4 ms·

True, but the things about bigotry and harassment seem more likely to apply to the site, unless big projects get weirdly abusive issues or PRs. And it is linked

by mcintyre1994 6y ago

True, but the things about bigotry and harassment seem more likely to apply to the site, unless big projects get weirdly abusive issues or PRs. And it is linked from rule 1 on the website, I’m guessing the website rules isn’t referring to rules for contributing. I think maybe it’s both. I certainly don’t get the impression they want to be a Voat style ‘Reddit for after you’re banned’, regardless.

luckylion 6y ago
I understood the general goal the same way. As for CoC: I believe it's more of a signalling act than a reaction to past issues. Just like the KKK would add "no race mixing" to the rules, a left wing open source project needs to signal to their in group, and their main way of doing that is to say "no harassment based on [some criteria]".
- brnt 6y ago
  "No harassment" qualifies as left wing signalling now?
  - dx87 6y ago
    "No harassment based on certain criteria". The old FreeBSD code of conduct is a good example. Instead of having a blanket ban on harassment, it listed specific criteria that you couldn't harass someone about.
    - brnt 6y ago
      You probably saw the brackets in the quote. I imagine those were added by the poster.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Adding a code of conduct of that specific kind ("no being mean about weight" etc) not as a reaction to actual issues you've faced, but from the get go? Yeah, and it's a reliable signal as well. Inclusivity is one of the progressive core tenets.
    - brnt 6y ago
      Inclusivity is core to democracy, and to call that progressive in 2020... Its just doing your due diligence in the face of software dev now being done by an ever diverse population. Any association will have house rules, often with very similar stipulations, and now software projects are doing the same, such that the wheel doesn't have to be reinvented.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        No, it's really not. Democracy can function just fine without everybody being included everywhere. I don't have an issue with it if anyone finds inclusivity to be the most important issue, but it is a progressive policy, not "core to democracy". Please stop moralizing your personal political convictions. No, you're not a good person because of random political beliefs you happen to have, no, people who don't share those beliefs are not bad persons, and no, democracy does not rely on everyone sharing your beliefs.
        brnt 6y ago
        It can function that way, its however no democracy but aristocracy. You could pick up a book on this subject to brush up your knowledge.
        sobani 6y ago
        Ancient Athens had a democracy. It also had slavery. And of course women are more like children than full adults, so they're weren't allowed to vote too. Democracy does not require Universal Suffrage. Also fun quote from Wikipedia: In its original 19th-century usage by reformers in Britain, universal suffrage was understood to mean only universal manhood suffrage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

luckylion 6y ago

I understood the general goal the same way. As for CoC: I believe it's more of a signalling act than a reaction to past issues. Just like the KKK would add "no race mixing" to the rules, a left wing open source project needs to signal to their in group, and their main way of doing that is to say "no harassment based on [some criteria]".

brnt 6y ago
"No harassment" qualifies as left wing signalling now?
- dx87 6y ago
  "No harassment based on certain criteria". The old FreeBSD code of conduct is a good example. Instead of having a blanket ban on harassment, it listed specific criteria that you couldn't harass someone about.
  - brnt 6y ago
    You probably saw the brackets in the quote. I imagine those were added by the poster.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Adding a code of conduct of that specific kind ("no being mean about weight" etc) not as a reaction to actual issues you've faced, but from the get go? Yeah, and it's a reliable signal as well. Inclusivity is one of the progressive core tenets.
  - brnt 6y ago
    Inclusivity is core to democracy, and to call that progressive in 2020... Its just doing your due diligence in the face of software dev now being done by an ever diverse population. Any association will have house rules, often with very similar stipulations, and now software projects are doing the same, such that the wheel doesn't have to be reinvented.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      No, it's really not. Democracy can function just fine without everybody being included everywhere. I don't have an issue with it if anyone finds inclusivity to be the most important issue, but it is a progressive policy, not "core to democracy". Please stop moralizing your personal political convictions. No, you're not a good person because of random political beliefs you happen to have, no, people who don't share those beliefs are not bad persons, and no, democracy does not rely on everyone sharing your beliefs.
      - brnt 6y ago
        It can function that way, its however no democracy but aristocracy. You could pick up a book on this subject to brush up your knowledge.
        sobani 6y ago
        Ancient Athens had a democracy. It also had slavery. And of course women are more like children than full adults, so they're weren't allowed to vote too. Democracy does not require Universal Suffrage. Also fun quote from Wikipedia: In its original 19th-century usage by reformers in Britain, universal suffrage was understood to mean only universal manhood suffrage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage