4 ms·

Any individual or group can do whatever they want in the OSS world, nobody is stopping anyone from being a jerk except those communities that voluntarily self-g

Any individual or group can do whatever they want in the OSS world, nobody is stopping anyone from being a jerk except those communities that voluntarily self-govern in such a fashion that excludes jerks. Where's the problem?

derefr 7y ago
Mostly the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox. I've seen a few cases now where a FOSS project community—one that is nominally open to new members, but is in practice a closed and static group of close-knit friends—starts off all perfectly happy with a sort of raunchy/abusive internal demeanor; but then someone comes to them with a suggestion of some Code of Conduct or other standard of decorum; and then everyone suddenly decides that it's a good idea, not because they personally want to change how they interact, or even to see others interact differently with them, but because they don't want to be the one caught arguing against the CoC if it turns out that everyone else wants it.
- root_axis 7y ago
  That's still a voluntary choice made by those individuals. If the group doesn't want to follow the suggestion of an outsider they don't have to do that.
  - derefr 7y ago
    Well, yes; my point was that there's certain societal expectations "out in the environment" that cause groups to do dumb things; and the way to fix the problem created by that is to change the societal expectations.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      Society is very diverse, it's not that realistic to change society such that you stamp out the ideas you disagree with, it's much more feasible and effective to use the power you have within your own community to stand up to ideas you disagree with.
      - derefr 7y ago
        I mean, the whole point of the Abilene paradox is that it's something that happens when everyone's level of regret they'd have from doing the thing doesn't exceed their level of regret from social approbation if it turns out everyone else did want to do the thing and they had to be the one to argue against it. So in the end everyone loses a little utility—rather than everyone expecting to lose a lot of utility (in the form of personal social capital), and then actually losing nothing-at-all when it turns out nobody's on the other side of the argument. If you want to stand up for a lack of decorum in your community, there's nothing stopping you; but the behavioral economics just don't work out in favor of anyone following after your example, and do in fact work out in favor of the rest of the group tearing down the presumed-social-more-violator to protect themselves from being associated with you. (Again, even in cases where everyone turns out to secretly agree with you!)
        root_axis 7y ago
        People will have opinions about things, it's not feasible to eliminate the possibility of exposure to ideas you disagree with. If the Abilene paradox is so crippling that it precludes the possibility of expressing your own opinions within your own community then what hope is there to "change societal expectations"?
        antepodius 7y ago
        Divine grace.
lmm 7y ago
Groups that don't have a code of conduct (which in my experience increases rather than reduces the amount of jerkdom) get pressurised to add one. Conferences that don't have one attract twitter harassment campaigns. It's not really a free choice.
- root_axis 7y ago
  It is absolutely a free choice, social pressure isn't the law.
  - lmm 7y ago
    "The law" is ultimately just a particular form of social pressure, there's nothing magic about it. If someone is forced into bankruptcy because a twitter campaign got them fired, that's practically the same consequence as being forced into bankruptcy because a court imposed a large fine.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      > "The law" is ultimately just a particular form of social pressure, there's nothing magic about it. This is wrong. The "magic" (i.e. the thing that distinguishes it from social pressure) is threat of violence or imprisonment from the state if you don't comply with the law. > If someone is forced into bankruptcy because a twitter campaign got them fired, that's practically the same consequence No it isn't. You are employed at-will by your employer, they are free to fire you if they decide they want to do that, but they don't have to. If the business makes the decision to fire you based on public pressure that's their right unless you're making an argument for stricter labor laws (I suspect you aren't).
      - lmm 7y ago
        > This is wrong. The "magic" (i.e. the thing that distinguishes it from social pressure) is threat of violence or imprisonment from the state if you don't comply with the law. Again, though, any violence is ultimately going to be carried out by humans for social reasons. While these online outrage mobs are, as yet, nowhere near as powerful as governments, they're already making credible threats of violence, so that's not the clear bright line you seem to think it is. > No it isn't. You are employed at-will by your employer, they are free to fire you if they decide they want to do that, but they don't have to. If the business makes the decision to fire you based on public pressure that's their right unless you're making an argument for stricter labor laws (I suspect you aren't). I am, among other things; at-will employment has always seemed unreasonable to me, as proven by the very existence of protected classes. It's popular to say "asshole isn't a protected class", but as far as I can see the whole rationale for protected classes applies just as strongly to those who have said legal but unpopular things.

derefr 7y ago

Mostly the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox. I've seen a few cases now where a FOSS project community—one that is nominally open to new members, but is in practice a closed and static group of close-knit friends—starts off all perfectly happy with a sort of raunchy/abusive internal demeanor; but then someone comes to them with a suggestion of some Code of Conduct or other standard of decorum; and then everyone suddenly decides that it's a good idea, not because they personally want to change how they interact, or even to see others interact differently with them, but because they don't want to be the one caught arguing against the CoC if it turns out that everyone else wants it.

root_axis 7y ago
That's still a voluntary choice made by those individuals. If the group doesn't want to follow the suggestion of an outsider they don't have to do that.
- derefr 7y ago
  Well, yes; my point was that there's certain societal expectations "out in the environment" that cause groups to do dumb things; and the way to fix the problem created by that is to change the societal expectations.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    Society is very diverse, it's not that realistic to change society such that you stamp out the ideas you disagree with, it's much more feasible and effective to use the power you have within your own community to stand up to ideas you disagree with.
    - derefr 7y ago
      I mean, the whole point of the Abilene paradox is that it's something that happens when everyone's level of regret they'd have from doing the thing doesn't exceed their level of regret from social approbation if it turns out everyone else did want to do the thing and they had to be the one to argue against it. So in the end everyone loses a little utility—rather than everyone expecting to lose a lot of utility (in the form of personal social capital), and then actually losing nothing-at-all when it turns out nobody's on the other side of the argument. If you want to stand up for a lack of decorum in your community, there's nothing stopping you; but the behavioral economics just don't work out in favor of anyone following after your example, and do in fact work out in favor of the rest of the group tearing down the presumed-social-more-violator to protect themselves from being associated with you. (Again, even in cases where everyone turns out to secretly agree with you!)
      - root_axis 7y ago
        People will have opinions about things, it's not feasible to eliminate the possibility of exposure to ideas you disagree with. If the Abilene paradox is so crippling that it precludes the possibility of expressing your own opinions within your own community then what hope is there to "change societal expectations"?
        antepodius 7y ago
        Divine grace.

lmm 7y ago

Groups that don't have a code of conduct (which in my experience increases rather than reduces the amount of jerkdom) get pressurised to add one. Conferences that don't have one attract twitter harassment campaigns. It's not really a free choice.

root_axis 7y ago
It is absolutely a free choice, social pressure isn't the law.
- lmm 7y ago
  "The law" is ultimately just a particular form of social pressure, there's nothing magic about it. If someone is forced into bankruptcy because a twitter campaign got them fired, that's practically the same consequence as being forced into bankruptcy because a court imposed a large fine.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > "The law" is ultimately just a particular form of social pressure, there's nothing magic about it. This is wrong. The "magic" (i.e. the thing that distinguishes it from social pressure) is threat of violence or imprisonment from the state if you don't comply with the law. > If someone is forced into bankruptcy because a twitter campaign got them fired, that's practically the same consequence No it isn't. You are employed at-will by your employer, they are free to fire you if they decide they want to do that, but they don't have to. If the business makes the decision to fire you based on public pressure that's their right unless you're making an argument for stricter labor laws (I suspect you aren't).
    - lmm 7y ago
      > This is wrong. The "magic" (i.e. the thing that distinguishes it from social pressure) is threat of violence or imprisonment from the state if you don't comply with the law. Again, though, any violence is ultimately going to be carried out by humans for social reasons. While these online outrage mobs are, as yet, nowhere near as powerful as governments, they're already making credible threats of violence, so that's not the clear bright line you seem to think it is. > No it isn't. You are employed at-will by your employer, they are free to fire you if they decide they want to do that, but they don't have to. If the business makes the decision to fire you based on public pressure that's their right unless you're making an argument for stricter labor laws (I suspect you aren't). I am, among other things; at-will employment has always seemed unreasonable to me, as proven by the very existence of protected classes. It's popular to say "asshole isn't a protected class", but as far as I can see the whole rationale for protected classes applies just as strongly to those who have said legal but unpopular things.