6 ms·

> DHH condemned detailed and strict CoC like the Contributor Covenant as a “trojan horse” that should be purged from projects. Of course he would, he has made

> DHH condemned detailed and strict CoC like the Contributor Covenant as a “trojan horse” that should be purged from projects. Of course he would, he has made several transphobic remarks in the past. Normal people shouldn't take issue with the mere existence of a markdown document that basically says "don't be a dick to people because of who they are". Ostracizing people from projects because you are prejudiced against them, now that hinders open-source. How many potential contributors were scared away by such remarks?

u_sama 1y ago
I think the issue with CoC is that they have been used in the past by politically motivated (notably on the left) activists to take control of a project and ensure a political line. You may agree with such a political line like anti-fascism, inclusion and what not. But the issue is that you have opened the door to politics inside what ought to be a technical area, and historically, politics change, the ideas you agree on today will be pushed to more extremes (some you might disagree with) you will not be comfortable with and eventually you will be alienated from them completely. But when that happens, you will have no recourse and will eventually be purged (like those before you, being called the trendy workd of the moment, fascist or woke) too because you accepted the opening of the door to such behaviours, your only solution will be silence. As for examples of that happening, NixOS comes to mind, the Rust debacle too. Also another issue you might not see, you are ironically also enforcing a dominant idea (your american culture) onto the rest of the world thus creating a hierarchy where your ideas are right and the other cultural operating systems are wrong.
- majorchord 1y ago
  > the issue is that you have opened the door to politics inside what ought to be a technical area Unless you're willing and able to enforce a BDFL stance, I don't think there is actually any alternative. As soon as people start disagreeing with any choices you make, and it's not well-understood that "what I say goes", you're going to have people who want to try to change how you run things, and that is the definition of politics. Either you force your own politics on people, or you open yourself up to accepting changes from other people... which is still politics.
  - u_sama 1y ago
    I actually agree, which is why I have high hopes for Ladybird and such. The best type of government is not a democracy but an benevolent dictatorship (also historically called the philosopher-king). You force the politics of neutrality on people, but doing so leads to people on the extremes attacking you and labelling you with unacceptable names like what is happening with DHH and the Omarchy thing
- thrance 1y ago
  I am not American, and I don't think that "trans people have a right to participate in society" is a political take. The real issue is with people thinking that "trans people shouldn't exist" is a valid opinion to hold, and I don't feel particularly bad for them being "silenced". If this view falls in the American left's umbrella, then I'm sorry to say: they're objectively right and fuck the guys who hold anti-human views.
  - wastle 1y ago
    The actual divisive issue is whether people who say they are the opposite sex to what they really are should be granted access to spaces that are designated for the sole use of the opposite sex. This gets relabelled by activists for the trans ideological cause with phrases like "the right to participate in society" and even "the right to exist", but these are so far from what is actually being demanded that it's essentially just misinformation and false appeal to emotion.
    - thrance 1y ago
      Spaces such as online open-source communities? This is nonsensical, listen to yourself. Your anti-human bias shows and it's actually disturbing. What spaces are you even talking about and why do you think people that look, act, talk and think exactly like their members should be barred from them? > trans ideological cause Got it, demanding human rights apply to trans people is now an "ideological stance". The American Overton window is so far right, it's crazy people can hold such views and think they're being reasonable.
      - wastle 1y ago
        No, typically this issue is focused around spaces like female-only refuges and safe spaces, locker rooms and changing rooms, prisons, sports competitions, and so on. The divisive point being whether males who say they are female should be refused or granted access. That you have chosen to characterise this with wording like "anti-human bias" and "demanding human rights apply" further illustrates my point.
kelnos 1y ago
I agree with you in general with your automatic skepticism with something DHH might say on this topic, but: > Normal people shouldn't take issue with the mere existence of a markdown document that basically says "don't be a dick to people because of who they are". But that's not what it says. Maybe you can in some squinty way reduce it to that, but that's not all these sorts of documents say, and that's the problem. Most CoCs are fairly specific and strict in what they say people should and shouldn't do, and some of them (like the Contributor Covenant) even includes a process for submitting complaints, and addressing those complaints. A CoC that just says -- explicitly, without a huge amount of other language -- "don't be a dick" is more or less what ESR and DHH are advocating for. The article goes into detail as to why the author believes that a long, detailed CoC is harmful, and why even if it does essentially just say "don't be a dick", that can cause lots of problems for projects.
GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
this whole article and the resulting hn thread is a nerd snipe. of course esr and DHH are against codes of conduct. they act like bigoted assholes and then throw a fit when people treat them as such.

u_sama 1y ago

I think the issue with CoC is that they have been used in the past by politically motivated (notably on the left) activists to take control of a project and ensure a political line. You may agree with such a political line like anti-fascism, inclusion and what not. But the issue is that you have opened the door to politics inside what ought to be a technical area, and historically, politics change, the ideas you agree on today will be pushed to more extremes (some you might disagree with) you will not be comfortable with and eventually you will be alienated from them completely. But when that happens, you will have no recourse and will eventually be purged (like those before you, being called the trendy workd of the moment, fascist or woke) too because you accepted the opening of the door to such behaviours, your only solution will be silence. As for examples of that happening, NixOS comes to mind, the Rust debacle too. Also another issue you might not see, you are ironically also enforcing a dominant idea (your american culture) onto the rest of the world thus creating a hierarchy where your ideas are right and the other cultural operating systems are wrong.

majorchord 1y ago
> the issue is that you have opened the door to politics inside what ought to be a technical area Unless you're willing and able to enforce a BDFL stance, I don't think there is actually any alternative. As soon as people start disagreeing with any choices you make, and it's not well-understood that "what I say goes", you're going to have people who want to try to change how you run things, and that is the definition of politics. Either you force your own politics on people, or you open yourself up to accepting changes from other people... which is still politics.
- u_sama 1y ago
  I actually agree, which is why I have high hopes for Ladybird and such. The best type of government is not a democracy but an benevolent dictatorship (also historically called the philosopher-king). You force the politics of neutrality on people, but doing so leads to people on the extremes attacking you and labelling you with unacceptable names like what is happening with DHH and the Omarchy thing
thrance 1y ago
I am not American, and I don't think that "trans people have a right to participate in society" is a political take. The real issue is with people thinking that "trans people shouldn't exist" is a valid opinion to hold, and I don't feel particularly bad for them being "silenced". If this view falls in the American left's umbrella, then I'm sorry to say: they're objectively right and fuck the guys who hold anti-human views.
- wastle 1y ago
  The actual divisive issue is whether people who say they are the opposite sex to what they really are should be granted access to spaces that are designated for the sole use of the opposite sex. This gets relabelled by activists for the trans ideological cause with phrases like "the right to participate in society" and even "the right to exist", but these are so far from what is actually being demanded that it's essentially just misinformation and false appeal to emotion.
  - thrance 1y ago
    Spaces such as online open-source communities? This is nonsensical, listen to yourself. Your anti-human bias shows and it's actually disturbing. What spaces are you even talking about and why do you think people that look, act, talk and think exactly like their members should be barred from them? > trans ideological cause Got it, demanding human rights apply to trans people is now an "ideological stance". The American Overton window is so far right, it's crazy people can hold such views and think they're being reasonable.
    - wastle 1y ago
      No, typically this issue is focused around spaces like female-only refuges and safe spaces, locker rooms and changing rooms, prisons, sports competitions, and so on. The divisive point being whether males who say they are female should be refused or granted access. That you have chosen to characterise this with wording like "anti-human bias" and "demanding human rights apply" further illustrates my point.

kelnos 1y ago

I agree with you in general with your automatic skepticism with something DHH might say on this topic, but: > Normal people shouldn't take issue with the mere existence of a markdown document that basically says "don't be a dick to people because of who they are". But that's not what it says. Maybe you can in some squinty way reduce it to that, but that's not all these sorts of documents say, and that's the problem. Most CoCs are fairly specific and strict in what they say people should and shouldn't do, and some of them (like the Contributor Covenant) even includes a process for submitting complaints, and addressing those complaints. A CoC that just says -- explicitly, without a huge amount of other language -- "don't be a dick" is more or less what ESR and DHH are advocating for. The article goes into detail as to why the author believes that a long, detailed CoC is harmful, and why even if it does essentially just say "don't be a dick", that can cause lots of problems for projects.

GuinansEyebrows 1y ago

this whole article and the resulting hn thread is a nerd snipe. of course esr and DHH are against codes of conduct. they act like bigoted assholes and then throw a fit when people treat them as such.