4 ms·
Clearly the org is far too gone at this point. It's a dead project people are funneled into that doesn't serve a purpose. Maintainers should do like the history
by devwastaken 5y ago
Clearly the org is far too gone at this point. It's a dead project people are funneled into that doesn't serve a purpose. Maintainers should do like the history of software has. Drop it and organize anew.
A massive red flag for all this are the words "code of conduct". They're not "bad" to have, generally projects already have them, they were previously called "rules". But if the "code of conduct" is filled with title 9 speak then you know you're dealing with corporate types, not developers. For those that haven't taken title 9 training, you're told to be the gestapo morality police and actively go out of your way to vocally suppress any discussion that might involve something that could have the potential to be discriminatory. This is done for liability protection, for the company. Not because it would actually be discriminatory/immoral. Yet somehow its made it's way into software repos.
- red_trumpet 5y agoNo, that's not the problem here. The author explicitly states they were totally fine with enforcing a code of conduct on their mailing list. The problem here was about trust in the foundation and power over the repositories.
- robmen 5y agoYes, exactly. Thank you.
- devwastaken 5y agoThat's fine, the point given is that when orgs push for it, and they're doing so like they did here, that's a massive red flag that whom you're working with is not qualified to be doing that work. Call it an "org smell".
- Zababa 5y agoI also really dislike the fact that code of conducts usually present a very american-centric view, sometimes even a silicon valley-centric view, for projects that are supposed to be open to people all over the world.
- robmen 5y agoWhat? Code of Conduct says stuff like, don't be mean to other people. It's a lot like: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- krageon 5y agoThey generally have a strictly US-history based view of how to treat other people and deal with their insecurities and problems. They're also invariably passive-aggressive and just plain hostile in places.
- oaiey 5y agoWhen you are in a stage of pulling CoC rules out, you are already nuclear and hostility is already ongoing. They are US based, yes, but they are usually good rules. Whether a CoC is bad or good is in the hands of the humans enforcing it. The .NET Foundation shows terrible human to human handling of a non CoC related topic.
- krageon 5y agoA CoC is always toxic, because it is the flag of a moderating team that is not adult enough to recognise that you can tell someone "no" without having some sort of "legal body" to point to.
- detaro 5y agoMore importantly, a CoC is a commitment by the moderation team to follow a certain standard, instead of giving it a position of "whatever we say is right, if we don't act, sucks to be you". (And at the same time, it's just that, a commitment, it can still be ignored or misused, it's not an automatic fix for anything)
- krageon 5y ago
- BigRedDog1669 5y agoI think the problem for current members is that they gave away their copyrights for some small benefits (code signing and DNF branding??). Which might have been shortsighted but I think at the time it seemed like the DNF was going to give them more benefits. So they would probably have to create a new project name and stop using the old accounts?
- robmen 5y agoNot in my case. The article explains how the copyright transfer was executed.
- BigRedDog1669 5y agoThanks, I read your article, but I was under the impression that when you joined DNF they acquired your copyright from your previous sponsor foundation which happened on your decision?
- robmen 5y agoYes but I never had the copyright in the first place. This isn't about the copyright. I know I don't own it. This is about control of the project.