5 ms·

What's with the recurring comments about corporations and businesses? > Some people may have views that when expressed, may be harmful to the interest of parti

What's with the recurring comments about corporations and businesses? > Some people may have views that when expressed, may be harmful to the interest of particular groups of people like big corporations. This has to be taken into account. > universally accepted corporate values > That's California Core Corporate Policies in work > For instance, members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class. > Members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected class because they financially contribute to the cause Given the success of the pull requests, I can only assume that this is not a sockpuppet mocking the rules in question. Is it some kind of multi-layered joke?

geofft 5y ago
I find it confusing too, but my reading of this is that @hmdne is trolling, but the actual changes @hmdne wants to make are fine and defensible in their own right and in fact make it easier to kick out trolls like @hmdne (e.g., a troll can claim that their trollish proposition is an "opposing view" that one needs to be respectful of), and so people are engaging in good faith to try to deflate the troll. Some of these comments are obviously bait to me - e.g., the one about how we should privilege members of boards of directors - and this looks like a careful attempt not to take the bait. Note that PR 2690 is not from @hmdne and was unchanged from how it was proposed. PR 2691 is, and perhaps should not have been accepted in its present form because of the "protected class" language, but there are good-faith comments in 2690 (with no mention of corporations) about why the "opposing views" line should be removed.
- morpunkee 5y ago
  In this sense, that they would help protect the community from trolls - yes they are defensible. But otherwise, I would unfortunately disagree. It's like an argument that we should lock everyone in cages, so they wouldn't hurt themselves.
- cnvlal 5y ago
  Can't wait for the Rust changes to be merged into the Linux kernel, so we have behavioral expert opinions on LKML, too!
  - geofft 5y ago
    Wow, I'm honored! I haven't been actively involved with that project for a long while but if it's making people mad enough to create throwaways, it means my work has real impact. Thank you <3
pseudalopex 5y ago
No search results for California Core Corporate Policies. But CCCP looks just like the Russian initials for the Soviet Union. Someone with the same name invoked the old good intentions clause on the mailing list.[1] Apparently sincerely. [1] http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/441433 http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/...
- hallway_monitor 5y ago
  This thread gets better and better. Also I realized today is the opposite of April fool's Day?
bityard 5y ago
It's not just you... I was unable to follow it either. I kept going back and forth trying to figure out which "side" the commenters were on, trying to find hidden meanings and running the various points through a sarcasm filter... nothing worked. I'm left to conclude that they are just simply "out to lunch," to put it politely.
- hallway_monitor 5y ago
  Some of those corporation comments are pretty funny. Some of these people are obviously trolling.
veeti 5y ago
You are watching a master troll at work.
undecisive 5y ago
I don't think it's a sockpuppet - I read it as a criticism via satire. The idea is that any rule you apply should be done fairly and, where that isn't clear, equally. So as an example. If I say "Pepsi tastes like cow urine", and a corporate shill from Pepsi who has built their self-worth around the company and spent most of their life defending themselves from the usual Pepsi-bashing jokes by bullies telling them that Coke is better, and maybe they fall into some protected class and maybe they don't. Now, their complaint is valid and their hurt is real. But the intent of the original comment was not to bash this person (or corporation) - it was the spirit of valid criticism. If the intent is removed from the evaluation of the rules, nobody is safe from those who would manipulate the rules and pretend to be the hurt party to the benefit of a corporation. [Note: I've re-read everything that person said, and now even I'm not sure. It feels to me like highly honed satire, and if it is, hats off to them, though they've maybe forgotten that a large portion of the Ruby team is not natively English speaking - hence their PR got accepted. If it isn't satire... well, they're not gonna read this, so it would be a wasted education]

geofft 5y ago

I find it confusing too, but my reading of this is that @hmdne is trolling, but the actual changes @hmdne wants to make are fine and defensible in their own right and in fact make it easier to kick out trolls like @hmdne (e.g., a troll can claim that their trollish proposition is an "opposing view" that one needs to be respectful of), and so people are engaging in good faith to try to deflate the troll. Some of these comments are obviously bait to me - e.g., the one about how we should privilege members of boards of directors - and this looks like a careful attempt not to take the bait. Note that PR 2690 is not from @hmdne and was unchanged from how it was proposed. PR 2691 is, and perhaps should not have been accepted in its present form because of the "protected class" language, but there are good-faith comments in 2690 (with no mention of corporations) about why the "opposing views" line should be removed.

morpunkee 5y ago
In this sense, that they would help protect the community from trolls - yes they are defensible. But otherwise, I would unfortunately disagree. It's like an argument that we should lock everyone in cages, so they wouldn't hurt themselves.
cnvlal 5y ago
Can't wait for the Rust changes to be merged into the Linux kernel, so we have behavioral expert opinions on LKML, too!
- geofft 5y ago
  Wow, I'm honored! I haven't been actively involved with that project for a long while but if it's making people mad enough to create throwaways, it means my work has real impact. Thank you <3

pseudalopex 5y ago

No search results for California Core Corporate Policies. But CCCP looks just like the Russian initials for the Soviet Union. Someone with the same name invoked the old good intentions clause on the mailing list.[1] Apparently sincerely. [1] http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/441433 http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/...

hallway_monitor 5y ago
This thread gets better and better. Also I realized today is the opposite of April fool's Day?

bityard 5y ago

It's not just you... I was unable to follow it either. I kept going back and forth trying to figure out which "side" the commenters were on, trying to find hidden meanings and running the various points through a sarcasm filter... nothing worked. I'm left to conclude that they are just simply "out to lunch," to put it politely.

hallway_monitor 5y ago
Some of those corporation comments are pretty funny. Some of these people are obviously trolling.

veeti 5y ago

You are watching a master troll at work.

undecisive 5y ago

I don't think it's a sockpuppet - I read it as a criticism via satire. The idea is that any rule you apply should be done fairly and, where that isn't clear, equally. So as an example. If I say "Pepsi tastes like cow urine", and a corporate shill from Pepsi who has built their self-worth around the company and spent most of their life defending themselves from the usual Pepsi-bashing jokes by bullies telling them that Coke is better, and maybe they fall into some protected class and maybe they don't. Now, their complaint is valid and their hurt is real. But the intent of the original comment was not to bash this person (or corporation) - it was the spirit of valid criticism. If the intent is removed from the evaluation of the rules, nobody is safe from those who would manipulate the rules and pretend to be the hurt party to the benefit of a corporation. [Note: I've re-read everything that person said, and now even I'm not sure. It feels to me like highly honed satire, and if it is, hats off to them, though they've maybe forgotten that a large portion of the Ruby team is not natively English speaking - hence their PR got accepted. If it isn't satire... well, they're not gonna read this, so it would be a wasted education]