10 ms·

... or he committed the cardinal sin of questioning the Code of Conduct, and when challenged on it, responding with snark and condescension, demonstrating the n

... or he committed the cardinal sin of questioning the Code of Conduct, and when challenged on it, responding with snark and condescension, demonstrating the need in the community for a Code of Conduct.

syshum 9y ago
>>responding with snark and condescension Tell me it is not soo... Not snark and condescension.... Why that is the most terribleist thing ever.... <<Is this snark on my part....??> it makes me sad that we has a society seem to be reject the concept of Free Speech in favor of speech codes and acceptable Speech with punishment for anyone that does not use the "correct words"
- geofft 9y ago
  If I go to an interview for a Python developer position, and I say "I think Python is a stupid language and nobody should use it," and I don't get the job, it would be ridiculous for anyone to say that I got punished for not using the correct words. This is the same thing. The Node.js TSC is the body that maintains and enforces the Code of Conduct. Maybe Node should have a CoC, maybe not, but so long as it has one, the body that enforces the CoC should actually intend to enforce the CoC. If they don't want it - get rid of it! Lots of projects don't have one. But if they want it, certainly only people who actually intend to enforce the CoC should be enforcing the CoC.
  - syshum 9y ago
    >>If I go to an interview for a Python developer position, and I say "I think Python is a stupid language and nobody should use it," and I don't get the job, it would be ridiculous for anyone to say that I got punished for not using the correct words. This is a terrible analogy and in no way related to the topic at hand. I am not even going to bother to refute it as it should be obvious as to why this analogy is flawed >>This is the same thing. The Node.js TSC is the body that maintains and enforces the Code of Conduct. the TSC seems to believe this was not a violation, and upon reading what the person is accused of, and the CoC I agree it is not a violation of their codes. Now it seems some in the project want to adopt even more restrictive CoC to further police any members actions even well beyond anything that is even connected with Node Development, that is insane
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - scubapilot 9y ago
    Let me stretch your analogy to make the opposite point: I am employed as an embedded developer. The position I was hired for has a heavy focus on C programming. I would never write the "C is stupid and nobody should use it anymore" articles, but I do still think they have merit and will share them around the company. As someone who knows how to read an argument and separate wheat from the chaff, I have been experimenting with Rust and raising the possibility of adoption in certain areas of new development. I do not intend to write C at this job. I intend to leverage the right tools to achieve our embedded goals. For as long as that means C, it'll be C, but C might not be the most appropriate tool and I am open to changing our tools.
    - fixermark 9y ago
      Really, the language- or framework-based examples don't apply well because people aren't tools. CoCs generally protect people from bad behavior by other people, under the assumption that debating the merits of people the way you'd debate the merits of tools is, well, a dick move.
      - scubapilot 9y ago
        I agree, people are not tools. But codes of conduct are tools. They are used by people, to achieve goals.
    - geofft 9y ago
      Yes, and I think that's fine. (I'm in a largely similar position in my own job as it happens, and my management agrees: we probably want out of the technology I'm working on, but we want it well-maintained until we figure out what our better option is.) My sense, and again I am an outsider and might be wrong, is that Rod wasn't of the opinion that he'll enforce the CoC as long as the TSC (other smart people) and the Node community see it as the right current plan, but he'll advocate for long-term change. He was of the opinion that, right now, not only was the CoC without merit, but it's reasonable for him to actively apologize for moderation actions that the rest of the TSC took. That is I think not directly analogous to what you are doing. It is much more analogous to you replying to your coworkers code reviews with "-1, it's 2017, you shouldn't write in C," or replying to your customers' bug reports with "Yeah, well, we're writing in C so of course our code is broken." Your coworkers are willing to work with you because they believe, regardless of what articles you're sharing, that for the foreseeable future you will write the best C you can and help them write the best C they can. If that trust is there, advocating for change is totally reasonable. If it's not, and either you believe that your coworkers are hopelessly misguided or they believe that you're hopelessly misguided, one of the two factions needs to leave for the team to be productive again.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > "I think Python is a stupid language and nobody should use it," And if you say "there can be downsides to using Python, here's an article describing them" and the response is "you're fired, you infidel, how dare you to question The Sacredness!" then I probably don't want to work in that company.
    - geofft 9y ago
      I agree, but I'm not sure how that's relevant.
      - smsm42 9y ago
        That's pretty much what happened to nodejs, as far as I can see - somebody said that CoC and speech codes may have downsides, people freaked out and demanded that either he's booted out or they leave.
        geofft 9y ago
        I am not a Node community member so my knowledge is limited, but that seems like an oversimplification for two reasons: one, he is on the team charged with upholding the CoC, and two, he apologized for the work his teammates did to uphold the CoC.
        smsm42 9y ago
        What is wrong with considering downsides of CoC while enforcing it? I'd say that exactly what person charged with enforcing it should be doing, and if they refuse to even admit the thought there might be any and haven't discussed them before, they may not be ready to enforce it properly. Reevaluating the premises and ensuring that upsides of the current rules exceed downsides, and challenging them if they do not, is the part of a healthy governance process, and flipping out at the mere thought of it is not a sign of a healthy one. Imagine a judge that is sure there's never downsides and unintended consequences of any law, and never admits a thought that the application of law can be unjust or hurt somebody. Wouldn't you be scared of such Judge Dredd?
- cjslep 9y ago
  Isn't the entire point of a Code of Conduct to restrict speech and behavior? Those who are Free-Speech extremists should be staying away from CoCs anyway.
  - syshum 9y ago
    How can one be a "Free Speech Extremist" You either support Free Speech or you do not. If you ever say something like "I support free speech but not hate speech" or "I support free speech but..." then you are not a supporter of free speech.
    - fixermark 9y ago
      As with most things in life, there are nuances. The free speech right guarded by the First Amendment in the US is not absolute; there are categories that don't meet the criteria (such as the "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" example, Schenck v. United States, 1919). There's room for difference of opinion on whether an individual circumstance crosses into the "Creating a clear and present danger" category, or apparently even whether the "clear and present danger" restriction is sound. I'd be willing to classify people who don't see a problem with shouting things intended to cause immediate harm 'free speech extremists,' for example.
      - syshum 9y ago
        >>>The free speech right guarded by the First Amendment in the US is not absolute; there are categories that don't meet the criteria (such as the "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" example, Schenck v. United States, 1919). Except for the fact that I am not talking about, nor ever used a reference to the 1st amendment to the US Constitution I am talking about Free Speech, not Constitutional law. Those are different issues Further, I am extremely tired of people using "Yell Fire" as a excuse for censorship Schenck was a TERRIBLE precedent and has been largely over turned by other rulings https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... "Bear all of that in mind the next time someone name-drops Holmes and cites Schenck as part of a broad endorsement of censorship. The problem isn't that they're incorrectly citing Holmes. The problem is that they are citing him exactly right, for the vague, censorious, and fortunately long-departed "standard" he articulated. Justice Holmes, three generations of hearing your sound-bite are enough." -- Ken White
7jjwedwqd 9y ago
Oh my! Quick, put the works of Wilde and Shaw on the index. Better yet, burn their books lest some millenial is harmed by snark and condescension.
chc 9y ago
Are you referring to the tweet where he said that threatening to literally defecate on his computer wasn't a reasonable or proportionate response? Was that the "snark and condescension," or did I miss another one where he was actually rude?
smsm42 9y ago
"challenged on it" is rather charitable description of a tweet consisting of a threat to take dump on somebody's laptop.

syshum 9y ago

>>responding with snark and condescension Tell me it is not soo... Not snark and condescension.... Why that is the most terribleist thing ever.... <<Is this snark on my part....??> it makes me sad that we has a society seem to be reject the concept of Free Speech in favor of speech codes and acceptable Speech with punishment for anyone that does not use the "correct words"

geofft 9y ago
If I go to an interview for a Python developer position, and I say "I think Python is a stupid language and nobody should use it," and I don't get the job, it would be ridiculous for anyone to say that I got punished for not using the correct words. This is the same thing. The Node.js TSC is the body that maintains and enforces the Code of Conduct. Maybe Node should have a CoC, maybe not, but so long as it has one, the body that enforces the CoC should actually intend to enforce the CoC. If they don't want it - get rid of it! Lots of projects don't have one. But if they want it, certainly only people who actually intend to enforce the CoC should be enforcing the CoC.
- syshum 9y ago
  >>If I go to an interview for a Python developer position, and I say "I think Python is a stupid language and nobody should use it," and I don't get the job, it would be ridiculous for anyone to say that I got punished for not using the correct words. This is a terrible analogy and in no way related to the topic at hand. I am not even going to bother to refute it as it should be obvious as to why this analogy is flawed >>This is the same thing. The Node.js TSC is the body that maintains and enforces the Code of Conduct. the TSC seems to believe this was not a violation, and upon reading what the person is accused of, and the CoC I agree it is not a violation of their codes. Now it seems some in the project want to adopt even more restrictive CoC to further police any members actions even well beyond anything that is even connected with Node Development, that is insane
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- scubapilot 9y ago
  Let me stretch your analogy to make the opposite point: I am employed as an embedded developer. The position I was hired for has a heavy focus on C programming. I would never write the "C is stupid and nobody should use it anymore" articles, but I do still think they have merit and will share them around the company. As someone who knows how to read an argument and separate wheat from the chaff, I have been experimenting with Rust and raising the possibility of adoption in certain areas of new development. I do not intend to write C at this job. I intend to leverage the right tools to achieve our embedded goals. For as long as that means C, it'll be C, but C might not be the most appropriate tool and I am open to changing our tools.
  - fixermark 9y ago
    Really, the language- or framework-based examples don't apply well because people aren't tools. CoCs generally protect people from bad behavior by other people, under the assumption that debating the merits of people the way you'd debate the merits of tools is, well, a dick move.
    - scubapilot 9y ago
      I agree, people are not tools. But codes of conduct are tools. They are used by people, to achieve goals.
  - geofft 9y ago
    Yes, and I think that's fine. (I'm in a largely similar position in my own job as it happens, and my management agrees: we probably want out of the technology I'm working on, but we want it well-maintained until we figure out what our better option is.) My sense, and again I am an outsider and might be wrong, is that Rod wasn't of the opinion that he'll enforce the CoC as long as the TSC (other smart people) and the Node community see it as the right current plan, but he'll advocate for long-term change. He was of the opinion that, right now, not only was the CoC without merit, but it's reasonable for him to actively apologize for moderation actions that the rest of the TSC took. That is I think not directly analogous to what you are doing. It is much more analogous to you replying to your coworkers code reviews with "-1, it's 2017, you shouldn't write in C," or replying to your customers' bug reports with "Yeah, well, we're writing in C so of course our code is broken." Your coworkers are willing to work with you because they believe, regardless of what articles you're sharing, that for the foreseeable future you will write the best C you can and help them write the best C they can. If that trust is there, advocating for change is totally reasonable. If it's not, and either you believe that your coworkers are hopelessly misguided or they believe that you're hopelessly misguided, one of the two factions needs to leave for the team to be productive again.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > "I think Python is a stupid language and nobody should use it," And if you say "there can be downsides to using Python, here's an article describing them" and the response is "you're fired, you infidel, how dare you to question The Sacredness!" then I probably don't want to work in that company.
  - geofft 9y ago
    I agree, but I'm not sure how that's relevant.
    - smsm42 9y ago
      That's pretty much what happened to nodejs, as far as I can see - somebody said that CoC and speech codes may have downsides, people freaked out and demanded that either he's booted out or they leave.
      - geofft 9y ago
        I am not a Node community member so my knowledge is limited, but that seems like an oversimplification for two reasons: one, he is on the team charged with upholding the CoC, and two, he apologized for the work his teammates did to uphold the CoC.
        smsm42 9y ago
        What is wrong with considering downsides of CoC while enforcing it? I'd say that exactly what person charged with enforcing it should be doing, and if they refuse to even admit the thought there might be any and haven't discussed them before, they may not be ready to enforce it properly. Reevaluating the premises and ensuring that upsides of the current rules exceed downsides, and challenging them if they do not, is the part of a healthy governance process, and flipping out at the mere thought of it is not a sign of a healthy one. Imagine a judge that is sure there's never downsides and unintended consequences of any law, and never admits a thought that the application of law can be unjust or hurt somebody. Wouldn't you be scared of such Judge Dredd?
cjslep 9y ago
Isn't the entire point of a Code of Conduct to restrict speech and behavior? Those who are Free-Speech extremists should be staying away from CoCs anyway.
- syshum 9y ago
  How can one be a "Free Speech Extremist" You either support Free Speech or you do not. If you ever say something like "I support free speech but not hate speech" or "I support free speech but..." then you are not a supporter of free speech.
  - fixermark 9y ago
    As with most things in life, there are nuances. The free speech right guarded by the First Amendment in the US is not absolute; there are categories that don't meet the criteria (such as the "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" example, Schenck v. United States, 1919). There's room for difference of opinion on whether an individual circumstance crosses into the "Creating a clear and present danger" category, or apparently even whether the "clear and present danger" restriction is sound. I'd be willing to classify people who don't see a problem with shouting things intended to cause immediate harm 'free speech extremists,' for example.
    - syshum 9y ago
      >>>The free speech right guarded by the First Amendment in the US is not absolute; there are categories that don't meet the criteria (such as the "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" example, Schenck v. United States, 1919). Except for the fact that I am not talking about, nor ever used a reference to the 1st amendment to the US Constitution I am talking about Free Speech, not Constitutional law. Those are different issues Further, I am extremely tired of people using "Yell Fire" as a excuse for censorship Schenck was a TERRIBLE precedent and has been largely over turned by other rulings https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... "Bear all of that in mind the next time someone name-drops Holmes and cites Schenck as part of a broad endorsement of censorship. The problem isn't that they're incorrectly citing Holmes. The problem is that they are citing him exactly right, for the vague, censorious, and fortunately long-departed "standard" he articulated. Justice Holmes, three generations of hearing your sound-bite are enough." -- Ken White

7jjwedwqd 9y ago

Oh my! Quick, put the works of Wilde and Shaw on the index. Better yet, burn their books lest some millenial is harmed by snark and condescension.

chc 9y ago

Are you referring to the tweet where he said that threatening to literally defecate on his computer wasn't a reasonable or proportionate response? Was that the "snark and condescension," or did I miss another one where he was actually rude?

smsm42 9y ago

"challenged on it" is rather charitable description of a tweet consisting of a threat to take dump on somebody's laptop.