6 ms·

Care to elaborate a bit?

by netule 8y ago

swrobel 8y ago
I apparently violated the Bundler CoC by disagreeing with their implementation of --jobs <n> that actually runs n - 1 jobs. When I questioned what I had actually violated, he accused me of making a joke about racism and blocked me. https://twitter.com/swrobel/status/984894874330656768 https://twitter.com/swrobel/status/984894874330656768
- sergiotapia 8y ago
  "codes of conduct" are a net negative and a blight on open source repos. If you maintain a repo, please don't fall to that scam. Not surprised he behaved that way.
  - swrobel 8y ago
    I would've disagreed with you a few months back, but now seeing how a CoC can be pulled out as a catch-all to silence anyone who disagrees with you, I'm firmly in your camp.
    - burntsushi 8y ago
      I don't use a CoC on any of my projects, but I would have reacted similarly to your comments. My issue tracker isn't your personal place to vent unconstructive frustration. Reframing this is as simply shutting down disagreement (which happens all the time in my issue trackers quite peacefully) is just plain disingenuous.
- ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
  I'm trying hard to follow what is happening on that twitter thread. Can you put your joke here? I don't see any jokes or mention of race anywhere on your Twitter.
  - swrobel 8y ago
    Yeah, sorry, I will try to make a long story short. For years I've had Bundler set to just run jobs equal to the number of cores on my system. However, I noticed it was running one less so I assumed I was doing something wrong. After hours of banging my head against the wall, I finally found that it Bundler subtracts 1 from the number of jobs you pass to it, but this behavior has been removed from master (for eventual 2.x branch). A bit irate, I engaged in the following exchange w/ Andre, in which he accused me of violating their CoC for posting a bit of a kneejerk comment, which I apologized for, but questioned what I possibly could've violated in the CoC, in the process making a wisecrack about the ridiculous term in it about "making casual references to slavery or indentured servitude." Anyway, if you really want to dig in, here's the github thread: https://github.com/bundler/bundler/pull/5808#issuecomment-381027767 https://github.com/bundler/bundler/pull/5808#issuecomment-38... In the end, he banned me (it says 24 hrs in his comment, but it seems permanent) which has now prevented me from submitting a PR to document the very "feature" that threw me into this rage to begin with. Way to run an OSS project!
    - keithnz 8y ago
      I think his response, except for the ban, was appropriate
      - threatofrain 8y ago
        Was part of his response that he doesn't need the money of someone who makes racial jokes? Good riddance? That's a pretty strong statement to make over Twitter, esp. since if you read through the whole thing, that's someone trying to forcefully make a suggestion about racial insensitivity, which is at best journalistic twisting. What irks me about such responses is that it's not your prerogative to retract anything you say about anyone over the internet. It might not even be your prerogative to correct any of your statements.
    - swrobel 8y ago
      agreed, it's the ban I take issue with. felt pretty power-trippy to me.
- danso 8y ago
  You weren't accused of "making a joke about racism". He posted the part of the CoC [0] that he believed you to have violated. He then gave you a 24-hour-block because your remark "counts as doubling down" on what he originally accused you of. I guess he didn't appreciate you implying that the CoC is a bunch of facile garbage. [0] https://github.com/bundler/bundler/pull/5808#issuecomment-381254777 https://github.com/bundler/bundler/pull/5808#issuecomment-38...
  - mlevental 8y ago
    God damn you people are sensitive. I see a guy (swrobel) venting about a bad API and using words like "infuriating", "REASONS", and several exclamation marks. he was confused about where he was skirting code of conduct because what he'd done was express disapproval of a design decision. he quotes the coc and then alludes to clauses that he believes would actually merit a warning - "slavery" and "indentured servitude" is language in the coc. note this isn't false dichotomy because the extreme end of the spectrum he's distinguished his comments from are explicitly forbidden by the coc. yes he used a smiley. God forbid. he also apologized and but somehow that's not being taken in into account by either you or indirect. then indirect responds with a positive prescription of the coc rather than a negative proscription (ie if it were a real contract it would be completely immaterial to the case since the rules cited don't forbid things only encourage). finally supposing we do take the rules cited by indirect as negative ("only this kind of language and behavior is allowed") there's not a shred of constructive feedback in indirect's initial response other than "don't do this" which just begs the question of whether he did anything to begin with. swrobel didn't show antipathy for anyone (he vented frustration about code). he didn't use exclusive language (he didn't say anything about any people at all), and he wasn't dismissive of any viewpoints because none were expressed by anyone. so what really happened? indirect felt he was being criticized and used his small bit of power to silence the critic under the auspices of being just. lol.
    - swrobel 8y ago
      thank you for stating this far more eloquently than I was able to
    - 8y ago

Care to elaborate a bit?

by netule 8y ago

Care to elaborate a bit?

I apparently violated the Bundler CoC by disagreeing with their implementation of --jobs <n> that actually runs n - 1 jobs. When I questioned what I had actually violated, he accused me of making a joke about racism and blocked me. https://twitter.com/swrobel/status/984894874330656768 https://twitter.com/swrobel/status/984894874330656768

sergiotapia 8y ago
"codes of conduct" are a net negative and a blight on open source repos. If you maintain a repo, please don't fall to that scam. Not surprised he behaved that way.
- swrobel 8y ago
  I would've disagreed with you a few months back, but now seeing how a CoC can be pulled out as a catch-all to silence anyone who disagrees with you, I'm firmly in your camp.
  - burntsushi 8y ago
    I don't use a CoC on any of my projects, but I would have reacted similarly to your comments. My issue tracker isn't your personal place to vent unconstructive frustration. Reframing this is as simply shutting down disagreement (which happens all the time in my issue trackers quite peacefully) is just plain disingenuous.
ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
I'm trying hard to follow what is happening on that twitter thread. Can you put your joke here? I don't see any jokes or mention of race anywhere on your Twitter.
- swrobel 8y ago
  Yeah, sorry, I will try to make a long story short. For years I've had Bundler set to just run jobs equal to the number of cores on my system. However, I noticed it was running one less so I assumed I was doing something wrong. After hours of banging my head against the wall, I finally found that it Bundler subtracts 1 from the number of jobs you pass to it, but this behavior has been removed from master (for eventual 2.x branch). A bit irate, I engaged in the following exchange w/ Andre, in which he accused me of violating their CoC for posting a bit of a kneejerk comment, which I apologized for, but questioned what I possibly could've violated in the CoC, in the process making a wisecrack about the ridiculous term in it about "making casual references to slavery or indentured servitude." Anyway, if you really want to dig in, here's the github thread: https://github.com/bundler/bundler/pull/5808#issuecomment-381027767 https://github.com/bundler/bundler/pull/5808#issuecomment-38... In the end, he banned me (it says 24 hrs in his comment, but it seems permanent) which has now prevented me from submitting a PR to document the very "feature" that threw me into this rage to begin with. Way to run an OSS project!
  - keithnz 8y ago
    I think his response, except for the ban, was appropriate
    - threatofrain 8y ago
      Was part of his response that he doesn't need the money of someone who makes racial jokes? Good riddance? That's a pretty strong statement to make over Twitter, esp. since if you read through the whole thing, that's someone trying to forcefully make a suggestion about racial insensitivity, which is at best journalistic twisting. What irks me about such responses is that it's not your prerogative to retract anything you say about anyone over the internet. It might not even be your prerogative to correct any of your statements.
  - swrobel 8y ago
    agreed, it's the ban I take issue with. felt pretty power-trippy to me.
danso 8y ago
You weren't accused of "making a joke about racism". He posted the part of the CoC [0] that he believed you to have violated. He then gave you a 24-hour-block because your remark "counts as doubling down" on what he originally accused you of. I guess he didn't appreciate you implying that the CoC is a bunch of facile garbage. [0] https://github.com/bundler/bundler/pull/5808#issuecomment-381254777 https://github.com/bundler/bundler/pull/5808#issuecomment-38...
- mlevental 8y ago
  God damn you people are sensitive. I see a guy (swrobel) venting about a bad API and using words like "infuriating", "REASONS", and several exclamation marks. he was confused about where he was skirting code of conduct because what he'd done was express disapproval of a design decision. he quotes the coc and then alludes to clauses that he believes would actually merit a warning - "slavery" and "indentured servitude" is language in the coc. note this isn't false dichotomy because the extreme end of the spectrum he's distinguished his comments from are explicitly forbidden by the coc. yes he used a smiley. God forbid. he also apologized and but somehow that's not being taken in into account by either you or indirect. then indirect responds with a positive prescription of the coc rather than a negative proscription (ie if it were a real contract it would be completely immaterial to the case since the rules cited don't forbid things only encourage). finally supposing we do take the rules cited by indirect as negative ("only this kind of language and behavior is allowed") there's not a shred of constructive feedback in indirect's initial response other than "don't do this" which just begs the question of whether he did anything to begin with. swrobel didn't show antipathy for anyone (he vented frustration about code). he didn't use exclusive language (he didn't say anything about any people at all), and he wasn't dismissive of any viewpoints because none were expressed by anyone. so what really happened? indirect felt he was being criticized and used his small bit of power to silence the critic under the auspices of being just. lol.
  - swrobel 8y ago
    thank you for stating this far more eloquently than I was able to
  - 8y ago