7 ms·

A code of conduct states rules, with punishments for anyone that violates them. It is the heavy-handed way of teaching people to behave differently, and since

A code of conduct states rules, with punishments for anyone that violates them. It is the heavy-handed way of teaching people to behave differently, and since it only comes into action when people do something against the rules, it doesn't try to teach people to do better than what the rules require. To be sure, the appointed maintainer(s) of a GNU package can, if necessary, tell a contributor to go away; but we do not want to need to have recourse to that. That is the paragraph that captures the essence of the CoC issues for me. A CoC seems to be used as a weapon for killing those that do not abide by its rules, not as a tool for teaching each other to be awesome to each other. Edit: I also love how each paragraph in the guidelines starts with "please". It's such a different approach than the one taken in CoC: "please do this or that for everyone's benefit" rather than "do this and that or you'll be judged by the appropriate judging organ". We lack this kind of gentleness in the world of raging wars between pro-CoC people and anti-CoC people.

_pmf_ 8y ago
“The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.” ― Robert Conquest
- dangerlibrary 8y ago
  The relevance of the quote you've posted might be less obvious than you think it is.
  - folknor 8y ago
    It's relevant because this wave of CoC attacks on open source projects was started by someone who has literally said "I can’t wait for the mass exodus from Linux now that it’s been infiltrated by SJWs."[1], in reference to the kernel adopting their CoC. This person obviously does not care about the people who contribute to the kernel. They wrote the "Contributor Covenant"[2], which is what the kernel (among tons of other projects) adopted. 1: https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1041441155874009093 https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1041441155874009093 2: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/ https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
    - fixermark 8y ago
      > This person obviously does not care about the people who contribute to the kernel. Double-check the source and followup; I think you have misinterpreted the intent of the linked tweet (sarcasm travels poorly over text media, especially one that enforces a curtailed message length).
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      Your uncharitable interpretation of the tweet you linked cannot be read as accidental.
      - folknor 8y ago
        Yes it can, when you realise the fact that I linked to it, and that anyone who cares enough about the subject can investigate and apparently instantly realise that my face-value interpretation of the tweet was entirely mistaken. Then it should be obvious that it was an accident. If not, I would not have linked a source that instantly disproves what I said.
        ubernostrum 8y ago
        You state that you learned of it from someone who "linked to an article that had a screenshot of it". The only way you could have not arrived at the correct interpretation is if you also took at face value misinformation presented to you in the surrounding context. Which in turn suggests you spend time uncritically accepting such misinformation. You may consider that an accident. I do not.
        pjc50 8y ago
        > anyone who cares enough about the subject can investigate So you cared enough about it to post a comment framing them as an attacker on Linux, but not enough to verify your interpretation?
    - KirinDave 8y ago
      That quotation is a joke, state in irony in a thread about how much abuse someone is receiving for even proposing a change to the rules. It's disingenuous in the extreme to present that as a tweet that honestly reflected a goal, and anyone who takes a second to click "show thread" and looks around will see it's a tweet made in jest. Actions like this are misinformation. The question I'm left asking is, "Did folknor know this is not what the tweet meant, and just doesn't care? Or did folknor just not bother to check if this reference was meaningful and valid?" Neither shines a positive light on this argument.
ubernostrum 8y ago
teaching each other to be awesome to each other My experience is this lasts about five minutes before someone starts using quibbles about the precise definition of "be awesome to each other" to suggest they should be allowed to be non-awesome to people and suffer no consequences for it. Sooner or later you have to actually set down some more specific guidelines and a mechanism for enforcing them.
- mar77i 8y ago
  https://abstrusegoose.com/302 https://abstrusegoose.com/302 I think a modern case around the Babylonian language confusion can be built around the fact that before you agreed on a common vocabulary, you may not at all be sure whether your exchange of ideas is actually being successful. A bit like talking about latitude and longitude coordinates, but later you find out the receiver was a flat earther. See also: RFC 2119
KirinDave 8y ago
> That is the paragraph that captures the essence of the CoC issues for me. A CoC seems to be used as a weapon for killing those that do not abide by its rules, not as a tool for teaching each other to be awesome to each other. Can I ask an honest question? Do you really think that men advocating for molestation of women, or open racists, are just... you know... undereducated and waiting for you as a thought-savior to come and explain to them what's objectionable about their thinking? Do you think that Ts'o just needed you to step in and explain how domestic sexual abuse is rape and that he's just being insufficiently awesome[0]? I'm all for assuming positive intent, but at some point this game becomes patronizing, even infantilizing. It seems bizarre to propose Linux's CoC or GNU's is the place to go educating people that rape apology is bad. I don't think it's bad that Stallman decided to go this route (even if I disagree with some of the logic he expressed). To be honest, I don't think the GNU org actually has that much sway or control over individual projects, so guidelines for successful contribution are probably an appropriate measure for them. But Projects can and in my opinion should quantify what constitutes acceptable behavior from their contributors. This is not an unfair or unreasonable thing for a project to do. It's bizarre to me that people here constantly suggest that it's somehow unfair to bar a developer from participating. This is about the most anti-free-speech, anti-individual-autonomy stance one can propose in the world of software. It's a statement that says the production of value (often not for the community, but at the behest of corporate funding) outweighs the individual's rights to free association. It suggests that reprehensible people with reprehensible views can simply use economic value or unique education to force themselves on communities, and those communities should not be able to choose for themselves because the value of these things should be self-evident. It's completely nonsensical. [0]: http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/ted_mail/0037.html http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/ted_mail/0037.html
- lliamander 8y ago
  > Do you think that Ts'o just needed you to step in and explain how domestic sexual abuse is rape and that he's just being insufficiently awesome[0]? So you believe that Ts'o claimed that domestic sexual abuse is not rape? Let's see what he actually wrote: > Also in the survey, in the rapes that were reported via a randomized telephone survey, in 66.9% of those cases, the perpetrator did not threaten to harm or kill the victim. (Which makes it no less a crime, of course, but people may have images of rape which involves a other physical injuries, by a stranger, in some dark and deserted place. The statistics simply don't bear that out) OK, so it seems that his own words contradict your assertion. Care to explain?
umvi 8y ago
The most terrifying thing about CoCs for me is their seeming ability to extend outside of the project and into the personal lives of the contributors. Expressing the wrong political/religious view on social media could attract a mob to hound you off of an arbitrary project you contribute to. For example, simply stating that you support Trump on Twitter could be sufficient to make people feel unwelcome according to some CoCs and get you kicked out.

_pmf_ 8y ago

“The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.” ― Robert Conquest

dangerlibrary 8y ago
The relevance of the quote you've posted might be less obvious than you think it is.
- folknor 8y ago
  It's relevant because this wave of CoC attacks on open source projects was started by someone who has literally said "I can’t wait for the mass exodus from Linux now that it’s been infiltrated by SJWs."[1], in reference to the kernel adopting their CoC. This person obviously does not care about the people who contribute to the kernel. They wrote the "Contributor Covenant"[2], which is what the kernel (among tons of other projects) adopted. 1: https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1041441155874009093 https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1041441155874009093 2: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/ https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
  - fixermark 8y ago
    > This person obviously does not care about the people who contribute to the kernel. Double-check the source and followup; I think you have misinterpreted the intent of the linked tweet (sarcasm travels poorly over text media, especially one that enforces a curtailed message length).
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    Your uncharitable interpretation of the tweet you linked cannot be read as accidental.
    - folknor 8y ago
      Yes it can, when you realise the fact that I linked to it, and that anyone who cares enough about the subject can investigate and apparently instantly realise that my face-value interpretation of the tweet was entirely mistaken. Then it should be obvious that it was an accident. If not, I would not have linked a source that instantly disproves what I said.
      - ubernostrum 8y ago
        You state that you learned of it from someone who "linked to an article that had a screenshot of it". The only way you could have not arrived at the correct interpretation is if you also took at face value misinformation presented to you in the surrounding context. Which in turn suggests you spend time uncritically accepting such misinformation. You may consider that an accident. I do not.
      - pjc50 8y ago
        > anyone who cares enough about the subject can investigate So you cared enough about it to post a comment framing them as an attacker on Linux, but not enough to verify your interpretation?
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    That quotation is a joke, state in irony in a thread about how much abuse someone is receiving for even proposing a change to the rules. It's disingenuous in the extreme to present that as a tweet that honestly reflected a goal, and anyone who takes a second to click "show thread" and looks around will see it's a tweet made in jest. Actions like this are misinformation. The question I'm left asking is, "Did folknor know this is not what the tweet meant, and just doesn't care? Or did folknor just not bother to check if this reference was meaningful and valid?" Neither shines a positive light on this argument.

ubernostrum 8y ago

teaching each other to be awesome to each other My experience is this lasts about five minutes before someone starts using quibbles about the precise definition of "be awesome to each other" to suggest they should be allowed to be non-awesome to people and suffer no consequences for it. Sooner or later you have to actually set down some more specific guidelines and a mechanism for enforcing them.

mar77i 8y ago
https://abstrusegoose.com/302 https://abstrusegoose.com/302 I think a modern case around the Babylonian language confusion can be built around the fact that before you agreed on a common vocabulary, you may not at all be sure whether your exchange of ideas is actually being successful. A bit like talking about latitude and longitude coordinates, but later you find out the receiver was a flat earther. See also: RFC 2119

KirinDave 8y ago

> That is the paragraph that captures the essence of the CoC issues for me. A CoC seems to be used as a weapon for killing those that do not abide by its rules, not as a tool for teaching each other to be awesome to each other. Can I ask an honest question? Do you really think that men advocating for molestation of women, or open racists, are just... you know... undereducated and waiting for you as a thought-savior to come and explain to them what's objectionable about their thinking? Do you think that Ts'o just needed you to step in and explain how domestic sexual abuse is rape and that he's just being insufficiently awesome[0]? I'm all for assuming positive intent, but at some point this game becomes patronizing, even infantilizing. It seems bizarre to propose Linux's CoC or GNU's is the place to go educating people that rape apology is bad. I don't think it's bad that Stallman decided to go this route (even if I disagree with some of the logic he expressed). To be honest, I don't think the GNU org actually has that much sway or control over individual projects, so guidelines for successful contribution are probably an appropriate measure for them. But Projects can and in my opinion should quantify what constitutes acceptable behavior from their contributors. This is not an unfair or unreasonable thing for a project to do. It's bizarre to me that people here constantly suggest that it's somehow unfair to bar a developer from participating. This is about the most anti-free-speech, anti-individual-autonomy stance one can propose in the world of software. It's a statement that says the production of value (often not for the community, but at the behest of corporate funding) outweighs the individual's rights to free association. It suggests that reprehensible people with reprehensible views can simply use economic value or unique education to force themselves on communities, and those communities should not be able to choose for themselves because the value of these things should be self-evident. It's completely nonsensical. [0]: http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/ted_mail/0037.html http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/ted_mail/0037.html

lliamander 8y ago
> Do you think that Ts'o just needed you to step in and explain how domestic sexual abuse is rape and that he's just being insufficiently awesome[0]? So you believe that Ts'o claimed that domestic sexual abuse is not rape? Let's see what he actually wrote: > Also in the survey, in the rapes that were reported via a randomized telephone survey, in 66.9% of those cases, the perpetrator did not threaten to harm or kill the victim. (Which makes it no less a crime, of course, but people may have images of rape which involves a other physical injuries, by a stranger, in some dark and deserted place. The statistics simply don't bear that out) OK, so it seems that his own words contradict your assertion. Care to explain?

umvi 8y ago

The most terrifying thing about CoCs for me is their seeming ability to extend outside of the project and into the personal lives of the contributors. Expressing the wrong political/religious view on social media could attract a mob to hound you off of an arbitrary project you contribute to. For example, simply stating that you support Trump on Twitter could be sufficient to make people feel unwelcome according to some CoCs and get you kicked out.