7 ms·

That clause was added after a devout Catholic who contributes to Opal expressed his thoughts on transgender people while talking about a piece of legislation in

by faztym 11y ago

That clause was added after a devout Catholic who contributes to Opal expressed his thoughts on transgender people while talking about a piece of legislation in his country, Italy on his Twitter account. The person who wrote the Contributor Covenant went on to GitHub and demanded he be removed by the project. After much discussion, Opal's founder said they would adopt a code of conduct, specifically the Contributor Covenant. Once people in favor of the Contributor Covenant realized it would do nothing to prevent what they perceived as harassment, they added that clause. They tried to issue a PR to update Opal's Contributor Covenant version. Said founder seemed hesitant of the revised COC, but looks like he added the change but only with it explicitly saying where the code of conduct does and does not apply. See below. Some links: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 https://twitter.com/elia/status/611319469982527488 https://twitter.com/elia/status/611319469982527488 https://github.com/opal/opal/pull/961 https://github.com/opal/opal/pull/961 Opal's code of conduct says: "This code of conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces where an individual explicitly associates their presence with the project; non-project related material on accounts explicitly marked as personal should not be considered to be so associated."

mordocai 11y ago
I don't particularly like the way that whole thing was handled (and Coraline said she didn't feel she handled it optimally, even if she didn't apologize) but I think the concepts are still sound. Having someone post things in a public place where they identify as a member of a group can reflect badly on the group. It is in the group's best interest to enforce that people who identify with a group on a certain medium do not say/do things that would not be allowed on official group channels. This specific instance seems to have been intended to be interpreted differently than it was and did not need to be brought into the spotlight.
- exstudent2 11y ago
  > Having someone post things in a public place where they identify as a member of a group can reflect badly on the group. It is in the group's best interest to enforce that people who identify with a group on a certain medium do not say/do things that would not be allowed on official group channels. No one within the group had a problem though. Coraline Ada came from outside the group and caused the disturbance. > This specific instance seems to have been intended to be interpreted differently than it was and did not need to be brought into the spotlight. It's good that this instance is being brought into the spotlight because it shows the dangers of introducing identity politics into open source.
  - mordocai 11y ago
    I didn't say it was so if someone in the group had a problem. I said it was in the group's best interest. Someone making the group look bad to anyone is bad for the group because it limits the(already pretty small really) potential pool of new contributors. As far as "showing the dangers of introducing identity politics into open source"... you must not be a part of the same open source movement as myself. Identify politics have always been huge in the open source world. People work on projects, shun projects, ostracize projects, all because of identity politics. Identity politics has been a large part of open source (and free software before it) since the beginning.
    - exstudent2 11y ago
      Do you claim to know what's in the best interest for the Opal project? Or Ada knows best? I don't think so, it's pure meddling. > you must not be a part of the same open source movement as myself. I must not because it used to be widely acknowledged that no one on the internet cares if you're a dog. Identity politics (specifically aggressive feminism) have made their appearance in the past 5 years.
      - magicalist 11y ago
        > Identity politics (specifically aggressive feminism) have made their appearance in the past 5 years Even in the very narrow sense you mean this isn't remotely true. Maybe take some trips back to old Usenet content? But mordocai is absolutely right. "identity politics" is the foundation of free and open-source software.
        exstudent2 11y ago
        Open source is based on the hacker ethos, individual empowerment and the belief in free software. It was never based on feminism. While I don't agree with ESR on everything, I'd say he's a better source about this than mordocai: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6642 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6642
- tzs 11y ago
  > Having someone post things in a public place where they identify as a member of a group can reflect badly on the group. It is in the group's best interest to enforce that people who identify with a group on a certain medium do not say/do things that would not be allowed on official group channels If a black person tweets something I disagree with, and I let that lower my opinion of blacks as a group, isn't the best response for people to call me out for being an idiot and possible racist rather than to ask the black person to curtail their speech or to remove indications from their twitter account that they are black? Similar if a woman tweets something I disagree with, or a member of a particular religious group, and so on. I don't see why it should be different for associations that are formed around an open source project. You are essentially advocating running open source projects as if they were religions, where converts are expected to uphold the religion's values in all aspects of their life rather than just in church. That makes sense for a religion, since those values are the point of the religion. It makes no sense for an open source software project.
  - sdoering 11y ago
    Thanks for pointing out this analogy. It really helped in ordering my own thoughts. In essence it expresses my thoughts. The only problem is, if I associate (within a smallish group) with someone who is an very outspoken idiot, this association might taint my reputation. If I am grouped with this person within a relatively big group (male, female, white, black, human, mammal) this does not happen. Personally I am trying to find the boundary that makes a group big enough, that these kinds of associations do not happen anymore.
    - thequux 11y ago
      Part of the problem is there most groups can be divided into those who share a common purpose and those who share common beliefs. Most social groups fall into the latter category, whereas most project groups fall into the former. (There are also, of course, groups that buck the trend. The Xiphos developers, for example, are simultaneously both types of group and there are lots of groups that arise from circumstance that fit neither; enough, in fact, that they may be best described as a third category) With belief-based groups, it's somewhat reasonable to use one person's beliefs as a predictor of the group's beliefs; if the guy leading your kid's youth group starts spouting racist nonsense, then it may be time to find a new youth group. However, that's not true of project groups outside of the radical left¹, where people often put aside their differences in beliefs to further some other goal. Circumstantial groups are similarly heterogeneous: just because one Redditor is a staunch /r/MensRights follower doesn't mean that another can't find that subreddit abhorrent and instead follow /r/shitredditsays. I think the reason that making the separation feels difficult for many people is that they find themselves in far more belief-driven groups than purpose-driven groups, and don't notice the circumstantial groups that they're part of. ¹ The American radical left focuses somewhat horrifyingly on ideological purity, to the point that many gay gun enthusiasts find more acceptance in gun clubs than gay rights groups.

by faztym 11y ago

mordocai 11y ago

I don't particularly like the way that whole thing was handled (and Coraline said she didn't feel she handled it optimally, even if she didn't apologize) but I think the concepts are still sound. Having someone post things in a public place where they identify as a member of a group can reflect badly on the group. It is in the group's best interest to enforce that people who identify with a group on a certain medium do not say/do things that would not be allowed on official group channels. This specific instance seems to have been intended to be interpreted differently than it was and did not need to be brought into the spotlight.

exstudent2 11y ago
> Having someone post things in a public place where they identify as a member of a group can reflect badly on the group. It is in the group's best interest to enforce that people who identify with a group on a certain medium do not say/do things that would not be allowed on official group channels. No one within the group had a problem though. Coraline Ada came from outside the group and caused the disturbance. > This specific instance seems to have been intended to be interpreted differently than it was and did not need to be brought into the spotlight. It's good that this instance is being brought into the spotlight because it shows the dangers of introducing identity politics into open source.
- mordocai 11y ago
  I didn't say it was so if someone in the group had a problem. I said it was in the group's best interest. Someone making the group look bad to anyone is bad for the group because it limits the(already pretty small really) potential pool of new contributors. As far as "showing the dangers of introducing identity politics into open source"... you must not be a part of the same open source movement as myself. Identify politics have always been huge in the open source world. People work on projects, shun projects, ostracize projects, all because of identity politics. Identity politics has been a large part of open source (and free software before it) since the beginning.
  - exstudent2 11y ago
    Do you claim to know what's in the best interest for the Opal project? Or Ada knows best? I don't think so, it's pure meddling. > you must not be a part of the same open source movement as myself. I must not because it used to be widely acknowledged that no one on the internet cares if you're a dog. Identity politics (specifically aggressive feminism) have made their appearance in the past 5 years.
    - magicalist 11y ago
      > Identity politics (specifically aggressive feminism) have made their appearance in the past 5 years Even in the very narrow sense you mean this isn't remotely true. Maybe take some trips back to old Usenet content? But mordocai is absolutely right. "identity politics" is the foundation of free and open-source software.
      - exstudent2 11y ago
        Open source is based on the hacker ethos, individual empowerment and the belief in free software. It was never based on feminism. While I don't agree with ESR on everything, I'd say he's a better source about this than mordocai: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6642 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6642
tzs 11y ago
> Having someone post things in a public place where they identify as a member of a group can reflect badly on the group. It is in the group's best interest to enforce that people who identify with a group on a certain medium do not say/do things that would not be allowed on official group channels If a black person tweets something I disagree with, and I let that lower my opinion of blacks as a group, isn't the best response for people to call me out for being an idiot and possible racist rather than to ask the black person to curtail their speech or to remove indications from their twitter account that they are black? Similar if a woman tweets something I disagree with, or a member of a particular religious group, and so on. I don't see why it should be different for associations that are formed around an open source project. You are essentially advocating running open source projects as if they were religions, where converts are expected to uphold the religion's values in all aspects of their life rather than just in church. That makes sense for a religion, since those values are the point of the religion. It makes no sense for an open source software project.
- sdoering 11y ago
  Thanks for pointing out this analogy. It really helped in ordering my own thoughts. In essence it expresses my thoughts. The only problem is, if I associate (within a smallish group) with someone who is an very outspoken idiot, this association might taint my reputation. If I am grouped with this person within a relatively big group (male, female, white, black, human, mammal) this does not happen. Personally I am trying to find the boundary that makes a group big enough, that these kinds of associations do not happen anymore.
  - thequux 11y ago
    Part of the problem is there most groups can be divided into those who share a common purpose and those who share common beliefs. Most social groups fall into the latter category, whereas most project groups fall into the former. (There are also, of course, groups that buck the trend. The Xiphos developers, for example, are simultaneously both types of group and there are lots of groups that arise from circumstance that fit neither; enough, in fact, that they may be best described as a third category) With belief-based groups, it's somewhat reasonable to use one person's beliefs as a predictor of the group's beliefs; if the guy leading your kid's youth group starts spouting racist nonsense, then it may be time to find a new youth group. However, that's not true of project groups outside of the radical left¹, where people often put aside their differences in beliefs to further some other goal. Circumstantial groups are similarly heterogeneous: just because one Redditor is a staunch /r/MensRights follower doesn't mean that another can't find that subreddit abhorrent and instead follow /r/shitredditsays. I think the reason that making the separation feels difficult for many people is that they find themselves in far more belief-driven groups than purpose-driven groups, and don't notice the circumstantial groups that they're part of. ¹ The American radical left focuses somewhat horrifyingly on ideological purity, to the point that many gay gun enthusiasts find more acceptance in gun clubs than gay rights groups.