12 ms·

Any ideas why they changed?

loeg 6y ago
It's hinted at in the short email: > 35% were dissatisfied with the code of conduct adopted in 2018, 34% were neutral, and 30% were satisfied. I.e., pretty mixed feelings about the old CoC. In the current referendum, the old CoC only got 4% of the total vote. That doesn't mean 96% are satisfied with the new CoC, but it's almost certainly more than 30% from before. Core is committed to running these annual community surveys to monitor satisfaction and we'll see probably next year how people feel about it.
dijit 6y ago
The previous code of conduct was not popular; it says so in TFA. I have been one of those people disaffected by the previous code of conduct, the "virtual hugs" and "no commenting on lifestyle choices such as eating habits" rubbed me very much the wrong way. The new one is much more prescriptive on behaviours that are encouraged, much like the hackernews guidelines.
- loeg 6y ago
  > I have been one of those people disaffected by the previous code of conduct, the "virtual hugs" and "no commenting on lifestyle choices such as eating habits" rubbed me very much the wrong way. Please don't be disingenuous about the old CoC. You can dislike it or disagree with it, but you're taking that example way out of context[1]: > Harassment includes but is not limited to: > ∗ Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "∗hug∗" or "∗backrub∗") without consent or after a request to stop. It's a problem when people don't want you to be doing it, and you do it to them anyway. Much like it would be a problem in the real world. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20200108075747/https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200108075747/https://www.freeb...
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    > ∗ Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "∗hug∗" or "∗backrub∗") without consent or after a request to stop. Good to know that I'm still 100% free to slap people around a bit with a large trout[0], and that this will not violate the CoC. But it seems weird and perhaps backwards that trout-whacking is OK, while a common polite remark (if perhaps not in a technical context) like ∗hugs∗ is discouraged. [0] Virtually, of course. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trout_slap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trout_slap
    - loeg 6y ago
      This is either a reading comprehension issue or another disingenuous attack. Please refer to the quoted excerpt, "includes but is not limited to."
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        Instead of being insulting and taking offense work on refining your sense of humor. Life is too short to be so humorless.
        loeg 6y ago
        There's a time and a place for jokes, and discussion of sexual harassment isn't it.
        michaelmrose 6y ago
        People joke about death in the singular, natural disasters that kill thousands, and the extinction of the human race but this is the matter so serious humor must be absent?
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    When someone actually touches you it infringes on your rights in a way that reading the text hug cannot not to mention the natural concern for your physical safety. In the mostly imaginary world of serial virtual huggers it seems reasonable that conduct would fall under say sexual harassment or be fixed by blocking people. It's actually nothing like real world touching at all.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      This is a weird hill to die on. Continuing to send "=hug=" messages to someone who has told you that doing so makes them uncomfortable is very creepy behavior. It'd be grounds for discipline most places I've worked. I understand not wanting a CoC that spells this out, because we're all adults and shouldn't need to be told not to send creepy messages to team members. But I can't understand defending the behavior on the merits.
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        Making your document the target of ridicule does no realistic good while undermining its effectiveness.
      - nyanpasu64 6y ago
        > without consent or after a request to stop. Hugging someone after they tell you to stop is obviously creepy. Is hugging someone without asking permission first bad too?
        michaelmrose 6y ago
        Presumably actually hugging someone is subject to societal, cultural, interpersonal norms. People at least try to discern in which situations and for which people its likely OK to initiate a hug. Then you watch how people react and modify your behavior accordingly. If you mistakenly thought it was OK and instead of warmth you perceive discomfort or a deer in the headlights look you would abort. If in doubt just don't do it or ask. In real context this complexity is simplified by the presence of social cues, body language, facial expressions, the fact that more people are apt to share the same set of social norms. None of these things are available in text. Fortunately typing hug at someone doesn't involve actually touching their body. It provides basically none of the meaningful benefits of actually hugging someone. No real social closeness. No actual meaningful comfort. It also provides none of the risks to the persons safety or their person. This is probably why typing 'hug' is the providence of 12 year old girls and including it in a code of conduct makes projects the subject of ridicule.
  - dijit 6y ago
    I guess this is open to your reading. I read that statement with the emphasis on without consent meaning I must first gather consent before saying something. That strikes me as asinine because you can verbally say many things which incite anxiety that aren't at all related to the examples given. I don't think it's a bad faith interpretation, it's just an interpretation I took- and my interpretation is as valid as yours unless you say that I am somehow less valid than you are, which is hugely offensive. If I am reading it wrong and at least 35% of others are reading it "wrong" then perhaps the issue is with the words used.
- microcolonel 6y ago
  Hearing that from somebody gives me hope. A trend I had been seeing over the past few years was the introduction of codes of conduct to communities that were basically peaceable, each just as often followed by a torrent of petty tyranny as by a continued peace.
  - syshum 6y ago
    Largely because they are ideological Trojan Horse's pretending to be a rational neutral code of conduct.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
sjmulder 6y ago
“The first survey, conducted in 2018, told us that [...]. These results indicated that there was sufficient dissatisfaction with the current code of conduct to warrant investigation.” Not sure what exactly the dissatisfaction was about but I’m really glad they went about it with a good level headed process and came out with a solution that satisfies a good majority.
testlbda 6y ago
probably some last attempts at keeping this once great os alive. will fail soon if this is what they focus on instead of how to make it useful and useable.
- microcolonel 6y ago
  Seems this one is less obscure and exclusive than their previous one though, maybe will lead to less petty tyranny rather than more; though I understand the trauma that can lend to a knee-jerk reaction to things titled this way.
- cyberpunk 6y ago
  Eh, freebsd isn't good for apps, that's all k8s on linux now, but I use it a lot for infra stuff still... If you have to build out storage instead of buying it it's currently the best choice in that space..
ardy42 6y ago
> Any ideas why they changed? IIRC, their previous CoC was quite controversial when it was introduced. The new one appears to address much of the criticism that I recall, and looks like a big improvement. Old discussions: HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16406946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16406946 Reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/freebsd/comments/7xapx2/freebsds_new_geek_feminismbased_code_of_conduct/ https://old.reddit.com/r/freebsd/comments/7xapx2/freebsds_ne... https://old.reddit.com/r/freebsd/comments/822mri/code_of_conduct_thread/ https://old.reddit.com/r/freebsd/comments/822mri/code_of_con... https://old.reddit.com/r/BSD/comments/7xjvcr/freebsd_has_a_new_code_of_conduct_inspired_by/ https://old.reddit.com/r/BSD/comments/7xjvcr/freebsd_has_a_n...
- loeg 6y ago
  I don't know about "quite controversial;" reddit skews a lot younger than the actual FreeBSD developer community and there were quite a few extremely vocal non-developers making a stink. Still: > 35% were dissatisfied with the code of conduct adopted in 2018, 34% were neutral, and 30% were satisfied. Even in the best light, more than 1/3 (35%) were not happy with the old CoC. So maybe a good description would be, "it was not unifying and became more of a distraction itself than a tool for avoiding harmful distractions."
  - novok 6y ago
    In today's world of NPS surveys, being neutral might as well be dissatisfied.
    - loeg 6y ago
      "Net Promoter Score" (NPS) is marketing B.S.; it has no place here.
thefz 6y ago
The old CoC ( https://web.archive.org/web/20200108075747/https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200108075747/https://www.freeb... ) mentions sexual orientation three times over 12 items in the first paragraph. Wonder who wrote it. > Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion.
- junke 6y ago
  > Wonder who wrote it. This sounds like a passive-aggressive remark to me, since it is attributed quite plainly in the CoC. https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Community_anti-harassment/Policy https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Community_anti-harassmen...

loeg 6y ago

It's hinted at in the short email: > 35% were dissatisfied with the code of conduct adopted in 2018, 34% were neutral, and 30% were satisfied. I.e., pretty mixed feelings about the old CoC. In the current referendum, the old CoC only got 4% of the total vote. That doesn't mean 96% are satisfied with the new CoC, but it's almost certainly more than 30% from before. Core is committed to running these annual community surveys to monitor satisfaction and we'll see probably next year how people feel about it.

dijit 6y ago

The previous code of conduct was not popular; it says so in TFA. I have been one of those people disaffected by the previous code of conduct, the "virtual hugs" and "no commenting on lifestyle choices such as eating habits" rubbed me very much the wrong way. The new one is much more prescriptive on behaviours that are encouraged, much like the hackernews guidelines.

loeg 6y ago
> I have been one of those people disaffected by the previous code of conduct, the "virtual hugs" and "no commenting on lifestyle choices such as eating habits" rubbed me very much the wrong way. Please don't be disingenuous about the old CoC. You can dislike it or disagree with it, but you're taking that example way out of context[1]: > Harassment includes but is not limited to: > ∗ Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "∗hug∗" or "∗backrub∗") without consent or after a request to stop. It's a problem when people don't want you to be doing it, and you do it to them anyway. Much like it would be a problem in the real world. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20200108075747/https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200108075747/https://www.freeb...
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > ∗ Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "∗hug∗" or "∗backrub∗") without consent or after a request to stop. Good to know that I'm still 100% free to slap people around a bit with a large trout[0], and that this will not violate the CoC. But it seems weird and perhaps backwards that trout-whacking is OK, while a common polite remark (if perhaps not in a technical context) like ∗hugs∗ is discouraged. [0] Virtually, of course. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trout_slap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trout_slap
  - loeg 6y ago
    This is either a reading comprehension issue or another disingenuous attack. Please refer to the quoted excerpt, "includes but is not limited to."
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      Instead of being insulting and taking offense work on refining your sense of humor. Life is too short to be so humorless.
      - loeg 6y ago
        There's a time and a place for jokes, and discussion of sexual harassment isn't it.
        michaelmrose 6y ago
        People joke about death in the singular, natural disasters that kill thousands, and the extinction of the human race but this is the matter so serious humor must be absent?
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  When someone actually touches you it infringes on your rights in a way that reading the text hug cannot not to mention the natural concern for your physical safety. In the mostly imaginary world of serial virtual huggers it seems reasonable that conduct would fall under say sexual harassment or be fixed by blocking people. It's actually nothing like real world touching at all.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    This is a weird hill to die on. Continuing to send "=hug=" messages to someone who has told you that doing so makes them uncomfortable is very creepy behavior. It'd be grounds for discipline most places I've worked. I understand not wanting a CoC that spells this out, because we're all adults and shouldn't need to be told not to send creepy messages to team members. But I can't understand defending the behavior on the merits.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      Making your document the target of ridicule does no realistic good while undermining its effectiveness.
    - nyanpasu64 6y ago
      > without consent or after a request to stop. Hugging someone after they tell you to stop is obviously creepy. Is hugging someone without asking permission first bad too?
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        Presumably actually hugging someone is subject to societal, cultural, interpersonal norms. People at least try to discern in which situations and for which people its likely OK to initiate a hug. Then you watch how people react and modify your behavior accordingly. If you mistakenly thought it was OK and instead of warmth you perceive discomfort or a deer in the headlights look you would abort. If in doubt just don't do it or ask. In real context this complexity is simplified by the presence of social cues, body language, facial expressions, the fact that more people are apt to share the same set of social norms. None of these things are available in text. Fortunately typing hug at someone doesn't involve actually touching their body. It provides basically none of the meaningful benefits of actually hugging someone. No real social closeness. No actual meaningful comfort. It also provides none of the risks to the persons safety or their person. This is probably why typing 'hug' is the providence of 12 year old girls and including it in a code of conduct makes projects the subject of ridicule.
- dijit 6y ago
  I guess this is open to your reading. I read that statement with the emphasis on without consent meaning I must first gather consent before saying something. That strikes me as asinine because you can verbally say many things which incite anxiety that aren't at all related to the examples given. I don't think it's a bad faith interpretation, it's just an interpretation I took- and my interpretation is as valid as yours unless you say that I am somehow less valid than you are, which is hugely offensive. If I am reading it wrong and at least 35% of others are reading it "wrong" then perhaps the issue is with the words used.
microcolonel 6y ago
Hearing that from somebody gives me hope. A trend I had been seeing over the past few years was the introduction of codes of conduct to communities that were basically peaceable, each just as often followed by a torrent of petty tyranny as by a continued peace.
- syshum 6y ago
  Largely because they are ideological Trojan Horse's pretending to be a rational neutral code of conduct.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

sjmulder 6y ago

“The first survey, conducted in 2018, told us that [...]. These results indicated that there was sufficient dissatisfaction with the current code of conduct to warrant investigation.” Not sure what exactly the dissatisfaction was about but I’m really glad they went about it with a good level headed process and came out with a solution that satisfies a good majority.

testlbda 6y ago

probably some last attempts at keeping this once great os alive. will fail soon if this is what they focus on instead of how to make it useful and useable.

microcolonel 6y ago
Seems this one is less obscure and exclusive than their previous one though, maybe will lead to less petty tyranny rather than more; though I understand the trauma that can lend to a knee-jerk reaction to things titled this way.
cyberpunk 6y ago
Eh, freebsd isn't good for apps, that's all k8s on linux now, but I use it a lot for infra stuff still... If you have to build out storage instead of buying it it's currently the best choice in that space..

ardy42 6y ago

> Any ideas why they changed? IIRC, their previous CoC was quite controversial when it was introduced. The new one appears to address much of the criticism that I recall, and looks like a big improvement. Old discussions: HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16406946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16406946 Reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/freebsd/comments/7xapx2/freebsds_new_geek_feminismbased_code_of_conduct/ https://old.reddit.com/r/freebsd/comments/7xapx2/freebsds_ne... https://old.reddit.com/r/freebsd/comments/822mri/code_of_conduct_thread/ https://old.reddit.com/r/freebsd/comments/822mri/code_of_con... https://old.reddit.com/r/BSD/comments/7xjvcr/freebsd_has_a_new_code_of_conduct_inspired_by/ https://old.reddit.com/r/BSD/comments/7xjvcr/freebsd_has_a_n...

loeg 6y ago
I don't know about "quite controversial;" reddit skews a lot younger than the actual FreeBSD developer community and there were quite a few extremely vocal non-developers making a stink. Still: > 35% were dissatisfied with the code of conduct adopted in 2018, 34% were neutral, and 30% were satisfied. Even in the best light, more than 1/3 (35%) were not happy with the old CoC. So maybe a good description would be, "it was not unifying and became more of a distraction itself than a tool for avoiding harmful distractions."
- novok 6y ago
  In today's world of NPS surveys, being neutral might as well be dissatisfied.
  - loeg 6y ago
    "Net Promoter Score" (NPS) is marketing B.S.; it has no place here.

thefz 6y ago

The old CoC ( https://web.archive.org/web/20200108075747/https://www.freebsd.org/internal/code-of-conduct.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200108075747/https://www.freeb... ) mentions sexual orientation three times over 12 items in the first paragraph. Wonder who wrote it. > Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion.

junke 6y ago
> Wonder who wrote it. This sounds like a passive-aggressive remark to me, since it is attributed quite plainly in the CoC. https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Community_anti-harassment/Policy https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Community_anti-harassmen...