6 ms·

Something more recent... CoC caused one of the top 5 LLVM developers to leave: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16980841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?

• bjt2n3904 8y ago
  I mean, I understand that. HN usually weights controversial things down to focus on the tech aspects. It keeps the place fun to browse. This is something I'm particularly interested in, so it's a little frustrating that it lasted all of 20 minutes on the front page. Ah well.
  • hermitdev 8y ago
    IMO, when a controversial issue such as a certain CoC change causes a top 5 contributor to such a large project such as LLVM to say "fuck it, I'm out," that is entirely relevant, and should be upvoted, not flagged to oblivion. You may not agree with the contributor's decision to leave, but it's worthwhile to try and understand why they came to that decision and to reflect on whether the change is the right thing to do or not. By down-voting or flagging into oblivion, dissent is being quieted, freedom of speech and thought is lost, and diversity of thought and inclusiveness in the community is actively being destroyed. We don't all have to agree, but when one group can actively suppress the participation of another, you've effectively killed free speech/thought.
    • flukus 8y ago
      The people that flag that sort of thing don't actually want diversity and inclusiveness, these are newspeak terms that mean the opposite. If they actually wanted diversity then they would have to recognize that the majority of the world (and the diversity in it) has some very non-PC beliefs and their policies are excluding those people.
      • geofft 8y ago
        I always find these discussions weird, as a Christian who believes in the literal reality of hell. (I hope it will be empty, but I have no reason to believe that other than hope, and I must realistically admit that plenty of people appear to die in a state of mortal sin.) Being respectful of others, even in a codified way, is in no way an affront to my non-PC beliefs. I'm not going to start having opinions about whether my co-maintainers are going to hell, and if you want to make a policy about that, I'm not harmed in the least. If you want to ask me about my beliefs you're always welcome to do so privately, but I have enough faith in the internet to believe that nobody I'm working on an open source project with is in dire need of hearing the Good News as if they haven't thought about it before. I'm not excluded by someone saying that proselytization is off-topic. And if you think that my beliefs nonetheless make me a poor representative for some group of people who don't share those beliefs, well, I will be sad privately, but I don't think I am losing anything I deserved if you kick me out of a position of leadership or responsibility over it. I will admit that there are people who share my beliefs who also have a belief in excluding a group of people in an arbitrary category or in being disrespectful of others as a matter of policy. I disagree (theologically!) with them, and I also very much have no interest in working closely with them on anything. If you craft a set of rules that excludes those people on the grounds of their exclusionary behavior, you'll likely find that I'm the most empathetic towards them when others want me to cut them off, but you'll also find that I have no fundamental objection towards those rules, implemented as a defense mechanism.
        • flukus 8y ago
          I think you're ignoring that witch hunting that has been going on in recent years. As a hypothetical, let's say that you believe all homosexuals will go to hell. Of course in a project or a workplace their will never be a need to bring this up and being respectful of others you never bring it up in those environments. But what about other environments? Should you be able to express your belief on your personal twitter? At your church? The answer lately is that you aren't free to express that opinion anywhere, by doing so you could lose your job or be kicked out of a project. Being respectful to others will not save you, you have to keep your opinion completely to yourself.
• cwyers 8y ago
  The whole point of a code of conduct is to promote good conduct and dissuade bad conduct. What's crazy about having moderators or having their moderation standards be the code of conduct?
  • Jerry2 8y ago
    Problem is selective enforcement. They have a member on their core team who has advocated violence in the past. It's just that it's violence against white people so it's "OK". They also have another person who is advocating violence against men. But again, their 'thought police' cops haven't done a thing.
    • sanxiyn 8y ago
      I want to defend Rust project here. You should realize that Rust CoC is scoped to official Rust project space. > They have a member on their core team who has advocated violence in the past. It's just that it's violence against white people so it's "OK". As far as I know, the member you are referring to never advocated violence in the official Rust project space. That's enough for Rust.
      • 2FC00C733A55 8y ago
        And you are sure that any code of conduct violations will not include anything out of the official Rust project space, like an unrelated twitter post?
        • sanxiyn 8y ago
          Yes, I am 100% sure.
      • matheusmoreira 8y ago
        This directly contradicts other CoC enforcement cases: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 >publicly calling trans people out for "not accepting reality" on Twitter. >His Twitter profile mentions that he is a core contributor to opal. >Is this what the other maintainers want to be reflected in the project? >Will any transgender developers feel comfortable contributing? There is no reason to believe these people are impartial.