8 ms·

Of course it is. What if a contributor is harassing another team member? What if he/she is being openly racist/sexist/etc.?

Ticklee 5y ago
In my eyes someone is allowed to be as hateful as they want as long as they contribute good code.
- nopcode 5y ago
  Yes, and this is the policy of many long-running and successful FOSS projects (e.g. kernel developers). Rust however wanted something different and attracted a lot of "snowflakes" because of it.
  - ben-schaaf 5y ago
    The Kernel also has a code of conduct: https://www.kernel.org/code-of-conduct.html https://www.kernel.org/code-of-conduct.html.
    - wyager 5y ago
      This was added within the last 3 or so years as the result of an intentional social struggle to put a CoC on the kernel. It remains to be seen what the net effect of this on kernel development will be.
  - ziddoap 5y ago
    Can you explain to me what your definition of snowflake is? Is it anyone who doesn't agree with the ethos "In my eyes someone is allowed to be as hateful as they want as long as they contribute good code."? Genuinely asking, as it seems to appear several times throughout this topic and the only thing I can settle on is that it's used as a derogatory term for anyone who cares more about X or Y than the person calling them a snowflake. (Does asking make me a snowflake?)
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      "Someone who chooses to get offended about what others write or say" would be my working definition. I don't think being offended is a reasonable thing to be, generally.
      - rhn_mk1 5y ago
        Is getting offended about someone insulting you or who starts discussions which make people angry unreasonable? I'm genuinely curious, maybe I misunderstand what it means to be offended.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        Yes. People make themselves angry, people choose to take offense. The reasonable thing to do is not allow yourself to be provoked to upset or anger by someone else's communication. People you disagree with are easy to ignore, even if you find their opinions loathsome.
        eropple 5y ago
        "Just ignore people seeking to harm you specifically and severally" has historically been poor practice. And it's almost always advocated by people who have the upper hand in their own exchanges. Which is fascinating, isn't it?
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        We have a system of law and justice that is designed to prevent people actually visiting harm on eachother. We should draw the (very clear and very sharp) line at doing harmful things, and allow people to say whatever they want. The alternative we're seeing is an ever-expanding, ever-blurring definition of what is policed as "offensive", stifling innovation and fostering division.
        johnisgood 5y ago
        I cannot remember the last time I got offended by an insult. A little bit of stoicism goes a long way. It is up to you whether or not you get offended by an insult. I typically choose self-deprecating humor as a response to insults instead of wasting my energy getting angry.
  - bcrosby95 5y ago
    In general, people don't want to work with assholes. Doubly so if they aren't getting paid for it.
  - zzzbra 5y ago
    seems like a bad take
- folkrav 5y ago
  I'm genuinely curious: why should contributors have to endure someone's toxicity if something can be done about it? In professional settings, I've seen colleagues get fired over bad behavior, and not for the lack of competence - and I can safely say the team's morale and productivity went right up each time. I fail to see how this couldn't be applicable to open source projects that wish to do it as well, as you'll typically have to get involved quite a bit with these individuals if you're going to contribute.
  - canaus 5y ago
    And not even just contributors. Users of your project might not want to interact with your team. If I encounter a bug and want to create an issue, but I either see racism within communication, or just overall negativity in comments from members, why would I continue with your project? I could just as easily be subjected to it.
    - kazinator 5y ago
      > why would I continue with your project Because I have important stuff in my life that depends on it; business, workflows at work, IT infrastructure, ...
      - folkrav 5y ago
        If it's that important to you, it's likely in a professional setting, isn't it? I'd say most CoCs are perfectly reasonable, and you usually have to go out of your way to cross them in a professional software development environment.
        kazinator 5y ago
        > it's likely in a professional setting, isn't it? Not necessarily! > usually have to go out of your way to cross them in a professional software development environment I believe this subthread is about the situation of some example hypothetical person being a user of a project in which there are "bad" things going on (whether or not there is a CoC in place that is being violated). This user is not the one perpetrating abuse. Say that user reports some problem and is treated abusively or whatever. Or just learns about that kind of thing going on in the project, and disagrees with it. So question is, why would that user continue to use such a project. Well, there is the answer: people depend on stuff in ways that they just can't drop it because of someone's behavior.
- andybak 5y ago
  > In my eyes someone is allowed to be as hateful as they want as long as they contribute good code. I would argue that you don't literally mean that - or rather there are situations you could find yourself in that would result in your changing your mind on this. Although it's possible you're being slightly disingenuous and what you really mean is more "The thing I currently suspect is happening in the Rust team isn't something I would regard as serious". I suspect that's behind at least some of the responses on this thread.
- Sharlin 5y ago
  Really disingenuous. Even if you yourself don’t value civility and just being a good human being, a toxic team member may easily cause a net loss of good code, no matter what sort of 10x engineer they are themselves, due to the opportunity costs they incur.
- fastasucan 5y ago
  Sounds like a great way to end up with your team consisting of only one person. Not very effective. Do you expect everyone else to just endure that behavior?
- jrockway 5y ago
  What if the hate convinces 10 other people to stop contributing? You can still make a net-negative contribution even if you contribute something.
mistrial9 5y ago
what IF a person in a responsibility position is openly accused of being XYZ-phobic by attention-seeking, emotionally unstable netizens?
- jmull 5y ago
  Exactly. That's what a mod team should do: sort invalid accusations out from legitimate ones.
- vikarti 5y ago
  What if accusation is proven (and this person agrees with it) but said person does eir work really good. Should ey be forcefully removed from this position? What if there is no good replacement candidate at this time? p.s. pronouns used are from https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/495360fba7a46 https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/495360fba7a46 , I don't think singular they is correct thing.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Your PS seems conceited to me. Singular "they" is how the community of English-speakers handles this; it harks back to at least Shakespeare. It's miles more "correct" than any weird neologisms.
raxxorrax 5y ago
I have yet to see significant sexism/racism in open source, but I have seen an insurmountable amount of drama, bad behavior, prosecution and prejudice from people proclaiming to fight against it.
- sbergot 5y ago
  The author of the message is BurntSushi. I have seen him communicate multiple times before and he seems to be a reasonable and intelligent person. I cannot imagine that this action is frivolous.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    I believe it. I don't think it is a significant problem in OSS that we suddenly need behavior rules but there can still be instances of something like that occurring. The most convincing action was to not release details in my opinion.
- gopher_space 5y ago
  It's more about people vanishing or losing their marbles.

Ticklee 5y ago

In my eyes someone is allowed to be as hateful as they want as long as they contribute good code.

nopcode 5y ago
Yes, and this is the policy of many long-running and successful FOSS projects (e.g. kernel developers). Rust however wanted something different and attracted a lot of "snowflakes" because of it.
- ben-schaaf 5y ago
  The Kernel also has a code of conduct: https://www.kernel.org/code-of-conduct.html https://www.kernel.org/code-of-conduct.html.
  - wyager 5y ago
    This was added within the last 3 or so years as the result of an intentional social struggle to put a CoC on the kernel. It remains to be seen what the net effect of this on kernel development will be.
- ziddoap 5y ago
  Can you explain to me what your definition of snowflake is? Is it anyone who doesn't agree with the ethos "In my eyes someone is allowed to be as hateful as they want as long as they contribute good code."? Genuinely asking, as it seems to appear several times throughout this topic and the only thing I can settle on is that it's used as a derogatory term for anyone who cares more about X or Y than the person calling them a snowflake. (Does asking make me a snowflake?)
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    "Someone who chooses to get offended about what others write or say" would be my working definition. I don't think being offended is a reasonable thing to be, generally.
    - rhn_mk1 5y ago
      Is getting offended about someone insulting you or who starts discussions which make people angry unreasonable? I'm genuinely curious, maybe I misunderstand what it means to be offended.
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        Yes. People make themselves angry, people choose to take offense. The reasonable thing to do is not allow yourself to be provoked to upset or anger by someone else's communication. People you disagree with are easy to ignore, even if you find their opinions loathsome.
        eropple 5y ago
        "Just ignore people seeking to harm you specifically and severally" has historically been poor practice. And it's almost always advocated by people who have the upper hand in their own exchanges. Which is fascinating, isn't it?
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        We have a system of law and justice that is designed to prevent people actually visiting harm on eachother. We should draw the (very clear and very sharp) line at doing harmful things, and allow people to say whatever they want. The alternative we're seeing is an ever-expanding, ever-blurring definition of what is policed as "offensive", stifling innovation and fostering division.
        johnisgood 5y ago
        I cannot remember the last time I got offended by an insult. A little bit of stoicism goes a long way. It is up to you whether or not you get offended by an insult. I typically choose self-deprecating humor as a response to insults instead of wasting my energy getting angry.
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  In general, people don't want to work with assholes. Doubly so if they aren't getting paid for it.
- zzzbra 5y ago
  seems like a bad take
folkrav 5y ago
I'm genuinely curious: why should contributors have to endure someone's toxicity if something can be done about it? In professional settings, I've seen colleagues get fired over bad behavior, and not for the lack of competence - and I can safely say the team's morale and productivity went right up each time. I fail to see how this couldn't be applicable to open source projects that wish to do it as well, as you'll typically have to get involved quite a bit with these individuals if you're going to contribute.
- canaus 5y ago
  And not even just contributors. Users of your project might not want to interact with your team. If I encounter a bug and want to create an issue, but I either see racism within communication, or just overall negativity in comments from members, why would I continue with your project? I could just as easily be subjected to it.
  - kazinator 5y ago
    > why would I continue with your project Because I have important stuff in my life that depends on it; business, workflows at work, IT infrastructure, ...
    - folkrav 5y ago
      If it's that important to you, it's likely in a professional setting, isn't it? I'd say most CoCs are perfectly reasonable, and you usually have to go out of your way to cross them in a professional software development environment.
      - kazinator 5y ago
        > it's likely in a professional setting, isn't it? Not necessarily! > usually have to go out of your way to cross them in a professional software development environment I believe this subthread is about the situation of some example hypothetical person being a user of a project in which there are "bad" things going on (whether or not there is a CoC in place that is being violated). This user is not the one perpetrating abuse. Say that user reports some problem and is treated abusively or whatever. Or just learns about that kind of thing going on in the project, and disagrees with it. So question is, why would that user continue to use such a project. Well, there is the answer: people depend on stuff in ways that they just can't drop it because of someone's behavior.
andybak 5y ago
> In my eyes someone is allowed to be as hateful as they want as long as they contribute good code. I would argue that you don't literally mean that - or rather there are situations you could find yourself in that would result in your changing your mind on this. Although it's possible you're being slightly disingenuous and what you really mean is more "The thing I currently suspect is happening in the Rust team isn't something I would regard as serious". I suspect that's behind at least some of the responses on this thread.
Sharlin 5y ago
Really disingenuous. Even if you yourself don’t value civility and just being a good human being, a toxic team member may easily cause a net loss of good code, no matter what sort of 10x engineer they are themselves, due to the opportunity costs they incur.
fastasucan 5y ago
Sounds like a great way to end up with your team consisting of only one person. Not very effective. Do you expect everyone else to just endure that behavior?
jrockway 5y ago
What if the hate convinces 10 other people to stop contributing? You can still make a net-negative contribution even if you contribute something.

mistrial9 5y ago

what IF a person in a responsibility position is openly accused of being XYZ-phobic by attention-seeking, emotionally unstable netizens?

jmull 5y ago
Exactly. That's what a mod team should do: sort invalid accusations out from legitimate ones.
vikarti 5y ago
What if accusation is proven (and this person agrees with it) but said person does eir work really good. Should ey be forcefully removed from this position? What if there is no good replacement candidate at this time? p.s. pronouns used are from https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/495360fba7a46 https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/495360fba7a46 , I don't think singular they is correct thing.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Your PS seems conceited to me. Singular "they" is how the community of English-speakers handles this; it harks back to at least Shakespeare. It's miles more "correct" than any weird neologisms.

raxxorrax 5y ago

I have yet to see significant sexism/racism in open source, but I have seen an insurmountable amount of drama, bad behavior, prosecution and prejudice from people proclaiming to fight against it.

sbergot 5y ago
The author of the message is BurntSushi. I have seen him communicate multiple times before and he seems to be a reasonable and intelligent person. I cannot imagine that this action is frivolous.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I believe it. I don't think it is a significant problem in OSS that we suddenly need behavior rules but there can still be instances of something like that occurring. The most convincing action was to not release details in my opinion.
gopher_space 5y ago
It's more about people vanishing or losing their marbles.