9 ms·

Golang: Code of Conduct Updates

53 points by 0xedb 5y ago

awb 5y ago
Freedom of speech is important but I think some underestimate how destructive hostile speech can be towards collaboration and constructive conversation. With a little effort it’s possible to use non-violent communication (NVC) to express yourself fully without blaming or criticizing others. And sure it’s also a worthy goal to not take things personally, but collaboration just works better IMO when we’re as kind and respectful as possible.
- tick_tock_tick 5y ago
  I personally find non-violent communication to be the most insulting way anyone can ever communicate. It's infantilizing and incredibly demeaning.
  - collegeburner 5y ago
    Wow, you're right. I looked the term up out of curiosity and I would be legit offended if somebody talked to me like that, to the point where I'd absolutely leave over it. I wonder how it's handled when this is somebody's preferred way to communicate but others absolutely hate it.
    - magicalist 5y ago
      > I would be legit offended if somebody talked to me like that, to the point where I'd absolutely leave over it talked like what?
    - awb 5y ago
      I have experience there. Person B wants to have a difficult conversation with Person A and wants to use NVC to keep the passion low and understanding high. Person B says how they feel using NVC. Person A says “hey, just spit it out, talk to me like a normal person” Person B “spits it out” Person A gets angry and “gives it right back” to person B. Both parties fight until 1 walks away. In other words, if Person A is calm, NVC won’t trigger them. Person A usually wants Person B to drop NVC because they’re more comfortable fighting than they are finding a peaceful common understanding.
  - awb 5y ago
    It’s premise is to express what’s going on with you internally without pointing the finger of blame or criticism. You don’t have to use it everyday all the time, but it’s helpful when things get heated to take a step back and own your experience without assumptions about what the other person is doing or feeling. Basically: I’m feeling ______. And I’m needing ______. So, here’s an example violent response: You obviously don’t understand NVC and you probably have serious issues in your own communication style if you find NVC insulting. And an example NVC response: I’m confused why you’d feel insulted by NVC. What about it feels demeaning to you? The violent response makes assumptions and lays the ground work for a confrontation. NVC makes no assumptions and lays the ground work for dialogue. Is the NVC response really the more insulting of the two in your point of view?
    - mmastrac 5y ago
      It's incredibly easy for discussions to turn heated and non-productive when egos start feeling bruised. And then it's even harder to back down because it feels like pride is on the line.
    - ShamelessC 5y ago
      > I’m confused why you’d feel insulted by NVC. What about it feels demeaning to you? This possesses a pompous tone in my opinion.
      - awb 5y ago
        This is the written word so you can attribute any tone you’d like. What happens if you try reading it in a compassionate tone? Or a curious tone?
        ShamelessC 5y ago
        I really do think it's smarter to "just" speak informally and try not to be rude. Apologize if you upset anyone and be sincere when you do it. Don't ask questions for the sheer sake of fitting some HR/radical-candor script.
    - 5y ago
google234123 5y ago
One thing I dislike about our new moral arbiters is their view that intent doesn’t matter. They will use anything (e.g. a microaggression, a usually inadvertent tiny slight) to justify cancelling someone. Tolerance for them also only has only one meaning: tolerate us.
- Spartan-S63 5y ago
  It's the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerate intolerance (regardless of intent), you pave the way for intolerance to take hold.
  - light_cone 5y ago
    Of course, no one has ever felt to be the intolerant one in the story.
    - Jtsummers 5y ago
      Oh, that's not true. I lived in a town, briefly fortunately, where the folks did, in fact, know they were intolerant when they ran off black families that dared to move in through various harassment tactics (horribly, mostly directed at the children since the adults had thicker skin). They just didn't care.
  - RattleyCooper 5y ago
    >If you tolerate intolerance (regardless of intent) So should people tolerate people who don't tolerate the intolerant? And should other people tolerate them? I feel like Mr. Garrison's take on it sums it up really well. Tolerating someone doesn't mean you like them or support their views. It just means you have to live with them. And you kind of do, or you have to be willing to remove them from society by any means necessary. And at that point, you're kind of worse than the intolerant people so long as they aren't actively trying to remove people from society by any means necessary. I guess it all depends on how you define intolerant. When I hear the word I take it as "refuses to tolerate and will not allow coexistence". If that's the case, and that form of intolerance is what cannot be tolerated, then it's a full-circle mind fuck that makes no sense unless you put yourself on a pedestal where you're brand of intolerance is the only intolerance that must be tolerated. And yeah, I don't think that kind of intolerance should be tolerated, however I don't think it's as common as people make it seem, and I feel like people conflate too many things with the genocidal form of intolerance than they do with someone who might think something is morally wrong but doesn't actually do anything about it. For instance, I know some religious people think being gay is morally wrong but they don't care what people do or if they can get married. I think they're morally wrong for having those beliefs but so long as they don't violate the rights of gay ppl I don't see why it matters. I mean, I can judge them as much as they can judge me.
tester756 5y ago
>Avoid snarking (pithy, unproductive, sniping comments) On the other hand... 9 out of 10 really skilled devs/engineers or profs that I met had tendency to be kinda snarky, especially when somebody's trying to do bullshit Is lack of subtle/direct snarkiness a good thing? It's like putting constrains on language/tools to express yourself, maybe too harshly? Maybe it's considered normal in "cultures" where people are more straightfoward
- diob 5y ago
  I've had the opposite experience, and thus worked to make my team a safe place for folks where they don't feel the need to hide from snarkers (who often are trying to put themselves above others by pulling everyone else down). As a senior engineer / team lead, I really have no patience for bad behavior. Directness is the opposite of snark. If you think something is a bad idea, propose an alternative. Or work with the person. Anyone can throw out snark, it takes a "really skilled" person to do something productive instead.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  Companies hire you because you're opinionated, and they retain you because you're obedient. You can mix and match the two to reach whatever desired effect you want, but them's the rules.
- lastofus 5y ago
  > Is lack of subtle/direct snarkiness a good thing? It's quite possible to call out and dismantle bad ideas, without making it reflect poorly on the originator of the idea. A snarky tone can have an underlying implication that the idea was so bad, the idea originator is not even worthy of a respectful reply. Maybe this is warranted in some cases (e.g. a bullshitter bullshitting), but in the case of coworkers/contributors with good intent, this is just unnecessary abrasiveness.
travisd 5y ago
This is a good change. It doesn’t allow people to hide behind the shield of “good intentions” while refusing to change their behavior. Refusing to change your behavior after learning of its negative impacts on others is negligent best. “Any sufficiently advanced negligence is indistinguishable from malice.”
- asguy 5y ago
  > This is a good change. It doesn’t allow people to hide behind the shield of “good intentions” while refusing to change their behavior. I just had a negative emotional response to your perspective on this subject. It made me slightly upset that someone would think that this is a good change. Should you change your perspective now that you've `learn[ed] of its negative impact on others`, or should I get over it and recognize that other people can have different opinions and I shouldn't let that affect me?
  - Nicksil 5y ago
    You're being down-voted but you're spot on. >This is a good change. It doesn’t allow people to hide behind the shield of “good intentions” while refusing to change their behavior. Refusing to change your behavior after learning of its negative impacts on others is negligent best. Is woefully flawed logic. Expecting someone to change their behavior when someone else says they're offended is awful. The assumption is that the person speaking is always in the wrong and the complainant is always being genuine.
    - travisd 5y ago
      The slippery slope fallacy is exactly that: a fallacy. There’s an obvious distinction between “I disagree with the merits of your PR therefore I’m going to claim that I’m offended” and “please do not misgender me.” The former is a strawman argument. Everything needs nuance and discretion. The world is complicated. But throwing our hands up in the air and saying “this could hypothetically be abused” is not a reason to remain paralyzed in the face of hostility within a community.
WalterBright 5y ago
The more specific a CoC is, the more loopholes there are that people will exploit. We just expect "professional behavior", and for those who want to argue about what that means, we refer them to Emily Post's books. This works out quite well for us.
- wmf 5y ago
  That can work if you have moderators who are trusted, fearless, and ruthless. Most communities don't have those people.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    The D community is indeed fortunate in the quality of people attracted to it. My experience with Caltech's honor system is that if you expect people to behave honorably, they tend to fulfill those expectations. And they like it, and that tends to attract others who like that arrangement. BTW, one of the reasons I hang out on HN and not other forums is because the members here tend to be decent. dang deserves a lot of credit for maintaining this atmosphere.
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      I was going to say the same about Python. The absence of drama in the community is a key selling point for the language.
- alpinex100 5y ago
  I've read some of the D archives, and fortunately the D community is way less trigger happy than some of the newer communities that are run North Korean style.
- kevingadd 5y ago
  With respect Walter, a CoC that works for one mid-sized community will not necessarily work for a very large community like Go's :( At this point there is also widespread disagreement on what constitutes "professional behavior". It sounds like in this case your CoC is actually written by Emily Post.
tick_tock_tick 5y ago
> The paradox of tolerance is that the one group of people we can’t welcome are those who make others feel unwelcome. I really hope Google takes a strong stance and bans Muslim from all projects due to their views on homosexuality. While a minority of Muslims might not personally have an issue with homosexuality I don't think it's fair to ask people to tolerate members of such an intolerant religion.
- envp 5y ago
  There are so many things wrong with your comment, I don't even know where to begin. I can trivially extend your argument to: > I really hope Google takes a strong stance and bans _humans_ from all projects due to their _bigotry_. While a minority of _humans_ might not personally display any _bigotry_ I don't think it's fair to tolerate members of such an intolerant group.
  - Nicksil 5y ago
    >There are so many things wrong with your comment, I don't even know where to begin. We can trivially extend your argument to: >I really hope Google takes a strong stance and bans humans from all projects due to their bigotry. While a minority of humans might not personally display any bigotry I don't think it's fair to ask people to tolerate members of such an intolerant group. I suspect that was the reason for their comment in the first place. More of a demonstration. Your reaction, however, is a great example of just how much nuance is lost in the medium and how easily it can be for someone to be labeled offensive when in-fact the intention behind the statement was anything but.
  - tick_tock_tick 5y ago
    Yes, exactly! This is the point I was trying to make and you've even added the follow up on the logical conclusion of these Code of Conducts. Thank you.
    - envp 5y ago
      Ah! I'm glad my density was useful for once. Regardless, lesson learned.
alpinex100 5y ago
CoC proponents and committees talk with angel tongues about their good intentions. In practice, it comes down to roughly 3-5 people who play the "deciders". Here's a well known result of power abuse: https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/ https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/ Most cancellations are plain abuses of power, with no fair hearing (or no hearing at all!) of both sides. Characteristically, these power grabs occur when languages are done and people (representing their corporations) fight for the pieces. And they fight dirty.
focusgroup0 5y ago
https://nocodeofconduct.com/ https://nocodeofconduct.com/ https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC
umvi 5y ago
I'm interested if projects with CoCs ever blow off complainants for being unreasonable. I know for a fact some project maintainers can be rude and verbally abusive, but I also know complainants can be unreasonable bullies with a chip on their shoulder as well.

53 points by 0xedb 5y ago

awb 5y ago

Freedom of speech is important but I think some underestimate how destructive hostile speech can be towards collaboration and constructive conversation. With a little effort it’s possible to use non-violent communication (NVC) to express yourself fully without blaming or criticizing others. And sure it’s also a worthy goal to not take things personally, but collaboration just works better IMO when we’re as kind and respectful as possible.

tick_tock_tick 5y ago
I personally find non-violent communication to be the most insulting way anyone can ever communicate. It's infantilizing and incredibly demeaning.
- collegeburner 5y ago
  Wow, you're right. I looked the term up out of curiosity and I would be legit offended if somebody talked to me like that, to the point where I'd absolutely leave over it. I wonder how it's handled when this is somebody's preferred way to communicate but others absolutely hate it.
  - magicalist 5y ago
    > I would be legit offended if somebody talked to me like that, to the point where I'd absolutely leave over it talked like what?
  - awb 5y ago
    I have experience there. Person B wants to have a difficult conversation with Person A and wants to use NVC to keep the passion low and understanding high. Person B says how they feel using NVC. Person A says “hey, just spit it out, talk to me like a normal person” Person B “spits it out” Person A gets angry and “gives it right back” to person B. Both parties fight until 1 walks away. In other words, if Person A is calm, NVC won’t trigger them. Person A usually wants Person B to drop NVC because they’re more comfortable fighting than they are finding a peaceful common understanding.
- awb 5y ago
  It’s premise is to express what’s going on with you internally without pointing the finger of blame or criticism. You don’t have to use it everyday all the time, but it’s helpful when things get heated to take a step back and own your experience without assumptions about what the other person is doing or feeling. Basically: I’m feeling ______. And I’m needing ______. So, here’s an example violent response: You obviously don’t understand NVC and you probably have serious issues in your own communication style if you find NVC insulting. And an example NVC response: I’m confused why you’d feel insulted by NVC. What about it feels demeaning to you? The violent response makes assumptions and lays the ground work for a confrontation. NVC makes no assumptions and lays the ground work for dialogue. Is the NVC response really the more insulting of the two in your point of view?
  - mmastrac 5y ago
    It's incredibly easy for discussions to turn heated and non-productive when egos start feeling bruised. And then it's even harder to back down because it feels like pride is on the line.
  - ShamelessC 5y ago
    > I’m confused why you’d feel insulted by NVC. What about it feels demeaning to you? This possesses a pompous tone in my opinion.
    - awb 5y ago
      This is the written word so you can attribute any tone you’d like. What happens if you try reading it in a compassionate tone? Or a curious tone?
      - ShamelessC 5y ago
        I really do think it's smarter to "just" speak informally and try not to be rude. Apologize if you upset anyone and be sincere when you do it. Don't ask questions for the sheer sake of fitting some HR/radical-candor script.
  - 5y ago

google234123 5y ago

One thing I dislike about our new moral arbiters is their view that intent doesn’t matter. They will use anything (e.g. a microaggression, a usually inadvertent tiny slight) to justify cancelling someone. Tolerance for them also only has only one meaning: tolerate us.

Spartan-S63 5y ago
It's the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerate intolerance (regardless of intent), you pave the way for intolerance to take hold.
- light_cone 5y ago
  Of course, no one has ever felt to be the intolerant one in the story.
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    Oh, that's not true. I lived in a town, briefly fortunately, where the folks did, in fact, know they were intolerant when they ran off black families that dared to move in through various harassment tactics (horribly, mostly directed at the children since the adults had thicker skin). They just didn't care.
- RattleyCooper 5y ago
  >If you tolerate intolerance (regardless of intent) So should people tolerate people who don't tolerate the intolerant? And should other people tolerate them? I feel like Mr. Garrison's take on it sums it up really well. Tolerating someone doesn't mean you like them or support their views. It just means you have to live with them. And you kind of do, or you have to be willing to remove them from society by any means necessary. And at that point, you're kind of worse than the intolerant people so long as they aren't actively trying to remove people from society by any means necessary. I guess it all depends on how you define intolerant. When I hear the word I take it as "refuses to tolerate and will not allow coexistence". If that's the case, and that form of intolerance is what cannot be tolerated, then it's a full-circle mind fuck that makes no sense unless you put yourself on a pedestal where you're brand of intolerance is the only intolerance that must be tolerated. And yeah, I don't think that kind of intolerance should be tolerated, however I don't think it's as common as people make it seem, and I feel like people conflate too many things with the genocidal form of intolerance than they do with someone who might think something is morally wrong but doesn't actually do anything about it. For instance, I know some religious people think being gay is morally wrong but they don't care what people do or if they can get married. I think they're morally wrong for having those beliefs but so long as they don't violate the rights of gay ppl I don't see why it matters. I mean, I can judge them as much as they can judge me.

tester756 5y ago

>Avoid snarking (pithy, unproductive, sniping comments) On the other hand... 9 out of 10 really skilled devs/engineers or profs that I met had tendency to be kinda snarky, especially when somebody's trying to do bullshit Is lack of subtle/direct snarkiness a good thing? It's like putting constrains on language/tools to express yourself, maybe too harshly? Maybe it's considered normal in "cultures" where people are more straightfoward

diob 5y ago
I've had the opposite experience, and thus worked to make my team a safe place for folks where they don't feel the need to hide from snarkers (who often are trying to put themselves above others by pulling everyone else down). As a senior engineer / team lead, I really have no patience for bad behavior. Directness is the opposite of snark. If you think something is a bad idea, propose an alternative. Or work with the person. Anyone can throw out snark, it takes a "really skilled" person to do something productive instead.
smoldesu 5y ago
Companies hire you because you're opinionated, and they retain you because you're obedient. You can mix and match the two to reach whatever desired effect you want, but them's the rules.
lastofus 5y ago
> Is lack of subtle/direct snarkiness a good thing? It's quite possible to call out and dismantle bad ideas, without making it reflect poorly on the originator of the idea. A snarky tone can have an underlying implication that the idea was so bad, the idea originator is not even worthy of a respectful reply. Maybe this is warranted in some cases (e.g. a bullshitter bullshitting), but in the case of coworkers/contributors with good intent, this is just unnecessary abrasiveness.

travisd 5y ago

This is a good change. It doesn’t allow people to hide behind the shield of “good intentions” while refusing to change their behavior. Refusing to change your behavior after learning of its negative impacts on others is negligent best. “Any sufficiently advanced negligence is indistinguishable from malice.”

asguy 5y ago
> This is a good change. It doesn’t allow people to hide behind the shield of “good intentions” while refusing to change their behavior. I just had a negative emotional response to your perspective on this subject. It made me slightly upset that someone would think that this is a good change. Should you change your perspective now that you've `learn[ed] of its negative impact on others`, or should I get over it and recognize that other people can have different opinions and I shouldn't let that affect me?
- Nicksil 5y ago
  You're being down-voted but you're spot on. >This is a good change. It doesn’t allow people to hide behind the shield of “good intentions” while refusing to change their behavior. Refusing to change your behavior after learning of its negative impacts on others is negligent best. Is woefully flawed logic. Expecting someone to change their behavior when someone else says they're offended is awful. The assumption is that the person speaking is always in the wrong and the complainant is always being genuine.
  - travisd 5y ago
    The slippery slope fallacy is exactly that: a fallacy. There’s an obvious distinction between “I disagree with the merits of your PR therefore I’m going to claim that I’m offended” and “please do not misgender me.” The former is a strawman argument. Everything needs nuance and discretion. The world is complicated. But throwing our hands up in the air and saying “this could hypothetically be abused” is not a reason to remain paralyzed in the face of hostility within a community.

WalterBright 5y ago

The more specific a CoC is, the more loopholes there are that people will exploit. We just expect "professional behavior", and for those who want to argue about what that means, we refer them to Emily Post's books. This works out quite well for us.

wmf 5y ago
That can work if you have moderators who are trusted, fearless, and ruthless. Most communities don't have those people.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  The D community is indeed fortunate in the quality of people attracted to it. My experience with Caltech's honor system is that if you expect people to behave honorably, they tend to fulfill those expectations. And they like it, and that tends to attract others who like that arrangement. BTW, one of the reasons I hang out on HN and not other forums is because the members here tend to be decent. dang deserves a lot of credit for maintaining this atmosphere.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    I was going to say the same about Python. The absence of drama in the community is a key selling point for the language.
alpinex100 5y ago
I've read some of the D archives, and fortunately the D community is way less trigger happy than some of the newer communities that are run North Korean style.
kevingadd 5y ago
With respect Walter, a CoC that works for one mid-sized community will not necessarily work for a very large community like Go's :( At this point there is also widespread disagreement on what constitutes "professional behavior". It sounds like in this case your CoC is actually written by Emily Post.

tick_tock_tick 5y ago

> The paradox of tolerance is that the one group of people we can’t welcome are those who make others feel unwelcome. I really hope Google takes a strong stance and bans Muslim from all projects due to their views on homosexuality. While a minority of Muslims might not personally have an issue with homosexuality I don't think it's fair to ask people to tolerate members of such an intolerant religion.

envp 5y ago
There are so many things wrong with your comment, I don't even know where to begin. I can trivially extend your argument to: > I really hope Google takes a strong stance and bans _humans_ from all projects due to their _bigotry_. While a minority of _humans_ might not personally display any _bigotry_ I don't think it's fair to tolerate members of such an intolerant group.
- Nicksil 5y ago
  >There are so many things wrong with your comment, I don't even know where to begin. We can trivially extend your argument to: >I really hope Google takes a strong stance and bans humans from all projects due to their bigotry. While a minority of humans might not personally display any bigotry I don't think it's fair to ask people to tolerate members of such an intolerant group. I suspect that was the reason for their comment in the first place. More of a demonstration. Your reaction, however, is a great example of just how much nuance is lost in the medium and how easily it can be for someone to be labeled offensive when in-fact the intention behind the statement was anything but.
- tick_tock_tick 5y ago
  Yes, exactly! This is the point I was trying to make and you've even added the follow up on the logical conclusion of these Code of Conducts. Thank you.
  - envp 5y ago
    Ah! I'm glad my density was useful for once. Regardless, lesson learned.

alpinex100 5y ago

CoC proponents and committees talk with angel tongues about their good intentions. In practice, it comes down to roughly 3-5 people who play the "deciders". Here's a well known result of power abuse: https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/ https://www.fast.ai/2020/10/28/code-of-conduct/ Most cancellations are plain abuses of power, with no fair hearing (or no hearing at all!) of both sides. Characteristically, these power grabs occur when languages are done and people (representing their corporations) fight for the pieces. And they fight dirty.

focusgroup0 5y ago

https://nocodeofconduct.com/ https://nocodeofconduct.com/ https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC

umvi 5y ago

I'm interested if projects with CoCs ever blow off complainants for being unreasonable. I know for a fact some project maintainers can be rude and verbally abusive, but I also know complainants can be unreasonable bullies with a chip on their shoulder as well.