4 ms·

Perhaps no user avoided it (though that seems unlikely), but can't you imagine why some contributors may have avoided it? Wouldn't that lack of potential contr

Perhaps no user avoided it (though that seems unlikely), but can't you imagine why some contributors may have avoided it? Wouldn't that lack of potential contributions be a material loss for the project?

quotemstr 5y ago
Who's to say that more contributors are turned off by Rust-style behavioral micromanagement? It's impossible to prove counterfactuals. All we can say for sure is that dozens of critical projects in the past reached an amazing level of quality and importance to humanity without tone police lurking in the background and supervising it all.
- couchand 5y ago
  If your greatest concern is some technical artifact and not the human beings in the community around you, kindly go touch grass.
  - quotemstr 5y ago
    It is more important to produce great works than it is to adhere to the behavioral strictures of internet activists. 100 years from now, people will recognize the name "Linux Torvalds". Who will remember the tone police? Linux is a major accomplishment and a boon for all humanity. All I see the hall monitors accomplishing is the production of drama.
    - couchand 5y ago
      These "internet activists" you spend so much effort maligning are simply reminding you that there is a human being on the other side of that screen. I'm not inside the Linux developers' world, but from the outside it seems like a much healthier, more vibrant place since Linus realized that he works with human beings.
      - FeepingCreature 5y ago
        > These "internet activists" you spend so much effort maligning are simply reminding you that there is a human being on the other side of that screen. Actually, primarily they're reminding me that there's a human being on the other side of the screen watching everything I do in case I fuck up. How this is supposed to make anyone want to participate is a mystery to me. edit: The weird thing to me is that these people are so hyper-vigilant to the damage bad behavior can do, and utterly blind to the idea that their own behavior can also be damaging. If I ever read a sentence like "we know that overmoderation and tone-policing can create toxic communities, and we're watching out for that" from a moderation team, I will know that this is a community that I can trust to be administered in an even-handed and fair manner. So far I have seen this once.
        canaus 5y ago
        What is a "fuck up" to you?
        FeepingCreature 5y ago
        Well, the question is rather- what is a "fuck up" to them? And to that- who knows? Certainly the point of a CoC is supposed to be to codify this, but I believe experience shows that its interpretation tends to be expansive, when the wording is not already expansive to begin with. At the end of the day, events like Curtis Yarvin, a person who has never harmed a fly, almost getting banned from Lambdaconf over "safety" concerns, demonstrate that the fuck-up may just be having a political difference of opinion with the group in question. (Analogously, and I say this as somebody who would vote Dems every time if they lived in the US, a moderation team that included at least one Trump voter would also assuage such concerns. Consider it a commitment to diversity.) edit: To be clear, I am not asking for anything resembling quotas; just any demonstration of the ability of the team to coexist with a person they have serious ideological disagreements with.
        canaus 5y ago
        I wasn't familiar with Curtis Yarvin, but in looking him up, you can't be serious, right? >Yarvin's online writings, many under his pseudonym Mencius Moldbug, convey blatantly racist views. He expresses the belief that white people are genetically endowed with higher IQs than black people. He has suggested race may determine whether individuals are better suited for slavery, and his writing has been interpreted as supportive of the institution of slavery. https://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/why-it-matters-that-an-obscure-programming-conference-is-hosting-mencius-moldbug.html https://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/why-it-matters-that-an-obs... You're upset that a Eugenics-lite writer was almost banned from a conference?
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > 100 years from now, people will recognize the name "Linux Torvalds". Yeah, and probably exactly like that.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    The purpose and greatest concern of a development team is and should be the development of a technical artifact.
- maxk42 5y ago
  I do wonder whether there's not some implicit benefit to this kind of management. Is it possible that by dissuading all but the most confident committers the project's contribution team self-selected for stronger devs? That would probably be bad for small OSS projects and good for kernels.

quotemstr 5y ago

Who's to say that more contributors are turned off by Rust-style behavioral micromanagement? It's impossible to prove counterfactuals. All we can say for sure is that dozens of critical projects in the past reached an amazing level of quality and importance to humanity without tone police lurking in the background and supervising it all.

couchand 5y ago
If your greatest concern is some technical artifact and not the human beings in the community around you, kindly go touch grass.
- quotemstr 5y ago
  It is more important to produce great works than it is to adhere to the behavioral strictures of internet activists. 100 years from now, people will recognize the name "Linux Torvalds". Who will remember the tone police? Linux is a major accomplishment and a boon for all humanity. All I see the hall monitors accomplishing is the production of drama.
  - couchand 5y ago
    These "internet activists" you spend so much effort maligning are simply reminding you that there is a human being on the other side of that screen. I'm not inside the Linux developers' world, but from the outside it seems like a much healthier, more vibrant place since Linus realized that he works with human beings.
    - FeepingCreature 5y ago
      > These "internet activists" you spend so much effort maligning are simply reminding you that there is a human being on the other side of that screen. Actually, primarily they're reminding me that there's a human being on the other side of the screen watching everything I do in case I fuck up. How this is supposed to make anyone want to participate is a mystery to me. edit: The weird thing to me is that these people are so hyper-vigilant to the damage bad behavior can do, and utterly blind to the idea that their own behavior can also be damaging. If I ever read a sentence like "we know that overmoderation and tone-policing can create toxic communities, and we're watching out for that" from a moderation team, I will know that this is a community that I can trust to be administered in an even-handed and fair manner. So far I have seen this once.
      - canaus 5y ago
        What is a "fuck up" to you?
        FeepingCreature 5y ago
        Well, the question is rather- what is a "fuck up" to them? And to that- who knows? Certainly the point of a CoC is supposed to be to codify this, but I believe experience shows that its interpretation tends to be expansive, when the wording is not already expansive to begin with. At the end of the day, events like Curtis Yarvin, a person who has never harmed a fly, almost getting banned from Lambdaconf over "safety" concerns, demonstrate that the fuck-up may just be having a political difference of opinion with the group in question. (Analogously, and I say this as somebody who would vote Dems every time if they lived in the US, a moderation team that included at least one Trump voter would also assuage such concerns. Consider it a commitment to diversity.) edit: To be clear, I am not asking for anything resembling quotas; just any demonstration of the ability of the team to coexist with a person they have serious ideological disagreements with.
        canaus 5y ago
        I wasn't familiar with Curtis Yarvin, but in looking him up, you can't be serious, right? >Yarvin's online writings, many under his pseudonym Mencius Moldbug, convey blatantly racist views. He expresses the belief that white people are genetically endowed with higher IQs than black people. He has suggested race may determine whether individuals are better suited for slavery, and his writing has been interpreted as supportive of the institution of slavery. https://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/why-it-matters-that-an-obscure-programming-conference-is-hosting-mencius-moldbug.html https://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/why-it-matters-that-an-obs... You're upset that a Eugenics-lite writer was almost banned from a conference?
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > 100 years from now, people will recognize the name "Linux Torvalds". Yeah, and probably exactly like that.
- jjk166 5y ago
  The purpose and greatest concern of a development team is and should be the development of a technical artifact.
maxk42 5y ago
I do wonder whether there's not some implicit benefit to this kind of management. Is it possible that by dissuading all but the most confident committers the project's contribution team self-selected for stronger devs? That would probably be bad for small OSS projects and good for kernels.