7 ms·

The discussion is a good thing. There are some dangers in blindly adopting draconian Cider House Rules, because, for instance, they can be gamed as cudgels to

The discussion is a good thing. There are some dangers in blindly adopting draconian Cider House Rules, because, for instance, they can be gamed as cudgels to throw out individuals for any reasons rather than promote healthy debate and social give-and-take.

tomjen3 11y ago
True. I actually liked the progreqsl one that was liked in the thread.
- cat-dev-null 11y ago
  Yeah, me too. -1. There is legitimate trolling, harassment, drama and d!ck moves that need to be handled with decency, common-sense and least bad measures... in open societies in real life, specific laws and enforcement haven't yet been able to eliminate #sshole behavior... it's usually handled socially. Sure it's different, but there's got to be some common sense and due-process, rather than instahellban of a core dev because someone new makes a bogus accusation. 0. Folks should try to calmly stand up to bullyvictim behavior and excessive microagression drama. 1. On large projects facing mostly public / non-enterprise / younger users, there could be need for formal training of project leaders or designated third-parties in conflict resolution / mediation to make peace, where possible. (Maybe open source conflict resolution as a service would be a viable startup? IDK, or a pockethotline perhaps?) 2. 37signals showed less anonymous participation increased kindness and reduced toxic behavior... perhaps projects should link accounts to G+ / Facebook / Github? 3. A risk of blindly adopting CoCs is that a new, amorphous bureaucracy of unknown persons/governance itself gains a foothold into many projects, and may come back and start asking for compliance reports, more control and more changes. Some of this might be good, but it could become more about browbeating others into bending to their will a-la Yale screaming girl https://youtu.be/9IEFD_JVYd0 https://youtu.be/9IEFD_JVYd0 4. Popularity of a behavior or trend is not necessarily equivalent to an ethical and/or wise change, but it is worth discussing. 5. Paraphrasing subversion folks An undefended community ceases to be the latter.

tomjen3 11y ago

True. I actually liked the progreqsl one that was liked in the thread.

cat-dev-null 11y ago
Yeah, me too. -1. There is legitimate trolling, harassment, drama and d!ck moves that need to be handled with decency, common-sense and least bad measures... in open societies in real life, specific laws and enforcement haven't yet been able to eliminate #sshole behavior... it's usually handled socially. Sure it's different, but there's got to be some common sense and due-process, rather than instahellban of a core dev because someone new makes a bogus accusation. 0. Folks should try to calmly stand up to bullyvictim behavior and excessive microagression drama. 1. On large projects facing mostly public / non-enterprise / younger users, there could be need for formal training of project leaders or designated third-parties in conflict resolution / mediation to make peace, where possible. (Maybe open source conflict resolution as a service would be a viable startup? IDK, or a pockethotline perhaps?) 2. 37signals showed less anonymous participation increased kindness and reduced toxic behavior... perhaps projects should link accounts to G+ / Facebook / Github? 3. A risk of blindly adopting CoCs is that a new, amorphous bureaucracy of unknown persons/governance itself gains a foothold into many projects, and may come back and start asking for compliance reports, more control and more changes. Some of this might be good, but it could become more about browbeating others into bending to their will a-la Yale screaming girl https://youtu.be/9IEFD_JVYd0 https://youtu.be/9IEFD_JVYd0 4. Popularity of a behavior or trend is not necessarily equivalent to an ethical and/or wise change, but it is worth discussing. 5. Paraphrasing subversion folks An undefended community ceases to be the latter.