4 ms·

>There are people who will oppose any kind of general rule restraining behavior, because that would prevent them from exercising their own more personal and arg

>There are people who will oppose any kind of general rule restraining behavior, because that would prevent them from exercising their own more personal and arguably more subtle kind of coercion against those they don't like for whatever reason. Do you really, truly believe this is the reason why so many people are against Codes of Conduct in open-source projects? Can you point me to this mass of disillusioned bigots, expressing frustration at their inability to continue to act bigoted while within proximity to open-source? Either you've been going to wildly different parts of the Internet than I have recently, or your understanding of the side of the argument opposite you is based on a practically-nonexistent strawman, which is causing you to be completely unable to understand where "the other side" is actually coming from.

scrollaway 8y ago
I've generally been against CoC in less-than-huge projects for practical reasons (as a founder and leader of several communities, both in FOSS and outside of software, I have my informed opinion on what works to maintain good community health). I can attest that the people GP refers to exist, but it's more complicated than that. Codes of Conduct are established sometimes without a problem actually existing in the community in question, which raises the implication that the community hasn't been welcoming thus far (and often enough, that's wrong). They're also often seen as a way to legitimize a "we can silence you for any reason we choose" behaviour that is far too frequent in community moderators. This is all very context-dependant. Point is there are legitimate concerns over codes of conduct. Unfortunately, those concerns disproportionally affect the category of nasty people mentioned in GP, and that category gets way more defensive and, since this is the internet, tends to jump into these issues even when they're not part of the community in question and hijacking the topic. ... and since this is the internet, this also happens on the pro-CoC side. Which basically results in 95% outside noise on both sides of any sensitive topic that happens to catch public wind. It's super easy to point to nasty people on both sides of the issue. It's also very easy to get radicalized by seeing how nasty the "other side" is and becoming part of the problem. And those getting caught in that filter tend not to, as you say, "understand where the other side is coming from". ---- Edit: Downvotes are very telling of the behaviour I describe, btw. This post has gone between -3 and +3 and back without a single reply. It's not about discussion, it's just about whether people think I'm part of their "camp". No room for mixed arguments.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  >Codes of Conduct are established sometimes without a problem actually existing in the community in question I don't understand the word sometimes. I have yet to be shown an example where a woman, trans person, person of color, Muslim, or someone on whatever the oppression index is today was discriminated against when pushing code to a project. No one knows what you are unless you tell them - and it's always been 100% irrelevant to the topic of coding. This is absolutely trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist while flat out saying things like "we're trying to change the predominantly white face of programming"... wtf. >They're also often seen as a way to legitimize a "we can silence you for any reason we choose" behaviour that is far too frequent in community moderators. Because that was IMMEDIATELY what actually happened. I don't care one way or the other. I don't contribute to FOSS because my job isn't really conducive for that to be part of my activities. But I see people who are looking for a fight just to fight, and that's a bad idea.
  - scrollaway 8y ago
    > [...] was discriminated against when pushing code to a project. No one knows what you are unless you tell them - and it's always been 100% irrelevant to the topic of coding. Well, we're not just talking about commit logs. Projects usually need discussion, and depending on the environment, that might be one where real names, professions, photos and various other bits of real life seep into (or are a pillar of). In those environments, discrimination can 100% be present. Saying "it's just code" dances around the issue IMO. > while flat out saying things like... That is also what I refer to in my post above. It's noise, not signal. > Because that was IMMEDIATELY what actually happened. You clearly have an example in mind. I don't. Keyword is once again sometimes. "Code of Conducts" are the software community rediscovering what we used to call "community guidelines" or "forum rules" in other fields. They're not necessarily oppressive or progressive. They're not necessarily helpful. And they're often unnecessary. They don't give enough credit to the positive message that "be good to each other" sends. They give far too much credit to bigots by suggesting that merely because "the rules say not to be a bigot", they won't be. Until I left, I ran a ~30k user strong gaming chat community. We still don't have "community guidelines", and the prevailing rule is "don't be a jerk". Very few people have been banned. (It is getting right about the correct size to introduce community guidelines, though) The health of a community is primarily determined by how it's moderated. If you allow bigots to be part of it, bigotry will run rampant. If you allow personal attacks to fly freely, it'll be a tense environment. If you start silencing any form of criticism, it'll turn into an extremist echo chamber. Either way, CoC documents tend to be just talk. Only recently, I tried to contribute to a project, only to be completely ignored and shut down without any discussion because the project owner didn't like my feature proposal. When I pointed out the owner's attitude didn't match what he promoted in the code of conduct he himself had added to the project, I was ignored.
notacoward 8y ago
"Do you really, truly believe this is the reason why so many people are against Codes of Conduct in open-source projects?" I think there are many reasons. This is certainly not the only one, but it's one I've run into quite a bit. Keep in mind that people usually don't realize how their behavior, or their acquiescence to others' behavior, is harming or excluding others. They feel no need for a CoC to support their side in any dispute, because the in-group already supports them. If any piling-on occurs, it's on their side. Thus they see only how a CoC might inhibit them in some (usually hypothetical) scenario, while remaining blind to how it might enable others. They oppose it "on principle" but it's a flawed principle. But the point is not that I believe that. The point is that Linus clearly does (see quote) and he's willing to do something about it. If a CoC doesn't work, then I would expect to see him coming down personally on some of the worst offenders. I've known and worked with a few of them, so I for one would welcome that.
- whiddershins 8y ago
  I truly believe you are misunderstanding Linus’ email. He is referring to overt white nationalists and racists. Like storm front types. You seem to be referring to subconscious bias, which seems to be literally an endless accusation.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    I truly believe you are misunderstanding my comments. Linus himself might indeed only be concerned with the extreme "Storm Front types" as you say, but the topic for the last three comments prior to yours was the people who act offended by his actions. Subconscious bias is relevant to them, even if it's not to him.
    - whiddershins 8y ago
      You literally wrote an assertion regarding what Linus thinks in the original comment.
      - notacoward 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Sharlin 8y ago
> Can you point me to this mass of disillusioned bigots, expressing frustration at their inability to continue to act bigoted while within proximity to open-source? Sure. Just take a look at the trainwreck that is the CoC commit ”discussion” at GitHub. Of course, almost nobody participating in it has anything to do with Linux kernel development. But they do appear to be rather unpleasant people.

scrollaway 8y ago

I've generally been against CoC in less-than-huge projects for practical reasons (as a founder and leader of several communities, both in FOSS and outside of software, I have my informed opinion on what works to maintain good community health). I can attest that the people GP refers to exist, but it's more complicated than that. Codes of Conduct are established sometimes without a problem actually existing in the community in question, which raises the implication that the community hasn't been welcoming thus far (and often enough, that's wrong). They're also often seen as a way to legitimize a "we can silence you for any reason we choose" behaviour that is far too frequent in community moderators. This is all very context-dependant. Point is there are legitimate concerns over codes of conduct. Unfortunately, those concerns disproportionally affect the category of nasty people mentioned in GP, and that category gets way more defensive and, since this is the internet, tends to jump into these issues even when they're not part of the community in question and hijacking the topic. ... and since this is the internet, this also happens on the pro-CoC side. Which basically results in 95% outside noise on both sides of any sensitive topic that happens to catch public wind. It's super easy to point to nasty people on both sides of the issue. It's also very easy to get radicalized by seeing how nasty the "other side" is and becoming part of the problem. And those getting caught in that filter tend not to, as you say, "understand where the other side is coming from". ---- Edit: Downvotes are very telling of the behaviour I describe, btw. This post has gone between -3 and +3 and back without a single reply. It's not about discussion, it's just about whether people think I'm part of their "camp". No room for mixed arguments.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
>Codes of Conduct are established sometimes without a problem actually existing in the community in question I don't understand the word sometimes. I have yet to be shown an example where a woman, trans person, person of color, Muslim, or someone on whatever the oppression index is today was discriminated against when pushing code to a project. No one knows what you are unless you tell them - and it's always been 100% irrelevant to the topic of coding. This is absolutely trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist while flat out saying things like "we're trying to change the predominantly white face of programming"... wtf. >They're also often seen as a way to legitimize a "we can silence you for any reason we choose" behaviour that is far too frequent in community moderators. Because that was IMMEDIATELY what actually happened. I don't care one way or the other. I don't contribute to FOSS because my job isn't really conducive for that to be part of my activities. But I see people who are looking for a fight just to fight, and that's a bad idea.
- scrollaway 8y ago
  > [...] was discriminated against when pushing code to a project. No one knows what you are unless you tell them - and it's always been 100% irrelevant to the topic of coding. Well, we're not just talking about commit logs. Projects usually need discussion, and depending on the environment, that might be one where real names, professions, photos and various other bits of real life seep into (or are a pillar of). In those environments, discrimination can 100% be present. Saying "it's just code" dances around the issue IMO. > while flat out saying things like... That is also what I refer to in my post above. It's noise, not signal. > Because that was IMMEDIATELY what actually happened. You clearly have an example in mind. I don't. Keyword is once again sometimes. "Code of Conducts" are the software community rediscovering what we used to call "community guidelines" or "forum rules" in other fields. They're not necessarily oppressive or progressive. They're not necessarily helpful. And they're often unnecessary. They don't give enough credit to the positive message that "be good to each other" sends. They give far too much credit to bigots by suggesting that merely because "the rules say not to be a bigot", they won't be. Until I left, I ran a ~30k user strong gaming chat community. We still don't have "community guidelines", and the prevailing rule is "don't be a jerk". Very few people have been banned. (It is getting right about the correct size to introduce community guidelines, though) The health of a community is primarily determined by how it's moderated. If you allow bigots to be part of it, bigotry will run rampant. If you allow personal attacks to fly freely, it'll be a tense environment. If you start silencing any form of criticism, it'll turn into an extremist echo chamber. Either way, CoC documents tend to be just talk. Only recently, I tried to contribute to a project, only to be completely ignored and shut down without any discussion because the project owner didn't like my feature proposal. When I pointed out the owner's attitude didn't match what he promoted in the code of conduct he himself had added to the project, I was ignored.

notacoward 8y ago

"Do you really, truly believe this is the reason why so many people are against Codes of Conduct in open-source projects?" I think there are many reasons. This is certainly not the only one, but it's one I've run into quite a bit. Keep in mind that people usually don't realize how their behavior, or their acquiescence to others' behavior, is harming or excluding others. They feel no need for a CoC to support their side in any dispute, because the in-group already supports them. If any piling-on occurs, it's on their side. Thus they see only how a CoC might inhibit them in some (usually hypothetical) scenario, while remaining blind to how it might enable others. They oppose it "on principle" but it's a flawed principle. But the point is not that I believe that. The point is that Linus clearly does (see quote) and he's willing to do something about it. If a CoC doesn't work, then I would expect to see him coming down personally on some of the worst offenders. I've known and worked with a few of them, so I for one would welcome that.

whiddershins 8y ago
I truly believe you are misunderstanding Linus’ email. He is referring to overt white nationalists and racists. Like storm front types. You seem to be referring to subconscious bias, which seems to be literally an endless accusation.
- notacoward 8y ago
  I truly believe you are misunderstanding my comments. Linus himself might indeed only be concerned with the extreme "Storm Front types" as you say, but the topic for the last three comments prior to yours was the people who act offended by his actions. Subconscious bias is relevant to them, even if it's not to him.
  - whiddershins 8y ago
    You literally wrote an assertion regarding what Linus thinks in the original comment.
    - notacoward 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Sharlin 8y ago

> Can you point me to this mass of disillusioned bigots, expressing frustration at their inability to continue to act bigoted while within proximity to open-source? Sure. Just take a look at the trainwreck that is the CoC commit ”discussion” at GitHub. Of course, almost nobody participating in it has anything to do with Linux kernel development. But they do appear to be rather unpleasant people.