8 ms·

On holy wars, and a plea for peace

87 points by telotortium 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bassman9000 8y ago
They make it clear; they signed on to participate in a meritocracy with reputation rewards, and they think that is being taken way from them. https://postmeritocracy.org/ https://postmeritocracy.org/ That is exactly what the people pushing the new CoC are claiming.
- throwanem 8y ago
  Which of the people signed on to that manifesto are also arguing in support of the Linux kernel CoC?
  - dx87 8y ago
    The creator of that site, Coraline Ada Ehmke, is also the creator of the new Linux kernel CoC.
    - throwanem 8y ago
      More accurately said, Ms. Ehmke is the creator both of the Post-Meritocracy Manifesto site, and of the CoC adopted by the Linux kernel project. Far more is being made of this situation than seems merited by the facts. That it's easy to do I recognize, but that ease is no excuse.
      - bitwize 8y ago
        Coraline Ada Ehmke has also been known to stir up shit when she doesn't think her CoC is being enforced aggressively enough. She basically treats the document as a way to Eich people she doesn't like out of any open source contribution, as happened with the Opal project. This would present a problem, except the Linux governance model doesn't actually confer power to a person or persons to exclude contributors from the kernel. Linus and his underling maintainers are still individually free to accept or reject patches from anyone. CoC complaints would be handled by the Tech Advisory Board, but they can't issue orders or blacklists to maintainers. Funny thing is, I suspect that this is by design, to make Linux development resistant to covert or open hostile action from the likes of Microsoft. Pending a drastic change in the process, you can all keep calm and carry on using Linux.
        throwanem 8y ago
        Do you have receipts for that first paragraph? I feel like, if you have them, it'd be worth showing them, for an allegation like that one.
        erics32 8y ago
        https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
        throwanem 8y ago
        @elia's last commit to Opal was about two weeks ago, and that issue dates from 2015. That doesn't seem to add up to what you seem to argue that it does.
        bitwize 8y ago
        It's enough to establish that Coraline's goal is to collect the scalps of people she disagrees with, and the Contributor Covenant is one prong of her strategy. Whether or not she was successful is another matter, but as for intent, it's right there in the title -- "Transphobic maintainer should be removed from project". The Contributor Covenant is quick and clear to emphasize that removal is a penalty for violation of the code, or for not taking sufficient steps as a maintainer to ensure that guilty parties are sufficiently unpersoned. I'm opposed to racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia too, but damnit, if I'm a maintainer and Alex Jones has a good patch, I'm going to clip out the attached verbiage about Hillary Clinton being a literal demon and roll the patch into my next rc. I'd be doing the project a disservice not to. The OED has entries that were submitted by an insane murderer from the asylum (look up William Chester Minor).
        throwanem 8y ago
        One incident, three years ago, which came to nothing in any event? I think we must differ in our definitions of 'enough'. Are we looking at an established pattern of behavior which is suggestive of current intent? Or are we instead looking at a single moment of excess, whose outcome provided a salutary lesson since taken firmly to heart? There's not enough here to know - the claim has yet to be substantiated, if substantiation there be. eta: As it happens, I'd take Alex Jones's patch, too. But I would require it be resubmitted anonymously, and without inflammatory verbiage. If not so resubmitted, I would not merge it. Yes, it does the project a disservice to reject good code. But software, like every made thing in the world, is made by people. It is not unreasonable for me to look at the sort of people who attend upon Alex Jones, and then at the sort of people who find his presence so distasteful that they will not associate themselves with anything he's touched however fleetingly, and decide which sort of people I prefer to include, by my actions, in my pool of potential contributors. If the latter group seems to me to be more likely to contribute good code, then I'm not going to put them off by having Alex Jones on my contributor list. If that costs the project a good patch, then that cost is still less than the other - if I've evaluated correctly, and if the patch has merit, someone not so divisive will submit another like it before very long. Of course, most people don't give a damn either way, and mainly just want to do the work they're doing and land their changes with a minimum of fuss. Which is more or less the point that I'm trying to make here: this is neither an attempt to install a blood estrogen titer in the code review process for Linux kernel contributions, nor to ensure that Linux kernel development is a clubhouse admitting only pale penis-bearing people of power. Everyone attempting to make a substantive contribution, of whatever sort, to the process, is doing so in good faith, out of a genuine belief that their contribution will improve the quality of the result. But I appreciate that's hard to keep sight of, when Twitter and ESR and /g/ join in, in their inimitable fashion to add only heat and no light.
  - throwaway5250 8y ago
    It seems likely that most or all of the signatories would be in favor of the new CoC. (Perhaps some don't feel that it goes far enough.) Given the author's toxic Twitter comments, I'm suspicious of the motivations here.
    - throwanem 8y ago
      Which toxic Twitter comments are those? I'm having some difficulty finding them.
      - throwaway5250 8y ago
        Example: https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1042249983590838272 https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1042249983590838272 This pretty much rules out "good faith".
- dukoid 8y ago
  Is this somehow some kind of Miguel de Icaza 2.0 stunt by MS?
- noobermin 8y ago
  I don't understand this. What is this manifesto trying to accomplish? I consider myself a leftist (although somewhat disenchanted these days, but that's another story). I find it somewhat unjust and illogical that in our world of plenty people still are in want. For example, the USA produces more food than needed to feed everyone, yet people still starve and few have access to healthy affordable food. It's one argument if food really was in 2018 a scarce resource, but since it no longer needs to be, depriving it from people seems unjust to me. Same for clean drinking water, clean air, etc. So I have that stance when it comes to material resources, but open source isn't really like that. The rewards are "reputation" which isn't a necessary need for life like food or water or healthcare is, so I don't see why a redistribution of reputation is necessary from that left perspective. I suppose contributions to F/OSS places nice footnotes on one's resume, but if that's the reason then this idea of post-meritocracy is attacking the problem from the wrong end, which involves the actual material realities of access to education and basic needs suffered by certain people. And, sorry, let's keep it real, if you have enough clout and are placed in such a situation that you can worry about open source in the first place, you are materially better off than the vast majority of people in the US, so I don't see it as that high on the list in terms of priorities social justice honestly. So I don't get what this is for other than it being easier than actually materially improving the lives of disenfranchised people.
  - Viliam1234 8y ago
    > What is this manifesto trying to accomplish? Political points for its author. Because factually, it is crap. Where is "the exclusion of underrepresented people in technology"? Providing high-quality software for free, that is inclusive for poor people (both the poor people in rich countries, and the average people in poor countries). A lot of free software supports localization anyone can contribute to, which is inclusive for speakers of minority languages (instead of having to write your own software, or petitioning a huge corporation, you just download a text file and translate a few lines). Free software can be used by everyone, black or white, male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, cisgender or transgender, whatever; all code is available for all people. Somehow this all means nothing. What we need instead is to make sure there are not too many white cishet guys contributing to all this stuff. Now people whose only contribution is bringing conflict are kicking out those who contributed code, in their free time, for the benefit of everyone.
throwanem 8y ago
I think I understand why this is sinking, but I'm tempted to think perhaps it should not. On the other hand, I don't know whether this community can any longer discuss such matters with cool heads all around. Or whether any community can.
- noobermin 8y ago
  I think it can. On the other hand, this site isn't really the community more than it is the "peanut gallery".
  - throwanem 8y ago
    "This community" meaning HN, not LKML.
naringas 8y ago
If I knew anything about stock markets, I'd argue that it is a good time to invest in micro $oft; however I have never had enough money to even bother learning about that kind of thing.
Canada 8y ago
Isn't this something that major contributors should decide among themselves?
- noobermin 8y ago
  Which is why it was posted to the lkml I suppose.
amaccuish 8y ago
Interesting read, but I can't see how the CoC changes the "telos", if anyone can help? I.e. from my point of view, having a CoC doesn't change the end goal, since the end goal was never, not having a CoC, and the end goal was never a meritocracy, it was create a kernel (nor was it to have a CoC, again it's an implementation detail). So I'd say, in relation to this post, the question is, does the CoC bring "us" closer/further to our "telos". I would argue that it does, but of course some disagree. Further, there's the argument that aslong as something doesn't hinder the "telos", and it has a positive impact on the community, why not do so?
- throwanem 8y ago
  An excellent point. Here's where esr palms the card, my emphasis: "...[Accusing anti-CoC community members of sexism and the like] can only inflame their sense that the group telos is being hijacked. They make it clear; they signed on to participate in a meritocracy with reputation rewards, and they think that is being taken [away] from them." Is the telos to produce a kernel, or is the telos to "participate in a meritocracy with reputation rewards"? ESR's piece gives much overt consideration to the question of "what is the telos?", but even granting that that question is not itself disingenuous in the context of LKML, the quoted passage somewhat deftly sneaks in an answer of its own, between all the many waves of hands about how "[that] last paragraph may sound like I have strayed from neutrality into making a value claim, but not really" and the like. I suspect a large number of people with commits in the kernel trunk would be surprised to learn that they're really there for the meritocracy, rather than for the work...
  - hnkf 8y ago
    Yours is a very interesting observation. You’re saying that either: a) You’re there to work on the kernel, and because that’s the end goal you out up with the CoC; b) You’re there for the reputation and/or meritocracy, so the CoC feels like a personal attack. Is that it?
    - throwanem 8y ago
      I'm saying that, as I read ESR's post, it implicitly imputes the latter motivation in an argument which overtly is about either the former, or the (putative) question of what really is the telos in the context of LKML and Linux kernel development generally - and, in so doing, equates the two in a way that I think isn't reasonable to do without explicitly declaring and supporting the equation. Be clear, though: this is nothing but my reading of ESR's statement of his own perspective on the issue, even all the facts of which are somewhat difficult to identify without ambiguity. I'm not especially interested in trying to make any larger argument than that, and I'm not at all sure that the desire for meritocracy and reputation is incompatible with the adoption of an explicit code of conduct requiring that kernel contributors, while contributing to the kernel, eschew gratuitous misbehavior of the sort which tends to drive other contributors and potential contributors away from the project. As I read the CoC in question (https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-conduct.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-condu...), I see nothing in it which suggests any intent beyond that. In particular, I see nothing suggesting any intent toward thought policing, or policing of behavior outside the context of interactions in the Linux kernel development community, or declared public representation of same. And the Technical Advisory Board, charged with enforcement of the CoC, is just that - technical. So I really don't know where all this culture war stuff is coming from, or why anyone sees a need for it. Okay, that's a lie. I do know where it's coming from, and why people on both sides see a need for it. It's just that I wish they didn't - again, on both sides - because the Linux kernel is too important a technological artifact to be made this sort of battlefield. I'm sure it'll blow over in the end, and that the silent majority that invariably constitutes the audience for such engagements will go on doing as they do, not at all ruffled by the explicit adoption of a standard of behavior that really says nothing more than "don't be an asshole, and if you're enough of an asshole, we won't let you work with us any more". That is to say - the same rule that applies everywhere, whether explicitly stated or otherwise. In my experience, the correlation between worthwhile kernel contributors, and people who enshrine Linus Torvalds' own somewhat infamous former style of comportment as somehow essential to technical excellence in the project, is negligible unto imperceptibility - so I see no reason to imagine that the project itself is imperiled by this current contretemps. That contention is really the only reason why it's achieved as wide a currency as it has, I think; absent the - in my reading highly questionable - idea that a significant fraction of kernel contributors will withdraw their contributions in a way that actively harms further development, there's no reason I can see for so many pundits of ESR's and /g/'s stripe to weigh in so heavily and with such typical respect for the facts and realities of the matters on which they choose so to speak.
LyndsySimon 8y ago
I love this article. It's exactly what I've been trying to communicate, but have been unable to nail down so precisely.
badsoftwaredev 8y ago
> I'm going to invite everybody to think like a game theorist for a bit. I knew from this line that this post was going to anger me. I was right. > It is perfectly consistent to be pro-tolerance and pro-inclusion while believing this subculture ought to be all about producing good code without regard to who is offended by the process. It's not. > That last paragraph may sound like I have strayed from neutrality Is he really writing this and claiming to be neutral? This reads very much as an anti-CoC message. For example, > If the normativeness slider is set low, the group as a whole will tolerate behavior that some people in it will consider negative and offensive. If the normativeness level is set high, many effects are less visible; contributors who chafe under restriction will defect (usually quietly) and potential contributors will be deterred from joining having to work within a code of conduct will cause people to chafe and leave, but he mentions nothing of the idea that having someone treating your horribly will cause you to leave.

87 points by telotortium 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

They make it clear; they signed on to participate in a meritocracy with reputation rewards, and they think that is being taken way from them. https://postmeritocracy.org/ https://postmeritocracy.org/ That is exactly what the people pushing the new CoC are claiming.

throwanem 8y ago
Which of the people signed on to that manifesto are also arguing in support of the Linux kernel CoC?
- dx87 8y ago
  The creator of that site, Coraline Ada Ehmke, is also the creator of the new Linux kernel CoC.
  - throwanem 8y ago
    More accurately said, Ms. Ehmke is the creator both of the Post-Meritocracy Manifesto site, and of the CoC adopted by the Linux kernel project. Far more is being made of this situation than seems merited by the facts. That it's easy to do I recognize, but that ease is no excuse.
    - bitwize 8y ago
      Coraline Ada Ehmke has also been known to stir up shit when she doesn't think her CoC is being enforced aggressively enough. She basically treats the document as a way to Eich people she doesn't like out of any open source contribution, as happened with the Opal project. This would present a problem, except the Linux governance model doesn't actually confer power to a person or persons to exclude contributors from the kernel. Linus and his underling maintainers are still individually free to accept or reject patches from anyone. CoC complaints would be handled by the Tech Advisory Board, but they can't issue orders or blacklists to maintainers. Funny thing is, I suspect that this is by design, to make Linux development resistant to covert or open hostile action from the likes of Microsoft. Pending a drastic change in the process, you can all keep calm and carry on using Linux.
      - throwanem 8y ago
        Do you have receipts for that first paragraph? I feel like, if you have them, it'd be worth showing them, for an allegation like that one.
        erics32 8y ago
        https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
        throwanem 8y ago
        @elia's last commit to Opal was about two weeks ago, and that issue dates from 2015. That doesn't seem to add up to what you seem to argue that it does.
        bitwize 8y ago
        It's enough to establish that Coraline's goal is to collect the scalps of people she disagrees with, and the Contributor Covenant is one prong of her strategy. Whether or not she was successful is another matter, but as for intent, it's right there in the title -- "Transphobic maintainer should be removed from project". The Contributor Covenant is quick and clear to emphasize that removal is a penalty for violation of the code, or for not taking sufficient steps as a maintainer to ensure that guilty parties are sufficiently unpersoned. I'm opposed to racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia too, but damnit, if I'm a maintainer and Alex Jones has a good patch, I'm going to clip out the attached verbiage about Hillary Clinton being a literal demon and roll the patch into my next rc. I'd be doing the project a disservice not to. The OED has entries that were submitted by an insane murderer from the asylum (look up William Chester Minor).
        throwanem 8y ago
        One incident, three years ago, which came to nothing in any event? I think we must differ in our definitions of 'enough'. Are we looking at an established pattern of behavior which is suggestive of current intent? Or are we instead looking at a single moment of excess, whose outcome provided a salutary lesson since taken firmly to heart? There's not enough here to know - the claim has yet to be substantiated, if substantiation there be. eta: As it happens, I'd take Alex Jones's patch, too. But I would require it be resubmitted anonymously, and without inflammatory verbiage. If not so resubmitted, I would not merge it. Yes, it does the project a disservice to reject good code. But software, like every made thing in the world, is made by people. It is not unreasonable for me to look at the sort of people who attend upon Alex Jones, and then at the sort of people who find his presence so distasteful that they will not associate themselves with anything he's touched however fleetingly, and decide which sort of people I prefer to include, by my actions, in my pool of potential contributors. If the latter group seems to me to be more likely to contribute good code, then I'm not going to put them off by having Alex Jones on my contributor list. If that costs the project a good patch, then that cost is still less than the other - if I've evaluated correctly, and if the patch has merit, someone not so divisive will submit another like it before very long. Of course, most people don't give a damn either way, and mainly just want to do the work they're doing and land their changes with a minimum of fuss. Which is more or less the point that I'm trying to make here: this is neither an attempt to install a blood estrogen titer in the code review process for Linux kernel contributions, nor to ensure that Linux kernel development is a clubhouse admitting only pale penis-bearing people of power. Everyone attempting to make a substantive contribution, of whatever sort, to the process, is doing so in good faith, out of a genuine belief that their contribution will improve the quality of the result. But I appreciate that's hard to keep sight of, when Twitter and ESR and /g/ join in, in their inimitable fashion to add only heat and no light.
- throwaway5250 8y ago
  It seems likely that most or all of the signatories would be in favor of the new CoC. (Perhaps some don't feel that it goes far enough.) Given the author's toxic Twitter comments, I'm suspicious of the motivations here.
  - throwanem 8y ago
    Which toxic Twitter comments are those? I'm having some difficulty finding them.
    - throwaway5250 8y ago
      Example: https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1042249983590838272 https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1042249983590838272 This pretty much rules out "good faith".
dukoid 8y ago
Is this somehow some kind of Miguel de Icaza 2.0 stunt by MS?
noobermin 8y ago
I don't understand this. What is this manifesto trying to accomplish? I consider myself a leftist (although somewhat disenchanted these days, but that's another story). I find it somewhat unjust and illogical that in our world of plenty people still are in want. For example, the USA produces more food than needed to feed everyone, yet people still starve and few have access to healthy affordable food. It's one argument if food really was in 2018 a scarce resource, but since it no longer needs to be, depriving it from people seems unjust to me. Same for clean drinking water, clean air, etc. So I have that stance when it comes to material resources, but open source isn't really like that. The rewards are "reputation" which isn't a necessary need for life like food or water or healthcare is, so I don't see why a redistribution of reputation is necessary from that left perspective. I suppose contributions to F/OSS places nice footnotes on one's resume, but if that's the reason then this idea of post-meritocracy is attacking the problem from the wrong end, which involves the actual material realities of access to education and basic needs suffered by certain people. And, sorry, let's keep it real, if you have enough clout and are placed in such a situation that you can worry about open source in the first place, you are materially better off than the vast majority of people in the US, so I don't see it as that high on the list in terms of priorities social justice honestly. So I don't get what this is for other than it being easier than actually materially improving the lives of disenfranchised people.
- Viliam1234 8y ago
  > What is this manifesto trying to accomplish? Political points for its author. Because factually, it is crap. Where is "the exclusion of underrepresented people in technology"? Providing high-quality software for free, that is inclusive for poor people (both the poor people in rich countries, and the average people in poor countries). A lot of free software supports localization anyone can contribute to, which is inclusive for speakers of minority languages (instead of having to write your own software, or petitioning a huge corporation, you just download a text file and translate a few lines). Free software can be used by everyone, black or white, male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, cisgender or transgender, whatever; all code is available for all people. Somehow this all means nothing. What we need instead is to make sure there are not too many white cishet guys contributing to all this stuff. Now people whose only contribution is bringing conflict are kicking out those who contributed code, in their free time, for the benefit of everyone.

throwanem 8y ago

I think I understand why this is sinking, but I'm tempted to think perhaps it should not. On the other hand, I don't know whether this community can any longer discuss such matters with cool heads all around. Or whether any community can.

noobermin 8y ago
I think it can. On the other hand, this site isn't really the community more than it is the "peanut gallery".
- throwanem 8y ago
  "This community" meaning HN, not LKML.

naringas 8y ago

If I knew anything about stock markets, I'd argue that it is a good time to invest in micro $oft; however I have never had enough money to even bother learning about that kind of thing.

Canada 8y ago

Isn't this something that major contributors should decide among themselves?

noobermin 8y ago
Which is why it was posted to the lkml I suppose.

amaccuish 8y ago

Interesting read, but I can't see how the CoC changes the "telos", if anyone can help? I.e. from my point of view, having a CoC doesn't change the end goal, since the end goal was never, not having a CoC, and the end goal was never a meritocracy, it was create a kernel (nor was it to have a CoC, again it's an implementation detail). So I'd say, in relation to this post, the question is, does the CoC bring "us" closer/further to our "telos". I would argue that it does, but of course some disagree. Further, there's the argument that aslong as something doesn't hinder the "telos", and it has a positive impact on the community, why not do so?

throwanem 8y ago
An excellent point. Here's where esr palms the card, my emphasis: "...[Accusing anti-CoC community members of sexism and the like] can only inflame their sense that the group telos is being hijacked. They make it clear; they signed on to participate in a meritocracy with reputation rewards, and they think that is being taken [away] from them." Is the telos to produce a kernel, or is the telos to "participate in a meritocracy with reputation rewards"? ESR's piece gives much overt consideration to the question of "what is the telos?", but even granting that that question is not itself disingenuous in the context of LKML, the quoted passage somewhat deftly sneaks in an answer of its own, between all the many waves of hands about how "[that] last paragraph may sound like I have strayed from neutrality into making a value claim, but not really" and the like. I suspect a large number of people with commits in the kernel trunk would be surprised to learn that they're really there for the meritocracy, rather than for the work...
- hnkf 8y ago
  Yours is a very interesting observation. You’re saying that either: a) You’re there to work on the kernel, and because that’s the end goal you out up with the CoC; b) You’re there for the reputation and/or meritocracy, so the CoC feels like a personal attack. Is that it?
  - throwanem 8y ago
    I'm saying that, as I read ESR's post, it implicitly imputes the latter motivation in an argument which overtly is about either the former, or the (putative) question of what really is the telos in the context of LKML and Linux kernel development generally - and, in so doing, equates the two in a way that I think isn't reasonable to do without explicitly declaring and supporting the equation. Be clear, though: this is nothing but my reading of ESR's statement of his own perspective on the issue, even all the facts of which are somewhat difficult to identify without ambiguity. I'm not especially interested in trying to make any larger argument than that, and I'm not at all sure that the desire for meritocracy and reputation is incompatible with the adoption of an explicit code of conduct requiring that kernel contributors, while contributing to the kernel, eschew gratuitous misbehavior of the sort which tends to drive other contributors and potential contributors away from the project. As I read the CoC in question (https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-conduct.html https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/code-of-condu...), I see nothing in it which suggests any intent beyond that. In particular, I see nothing suggesting any intent toward thought policing, or policing of behavior outside the context of interactions in the Linux kernel development community, or declared public representation of same. And the Technical Advisory Board, charged with enforcement of the CoC, is just that - technical. So I really don't know where all this culture war stuff is coming from, or why anyone sees a need for it. Okay, that's a lie. I do know where it's coming from, and why people on both sides see a need for it. It's just that I wish they didn't - again, on both sides - because the Linux kernel is too important a technological artifact to be made this sort of battlefield. I'm sure it'll blow over in the end, and that the silent majority that invariably constitutes the audience for such engagements will go on doing as they do, not at all ruffled by the explicit adoption of a standard of behavior that really says nothing more than "don't be an asshole, and if you're enough of an asshole, we won't let you work with us any more". That is to say - the same rule that applies everywhere, whether explicitly stated or otherwise. In my experience, the correlation between worthwhile kernel contributors, and people who enshrine Linus Torvalds' own somewhat infamous former style of comportment as somehow essential to technical excellence in the project, is negligible unto imperceptibility - so I see no reason to imagine that the project itself is imperiled by this current contretemps. That contention is really the only reason why it's achieved as wide a currency as it has, I think; absent the - in my reading highly questionable - idea that a significant fraction of kernel contributors will withdraw their contributions in a way that actively harms further development, there's no reason I can see for so many pundits of ESR's and /g/'s stripe to weigh in so heavily and with such typical respect for the facts and realities of the matters on which they choose so to speak.

LyndsySimon 8y ago

I love this article. It's exactly what I've been trying to communicate, but have been unable to nail down so precisely.

badsoftwaredev 8y ago

> I'm going to invite everybody to think like a game theorist for a bit. I knew from this line that this post was going to anger me. I was right. > It is perfectly consistent to be pro-tolerance and pro-inclusion while believing this subculture ought to be all about producing good code without regard to who is offended by the process. It's not. > That last paragraph may sound like I have strayed from neutrality Is he really writing this and claiming to be neutral? This reads very much as an anti-CoC message. For example, > If the normativeness slider is set low, the group as a whole will tolerate behavior that some people in it will consider negative and offensive. If the normativeness level is set high, many effects are less visible; contributors who chafe under restriction will defect (usually quietly) and potential contributors will be deterred from joining having to work within a code of conduct will cause people to chafe and leave, but he mentions nothing of the idea that having someone treating your horribly will cause you to leave.