7 ms·

The contributor covenant is fairly in-objectionable. Yes, the list of 'privileges' is a bit of a checklist for left-wing soapboxes, but it's not necessarily a b

by DC-3 8y ago

The contributor covenant is fairly in-objectionable. Yes, the list of 'privileges' is a bit of a checklist for left-wing soapboxes, but it's not necessarily a bad thing to explicitly list traits commonly targeted by bullies and harassers. The problem many people have with it, as you imply, is that it's the thin end of a doorstop, at the thick end of which is the Post-Meritocracy Manifesto: https://postmeritocracy.org/ https://postmeritocracy.org/ Written by the same author and often championed by the same people as the Contributor Covenant, it espouses some rather more radical ideas which, while carefully stated to sound superficially agreeable, are not ones I would consider beneficial to the open source community.

Ws32ok 8y ago
Just one example from that manifesto: “We have an ethical responsibility to refuse to work on software that will negatively impact the well-being of other people.” This a terrible slippery slope. It eliminates any military, security or even anything useful. A thief’s well-being is meant to be negatively impacted by a security measure. A guidance system in a missile is intended to negatively impact the well-being of the enemy. I feel negatively impacted by this manifesto. So by definition every signatory is in violation of that manifesto.
- tptacek 8y ago
  The Contributor Covenant says nothing of the sort. It is entirely reasonable for developers to believe that the statements in the Covenant are a baseline for professionalism and, at the same time to disagree amongst themselves about whether they should contribute to military projects (or whether they buy into a "post-meritocracy" philosophy).
  - Ws32ok 8y ago
    I was referring to https://postmeritocracy.org/ https://postmeritocracy.org/ As per the comment to which I was replying.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Once again: whatever the "post-meritocracy" philosophy is, it has nothing to do with the kernel Code of Conduct.
      - Ws32ok 8y ago
        And once again, read https://postmeritocracy.org/ https://postmeritocracy.org/ and you’ll find the text I quoted verbatim. And my comment still stands in reference to the URL I provided. The wording is quite clear in that manifesto and I responded to that.
      - meowface 8y ago
        I wouldn't say it has nothing to do with it. It's not part of the explicit language of the Code of Conduct, but the first few paragraphs of https://www.contributor-covenant.org https://www.contributor-covenant.org talk about the same concepts. I think these attempts at redefining meritocracy are concerning, and I don't blame anyone for questioning the Contributor Covenant as a result, even if the Code of Conduct itself is reasonable and pretty much common sense.
        tptacek 8y ago
        None of those words are in the kernel Code of Conduct.
      - busterarm 8y ago
        But he was explicitly referring to the manifesto and not the Code of Conduct and you jumped all over him anyway.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        This rhetorical technique where you pretend not to understand what people are talking about does not reflect well on you. And I normally respect your comments quite a bit. Your direct reply to DC-3 was fine, if combative. Everything you posted below Ws32ok is ugly.
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  > It eliminates any military, security or even anything useful. Haha, I love the implicit signaling you're doing. I mean not only is it just not true but your qualifications for "useful" and "not useful" are really stupid.
  - hatchback176 8y ago
    Are guidance systems on missiles OK or not?
    - komali2 8y ago
      If everyone refused to build guidance systems for missiles, perhaps the missiles would never get built? I think likely yes, because if the zeitgeist among engineers was strong enough to make it nearly impossible to find one willing to build a missile guidance system, it would also be strong enough to make it impossible to find someone willing to build the actual missile. To directly answer your question: no, I believe no weapon of war is OK. The reasons are all of the typical pacifist ones but I don't think it's necessary to reiterate verbatim here unless you feel otherwise.
      - mmirate 8y ago
        > If everyone refused to build guidance systems for missiles, perhaps the missiles would never get built? Correct but incomplete. In that scenario, unguided rockets get built instead of missiles. Rockets, being unguided, will miss their targets more often than missiles. Rockets, being unguided, will also tend to be used in slightly-scattered volleys, so as to increase the chance that at least one rocket hits the target. Any explosive ordnance that misses its target has some chance of instead killing some civilians. Do you see the problem here?
    - kadendogthing 8y ago
      Yes. Despite your attempts at playing philosophically dumb it is okay. This is the dumbest form of virtue signaling while erecting scare crows I've ever seen in an online forum.
- komali2 8y ago
  What's wrong with agreeing not to build military hardware? I have an explicit understanding with my company that I will leave if they take defense contracts and it hasn't affected my employment whatsoever, so clearly it's not an outlandish requirement.
tomp 8y ago
> but it's not necessarily a bad thing to explicitly list traits commonly targeted by bullies and harassers. I see a big problem by them omitting protection for people of different political opinions (whereas e.g. religion, which is essentially opinion, is protected).
- JoshTriplett 8y ago
  That's a common problem, and one heavily abused and weaponized. If you want to argue about the level of taxation, the right size of government, regulations on business, whether public or private is the most efficient way to accomplish a goal, or myriad other areas of policy like those, go right ahead. Those kinds of things are absolutely reasonable subjects for healthy and reasonable debate. (They're rarely on-topic for a software project, but in some types of communities, or in companies, or in random side conversations, sometimes they are.) Those are almost never the kinds of political opinions that people have in mind when they're suggesting that "political opinions" should be an explicitly protected category, though. It's funny how the people worried most about whether they'll feel unwelcome for their political opinions are often those whose political opinions revolve around making others unwelcome, or hurting others, or questioning (or asking with superficial politeness about) others' right to exist. Those kind of "political opinions" do not and should not get any protections, in a code of conduct or anywhere else. You're legally allowed to say them, but you should not expect to do so without any consequence.
  - DC-3 8y ago
    What about religions that make others unwelcome, hurt others, or question their right to exist? Should they get protections in a code of conduct or anywhere else?
    - tptacek 8y ago
      The Linux kernel Code of Conduct takes litigating the religious affiliations of kernel contributors right off the table.
  - quotemstr 8y ago
tptacek 8y ago
People may divide neatly into factions, but ideas don't. The notion that an un-objectionable code of conduct is somehow allied with a far-reaching political philosophy is reductive and unhelpful. What you're saying is that you'd be comfortable with Linus adopting a code of conduct that made exactly the same statements, so long as the word order was changed to keep it from literally being the Contributor Covenant.
- DC-3 8y ago
  I'm not opposed to the adoption of this CoC. I think it's a positive for the Linux community, and I think it will be helpful (so long as Linus changes his attitude too). I would not like to see this ideological wedge driven any deeper into the gospel of the Linux community, however.
  - dnomad 8y ago
    The fact that you think that it's an "ideological wedge" says more about you than anything about the evolution of linux community. Some people see threats everywhere, they go through their whole lives insisting X is really Y, and A will lead to B and therefore nothing should ever change. Since these people are irrational and provide no rational basis for their paranoia (or even historical examples) healthy organizations will tend to completely ignore them.
    - a_tractor 8y ago
      It is interesting that at no point do you actually deny the fact that this so called "evolution" is entirely ideological. Your illogical and fallacious attempt to gaslight rational pattern recognition, with regard to the obvious ideological basis of these "codes of conduct" brigades, is defeated by the fact that some people do quite accurately and consistently see threats only when and where they appear, and often when other people do not, with full control of their rational faculty. Perhaps such an issue seems trivial to most, or perhaps that's just how it is designed. Maybe this represents yet another incremental encroachment of a much larger and multifaceted threat that is intentionally difficult to understand? There is also the relevant idea that those who represent more covert threats, would in fact desire to remain covert for as long as possible in order to further their malicious agenda. Since the continued existence of this agenda and its proponents depends entirely on deniability and ignorance, they will often lie and manipulate in order to ensure doubt and ignorance remains. Organizations which ignore such astute, truthful observers while ignoring the existence of threats of such a deceitful nature certainly do not stay healthy for long. >no rational basis for their paranoia (or even historical examples) I mean you are really, really, really playing dumb here. The persistent denial is almost unbelievable, but it really shows a cowardice and fear of exposure that says more about the truth of this ideology than anything else I could say.

by DC-3 8y ago

Ws32ok 8y ago

Just one example from that manifesto: “We have an ethical responsibility to refuse to work on software that will negatively impact the well-being of other people.” This a terrible slippery slope. It eliminates any military, security or even anything useful. A thief’s well-being is meant to be negatively impacted by a security measure. A guidance system in a missile is intended to negatively impact the well-being of the enemy. I feel negatively impacted by this manifesto. So by definition every signatory is in violation of that manifesto.

tptacek 8y ago
The Contributor Covenant says nothing of the sort. It is entirely reasonable for developers to believe that the statements in the Covenant are a baseline for professionalism and, at the same time to disagree amongst themselves about whether they should contribute to military projects (or whether they buy into a "post-meritocracy" philosophy).
- Ws32ok 8y ago
  I was referring to https://postmeritocracy.org/ https://postmeritocracy.org/ As per the comment to which I was replying.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Once again: whatever the "post-meritocracy" philosophy is, it has nothing to do with the kernel Code of Conduct.
    - Ws32ok 8y ago
      And once again, read https://postmeritocracy.org/ https://postmeritocracy.org/ and you’ll find the text I quoted verbatim. And my comment still stands in reference to the URL I provided. The wording is quite clear in that manifesto and I responded to that.
    - meowface 8y ago
      I wouldn't say it has nothing to do with it. It's not part of the explicit language of the Code of Conduct, but the first few paragraphs of https://www.contributor-covenant.org https://www.contributor-covenant.org talk about the same concepts. I think these attempts at redefining meritocracy are concerning, and I don't blame anyone for questioning the Contributor Covenant as a result, even if the Code of Conduct itself is reasonable and pretty much common sense.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        None of those words are in the kernel Code of Conduct.
    - busterarm 8y ago
      But he was explicitly referring to the manifesto and not the Code of Conduct and you jumped all over him anyway.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      This rhetorical technique where you pretend not to understand what people are talking about does not reflect well on you. And I normally respect your comments quite a bit. Your direct reply to DC-3 was fine, if combative. Everything you posted below Ws32ok is ugly.
kadendogthing 8y ago
> It eliminates any military, security or even anything useful. Haha, I love the implicit signaling you're doing. I mean not only is it just not true but your qualifications for "useful" and "not useful" are really stupid.
- hatchback176 8y ago
  Are guidance systems on missiles OK or not?
  - komali2 8y ago
    If everyone refused to build guidance systems for missiles, perhaps the missiles would never get built? I think likely yes, because if the zeitgeist among engineers was strong enough to make it nearly impossible to find one willing to build a missile guidance system, it would also be strong enough to make it impossible to find someone willing to build the actual missile. To directly answer your question: no, I believe no weapon of war is OK. The reasons are all of the typical pacifist ones but I don't think it's necessary to reiterate verbatim here unless you feel otherwise.
    - mmirate 8y ago
      > If everyone refused to build guidance systems for missiles, perhaps the missiles would never get built? Correct but incomplete. In that scenario, unguided rockets get built instead of missiles. Rockets, being unguided, will miss their targets more often than missiles. Rockets, being unguided, will also tend to be used in slightly-scattered volleys, so as to increase the chance that at least one rocket hits the target. Any explosive ordnance that misses its target has some chance of instead killing some civilians. Do you see the problem here?
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    Yes. Despite your attempts at playing philosophically dumb it is okay. This is the dumbest form of virtue signaling while erecting scare crows I've ever seen in an online forum.
komali2 8y ago
What's wrong with agreeing not to build military hardware? I have an explicit understanding with my company that I will leave if they take defense contracts and it hasn't affected my employment whatsoever, so clearly it's not an outlandish requirement.

tomp 8y ago

> but it's not necessarily a bad thing to explicitly list traits commonly targeted by bullies and harassers. I see a big problem by them omitting protection for people of different political opinions (whereas e.g. religion, which is essentially opinion, is protected).

JoshTriplett 8y ago
That's a common problem, and one heavily abused and weaponized. If you want to argue about the level of taxation, the right size of government, regulations on business, whether public or private is the most efficient way to accomplish a goal, or myriad other areas of policy like those, go right ahead. Those kinds of things are absolutely reasonable subjects for healthy and reasonable debate. (They're rarely on-topic for a software project, but in some types of communities, or in companies, or in random side conversations, sometimes they are.) Those are almost never the kinds of political opinions that people have in mind when they're suggesting that "political opinions" should be an explicitly protected category, though. It's funny how the people worried most about whether they'll feel unwelcome for their political opinions are often those whose political opinions revolve around making others unwelcome, or hurting others, or questioning (or asking with superficial politeness about) others' right to exist. Those kind of "political opinions" do not and should not get any protections, in a code of conduct or anywhere else. You're legally allowed to say them, but you should not expect to do so without any consequence.
- DC-3 8y ago
  What about religions that make others unwelcome, hurt others, or question their right to exist? Should they get protections in a code of conduct or anywhere else?
  - tptacek 8y ago
    The Linux kernel Code of Conduct takes litigating the religious affiliations of kernel contributors right off the table.
- quotemstr 8y ago

tptacek 8y ago

People may divide neatly into factions, but ideas don't. The notion that an un-objectionable code of conduct is somehow allied with a far-reaching political philosophy is reductive and unhelpful. What you're saying is that you'd be comfortable with Linus adopting a code of conduct that made exactly the same statements, so long as the word order was changed to keep it from literally being the Contributor Covenant.

DC-3 8y ago
I'm not opposed to the adoption of this CoC. I think it's a positive for the Linux community, and I think it will be helpful (so long as Linus changes his attitude too). I would not like to see this ideological wedge driven any deeper into the gospel of the Linux community, however.
- dnomad 8y ago
  The fact that you think that it's an "ideological wedge" says more about you than anything about the evolution of linux community. Some people see threats everywhere, they go through their whole lives insisting X is really Y, and A will lead to B and therefore nothing should ever change. Since these people are irrational and provide no rational basis for their paranoia (or even historical examples) healthy organizations will tend to completely ignore them.
  - a_tractor 8y ago
    It is interesting that at no point do you actually deny the fact that this so called "evolution" is entirely ideological. Your illogical and fallacious attempt to gaslight rational pattern recognition, with regard to the obvious ideological basis of these "codes of conduct" brigades, is defeated by the fact that some people do quite accurately and consistently see threats only when and where they appear, and often when other people do not, with full control of their rational faculty. Perhaps such an issue seems trivial to most, or perhaps that's just how it is designed. Maybe this represents yet another incremental encroachment of a much larger and multifaceted threat that is intentionally difficult to understand? There is also the relevant idea that those who represent more covert threats, would in fact desire to remain covert for as long as possible in order to further their malicious agenda. Since the continued existence of this agenda and its proponents depends entirely on deniability and ignorance, they will often lie and manipulate in order to ensure doubt and ignorance remains. Organizations which ignore such astute, truthful observers while ignoring the existence of threats of such a deceitful nature certainly do not stay healthy for long. >no rational basis for their paranoia (or even historical examples) I mean you are really, really, really playing dumb here. The persistent denial is almost unbelievable, but it really shows a cowardice and fear of exposure that says more about the truth of this ideology than anything else I could say.