.net/dberkholz/assholes-are-killing-your-project http://www.slideshare.net/dberkholz/assholes-are-killing-you... One person can drive off many potential contributors, and a steady flow of contributors is often more critical to a project than any one person.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      They'll get over it or go somewhere else. I could say the same thing of people who don't like the atmosphere on a given project. There are plenty of projects with plenty of different kinds of communities. Sure, anyone is welcome, right up until the point where they make themselves unwelcome Please answer the question as asked and in the spirit it was intended in. One person can drive off many potential contributors And one bad CoC that legitimizes certain kinds of bad behavior can do the same. The backlash speaks to the truth of that. You keep linking that slideshow - not one of the claims made there are sourced or backed up. Considering one slide goes on about the importance of providing numbers, this is especially galling. More of a general question: Is anyone aware of a FOSS project which was killed due to a lack of contributors brought on by the perceived negative atmosphere of the community?

zxcvcxz 11y ago

I don't even understand the point of this part: >Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding: > ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ > Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you” > Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts > Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial > Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions It's one of the only CoC I've ever read that specifically condones some forms of harassment. No harassment should be acceptable. I've already switched to gitlab and I'm about to go through the list of projects that use this CoC and make sure I don't use their products anymore.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
Short version for the first of those items: quite a lot of people (trolls, particularly) are adept at spewing hate and then attempting to invoke a code of conduct when called on it, because somehow they're being oppressed when told that their behavior is unacceptable. (The same way lots of bullies are adept at choosing the exact moment where someone finally chooses to respond to suddenly appeal to authority and look innocent, in the hopes that at the very least someone in authority will say something monumentally stupid like "I don't care who started it" and punish everyone.) That doesn't mean a project should tolerate any form of hate. It's simply a statement that a code of conduct is not to be subverted and used as another weapon rather than as a form of protection. Also notice that it talks about the "safety" of one group versus the "comfort" of another, not the "safety" of one group versus the "safety" of another. The latter would be quite different. If you like, look at it as a statement about Bayesian priors: "what situation is far more likely, and should be the default assumption?"
- Karunamon 11y ago
  >That doesn't mean a project should tolerate any form of hate. Here's a better replacement that addresses all concerns: Attacking someone based on their real life identity is not allowed, regardless of what that identity is and furthermore is off topic as this is a technical project, not a sociological one. It has the same effect of banning all -isms by default, is clear enough and unambiguous enough for even a troll to understand and not being able to rules lawyer their way out of (people's identities are off limit, end of discussion), and keeps off topic nonsense out of tech projects.

typomatic 11y ago

This is a bad faith (and/or woefully ignorant) argument about this code of conduct. Remarking that "reverse racism" is not harassment does not preclude minorities from being harassers. It does mean that having (for example) a group dedicated to black people's concerns and telling white people that they are not welcome (or that their opinions are lesser) is not harassment.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
Exactly. Likewise for safe spaces, outreach programs, and other such efforts. Perhaps someday, if all these various efforts are successful, it won't be necessary to have such things. But it'll be a lot easier to get to that point if every attempt didn't have to put up with this kind of "but my free speech!!1!" backlash. I'm part of just about every privileged group possible. I don't need a safe space; the world is my safe space. I don't need an outreach program; I have many opportunities others do not. I don't need a group dedicated to my concerns about inclusiveness and being welcoming; I'm already included and welcome by default. The very least I can do is not complain when others try to deal with that, and to recognize that some of the advantages I have will go away in the process, and that's a good thing. Better yet, I can actually help with that whenever I can.
- exstudent2 11y ago
  Have you thought that your own privilege might be blinding you to the plight of some people who may have problems with the things you list? There are many white males on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder that are effectively silenced in this discussion. I suspect a lot of the pushback you hear comes from them. There are also minorities that have succeeded in the current system by working hard and being smart that are being told their experience is abnormal/non-existent.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > Have you thought that your own privilege might be blinding you to the plight of some people who may have problems with the things you list? I'm quite certain it is, which is exactly why I make a point of listening to people who have more of a stake in this than I do. I notice somewhat more than I used to before I educated myself on these issues, but still nowhere near as much as people who live through them personally. > There are many white males on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder that are effectively silenced in this discussion. I suspect a lot of the pushback you hear comes from them. I suspect you suspect wrong, and most of the "pushback" comes from people indignant that their "concerns" are not at the forefront the way they are everywhere else, as well as people who see yet another opportunity to be disruptive. In any case, socioeconomic status is one of many relevant, and it's closely correlated with many other forms of privilege. > There are also minorities that have succeeded in the current system by working hard and being smart that are being told their experience is abnormal/non-existent. Read http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Clawed_my_way_up http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Clawed_my_way_up , which directly responds to the argument you're making. Such experiences are not "non-existent", but they're also not a sign that there's no problem and everyone else can be safely ignored. There are a lot of other smart, hardworking people who have not had the opportunity to succeed.

ineol1 11y ago

Given his support of GamerGate (http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?cat=64 http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?cat=64) I don't really think his opinion on this matter are very fair and balanced...

13thLetter 11y ago
You should probably engage with the argument rather than wave a hate totem around and expect everyone to fall in line. How do you disagree with his opinion?