6 ms·

I think the code of conduct stuff worked out well in the end, especially as cooler heads prevailed. In the `code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst` document they w

I think the code of conduct stuff worked out well in the end, especially as cooler heads prevailed. In the `code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst` document they write: ``` The initial Code of Conduct Committee consists of volunteer members of the TAB, as well as a professional mediator acting as a neutral third party. The first task of the committee is to establish documented processes, which will be made public. ``` ``` Any decisions by the committee will be brought to the TAB, for implementation of enforcement with the relevant maintainers if needed. A decision by the Code of Conduct Committee can be overturned by the TAB by a two-thirds vote. ``` Ultimately this tempers the worries of many about the C-o-C resulting in a tool used by those with politically charged agendas.

valvar 8y ago
Is it a worry, rather than simply being crass, when the author of the CoC herself has said that it is indeed a political document[1]? [1] https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1041465346656530432 https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1041465346656530432
- metildaa 8y ago
  The CoC being a political document is expected, it is laying the boundaries that define acceptable behavior, an inherently political task. On that ssamw tangent, the GPL series of license is inherently political. I personally like the political ideology espoused, but some do not despite how other licenses leave these developers with many users and proprietary forks, buf no added code, docs or community.
  - valvar 8y ago
    That is neither here nor there. The GPL is ideological in a way that sits well and has done so for a very long time with, I assume, pretty much the entire Linux community. This also seems to have been the case with the previous CoC, as well as the CoC:s that a lot of other communities use. A CoC does not need to be inherently partisan and divisive. The Contributor Covenant is, though.
  - m1el 8y ago
    > The CoC being a political document is expected I agree that both CoC and GPL are political. Developers need to understand something: CoC a political document written by someone opposing one of important principles of free software, meritocracy. https://postmeritocracy.org/ https://postmeritocracy.org/ Now here's a big difference: linux was developed under GPL from the very beginning. If you didn't like the politics behind GPL, you didn't contribute. Now, there are people who try to push their politics everywhere, because "everything is political", even math. Why should you accept their politics? Why should linux change its politics? Why must CoC be accepted? Why should developers accept the politics of CoC, after making contributions under promises of GPL?
    - icebraining 8y ago
      You should accept the politics if you agree with them. Linux should change its politics if its major contributors agree they should be changed, and at least seven of them - including Linus himself - do. I'm not sure why this is controversial - the people who can implement the CoC are the same people who generally decide where the project goes, same as always (just ask the people behind GRSecurity). I'm not sure why some people have this illusion that they somehow have a (moral?) veto power to stop any changes they dislike.
      - mbrumlow 8y ago
        I think the problem has to do with how this potcular CoC came about to be the de facto CoC. There is a lot of evidence in screenshots and wayback machine that suggest that this CoC was strongarmed into a lot of projects, and the ones that resisted have been put into a bad light. Not to mention the author of the CoC started this process while working at Github by making it easy to add a CoC and badgering projects that don't have a CoC to add one. Low and behold the author's CoC is the first one and recommended for all projects. I think many people who seem to hate the CoC would be fine with a community driven and created CoC -- what they really dislike is the particular CoC and the political agenda of the author of said CoC. I wonder how it got into 40k+ projects near overnight... And then this used as a beating stick "40k others have done it why have you not?". This type of attitude is unhealthy for everybody. The said CoC is the "Contributors Covenant". There is so much more to say about this CoC. I can only hope that the open source community will build a proper CoC that is truy community driven and actually has the goal of bringing people together vs being a stick to hit people with.
  - vfclists 8y ago
    This old GPL hoary chestnut comes up again and again. The GPL is not a political document. It is an economic document that aims to give end users the right to modify their equipment. Virtually any one who owns a fully mechanical device has access to its workings and with the necessary tools and knowledge (which can be hired or bought) can make changes and improvements to the device. If you own an old Mercedes, Ford, or (place your favourite car here), or a John Deere or Massey Ferguson tractor before critical functions become software controlled, you can make any modifications you want and not only that anyone you sell the device to also gains the benefits of those modifications, make any changes and can pass them on the next user. Is that a political benefit or an economic benefit? Try doing that with your Tesla, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfV0_wbjG8KJADuZT2ct4SA/featured https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfV0_wbjG8KJADuZT2ct4SA/fea..., or your new John Deere. The GPL extends this facility to computer programs. How does this become a political thing? It only becomes political when there is the desire to use the legislative and judicial systems to subvert end users ability to enjoy, enhance and repair the products they have bought.
    - rvense 8y ago
      It's about power. Who can do what. It's political.
    - danharaj 8y ago
      > It only becomes political when there is the desire to use the legislative and judicial systems to subvert end users ability to enjoy, enhance and repair the products they have bought. I mean, even if one were to accept all your promises, this is exactly the world we live in, so the GPL is indeed political. You can put curtains up between Economy and Politics if you want. I guess.
- guipsp 8y ago
  [1] gives more context about this. By being "non political" you are implicitly defending the status quo. [1]: https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1041501017651793922 https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1041501017651793922
  - valvar 8y ago
    And instead one should... Attack the ``status quo''? This line of reasoning is inherently partisan and extremely political as well as divisive. Believing that meritocracy is bad is a fringe belief, and in this case there really is nothing that suggests that adhering to the ``status quo'' is the non-insane alternative. Edit: I'd also like to highlight that this is a classic version of the ``you're either with us, or against us''[1] argument, i.e. a false dilemma. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_either_with_us,_or_against_us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_either_with_us,_or_ag...
    - vertex-four 8y ago
      It’s really not a fringe belief outside of your circles - “meritocracy” is one of those things that sounds like a good idea, like “communism”, but organisations and structures defining themselves by those words very rarely practice what they preach. A meritocracy would never allow harassment of people on the basis of things that have nothing to do with their code - it would take a hard stance against sexism and harassment, it would attempt to communicate in a way that doesn’t drive people away from the project in a biased manner, since those and many other behaviours drive away people who may have merit. If anything, a well-designed code of conduct can create something closer to a real meritocracy, as you don’t drive away contributors on anything but the merit of their contributions.
      - valvar 8y ago
        >but organisations and structures defining themselves by those words very rarely practice what they preach Is there some sort of evidence for this? >A meritocracy would never allow harassment of people on the basis of things that have nothing to do with their code - it would take a hard stance against sexism and harassment, it would attempt to communicate in a way that doesn’t drive people away from the project in a biased manner, since those and many other behaviours drive away people who may have merit I can buy that. But that means that you do believe in merit as a central principle. The new CoC is founded on an ideology that explicitly rejects it. >If anything, a well-designed code of conduct can create something closer to a real meritocracy, as you don’t drive away contributors on anything but the merit of their contributions. If that were the purpose of the new Contributor Covenant, I don't think anyone would be complaining.
ragerino 8y ago
I agree. Political compromises might not always lead to the best possible result. Linus will be missed!

valvar 8y ago

Is it a worry, rather than simply being crass, when the author of the CoC herself has said that it is indeed a political document[1]? [1] https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1041465346656530432 https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1041465346656530432

metildaa 8y ago
The CoC being a political document is expected, it is laying the boundaries that define acceptable behavior, an inherently political task. On that ssamw tangent, the GPL series of license is inherently political. I personally like the political ideology espoused, but some do not despite how other licenses leave these developers with many users and proprietary forks, buf no added code, docs or community.
- valvar 8y ago
  That is neither here nor there. The GPL is ideological in a way that sits well and has done so for a very long time with, I assume, pretty much the entire Linux community. This also seems to have been the case with the previous CoC, as well as the CoC:s that a lot of other communities use. A CoC does not need to be inherently partisan and divisive. The Contributor Covenant is, though.
- m1el 8y ago
  > The CoC being a political document is expected I agree that both CoC and GPL are political. Developers need to understand something: CoC a political document written by someone opposing one of important principles of free software, meritocracy. https://postmeritocracy.org/ https://postmeritocracy.org/ Now here's a big difference: linux was developed under GPL from the very beginning. If you didn't like the politics behind GPL, you didn't contribute. Now, there are people who try to push their politics everywhere, because "everything is political", even math. Why should you accept their politics? Why should linux change its politics? Why must CoC be accepted? Why should developers accept the politics of CoC, after making contributions under promises of GPL?
  - icebraining 8y ago
    You should accept the politics if you agree with them. Linux should change its politics if its major contributors agree they should be changed, and at least seven of them - including Linus himself - do. I'm not sure why this is controversial - the people who can implement the CoC are the same people who generally decide where the project goes, same as always (just ask the people behind GRSecurity). I'm not sure why some people have this illusion that they somehow have a (moral?) veto power to stop any changes they dislike.
    - mbrumlow 8y ago
      I think the problem has to do with how this potcular CoC came about to be the de facto CoC. There is a lot of evidence in screenshots and wayback machine that suggest that this CoC was strongarmed into a lot of projects, and the ones that resisted have been put into a bad light. Not to mention the author of the CoC started this process while working at Github by making it easy to add a CoC and badgering projects that don't have a CoC to add one. Low and behold the author's CoC is the first one and recommended for all projects. I think many people who seem to hate the CoC would be fine with a community driven and created CoC -- what they really dislike is the particular CoC and the political agenda of the author of said CoC. I wonder how it got into 40k+ projects near overnight... And then this used as a beating stick "40k others have done it why have you not?". This type of attitude is unhealthy for everybody. The said CoC is the "Contributors Covenant". There is so much more to say about this CoC. I can only hope that the open source community will build a proper CoC that is truy community driven and actually has the goal of bringing people together vs being a stick to hit people with.
- vfclists 8y ago
  This old GPL hoary chestnut comes up again and again. The GPL is not a political document. It is an economic document that aims to give end users the right to modify their equipment. Virtually any one who owns a fully mechanical device has access to its workings and with the necessary tools and knowledge (which can be hired or bought) can make changes and improvements to the device. If you own an old Mercedes, Ford, or (place your favourite car here), or a John Deere or Massey Ferguson tractor before critical functions become software controlled, you can make any modifications you want and not only that anyone you sell the device to also gains the benefits of those modifications, make any changes and can pass them on the next user. Is that a political benefit or an economic benefit? Try doing that with your Tesla, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfV0_wbjG8KJADuZT2ct4SA/featured https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfV0_wbjG8KJADuZT2ct4SA/fea..., or your new John Deere. The GPL extends this facility to computer programs. How does this become a political thing? It only becomes political when there is the desire to use the legislative and judicial systems to subvert end users ability to enjoy, enhance and repair the products they have bought.
  - rvense 8y ago
    It's about power. Who can do what. It's political.
  - danharaj 8y ago
    > It only becomes political when there is the desire to use the legislative and judicial systems to subvert end users ability to enjoy, enhance and repair the products they have bought. I mean, even if one were to accept all your promises, this is exactly the world we live in, so the GPL is indeed political. You can put curtains up between Economy and Politics if you want. I guess.
guipsp 8y ago
[1] gives more context about this. By being "non political" you are implicitly defending the status quo. [1]: https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1041501017651793922 https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1041501017651793922
- valvar 8y ago
  And instead one should... Attack the ``status quo''? This line of reasoning is inherently partisan and extremely political as well as divisive. Believing that meritocracy is bad is a fringe belief, and in this case there really is nothing that suggests that adhering to the ``status quo'' is the non-insane alternative. Edit: I'd also like to highlight that this is a classic version of the ``you're either with us, or against us''[1] argument, i.e. a false dilemma. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_either_with_us,_or_against_us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_either_with_us,_or_ag...
  - vertex-four 8y ago
    It’s really not a fringe belief outside of your circles - “meritocracy” is one of those things that sounds like a good idea, like “communism”, but organisations and structures defining themselves by those words very rarely practice what they preach. A meritocracy would never allow harassment of people on the basis of things that have nothing to do with their code - it would take a hard stance against sexism and harassment, it would attempt to communicate in a way that doesn’t drive people away from the project in a biased manner, since those and many other behaviours drive away people who may have merit. If anything, a well-designed code of conduct can create something closer to a real meritocracy, as you don’t drive away contributors on anything but the merit of their contributions.
    - valvar 8y ago
      >but organisations and structures defining themselves by those words very rarely practice what they preach Is there some sort of evidence for this? >A meritocracy would never allow harassment of people on the basis of things that have nothing to do with their code - it would take a hard stance against sexism and harassment, it would attempt to communicate in a way that doesn’t drive people away from the project in a biased manner, since those and many other behaviours drive away people who may have merit I can buy that. But that means that you do believe in merit as a central principle. The new CoC is founded on an ideology that explicitly rejects it. >If anything, a well-designed code of conduct can create something closer to a real meritocracy, as you don’t drive away contributors on anything but the merit of their contributions. If that were the purpose of the new Contributor Covenant, I don't think anyone would be complaining.

ragerino 8y ago

I agree. Political compromises might not always lead to the best possible result. Linus will be missed!