9 ms·

Because behaving like a decent human being is that hard, isn't it? If a code of conduct hurts your feelings that much maybe you're just not cut out for collabor

Because behaving like a decent human being is that hard, isn't it? If a code of conduct hurts your feelings that much maybe you're just not cut out for collaborative work. I really wonder where the great fear that CoCs will be abused to shut down disagreement comes from. I am not a fan of policing language, but there just aren't many real examples of such abuse out there. Here is the actual list of examples from the CoC. Which of these do you need to do in order to feel happy to contribute to Linux development? +Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: + +* The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or + advances +* Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks +* Public or private harassment +* Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic + address, without explicit permission +* Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a + professional setting Fight overreach, by all means. Make sure that the CoC contains means to fight overreach. That's all good. But the whole "I can't contribute to this project anymore because I find SJWs offensive" whinging strikes me as deeply hypocritical.

patrickg_zill 8y ago
What commits did you get accepted into the kernel? Code talks, bs walks...
rndgermandude 8y ago
> Because behaving like a decent human being is that hard, isn't it? If a code of conduct hurts your feelings that much maybe you're just not cut out for collaborative work. This is a personal attack, very thinly veiled. If Hacker News had the same code of conduct, your account would have to be banned at worst.
- Certhas 8y ago
  That's fair, it's definitely a way to read this. I shouldn't respond to hyperbolic language with the like. I'll edit it. Edit: Too late, I can't edit anymore unfortunately. Let me rephrase: "Behaving like a decent human being isn't that hard. It's work that anyone who wants to work in a collaborative project can reasonably be expected to do. If this is objectionable to you, then maybe this collaboration isn't for you."
  - zeroname 8y ago
    > Behaving like a decent human being isn't that hard. It can be quite hard to live up to everyone's standards of "decency". You just failed to do it. > I shouldn't respond to hyperbolic language with the like. Write that on the chalkboard one hundred times and maybe we'll let it slide. This time.
    - Certhas 8y ago
      Yeah, I was called out on it, and I corrected myself. I wouldn't want to be part of a project that bans people who make an effort towards decency. The fact that standards differ and a consensus needs to be found for what constitutes decency is not an argument against it. What point are you trying to illustrate? Are you saying I shouldn't have been called out on it? Because I disagree. The fact was, I found the post I replied to annoying, and I replied in a tone that was stronger than it needed to be. It's a good thing that was called out. Next time I'll take a breather before replying and we'll have a more constructive exchange.
      - Sacho 8y ago
        I believe they were trying to refute your initial point: > Because behaving like a decent human being is that hard, isn't it? By pointing out that you weren't able to live up to that standard even when trying to champion it. How hard will it be if you're in a heated argument with someone when your work is at stake?
        Certhas 8y ago
        Thanks. I don't know, this is the topic I get most heated about, I successfully lead pretty diverse teams, this definitely wouldn't happen to me in that context. After all discussion message boards like this are also a different context than a professional mailing list (and I strongly believe that context is important and not always appropriately taken into account). Just because something isn't that hard, doesn't mean we don't slip up sometimes. So I'd stand by my assessment. It isn't that hard. I expect it of myself and my team. I still sometimes fail. Then a CoC, being called out on it, and given constructive criticism helps me.
- DanBC 8y ago
  Hacker News does have a code of conduct, and the comment was flagged.
s9w 8y ago
These CoC's are weapons, disguised as a harmless decency. In the case of linux, it was yielded within a very timely manner: https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9hhnev/less_than_24_hours_after_linux_applied_the_coc/ https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9hhnev/less...
- Certhas 8y ago
  If the CoC is used to bully people, then fight the bullying. It's a false dichotomy that we have to accept one type of bullies in order not to empower another type of bullies. That said, your link also just peddles various conspiracy theories as "proven", and imagines a vast conspiracy of SJWs who specifically target powerful men. Which, BTW, should it exists, is clearly utterly ineffectual.
  - adamrezich 8y ago
    >If the CoC is used to bully people, then fight the bullying. Why add something to a project that begins an endless spiral of fighting? Does this seem productive to you?
kaneua 8y ago
The problem is not in the guys who want to misbehave and hate Code of Conduct because of that. Code of conduct and its vaguely written rules gives certain people a power to abuse. As we know from history, if there is a possibility that power can be abused, it will be.
- Certhas 8y ago
  We know from history that human collaboration, and the building of communities requires norms, compromise and ongoing discussion. Fight the abusers, fight the bullies, but don't pretend that we can't have written down norms of decency because of the potential for abuse. You presumably wouldn't accept blanket "potential for abuse/harm" arguments in other contexts either.
  - kaneua 8y ago
    > don't pretend that we can't have written down norms of decency because of the potential for abuse I don't pretend that we can't have written norms of decency. But I know for sure that it's not the norms written in "Contributor's Covenant". It should be another covenant. > You presumably wouldn't accept blanket "potential for abuse/harm" arguments in other contexts either. A couple of month ago I made a teardown[0] of 17 pages long bill that was pushed in Ukraine and had a lot of abuse potential. It was (and is) my main concern. I see it as a major issue of laws, rules, covenants and other legal or semi-legal documents. You may not see it as big issue, but I do. I see this potential abused every single day by corrupt governments of Ukraine and other ex-USSR governments. Vague rulings as in previously mentioned "Contributor's Covenant" are used to prosecute people for stupid reasons and for personal profit by ones who have power. > Fight the abusers It's very unlikely that witchhunt victim will return to community. I'd rather have rules better written than someone expelled from the community because someone likes to abuse the power. [0]https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraina/comments/8te554/как_власть_собирается_вертеть_интернетом/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraina/comments/8te554/как_власть_...
zeroname 8y ago
> Because behaving like a decent human being is that hard, isn't it? If a code of conduct hurts your feelings that much maybe you're just not cut out for collaborative work. Who gets to decide what's "decent"? Do you not realize that what you just wrote can be considered [inappropriate], a [personal attack] and/or [trolling]? Do it once more, perhaps unwittingly, and you're a repeat offender. Three strikes and you are out. If I like you (or rather your politics align with mine), I won't use that weapon against you, but it's in my power to do so. Look into what led to the Ayo.js/node.js fork, it was basically caused by R.V. posting on his personal twitter something against CoCs. He wasn't in line with the politics of certain other members. In that case, sanity prevailed, but only narrowly. For another example where that weapon was turned against the very person who brought it to the table, look into what happened with J.K. and Lerna. > But the whole "I can't contribute to this project anymore because I find SJWs offensive" whinging strikes me as deeply hypocritical. Nobody actually is saying that. You're just misrepresenting the argument in a [derogatory] manner. That's pretty [insulting], isn't it?
- Certhas 8y ago
  I adopted a better tone in one of the replies higher up, but I do not believe I substantially misrepresent the argument (which is now flagged so I can't see it anymore). Also the CoC explicitly gives a list of examples on what is decent/indecent behavior. It's a good one to me. Ultimately the answer is the same as with anything in a collaborative group: The group has to come to a consensus on what is and isn't decent. What we are experiencing right now is that this consensus is shifting. Also, yes, there are examples of CoCs being used to bully people, or people making stupid decisions. These have usually been quickly reverted. [1] But overall I have seen a lot more whinging reactions along the lines of "how dare you put your politics here!" than actual examples of abuses. And remember the information asymmetry here. Every abuse of a CoC is by definition public, and therefore also ultimately the community has a lot of options to correct such abuses. On the other hand, people who drop out because they find the atmosphere in a group toxic rarely go public. I've certainly dropped out of groups for that reason without mentioning it anywhere. [1] Remember the "fork their repository" and dongle jokes debacle from a few years back? The outcome of that was that the accused was initially quickly fired (institutional overreaction to a ridiculous accusation), but ultimately got a new job immediately. The accuser on the other hand got a whole ton of abuse, lost her business, and last I checked was still out of a job. The idea that on balance the social power has shifted too far into the direction of the accusers is absurd to me. It just does not fit the world I observe. Every public accuser still get's harassed a lot. There are still plenty of incentives to not publicly accuse.

patrickg_zill 8y ago

What commits did you get accepted into the kernel? Code talks, bs walks...

rndgermandude 8y ago

> Because behaving like a decent human being is that hard, isn't it? If a code of conduct hurts your feelings that much maybe you're just not cut out for collaborative work. This is a personal attack, very thinly veiled. If Hacker News had the same code of conduct, your account would have to be banned at worst.

Certhas 8y ago
That's fair, it's definitely a way to read this. I shouldn't respond to hyperbolic language with the like. I'll edit it. Edit: Too late, I can't edit anymore unfortunately. Let me rephrase: "Behaving like a decent human being isn't that hard. It's work that anyone who wants to work in a collaborative project can reasonably be expected to do. If this is objectionable to you, then maybe this collaboration isn't for you."
- zeroname 8y ago
  > Behaving like a decent human being isn't that hard. It can be quite hard to live up to everyone's standards of "decency". You just failed to do it. > I shouldn't respond to hyperbolic language with the like. Write that on the chalkboard one hundred times and maybe we'll let it slide. This time.
  - Certhas 8y ago
    Yeah, I was called out on it, and I corrected myself. I wouldn't want to be part of a project that bans people who make an effort towards decency. The fact that standards differ and a consensus needs to be found for what constitutes decency is not an argument against it. What point are you trying to illustrate? Are you saying I shouldn't have been called out on it? Because I disagree. The fact was, I found the post I replied to annoying, and I replied in a tone that was stronger than it needed to be. It's a good thing that was called out. Next time I'll take a breather before replying and we'll have a more constructive exchange.
    - Sacho 8y ago
      I believe they were trying to refute your initial point: > Because behaving like a decent human being is that hard, isn't it? By pointing out that you weren't able to live up to that standard even when trying to champion it. How hard will it be if you're in a heated argument with someone when your work is at stake?
      - Certhas 8y ago
        Thanks. I don't know, this is the topic I get most heated about, I successfully lead pretty diverse teams, this definitely wouldn't happen to me in that context. After all discussion message boards like this are also a different context than a professional mailing list (and I strongly believe that context is important and not always appropriately taken into account). Just because something isn't that hard, doesn't mean we don't slip up sometimes. So I'd stand by my assessment. It isn't that hard. I expect it of myself and my team. I still sometimes fail. Then a CoC, being called out on it, and given constructive criticism helps me.
DanBC 8y ago
Hacker News does have a code of conduct, and the comment was flagged.

s9w 8y ago

These CoC's are weapons, disguised as a harmless decency. In the case of linux, it was yielded within a very timely manner: https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9hhnev/less_than_24_hours_after_linux_applied_the_coc/ https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9hhnev/less...

Certhas 8y ago
If the CoC is used to bully people, then fight the bullying. It's a false dichotomy that we have to accept one type of bullies in order not to empower another type of bullies. That said, your link also just peddles various conspiracy theories as "proven", and imagines a vast conspiracy of SJWs who specifically target powerful men. Which, BTW, should it exists, is clearly utterly ineffectual.
- adamrezich 8y ago
  >If the CoC is used to bully people, then fight the bullying. Why add something to a project that begins an endless spiral of fighting? Does this seem productive to you?

kaneua 8y ago

The problem is not in the guys who want to misbehave and hate Code of Conduct because of that. Code of conduct and its vaguely written rules gives certain people a power to abuse. As we know from history, if there is a possibility that power can be abused, it will be.

Certhas 8y ago
We know from history that human collaboration, and the building of communities requires norms, compromise and ongoing discussion. Fight the abusers, fight the bullies, but don't pretend that we can't have written down norms of decency because of the potential for abuse. You presumably wouldn't accept blanket "potential for abuse/harm" arguments in other contexts either.
- kaneua 8y ago
  > don't pretend that we can't have written down norms of decency because of the potential for abuse I don't pretend that we can't have written norms of decency. But I know for sure that it's not the norms written in "Contributor's Covenant". It should be another covenant. > You presumably wouldn't accept blanket "potential for abuse/harm" arguments in other contexts either. A couple of month ago I made a teardown[0] of 17 pages long bill that was pushed in Ukraine and had a lot of abuse potential. It was (and is) my main concern. I see it as a major issue of laws, rules, covenants and other legal or semi-legal documents. You may not see it as big issue, but I do. I see this potential abused every single day by corrupt governments of Ukraine and other ex-USSR governments. Vague rulings as in previously mentioned "Contributor's Covenant" are used to prosecute people for stupid reasons and for personal profit by ones who have power. > Fight the abusers It's very unlikely that witchhunt victim will return to community. I'd rather have rules better written than someone expelled from the community because someone likes to abuse the power. [0]https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraina/comments/8te554/как_власть_собирается_вертеть_интернетом/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraina/comments/8te554/как_власть_...

zeroname 8y ago

> Because behaving like a decent human being is that hard, isn't it? If a code of conduct hurts your feelings that much maybe you're just not cut out for collaborative work. Who gets to decide what's "decent"? Do you not realize that what you just wrote can be considered [inappropriate], a [personal attack] and/or [trolling]? Do it once more, perhaps unwittingly, and you're a repeat offender. Three strikes and you are out. If I like you (or rather your politics align with mine), I won't use that weapon against you, but it's in my power to do so. Look into what led to the Ayo.js/node.js fork, it was basically caused by R.V. posting on his personal twitter something against CoCs. He wasn't in line with the politics of certain other members. In that case, sanity prevailed, but only narrowly. For another example where that weapon was turned against the very person who brought it to the table, look into what happened with J.K. and Lerna. > But the whole "I can't contribute to this project anymore because I find SJWs offensive" whinging strikes me as deeply hypocritical. Nobody actually is saying that. You're just misrepresenting the argument in a [derogatory] manner. That's pretty [insulting], isn't it?

Certhas 8y ago
I adopted a better tone in one of the replies higher up, but I do not believe I substantially misrepresent the argument (which is now flagged so I can't see it anymore). Also the CoC explicitly gives a list of examples on what is decent/indecent behavior. It's a good one to me. Ultimately the answer is the same as with anything in a collaborative group: The group has to come to a consensus on what is and isn't decent. What we are experiencing right now is that this consensus is shifting. Also, yes, there are examples of CoCs being used to bully people, or people making stupid decisions. These have usually been quickly reverted. [1] But overall I have seen a lot more whinging reactions along the lines of "how dare you put your politics here!" than actual examples of abuses. And remember the information asymmetry here. Every abuse of a CoC is by definition public, and therefore also ultimately the community has a lot of options to correct such abuses. On the other hand, people who drop out because they find the atmosphere in a group toxic rarely go public. I've certainly dropped out of groups for that reason without mentioning it anywhere. [1] Remember the "fork their repository" and dongle jokes debacle from a few years back? The outcome of that was that the accused was initially quickly fired (institutional overreaction to a ridiculous accusation), but ultimately got a new job immediately. The accuser on the other hand got a whole ton of abuse, lost her business, and last I checked was still out of a job. The idea that on balance the social power has shifted too far into the direction of the accusers is absurd to me. It just does not fit the world I observe. Every public accuser still get's harassed a lot. There are still plenty of incentives to not publicly accuse.