2 ms·

> Who's writing that code? Do individuals write code and throw it over the wall, never having to talk to another soul? Individuals who I respect professionally

> Who's writing that code? Do individuals write code and throw it over the wall, never having to talk to another soul? Individuals who I respect professionally based on their work and effort, but whose religion and sexual orientation is something I leave to be their own. Same as I leave mine my own and don't try to impose on to others. > And at some point, you'll find a transphobe and a trans person, a racist and an Indian, a misogynist and a woman, in your community, and something happens - and the question is, what happens then? Do we put huge amounts of effort into trying to teach bigots not to be bigots, or at least shut up about their bigotry within the context of the community? If someone is detrimental to the community because of their actions within the community, that makes the resolution fairly obvious without a need to codify this in a document focused mostly on ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation. In case a community member holds opinions outside the project which another member finds objectionable, and which that other member then actively or repeatedly brings into the project, in order to stir conflict or evict others, I also think it's fairly obvious who is causing actual harm to the community. And in those cases I would be very cautious about automatically portraying this offended person as a "victim", because doing so will also automatically portray the other party as a offender, despite this person maybe not having any direct involvement in the "offence" at hand. And then you've created/codified a source of polarization in your community. That's IMO even worse than occasionally having people get offended and squaring up.

vertex-four 9y ago
> If someone is detrimental to the community because of their actions within the community, that makes the resolution fairly obvious without a need to codify this in a document focused mostly on ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Funnily enough, it's usually highly political to suggest that someone might be detrimental to the community, even when it's obvious. I constantly see women leave communities because it's less of a hassle to find a group that actively seeks to protect its members than to try and gain enough political capital and put up with enough crap to get members thrown out. The people with no personal problems in those same communities never realise that there's a problem - they never realise that their community could benefit from kicking out the bigots, or even asking them to tone it down a little. And in fact they'll often actively fight to ensure that people suffer no consequences for their actions.

vertex-four 9y ago

> If someone is detrimental to the community because of their actions within the community, that makes the resolution fairly obvious without a need to codify this in a document focused mostly on ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Funnily enough, it's usually highly political to suggest that someone might be detrimental to the community, even when it's obvious. I constantly see women leave communities because it's less of a hassle to find a group that actively seeks to protect its members than to try and gain enough political capital and put up with enough crap to get members thrown out. The people with no personal problems in those same communities never realise that there's a problem - they never realise that their community could benefit from kicking out the bigots, or even asking them to tone it down a little. And in fact they'll often actively fight to ensure that people suffer no consequences for their actions.