4 ms·
It's a political tool. It means they are into politics.
by mabynogy 9y ago
It's a political tool. It means they are into politics.
- zrail 9y agoEverything involves politics. At least they're being explicit about it.
- mabynogy 9y agoNo: physics, maths, cooking...
- zrail 9y agoOh please. Things involving more than one human invariably involve politics. Academics are just as susceptible as anything else, probably more so. Cooking, if there is more than one person involved in preparing and eating the food, will involve politics.
- mabynogy 9y agoNo. You're mixing social interactions and politics. Politics is about power (who is the boss).
- zrail 9y agoAlright, I suppose that's one way to frame it. Why is a document describing the standards for social interaction that contributors pledge to live up to bad? Open source has been and continues to be rife with social interactions that are bad for individual contributors and for the project as a whole. CoCs strive to head that off and document a process for when people seem to violate their pledge.
- mabynogy 9y agoYou should read it. It includes words that are politically connoted. Those words can easily be leveraged by people who are in that domain. It's not about common sense. You don't need to tell people to be polite (and you shouldn't). If someone isn't everybody will notice it.
- zrail 9y ago> You don't need to tell people to be polite (and you shouldn't). If someone isn't everybody will notice it. Unless it's done in private. If someone is a jerk to me in private (over email or Slack or whatever), what do I do? If I'm contributing to a project without a CoC and someone is a jerk to me, I'm much more likely to just contribute to a different project, or start my own fork, or just stop contributing to open source entirely. Projects with CoCs have a stated procedure in place for dealing with abusive contributors. That's what the whole thing is about. Of course you shouldn't have to tell people to be polite, but that's not how the real world works. There are jerks everywhere, and more often than not they're going to express that in private.
- mabynogy 9y agoI always reply to offensive people. Someone who is offensive has no arguments. Saying him he is offensive is often enough. If there is a public (like here) people will understand who is insulting who. You're looking for a way to be less implicated. It's because you're accustomed to live in systems based on laws and rules. People aren't bad. Most are kind and they don't want to harm anonybody. The bad guys are very few (like 1% or 0.1%) and as they are few they should be handled case by case. Building a complicated system of rules for them will just bother the "not-bad" majority.
- n42 9y agoHow does that impact your usage of the project?
- mabynogy 9y agoI don't want to deal with that. They are able to create problems artificially just to get power over you (on controversial topics). IMHO people to avoid.
- n42 9y agoFrom the position of a contributor, I understand and agree with you. You shouldn't contribute to a project whose terms you do not agree with, and I think that the "CoC" movement helps surface the type of organizational policies that a potential first time contributor would want to know before committing to the project. I am curious to understand how it contributes to your decision not to integrate the tool into your workflow. I don't typically choose products based on the politics of the company that create them, which is the closest analogy I can come up with.
- mabynogy 9y agoI do that for "CoCs" because I find that harmful. It is harmful for everyone and especially for the ones that are claimed to be helped. My point of view is the one of Morgan Freeman (something like "stop talking about it you make it getting worse").