3 ms·

On the contrary, these code of conducts are here to help everyone feel welcomed, and to allow everyone to have their differences (cultural or otherwise). There

by p4bl0 8y ago

On the contrary, these code of conducts are here to help everyone feel welcomed, and to allow everyone to have their differences (cultural or otherwise). There's absolutely no reasons to fear anything if you are respectful of other people.

lliamander 8y ago
> There's absolutely no reasons to fear anything if you are respectful of other people. DRH has, as far as I can see, always been emphatically respectful of others, and has made it abundantly clear that he never intended for anyone to be excluded. And yet a bunch of people who are not in any way contributors to the SQLite project gave him a bunch of hate online, including calling on backers of SQLite to pressure him to change his CoC. For a private project whose hard work has been gifted to the public domain for decades, you'd think we could maybe cut them some slack? I agree that the HR-speak of most CoC's is pretty harmless, but when there's a vocal minority of jerks pushing these CoC's accusing people who want to (respectfully) try a different approach of some pretty uncharitable things, it makes me doubt that these CoC's really do anything. EDIT: fixed typo
- eli 8y ago
  What's an example of a different approach that is incompatible with the current CoC?
- pornel 8y ago
  The religious code published instead of a real CoC was a mockery of CoCs. It clearly wasn't honestly trying a different approach, but it was a jerk reaction or malicious compliance[1]. A respectful and emphatic response could be along lines of "I don't think it's needed, but if it makes you feel better, I'll copy this template and be done with it". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_compliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_compliance
  - greggyb 8y ago
    Your response implies that you do not believe that the original CoC was published in good faith. It seems to me that there are two broad mindsets that could lead to this (though I am abundantly aware of my own failings of creative thinking, so please let me know if I am neglecting a viewpoint). 1. That it is not, in fact, possible to post a CoC in good faith that is derived from religious texts. 2. That there is evidence in this specific instance that the population of contributors to SQLite, or some subset of these individuals, was, in fact, choosing to adopt the prior CoC out of malice or mockery or other mal-intent. So, is it impossible or did the contributors act in a way (outside of the text of the CoC) to indicate that they were in fact mocking other CoCs?
  - haberman 8y ago
    That definition of "malicious compliance" refers to orders that come from a superior. Why should people outside the SQLite project have standing to give such an order to the SQLite maintainers in the first place? Why should the "respectful and emphatic" response be to resign oneself to reluctant compliance, even if the SQLite maintainers disagree with it? That sounds Orwellian to me. I think that's what rubs people the wrong way about this. It all feels very authoritarian. It's expressed in language of positivity and inclusion, but it operates in terms of pressure and coercion. It all sounds great if you're aligned with all of the politics of it. If you're not, then you're the enemy: https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1042249983590838272 https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1042249983590838272
- classichasclass 8y ago
  Coverage in El Reg for those, including myself, who didn't see this occur: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/22/sqlite_code_of_conduct/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/22/sqlite_code_of_cond...
thrower123 8y ago
I am fearful of zealots. Zealots are almost never tolerant of anything outside their narrowly defined rules of propriety. So far, these codes of conduct seem to be most often pushed by zealots, and that makes me distrusful that they will be used in good faith and not as a tool. The most ironic thing about this SQLite kerfuffle is that the previous code stood unnoticed for most of a year, but within 48 hours of being posted here enough rage was manufactured to demand it be changed.

by p4bl0 8y ago

lliamander 8y ago

> There's absolutely no reasons to fear anything if you are respectful of other people. DRH has, as far as I can see, always been emphatically respectful of others, and has made it abundantly clear that he never intended for anyone to be excluded. And yet a bunch of people who are not in any way contributors to the SQLite project gave him a bunch of hate online, including calling on backers of SQLite to pressure him to change his CoC. For a private project whose hard work has been gifted to the public domain for decades, you'd think we could maybe cut them some slack? I agree that the HR-speak of most CoC's is pretty harmless, but when there's a vocal minority of jerks pushing these CoC's accusing people who want to (respectfully) try a different approach of some pretty uncharitable things, it makes me doubt that these CoC's really do anything. EDIT: fixed typo

eli 8y ago
What's an example of a different approach that is incompatible with the current CoC?
pornel 8y ago
The religious code published instead of a real CoC was a mockery of CoCs. It clearly wasn't honestly trying a different approach, but it was a jerk reaction or malicious compliance[1]. A respectful and emphatic response could be along lines of "I don't think it's needed, but if it makes you feel better, I'll copy this template and be done with it". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_compliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_compliance
- greggyb 8y ago
  Your response implies that you do not believe that the original CoC was published in good faith. It seems to me that there are two broad mindsets that could lead to this (though I am abundantly aware of my own failings of creative thinking, so please let me know if I am neglecting a viewpoint). 1. That it is not, in fact, possible to post a CoC in good faith that is derived from religious texts. 2. That there is evidence in this specific instance that the population of contributors to SQLite, or some subset of these individuals, was, in fact, choosing to adopt the prior CoC out of malice or mockery or other mal-intent. So, is it impossible or did the contributors act in a way (outside of the text of the CoC) to indicate that they were in fact mocking other CoCs?
- haberman 8y ago
  That definition of "malicious compliance" refers to orders that come from a superior. Why should people outside the SQLite project have standing to give such an order to the SQLite maintainers in the first place? Why should the "respectful and emphatic" response be to resign oneself to reluctant compliance, even if the SQLite maintainers disagree with it? That sounds Orwellian to me. I think that's what rubs people the wrong way about this. It all feels very authoritarian. It's expressed in language of positivity and inclusion, but it operates in terms of pressure and coercion. It all sounds great if you're aligned with all of the politics of it. If you're not, then you're the enemy: https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1042249983590838272 https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1042249983590838272
classichasclass 8y ago
Coverage in El Reg for those, including myself, who didn't see this occur: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/22/sqlite_code_of_conduct/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/22/sqlite_code_of_cond...

thrower123 8y ago

I am fearful of zealots. Zealots are almost never tolerant of anything outside their narrowly defined rules of propriety. So far, these codes of conduct seem to be most often pushed by zealots, and that makes me distrusful that they will be used in good faith and not as a tool. The most ironic thing about this SQLite kerfuffle is that the previous code stood unnoticed for most of a year, but within 48 hours of being posted here enough rage was manufactured to demand it be changed.