4 ms·

Owch, before this it wouldn't have occurred to me that a "Code of Conduct" would be crafted for the purpose of giving identity politics some leverage into open

Owch, before this it wouldn't have occurred to me that a "Code of Conduct" would be crafted for the purpose of giving identity politics some leverage into open source projects, for twitter mobs to better harass developers. I would have taken the idea at face value - a codification of "don't be a dick". They seem to have a twitter smear campaign running in parallel to bring in random people to pile on. Unless the dev has said something else, I can't see any hate from him (though I disagree with his view).

duncan_bayne 11y ago
Actually, the contributor charter that Coraline herself created only applies to statements made when representing the project: "This code of conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community." The problem I have with this is that the contributor is being crucified for stating his opinion when doing neither of those things.
- CookieMon 11y ago
  You don't think they're going to claim he's representing the project on twitter by mentioning his involvement in his twitter description? This could be a genuine effort to improve things, but the portrayal of him has not seemed honest so far, which leaves me assuming their call for CoC is so bullies can go: "you have a different opinion to me, so I'm going to stop you from being able to mention that thing you spend your time on" I guess I'll reserve judgement until it happens - cool heads will be the ones deciding what constitutes "representing the project".
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    No, I'd actually hoped that the reason Coraline included that language in the charter was precisely to prevent this sort of thing. Time will tell whether that's misplaced optimism.
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    I've asked the question explicitly on the covenant GitHub: https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/issues/59 https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/issues/5... Will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes of it.
    - CookieMon 11y ago
      That was a good idea. Opal now seem to be getting back to coding under a CoC which lacks that clause. It looks like the clause was hammered out during the Opal discussion and the version on the covenant website was updated but not the master branch of the covenant git repo, so when Opal grabbed the standard CoC they got version 1.0 without the new "Elia clause" in it. I don't know whether that was luck or foresight, but I see people are now pushing Opal to adopt for v1.1: "This is a necessary change, version 1.0 of the contributor covenant fails to address the situation which started this: the gross misconduct of one of your core maintainers spewing a veritable mountain of hate and ignorance about LGBT people on a social media platform where he constantly ties himself to your project and refers to himself as a core maintainer." Misdirection like that doesn't lessen my worry that the clause is there to open OSS to bullying from outside. Having read what the tweats actually said, it has me nodding with rewqfdsa that "this isn't happening in good faith" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9743357 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9743357). Even with cool heads deciding what counts as "representing the project", the clause lets outside mobs gum up a project with drama until the contributors learn to self-censor in all aspects of life. When some poor maintainer doesn't give the "represents" ruling that the twitter mob desires, that person in the middle will start being personally smeared all over the internet as "supporting a mountain of hate and ignorance about LGBT people" etc in an effort to make them relent. So good idea for asking, v1.1 Code of Conduct is looking like a submarine poison pill. It's a shame nobody will read closed issues (locked too).
      - duncan_bayne 11y ago
        I've opened a pull request to clarify the language in the CoC, with the stated intent of avoiding this sort of problem: https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/pull/74 https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/pull/74

duncan_bayne 11y ago

Actually, the contributor charter that Coraline herself created only applies to statements made when representing the project: "This code of conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community." The problem I have with this is that the contributor is being crucified for stating his opinion when doing neither of those things.

CookieMon 11y ago
You don't think they're going to claim he's representing the project on twitter by mentioning his involvement in his twitter description? This could be a genuine effort to improve things, but the portrayal of him has not seemed honest so far, which leaves me assuming their call for CoC is so bullies can go: "you have a different opinion to me, so I'm going to stop you from being able to mention that thing you spend your time on" I guess I'll reserve judgement until it happens - cool heads will be the ones deciding what constitutes "representing the project".
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  No, I'd actually hoped that the reason Coraline included that language in the charter was precisely to prevent this sort of thing. Time will tell whether that's misplaced optimism.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  I've asked the question explicitly on the covenant GitHub: https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/issues/59 https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/issues/5... Will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes of it.
  - CookieMon 11y ago
    That was a good idea. Opal now seem to be getting back to coding under a CoC which lacks that clause. It looks like the clause was hammered out during the Opal discussion and the version on the covenant website was updated but not the master branch of the covenant git repo, so when Opal grabbed the standard CoC they got version 1.0 without the new "Elia clause" in it. I don't know whether that was luck or foresight, but I see people are now pushing Opal to adopt for v1.1: "This is a necessary change, version 1.0 of the contributor covenant fails to address the situation which started this: the gross misconduct of one of your core maintainers spewing a veritable mountain of hate and ignorance about LGBT people on a social media platform where he constantly ties himself to your project and refers to himself as a core maintainer." Misdirection like that doesn't lessen my worry that the clause is there to open OSS to bullying from outside. Having read what the tweats actually said, it has me nodding with rewqfdsa that "this isn't happening in good faith" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9743357 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9743357). Even with cool heads deciding what counts as "representing the project", the clause lets outside mobs gum up a project with drama until the contributors learn to self-censor in all aspects of life. When some poor maintainer doesn't give the "represents" ruling that the twitter mob desires, that person in the middle will start being personally smeared all over the internet as "supporting a mountain of hate and ignorance about LGBT people" etc in an effort to make them relent. So good idea for asking, v1.1 Code of Conduct is looking like a submarine poison pill. It's a shame nobody will read closed issues (locked too).
    - duncan_bayne 11y ago
      I've opened a pull request to clarify the language in the CoC, with the stated intent of avoiding this sort of problem: https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/pull/74 https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/pull/74