3 ms·

Not to mention that in the general case it seems desirable that a community can exist without needing a CoC. Being disappointed that some community out there is

by dcow 2y ago

Not to mention that in the general case it seems desirable that a community can exist without needing a CoC. Being disappointed that some community out there is doing just fine without CoC is a /really weird/ point to make in a marketing piece evangelizing how secure OpenBSD is as a technology. To the extent that it feels out of place and yes detracts. Some would even go so far as to argue that OpenBSD is second to none in security because they don’t give a shit about politics and tone in their community. They swiftly dismiss the wasted cycles spent on those in other communities, instead spending their precious time focusing on just being really good. The author sorta misses the plot point there.

hackernoops 2y ago
> /really weird/ That's only if you take CoC enjoyers at their word. It makes perfect sense when you realize it's not about advancing project or community, but rather controlfreak ideology.
- butter999 2y ago
  a.) They found it off-putting that OpenBSD was "proud" not to have a CoC, in the context of whether they would choose to work with them or to host the website themselves. Consider taking a moment to read the passage in question: https://isopenbsdsecu.re/about/ https://isopenbsdsecu.re/about/ This idea they were surprised a project succeeded without having a CoC is an artefact of this particular discussion, not something the author ever said or implied. It was in the same category as de Raadt swearing at people over email - they didn't anticipate a productive exchange if they reached out. That's it. If someone declares they reserve the right to treat people however they please, and then you observe them treating people in a way you don't want to be treated, and your conclusion is, "I don't think emailing this person is a good use of my time, I'm just going to host this website myself" - I find it hard to understand how anyone would find that objectionable, that seems simple, common sense, and largely neutral. b.) Whenever you have a large group of people collaborating for an extended period of time, you have incidents. There's drama. There's inappropriate behavior. It's just how it goes. It's a Murphy's Law thing. Eventually people sit down and say, "we've gotta set some ground rules." You probably signed a code of conduct at every school you attended and every job you've accepted. I know I have. You can disagree with that without viewing it as a conspiracy. It's a predictable result of being in a large community, and about as ideological as traffic lights.
  - dcow 2y ago
    I did read the page in question… You talk like it would be any different with the linux kernel. A CoC doesn’t govern whether you’re entitled to a productive discussion with the big maintainer. Theo swearing at one person cannot be extrapolated to swearing at all people. And in linux’s case it apparently doesn’t prevent good contributions from getting stonewalled and shunned (to the point of turning contributors away) by righteous zealots in the community anyway.
    - butter999 2y ago
      If you read the page then I don't understand why you continue to mischaracterize what it says. Eg, the page offers multiple examples of de Raadt swearing at people, which you characterize as "swearing at one person." Frankly, it makes me doubt your candor.
      - dcow 2y ago
        I was speaking rhetorically. I don't mean to imply there’s only one i stance of swearing. Anyway that’s not even the point. We know Theo is abrasive. It also makes good security. Weird to complain about “the community” on a page evangelizing the success of said community. If the author doesn't want to dive into the mailing list then good for them. Leave it at that.
        butter999 2y ago
        You weren't speaking rhetorically, you were mischaracterizing what the author said to weaken their statement. That's the most charitable way to describe it without parting from the facts. > If the author doesn't want to dive into the mailing list then good for them. Leave it at that. They did leave it at that.
        dcow 2y ago
        I was not. You can believe me or not. And no, the author whined about how he doesn’t like the icky openbsd community very much arguably out of place. (There are multiple people who have mentioned they think it’s out of place, at least.) That’s not leaving it at that. Leaving it at that implies no further action.

by dcow 2y ago

hackernoops 2y ago

> /really weird/ That's only if you take CoC enjoyers at their word. It makes perfect sense when you realize it's not about advancing project or community, but rather controlfreak ideology.

butter999 2y ago
a.) They found it off-putting that OpenBSD was "proud" not to have a CoC, in the context of whether they would choose to work with them or to host the website themselves. Consider taking a moment to read the passage in question: https://isopenbsdsecu.re/about/ https://isopenbsdsecu.re/about/ This idea they were surprised a project succeeded without having a CoC is an artefact of this particular discussion, not something the author ever said or implied. It was in the same category as de Raadt swearing at people over email - they didn't anticipate a productive exchange if they reached out. That's it. If someone declares they reserve the right to treat people however they please, and then you observe them treating people in a way you don't want to be treated, and your conclusion is, "I don't think emailing this person is a good use of my time, I'm just going to host this website myself" - I find it hard to understand how anyone would find that objectionable, that seems simple, common sense, and largely neutral. b.) Whenever you have a large group of people collaborating for an extended period of time, you have incidents. There's drama. There's inappropriate behavior. It's just how it goes. It's a Murphy's Law thing. Eventually people sit down and say, "we've gotta set some ground rules." You probably signed a code of conduct at every school you attended and every job you've accepted. I know I have. You can disagree with that without viewing it as a conspiracy. It's a predictable result of being in a large community, and about as ideological as traffic lights.
- dcow 2y ago
  I did read the page in question… You talk like it would be any different with the linux kernel. A CoC doesn’t govern whether you’re entitled to a productive discussion with the big maintainer. Theo swearing at one person cannot be extrapolated to swearing at all people. And in linux’s case it apparently doesn’t prevent good contributions from getting stonewalled and shunned (to the point of turning contributors away) by righteous zealots in the community anyway.
  - butter999 2y ago
    If you read the page then I don't understand why you continue to mischaracterize what it says. Eg, the page offers multiple examples of de Raadt swearing at people, which you characterize as "swearing at one person." Frankly, it makes me doubt your candor.
    - dcow 2y ago
      I was speaking rhetorically. I don't mean to imply there’s only one i stance of swearing. Anyway that’s not even the point. We know Theo is abrasive. It also makes good security. Weird to complain about “the community” on a page evangelizing the success of said community. If the author doesn't want to dive into the mailing list then good for them. Leave it at that.
      - butter999 2y ago
        You weren't speaking rhetorically, you were mischaracterizing what the author said to weaken their statement. That's the most charitable way to describe it without parting from the facts. > If the author doesn't want to dive into the mailing list then good for them. Leave it at that. They did leave it at that.
        dcow 2y ago
        I was not. You can believe me or not. And no, the author whined about how he doesn’t like the icky openbsd community very much arguably out of place. (There are multiple people who have mentioned they think it’s out of place, at least.) That’s not leaving it at that. Leaving it at that implies no further action.