5 ms·

If more and more groups insist on forcing their ideological agenda down the throats of contributors and users maybe it's time to start hacking on projects that

If more and more groups insist on forcing their ideological agenda down the throats of contributors and users maybe it's time to start hacking on projects that don't feel the need to bring politics into software.

rayiner 9y ago
This is the exact opposite: It's rules for how to work on code without bringing personal crap into it. Do you want a date? Do you think there is something wrong with trans people? Do you have thoughts on race relations? Nobody cares, check that baggage at the door.
- whatshisface 9y ago
  As far as I can see, the real problem here is that some forms of baggage are still allowed (an inevitable problem with any finite list of rules), meaning that you will end up with baggage imbalances and endless debate over which baggages are permissable self-expression and which ones are unacceptable.
  - ethomson 9y ago
    It is not a finite list of rules. It is an explanation of the values (eg, respecting diversity) and a list of examples of things that are obviously prohibited. It is explicitly "not an exhaustive list of things that you should not do", and although it does list some _examples_ of things that are prohibited - it provides examples that are "not limited to" the ones provided. This clearly reduces the ambiguity in the community. And even if some ambiguity does remain - which, as you point out, is inevitable - having examples of obviously impermissible behavior and a framework for conflict resolution is requisite for a community.
- said 9y ago
  "Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion." This doesn't preclude thoughts on race-relations—if that was the goal, it would've simply said so. We know what this means.
  - to3m 9y ago
    OK then, what does it mean?
- aap_ 9y ago
  But do people actually do that? I have not seen anything like that in technical internet communities.
- Valmar 9y ago
  > It's rules for how to work on code without bringing personal crap into it. The previous CoC did fine at this. This new CoC almost ensures that what it's attempting to curb will inevitably happen, because of it's existence.
t123980 9y ago
Perhaps NetBSD ==> OpenBSD is an instructive example as to what happens when the bureaucracy is taken too far. I hope similar things still can take place today.
codemusings 9y ago
Open source software is as much a social endeavor as it is a technical one. As such it is important for people to get along if a project wants to get anywhere. There are far too many developers that use their technical prowess as an excuse for their lack of basic social skills. Unfortunately the same group of developers is also almost entirely comprised of men.
- mrchicity 9y ago
  FreeBSD's new CoC wouldn't ban a sexist comment like this, because of the odd "oppressed group" language. Hopefully it was just a copy/paste mistake from the Geek Feminism code. There's no place in a software project for insulting someone's gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. just because it's a more typical one. There are certain toxic community members who use well-intended rules like this a shield while they proceed to insult certain groups or stereotype them. Better to avoid that type of discussion entirely. It's a software project, not a place to discuss politics or race relations. Hopefully they take a look into this and adopt a more neutral CoC like LLVM's: https://llvm.org/docs/CodeOfConduct.html https://llvm.org/docs/CodeOfConduct.html
  - loeg 9y ago
    FreeBSD wouldn't sanction the poster for that comment for several reasons: 1. The CoC committee acts on reports -- someone has to be bothered by it. 2. It isn't an insult. 3. It isn't sexist.
    - mrchicity 9y ago
      "Unfortunately the [group engaging in negative activity] is also almost entirely comprised of [x]." where x is some immutable or deeply personal characteristic, is advancing an offensive stereotype.
imsofuture 9y ago
No one will miss you.

rayiner 9y ago

This is the exact opposite: It's rules for how to work on code without bringing personal crap into it. Do you want a date? Do you think there is something wrong with trans people? Do you have thoughts on race relations? Nobody cares, check that baggage at the door.

whatshisface 9y ago
As far as I can see, the real problem here is that some forms of baggage are still allowed (an inevitable problem with any finite list of rules), meaning that you will end up with baggage imbalances and endless debate over which baggages are permissable self-expression and which ones are unacceptable.
- ethomson 9y ago
  It is not a finite list of rules. It is an explanation of the values (eg, respecting diversity) and a list of examples of things that are obviously prohibited. It is explicitly "not an exhaustive list of things that you should not do", and although it does list some _examples_ of things that are prohibited - it provides examples that are "not limited to" the ones provided. This clearly reduces the ambiguity in the community. And even if some ambiguity does remain - which, as you point out, is inevitable - having examples of obviously impermissible behavior and a framework for conflict resolution is requisite for a community.
said 9y ago
"Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion." This doesn't preclude thoughts on race-relations—if that was the goal, it would've simply said so. We know what this means.
- to3m 9y ago
  OK then, what does it mean?
aap_ 9y ago
But do people actually do that? I have not seen anything like that in technical internet communities.
Valmar 9y ago
> It's rules for how to work on code without bringing personal crap into it. The previous CoC did fine at this. This new CoC almost ensures that what it's attempting to curb will inevitably happen, because of it's existence.

t123980 9y ago

Perhaps NetBSD ==> OpenBSD is an instructive example as to what happens when the bureaucracy is taken too far. I hope similar things still can take place today.

codemusings 9y ago

Open source software is as much a social endeavor as it is a technical one. As such it is important for people to get along if a project wants to get anywhere. There are far too many developers that use their technical prowess as an excuse for their lack of basic social skills. Unfortunately the same group of developers is also almost entirely comprised of men.

mrchicity 9y ago
FreeBSD's new CoC wouldn't ban a sexist comment like this, because of the odd "oppressed group" language. Hopefully it was just a copy/paste mistake from the Geek Feminism code. There's no place in a software project for insulting someone's gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. just because it's a more typical one. There are certain toxic community members who use well-intended rules like this a shield while they proceed to insult certain groups or stereotype them. Better to avoid that type of discussion entirely. It's a software project, not a place to discuss politics or race relations. Hopefully they take a look into this and adopt a more neutral CoC like LLVM's: https://llvm.org/docs/CodeOfConduct.html https://llvm.org/docs/CodeOfConduct.html
- loeg 9y ago
  FreeBSD wouldn't sanction the poster for that comment for several reasons: 1. The CoC committee acts on reports -- someone has to be bothered by it. 2. It isn't an insult. 3. It isn't sexist.
  - mrchicity 9y ago
    "Unfortunately the [group engaging in negative activity] is also almost entirely comprised of [x]." where x is some immutable or deeply personal characteristic, is advancing an offensive stereotype.

imsofuture 9y ago

No one will miss you.