3 ms·

I asked, what are examples of beliefs that are excluded by CoCs? Most CoCs I've seen simply state a variation of "don't be an asshole", "don't act like some pe

by olliej 4y ago

I asked, what are examples of beliefs that are excluded by CoCs? Most CoCs I've seen simply state a variation of "don't be an asshole", "don't act like some people aren't actually humans", etc - which seems reasonable to me: being an asshole drives away contributors, treating some people as subhuman has a similar effect. I have yet to see a CoC that limits beliefs (e.g. "no christians", "no muslims", "no atheists"), nor politics (e.g. "no democrats", "no republicans", etc), nor any other group really - I have certainly never seen any CoC that excluded sexuality or biology, and I would love an example because I think that kind of discrimination is important to acknowledge and avoid. I'm sure that you could find some smaller projects that do shit like the above, but by and large CoCs are generally boring "respect other people in the community" drivel.

jeroenhd 4y ago
You can read the CoC here: https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC/blob/aecd158d3c9fce7e42143cba6e20e99a73576f75/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC/blob/aecd158d3c9fce7e42143c... Doesn't seem to exclude any normal behaviour. Considering the torrent of transphobic posts related to this issue, this could be a hostile account takeover or maybe a transphobic developer. I associate the language used here with 4chan above all else, though some far-right groups use the same lingo.
- phonicate 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
kelseyfrog 4y ago
The SQLite CoE[1] comes to mind. It is the one that gets closest to exclusionary[2], but even so it's still generally well-regarded on HN when it's discussed.[3][4]. 1. https://sqlite.org/codeofethics.html https://sqlite.org/codeofethics.html 2. In that it assumes a Christian God. Rules: 1, 10, 21, 41, 42, 49, 50, 58, 60, 62, 70, 72. 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18273530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18273530 4. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18313131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18313131
- olliej 4y ago
  Oh, woof that's quite the CoE :-O
wisnoskij 4y ago
I had not even read the CoC at that point. But it is somewhat similar in practise to the old Discord stuff. Hateful exclusionary Dog whistling mostly, nothing outright actionable, nothing you could take to court, but well understood what it means and how certain people will be treated under it. The current rules under Lenny are ~dont be an asshole, dont cause drama, respect people.~ And yet people are lying about, brigading, spamming, and trying to destroy the project (and apparently harassing and sending threatening messages to Lenny) because he did not adopt a different CoC.
- nalllar 4y ago
  There is a big difference between "did not adopt a different CoC" and "removed all the other maintainers from the project and unilaterally deleted a CoC which had been around for a long time". As far as I can tell, your message is itself misinformation.
  - wisnoskij 4y ago
    If you look at the github history, it looks like people were literally griefing and deleting all of polymc. So it looks like he did not remove developers until after they threw a temper tantrum and started trying to destroy the project. What is a owner supposed to do when people you gave authority to start accepting PRs that delete all the content or replace the readme.md with trolly memes and harassment? OR maybe some were removed before. All I know is clearly this targeted harassment campaign are not being forthright and truthful, otherwise the github history would not show what it shows.
    - None4U 4y ago
      Can you link to which commit you're talking about? Have you verified it's not from a fork or a PR?
      - wisnoskij 4y ago
        Hmm, maybe I just dont understand github. I have only ever done one PR. I see people approved (https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC/pull/1243 https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC/pull/1243) and took that to mean PolyMC devs approved it, but maybe the forker approved his own fork and that has nothing to do with polymc devs?
readsadhours 4y ago
The original(?) one was not great as it contained exclusionary/discriminatory rules. See the "We will not act on complaints regarding" section https://web.archive.org/web/20160304034554/http://todogroup.org/opencodeofconduct/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160304034554/http://todogroup.... I am not aware of any modern CoC containing such section.
- olliej 4y ago
  What was discriminatory in the "We will not act on complaints regarding" section? * ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ These aren't real things though - they're usually brought up in the context of methods to try and address underlying biases due to historical ("reverse" -racism, -sexism), or that I have never even heard of anyone claiming 'cisphobia' so I am unaware of when/how that would be claimed. * Reasonable communication of boundaries... Seems like there's nothing to discuss here at all - once a person says "stop talking to me" you can move on * Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts No one owes anyone their time, this is all stuff that has been covered extensively, and is easily googleable. * Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial If anything this seems lax compared to many current CoCs that expect/require professional communication. This is "person X came across as angry/belittling/dismissive and it makes me upset" isn't something that they'll act on. * Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions e.g the CoC won't act on someone complaining that someone else criticized racist, sexist, cissexist, etc behaviour. Again, I fail to see the "exclusionary/discriminatory" rules. I see the bigger issue with this section is that it makes an explicit list of things that don't matter and will be ignored. This is tricky as it means they ignore things that I would say should not be ignored, and vice versa. It also kind of means any kind of assholery that comes up in future isn't explicitly covered, so what rule applies?, etc

by olliej 4y ago

jeroenhd 4y ago

You can read the CoC here: https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC/blob/aecd158d3c9fce7e42143cba6e20e99a73576f75/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC/blob/aecd158d3c9fce7e42143c... Doesn't seem to exclude any normal behaviour. Considering the torrent of transphobic posts related to this issue, this could be a hostile account takeover or maybe a transphobic developer. I associate the language used here with 4chan above all else, though some far-right groups use the same lingo.

phonicate 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

kelseyfrog 4y ago

The SQLite CoE[1] comes to mind. It is the one that gets closest to exclusionary[2], but even so it's still generally well-regarded on HN when it's discussed.[3][4]. 1. https://sqlite.org/codeofethics.html https://sqlite.org/codeofethics.html 2. In that it assumes a Christian God. Rules: 1, 10, 21, 41, 42, 49, 50, 58, 60, 62, 70, 72. 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18273530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18273530 4. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18313131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18313131

olliej 4y ago
Oh, woof that's quite the CoE :-O

wisnoskij 4y ago

I had not even read the CoC at that point. But it is somewhat similar in practise to the old Discord stuff. Hateful exclusionary Dog whistling mostly, nothing outright actionable, nothing you could take to court, but well understood what it means and how certain people will be treated under it. The current rules under Lenny are ~dont be an asshole, dont cause drama, respect people.~ And yet people are lying about, brigading, spamming, and trying to destroy the project (and apparently harassing and sending threatening messages to Lenny) because he did not adopt a different CoC.

nalllar 4y ago
There is a big difference between "did not adopt a different CoC" and "removed all the other maintainers from the project and unilaterally deleted a CoC which had been around for a long time". As far as I can tell, your message is itself misinformation.
- wisnoskij 4y ago
  If you look at the github history, it looks like people were literally griefing and deleting all of polymc. So it looks like he did not remove developers until after they threw a temper tantrum and started trying to destroy the project. What is a owner supposed to do when people you gave authority to start accepting PRs that delete all the content or replace the readme.md with trolly memes and harassment? OR maybe some were removed before. All I know is clearly this targeted harassment campaign are not being forthright and truthful, otherwise the github history would not show what it shows.
  - None4U 4y ago
    Can you link to which commit you're talking about? Have you verified it's not from a fork or a PR?
    - wisnoskij 4y ago
      Hmm, maybe I just dont understand github. I have only ever done one PR. I see people approved (https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC/pull/1243 https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC/pull/1243) and took that to mean PolyMC devs approved it, but maybe the forker approved his own fork and that has nothing to do with polymc devs?

readsadhours 4y ago

The original(?) one was not great as it contained exclusionary/discriminatory rules. See the "We will not act on complaints regarding" section https://web.archive.org/web/20160304034554/http://todogroup.org/opencodeofconduct/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160304034554/http://todogroup.... I am not aware of any modern CoC containing such section.

olliej 4y ago
What was discriminatory in the "We will not act on complaints regarding" section? * ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ These aren't real things though - they're usually brought up in the context of methods to try and address underlying biases due to historical ("reverse" -racism, -sexism), or that I have never even heard of anyone claiming 'cisphobia' so I am unaware of when/how that would be claimed. * Reasonable communication of boundaries... Seems like there's nothing to discuss here at all - once a person says "stop talking to me" you can move on * Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts No one owes anyone their time, this is all stuff that has been covered extensively, and is easily googleable. * Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial If anything this seems lax compared to many current CoCs that expect/require professional communication. This is "person X came across as angry/belittling/dismissive and it makes me upset" isn't something that they'll act on. * Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions e.g the CoC won't act on someone complaining that someone else criticized racist, sexist, cissexist, etc behaviour. Again, I fail to see the "exclusionary/discriminatory" rules. I see the bigger issue with this section is that it makes an explicit list of things that don't matter and will be ignored. This is tricky as it means they ignore things that I would say should not be ignored, and vice versa. It also kind of means any kind of assholery that comes up in future isn't explicitly covered, so what rule applies?, etc