6 ms·

A big part of a CoC that this article, as most discussions on the topic, miss is that they provide a signal to new contributors from marginalized groups, who ma

A big part of a CoC that this article, as most discussions on the topic, miss is that they provide a signal to new contributors from marginalized groups, who may have faced abuse or violence in other spaces, that this community will be safe for them to contribute to and - as many anti-CoC folk like to say - get on with the tech. Not having a CoC doesn't mean a project is going to be unsafe to work in. But it means when another community member refuses to work with you, or belittles your work constantly, there is nothing to be done. For many, why take the risk. This means that projects are starving themselves of contributors because they don't create an environment that is safe. Ruby's "CoC" is actually a fantastic example of why you need to spell it out too. "Participants are expected to be tolerant of opposing views." is often weaponized by abusers who like to paint basic requests like "please use my chosen name" as "not being tolerant".

Ragnarork 1y ago
Well a big reason this is missed is people discussing it are not part of these groups and mainly saw this as an annoyance. I can agree that heavy & strict CoCs can be daunting and probably overkill for small open source projects. And they're far from flawless, as shown by the Rust mods resignation incidents. But to say they're useless and anti-meritocratic is to forget (and/or silence) these people that wanted to contribute in an environment where they wouldn't feel threatened (incidentally, sometimes despite being skillful contributors, so much so for the supposed meritocracy of the CoC-less projects). I'm not sure strict CoCs are the answers to these real problems, but this feels like dismissing these problems altogether.
mytailorisrich 1y ago
> to new contributors from marginalized groups, For software projects that are overwhelmingly conducted online the very concept of "marginalized group" is close to irrelevant and meaningless [1]. I think what happens is that some people want to be very, very vocal about whatever "group" they belong to and want to feel offended and oppressed. In recent years, arguments and campaigns against specific technical terms ('master', 'blacklist', even 'legacy code' spring to mind) are examples of this, IMHO. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...
- thrance 1y ago
  Do you believe that online harassment is completely made up and never happened to anyone ever? Because it sounds like you do.
  - ishouldbework 1y ago
    [dead]
- lowsong 1y ago
  > For software projects that are overwhelmingly conducted online the very concept of "marginalized group" is close to irrelevant I wish this were true, but it simply isn't. If a group is full of white cis heterosexual guys and someone turns up with a random screen name and says nothing about themselves, everyone assumes they are also a white cis hetero guy even if they're not. The implication is "you have to conform, and if you don't then you don't belong". The reality is that for many people, their mere public existence is seen as a political statement. Often times asking for the most simple of accommodations or changes is seen as "being vocal" or starting an argument. I'll give you a hypothetical. Let's say a group of developers is all-male, and a leader starts off every meeting with "hey guys". Then, a developer who is a woman joins the project. They ask that leader "When you say it like that it implicitly excludes me, It would mean a lot to me if you said 'everyone' instead." I think that's a pretty reasonable request, it asks very little of the leader (to change one word), has no impact for everyone else, and means a lot to some. But to many, many people that would be viewed as "suppressing speech" or "weaponizing oppression".
  - majorchord 1y ago
    > everyone assumes they are also a white cis hetero guy even if they're not Hard disagree. And how is this even relevant? > The implication is "you have to conform, and if you don't then you don't belong". Conform to what, being nice? That was already the case. A group is very unlikely to change their ways regardless, especially just because you barge in and say you are marginalized and start getting offended at things. For one, "hey guys" is often said by people of every possible group known to humankind, but also if you really wanted to, you can ask them to use a different term without saying you are part of some marginalized (or any) group at all. The fact that they belong to some group is still (IMO) meaningless in this context, the reality is that they want to play politics and try to get people to change how things operate... you don't need to be part of any group to do that. IMO that's just being difficult. Maybe you believe it is necessary to identify yourself online as belonging to some group, perhaps in order to force a change, but again I think this is just trying to play politics where it's often not welcome. If online discourse can exist without people even knowing this much about a person, then I think it's far less likely that they will be targeted for belonging to a group that people are not even aware they belong to. I'm not saying people need to hide, but I think it's just easier if people can assume "on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog"... if nothing else simply because some people suck, and it's easier to get along in a purely technical project if we don't know that much about you personally.
throwaway2046 1y ago
> marginalized groups, who may have faced abuse or violence in other spaces Can you cite examples of users facing abuse or violence while contributing to a tech project? And how exactly does a CoC guarantee the safety you mentioned? > when another community member refuses to work with you Members are free to choose who to work with regardless of whether a CoC exists or not. > belittles your work constantly Your work may not be up to the project's standards and anyone pointing that out may hurt your feelings, and that's fine. You can't expect project maintainers to coddle each contributor when there's work to be done. Most CoCs are at odds with that because they value contributors' feelings over clear communication that helps a project advance. > there is nothing to be done You could communicate your grievances to the project maintainers directly, but you're not guaranteed a reply even with a CoC. In fact I'd argue that with a CoC it's easier for maintainers to dismiss criticism by labeling it as "non welcoming" or "non inclusive" or any other loose emotionally-driven term.
k33n 1y ago
Just say your name and people will call you by that name. Politely request pronoun use if you must, but don't expect everyone to remember or even care -- especially if you're using anything but she/her or he/him. If we accept either side's definition of who the "real abusers" are, then politics will continue to hobble projects. If you are starved of people to discuss your political views with, it's the wrong thing to do to vomit those out in a programming thread. Go make some real friends if you're looking to do that. Not everyone will see the world the way you do.
kelnos 1y ago
> But it means when another community member refuses to work with you, or belittles your work constantly, there is nothing to be done. No it doesn't. It just means that there isn't a formal process. The aggrieved party can always contact the project leaders/maintainers, and lodge a complaint. Sure, the leaders may not do anything with your complaint, but a CoC doesn't guarantee that they will either (even if it does give you a warm fuzzy feeling up-front that they might). I find it incredibly infantilizing this idea that people can't be good to each other, or people can't feel safe, without some sort of document that lays out behavior expectations. It's so so simple: don't be a dick to people. If someone is being a dick to you, find someone with authority and send them the evidence. If they handle it to your satisfaction, great. If not, stay away from that project, because it's run by people who at worst don't care about you, or at best are inept at handling this sort of thing (and in either case, a CoC is not going to make it better). For leaders/maintainers, grow a spine. If someone is behaving badly (regardless of whether or not someone complains), talk to them and give them a chance to improve. If their behavior gets better, great. If not, eject them from the community. If they or others aren't happy with your reaction, that's their problem, not yours.

Ragnarork 1y ago

Well a big reason this is missed is people discussing it are not part of these groups and mainly saw this as an annoyance. I can agree that heavy & strict CoCs can be daunting and probably overkill for small open source projects. And they're far from flawless, as shown by the Rust mods resignation incidents. But to say they're useless and anti-meritocratic is to forget (and/or silence) these people that wanted to contribute in an environment where they wouldn't feel threatened (incidentally, sometimes despite being skillful contributors, so much so for the supposed meritocracy of the CoC-less projects). I'm not sure strict CoCs are the answers to these real problems, but this feels like dismissing these problems altogether.

mytailorisrich 1y ago

> to new contributors from marginalized groups, For software projects that are overwhelmingly conducted online the very concept of "marginalized group" is close to irrelevant and meaningless [1]. I think what happens is that some people want to be very, very vocal about whatever "group" they belong to and want to feel offended and oppressed. In recent years, arguments and campaigns against specific technical terms ('master', 'blacklist', even 'legacy code' spring to mind) are examples of this, IMHO. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...

thrance 1y ago
Do you believe that online harassment is completely made up and never happened to anyone ever? Because it sounds like you do.
- ishouldbework 1y ago
  [dead]
lowsong 1y ago
> For software projects that are overwhelmingly conducted online the very concept of "marginalized group" is close to irrelevant I wish this were true, but it simply isn't. If a group is full of white cis heterosexual guys and someone turns up with a random screen name and says nothing about themselves, everyone assumes they are also a white cis hetero guy even if they're not. The implication is "you have to conform, and if you don't then you don't belong". The reality is that for many people, their mere public existence is seen as a political statement. Often times asking for the most simple of accommodations or changes is seen as "being vocal" or starting an argument. I'll give you a hypothetical. Let's say a group of developers is all-male, and a leader starts off every meeting with "hey guys". Then, a developer who is a woman joins the project. They ask that leader "When you say it like that it implicitly excludes me, It would mean a lot to me if you said 'everyone' instead." I think that's a pretty reasonable request, it asks very little of the leader (to change one word), has no impact for everyone else, and means a lot to some. But to many, many people that would be viewed as "suppressing speech" or "weaponizing oppression".
- majorchord 1y ago
  > everyone assumes they are also a white cis hetero guy even if they're not Hard disagree. And how is this even relevant? > The implication is "you have to conform, and if you don't then you don't belong". Conform to what, being nice? That was already the case. A group is very unlikely to change their ways regardless, especially just because you barge in and say you are marginalized and start getting offended at things. For one, "hey guys" is often said by people of every possible group known to humankind, but also if you really wanted to, you can ask them to use a different term without saying you are part of some marginalized (or any) group at all. The fact that they belong to some group is still (IMO) meaningless in this context, the reality is that they want to play politics and try to get people to change how things operate... you don't need to be part of any group to do that. IMO that's just being difficult. Maybe you believe it is necessary to identify yourself online as belonging to some group, perhaps in order to force a change, but again I think this is just trying to play politics where it's often not welcome. If online discourse can exist without people even knowing this much about a person, then I think it's far less likely that they will be targeted for belonging to a group that people are not even aware they belong to. I'm not saying people need to hide, but I think it's just easier if people can assume "on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog"... if nothing else simply because some people suck, and it's easier to get along in a purely technical project if we don't know that much about you personally.

throwaway2046 1y ago

> marginalized groups, who may have faced abuse or violence in other spaces Can you cite examples of users facing abuse or violence while contributing to a tech project? And how exactly does a CoC guarantee the safety you mentioned? > when another community member refuses to work with you Members are free to choose who to work with regardless of whether a CoC exists or not. > belittles your work constantly Your work may not be up to the project's standards and anyone pointing that out may hurt your feelings, and that's fine. You can't expect project maintainers to coddle each contributor when there's work to be done. Most CoCs are at odds with that because they value contributors' feelings over clear communication that helps a project advance. > there is nothing to be done You could communicate your grievances to the project maintainers directly, but you're not guaranteed a reply even with a CoC. In fact I'd argue that with a CoC it's easier for maintainers to dismiss criticism by labeling it as "non welcoming" or "non inclusive" or any other loose emotionally-driven term.

k33n 1y ago

Just say your name and people will call you by that name. Politely request pronoun use if you must, but don't expect everyone to remember or even care -- especially if you're using anything but she/her or he/him. If we accept either side's definition of who the "real abusers" are, then politics will continue to hobble projects. If you are starved of people to discuss your political views with, it's the wrong thing to do to vomit those out in a programming thread. Go make some real friends if you're looking to do that. Not everyone will see the world the way you do.

kelnos 1y ago

> But it means when another community member refuses to work with you, or belittles your work constantly, there is nothing to be done. No it doesn't. It just means that there isn't a formal process. The aggrieved party can always contact the project leaders/maintainers, and lodge a complaint. Sure, the leaders may not do anything with your complaint, but a CoC doesn't guarantee that they will either (even if it does give you a warm fuzzy feeling up-front that they might). I find it incredibly infantilizing this idea that people can't be good to each other, or people can't feel safe, without some sort of document that lays out behavior expectations. It's so so simple: don't be a dick to people. If someone is being a dick to you, find someone with authority and send them the evidence. If they handle it to your satisfaction, great. If not, stay away from that project, because it's run by people who at worst don't care about you, or at best are inept at handling this sort of thing (and in either case, a CoC is not going to make it better). For leaders/maintainers, grow a spine. If someone is behaving badly (regardless of whether or not someone complains), talk to them and give them a chance to improve. If their behavior gets better, great. If not, eject them from the community. If they or others aren't happy with your reaction, that's their problem, not yours.