8 ms·

No Code of Conduct

91 points by sethammons 11y ago

sarciszewski 11y ago
1. We are all adults. Capable of having adult discussions. 2. We accept everyones contributions, we don’t care if you’re liberal or conservative, black or white, straight or gay, or anything else! in fact, we won’t bring it up, or ask. We simply don’t give a shit. 3. nothing else fucking matters! This reminds me a lot of the WTFPL... DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, December 2004 Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed. DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.
- imsofuture 11y ago
  Also, the Crowley license: http://copyfree.org/content/standard/licenses/ctl/license.txt http://copyfree.org/content/standard/licenses/ctl/license.tx...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- SamReidHughes 11y ago
  See also https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=DannyBee https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=DannyBee
xophe 11y ago
..reminds me of https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
seattle_thrwawy 11y ago
Looking forward to a day that I don't have to hide behind a throwaway to enthusiastically agree.
- Jimmy 11y ago
  I'll go ahead and enthusiastically agree as well, but with no throwaway, to get the ball rolling! I don't think I'm important enough for anyone to care what I say on HN though...
- judah 11y ago
  No throwaway, and I enthusiastically agree. The recent instances of people demanding resignation of a technical person from an open source project because somebody dislikes his personal views is a form of coercion to uniformity, political thought-policing. In line with this theme, the NCoC site says: Q: How can I contribute to your project or community when I see someone said something on a different site or community which directly makes me feel awful? A: We are not in the business of policing people’s personal lives. Hopefully they also don’t give a shit about that when they are here. Part of not discriminating people, is not discriminating people. This is not world court. Sometimes people have different views. Just because they express this elsewhere, doesn’t mean we give a shit.
  - seattle_thrwawy 11y ago
    Yeah. I saw have seen some talented people get fired over the years, including at my current company. I have heard all sorts of offensive comments throughout the years from all sorts of sexualities and nationalities. The only people who ever get fired for them are white (or white-passing) males.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
rfrey 11y ago
Nearly every point in this list assumes the issues people are addressing with code of conducts boil down to over-sensitive, reductivist prima-donnas. It is essential an extended denial that there is ever a real problem. That might be, but the article doesn't even try to make that argument. Instead it makes a caricature of people who think there is sometimes a problem, and furthermore think that making expectations explicit rather than implicit is a good and helpful step. The article is lazy, cynical, and reflects shallow thinking.
- sombremesa 11y ago
  "in fact, we won’t bring it up, or ask" Sounds like a CoC.
  - sarciszewski 11y ago
    I can't speak for everyone, but the communities I'm involved in are far too technical and busy doing technical things to give a shit about anyone's gender, sexuality, skin tone, or culture. (Religion isn't even on our radar.) Can you provide insight into something of a technical nature? YES: Welcome, friend. NO: GTFO and/or LMGTFY That's not really CoC-ish.
    - geofft 11y ago
      Then how will you notice if some of the people doing technical things are specifically giving more insight or more benefit of the doubt based on gender, sexuality, skin tone, culture, or religion? If you are not paying attention, you're open to abuse. Hopefully there is no abuse; most people are good at heart. But you have no way of knowing. This strikes me as an un-technical way to approach problems, especially if you know that there are problems in other projects.
      - sarciszewski 11y ago
        > Then how will you notice if some of the people doing technical things are specifically giving more insight or more benefit of the doubt based on gender, sexuality, skin tone, culture, or religion? We don't care. Or, to be completely intellectually honest, at least I don't. I'm interest in the output and the ideas that are shared. The input is none of my business. I judge people for their relevant behavior, not their state.
imsofuture 11y ago
I'm not sure why there's ever been a need for a code of conduct beyond the golden rule. Just, like, be nice and stuff.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  There are a lot of people that really don't have any idea how to be nice and stuff. One thing codes of conduct do is clarify what other people are expecting (hopefully they clarify the shared expectations of the group).
  - imsofuture 11y ago
    Earnestly, I don't think there is anyone that doesn't know how to be nice. There might be people that aren't nice or don't want to be nice but let's not confuse that with actual ignorance.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >There are a lot of people that really don't have any idea how to be nice and stuff. The CoC won't help those people in the first place.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      I believe it would simplify conversations about negative behavior. Point to the CoC and say that it is an agreement to avoid acting in certain ways, please don't act in those ways. I don't think it is a cure all or anything, but it at least provides an opportunity to avoid counter productive arguments, and at worst is still incrementally less arbitrary than banning/shunning difficult people outside of a CoC.
- x0x0 11y ago
  Except some people aren't nice, and people don't even agree on a common definition of nice. What then?
  - sarciszewski 11y ago
jellicle 11y ago
So, someone got booted out of the ubuntu forums for being a dick and then instead of growing up, decided to make a tumblr blog. Is that a correct reading of the situation here?
- tree_of_item 11y ago
  No, here's what happened: http://nocodeofconduct.com/post/121966770584/on-opalgate http://nocodeofconduct.com/post/121966770584/on-opalgate
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Most projects already have formal or informal rules set in place for discussion, project management, issue tracking. A code of conduct would be redundant as such. More often than not, it seems to mostly be a veiled appeasement. The Linux kernel's "Code of Conflict" is a blatant and hilarious example of this.
grayclhn 11y ago
There have got to be more constructive ways of making the same point. Throwing up specious strawman arguments as a mock "FAQ" kind of undermines point 1: "We are all adults. Capable of having adult discussions." Edit: it's going to bother me all weekend if I don't add that I find the viewpoint expressed in this link, i.e. "people who are concerned about reaching out to members of non-majority groups and making them feel welcome in a technical community are idiots worthy of ridicule," to be absolutely appalling. It's very different than the view that people should be judged purely on their technical contribution.
istvan__ 11y ago
Long time needed project, recent developments on Github where people try to turn a version management system for code hosting and working into a political platform have to be stopped. #politicsfree
- geofft 11y ago
  I thought GitHub was about social coding.
  - istvan__ 11y ago
    Social has very little to do with political agenda and misrepresenting people that I was referring to. Example: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 What the guy said: https://twitter.com/krainboltgreene/status/611569515315507200 https://twitter.com/krainboltgreene/status/61156951531550720... It is very sad that this is happening. Question to you what has social to do with political extremists?
yummyfajitas 11y ago
Also related is this thread from yesterday, where 'meh' stood up to an angry mob and refused to kick out a core committer for his unrelated political views. https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 It's great to see some pushback against the modern McCarthyism that's currently becoming fashionable.
- bsaul 11y ago
  Damn, this github issue is such a tragedy... If you like politics, please engage in politic groups or parties. But everything is NOT about politics. Only the worst fascist regimes think so as they try to mold every parts of society to their own beliefs. I guess it's the downside of the geek culture being fashionable and not an underground culture anymore. People that love talking more than coding start polluting discussion group to get some sort of recognition for something different than plain hard work... EDIT : i read it again. Do people advocating for the firing of the contributor who posted on twitter realize what the long term consequence is, provided people choose a technology based on politics ? You'll have "gay friendly" technology, and "conservative" technology. You'll have "christian" technology and "muslim" technology (because, hey, saying Jesus is the son of god on twitter hurts muslim's feelings). You'll have "meat lovers" programming languages. And "pro guns" Operating Systems. Is that the technological world you want to live in ?? Don't you think computer science and interoperability is difficult enough so that we don't bring in those kind of considerations ?
mbrock 11y ago
"We are all adults." I've yet to see any evidence of this.
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  Let's troll them for being ageist!
dmansen 11y ago
this is bad and whoever made it should feel bad
dkuntz2 11y ago
What exactly is bad about a code of conduct? Yes, they can get overly complex, and aren't always perfect, but 99% of the time, a formalized code of conduct is just a way of saying don't be a dick, and if you're a dick, here's how we're going to deal with it.
- x0x0 11y ago
  Some people throw tantrums when their be-a-dick privileges get yanked.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  In the Opal situation, the fear was that the code of conduct would be used as a weapon against people expressing unrelated political opinions outside of the context of the project itself. This is not an unreasonable fear, given that the people who are demanding the CoC explicitly said they wanted to do this.
davesque 11y ago
I don't really have a stake here but I just have to point out that this is very ironic. For one thing, the author claims it's a good idea to keep things private and not make a scene. However, they went ahead and created a website with a big white-list and black-list for projects that they either do or do not like. How is that not making a scene?
serve_yay 11y ago
I sometimes find codes of conduct a little "grandstandy" if you will, but I prefer that state of affairs to this. This just feels like re-entrenchment.
geofft 11y ago
> If you feel this way simply because we do not have a code of conduct, it is hard for anyone to relate to you. Huh, really? Anyone? Not even me? Wow! I didn't know I was unable to relate to people. The entire premise here seems to be based on the assumption that if the world ought to work a certain way, it necessarily does, and if certain things don't seem like they should be problems, they aren't. That's a popular hacker culture anti-pattern, and applied to technical decisions, it's what brought us things like C and Linux. (I'll note that C and Linux are on the "good list".)
- dkuntz2 11y ago
  Except the Linux Kernel technically does have a code of conduct, it's just called the Code of Conflict, and while it basically states they'll deal with problems on a case-by-case basis, it does explicitly give people a way to air their grievances and attempt to have problems addressed. Additionally, while C itself doesn't have a specific code of conduct, the International Standards Organization (which C belongs to and is governed by) has a code of conduct and code of ethics.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
pdabbadabba 11y ago
No coincidence that this was written, apparently, by a youngish white male. This sounds like an effort to impose a code of conduct that only restricts the sort of conduct that frequently bothers him (being accused of having violated social norms that he does not find important--probably because they do not benefit him), while consciously deciding not to address the challenges that face other people online. He's free to run a community in that way, but I won't be joining it.
- acbart 11y ago
  I was amused that he defended himself by pointing out that he helps design software for a gay community. Okay, but does that really make you a minority in any way? Regardless of whether privilege is an issue in this discussion, the logic doesn't really flow here.
  - slipjack 11y ago
    Yeah, it's almost like intersectionality is a thing.
    - acbart 11y ago
      Intersectionality would come into play if he was arguing that he was a member of multiple minority groups. Here he was arguing that he was a contributor (not necessarily a member!) of a single group, distinct from the previously discussed ones. It's entirely possible he's a member of multiple groups, my point was just that his argument didn't reference that and it was therefore illogical.
      - slipjack 11y ago
        Yup. It's annoying to hear that I should stop whining because the internet is fine, when he almost doesn't experience oppression in the same way.
        acbart 11y ago
ad_hominem 11y ago
I agree with the spirit of this, but "we are all adults" is a bit overly-specific. There are people that are not yet adults that contribute to open source too. Maybe "we are all rational?"
- nostrebored 11y ago
  There are people who are not rational that contribute to open source as well. Contributing to their delusions is overly-harmful! You're never going to find a blanket affirming, feel-good statement that's actually true.
marklavey 11y ago
(creates throwaway account to avoid shitstorm) I run an event with a CoC. However I do see the other side of the argument: - the common CoCs from http://confcodeofconduct.com/ http://confcodeofconduct.com/ are vague: they're defined by what is 'offensive' - choosing to be offended is very much a personal matter and it can be hard to guess what will offend others. 'Dongle' jokes? I've seen female speakers make a 40 min presentation on regular expressions filled with rude words, that, if they weren't female, would have caused a shitstorm. - CoCs being inconsistently enforced - a major hard-left conf organiser regularly retweets a well known online troll who constantly says things that violate their code of conduct, but since the trolls target a particular race and gender it's considered 'edgy' or 'ironic'. - The CoCs mix things people consider innate (gender, sexuality) with ideas (spirituality) and what many medical professional would consider lifestyles choices (obesity). These are not worthy of the same degrees of protection. I don't think fat people should feel bad, but I don't think saying someone is fat is the same thing as saying they'll go to hell because they're gay. - CoCs conflict with each other: spiritual views conflict with each other (I think God isn't real, someone else thinks that it is and disbelievers will go to hell, spiritual views conflict with sexuality (Christianity and gay marriage). Either party could feel offended. OK fine, lets not discuss religion or sexuality. Kind of feels sad to limit discussion.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rando3826 11y ago
> 1. We are all adults. Stopped there. We aren't. I've been amazed at finding that code came from a 15 year old.
cosrnos 11y ago
The main problem I have with arguments like this is that it's made for the ideal world. Yes, people should act like adults in OSS. Yes, people shouldn't be judged for who they are. Yes, we shouldn't have to say these things. But in reality, people don't act like adults in OSS, people are still judged for things that should be completely irrelevant. We need to spell these things out because apparently there are still people in the world who need to be told that they should treat others the way they want to be treated.
wvenable 11y ago
I "run" an forum that is an offshoot of a very popular professional software development blog. The original forum was closed by the blog author and my site replaced it. This forum has rules but they're pretty minor (no doxxing, etc) and users cannot be filtered away, only posts can be removed. Having run this forum for over a decade, I have a lot of insight into running an anonymous free form nearly censorship free place on the Internet. 1. There are many mentally disturbed people on the Internet. So point #1 of the article, "We are all adults. Capable of having adult discussions." is already off the mark. And even perfectly normal people tend to be worse human beings online (The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory). And these are people, like you and me, who earn their living making software. 2. "We accept everyones contributions." Yes, but bytes being free creates a situation where some contributions will overshadow other everyone else's contributions. 1 person can literally post 10,000x more than anyone else. And they will, see point #1. This creates an unbalanced situation that is very hard to resolve. In my opinion, if you want to be inclusive it's pretty damn hard without any rules, moderation, censorship, limited access, etc.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  This is all definitely true. What happens, though, when the "mentally disturbed people" -- or even just some completely sane people who happen to have a political/cultural agenda foremost in their minds, rather than the good of the project or organization -- work their way into control of the rules, moderation, censorship, and limited access? This is not just possible but highly likely, given that moderation is an unpleasant and time-consuming job and anyone who volunteers is quite likely to get it. And once the power to deploy these rules is in the hands of the people who were supposed to be restrained by these rules, things tend to get very dark, very quickly.
  - wvenable 11y ago
    Everyone always thinks moderators are evil. They have "the power" and you do not. It's basic human nature. The reality, of course, is that it's a thankless but necessary job that can't please everyone. Most give up after being constantly harassed and accused of having an agenda. Moderation decisions are imperfect because there are plenty of competing interests and there is often no obvious right answer. Conspiracy theories abound these days and it's mostly ridiculous.
slipjack 11y ago
> Whatever do you, do not make a scene, as that will burden the entire community with your issue... Remember, this is not the time or place to start these kind of discussions. Cool. I'll make sure not to make a big issue out of being sexually harassed online... online.
nateberkopec 11y ago
Not having a CoC is like not having an employee handbook. In theory, we're all nice people, and nice people don't need laws or handbooks to tell them what to do or who to behave. But we're not all nice people. And when bad things happen, you need to have something written down that you can point to and say: "Hey, you violated this thing you said you agreed to." CoCs are not preventative measures (they don't proactively reduce bad behavior), they're more helpful for throwing out community members when they do something bad.
- rtz12 11y ago
  > Not having a CoC is like not having an employee handbook. I have never heard of that a so called "employee handbook" and the company I work for is still a pretty civil place. I wonder how we manage that?
- istvan__ 11y ago
  Many companies do not have an employee handbook...
Boxbot 11y ago
1. We are all adults. Capable of having adult discussions. When your first point is so blatantly, demonstrably wrong why on earth should anyone bother giving any further consideration to your argument?
ecopoesis 11y ago
"We are all adults. Capable of having adult discussions." How I wish this was true, but it's not. That's why we have code of conducts: because creepers don't realize that it's not okay to hit on every women they see, because bros don't realize gay isn't a synonym for bad, because gamergaters don't realize women can video games and so on. The sad truth is, there is a portion of our society that does not act in a mature and adult way, and they hurt others as a result. As someone who plays life on easy mode[1] like I imagine most commenters here, it's hard to remember that most people play life on hard mode. Code of conducts are aimed at making hard mode a little better: hopefully by reminding people where the boundaries are, and for correcting problems when those boundaries are crossed. Are codes of conduct a perfect solution? No. But the response to lack of perfection shouldn't be to give up: it should be to try harder. Centuries of civilization has show us that ignoring problems don't make things better. We have to fight the good fight and force the world to be a better place. [1] http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/ http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th...
- nattofriends 11y ago
  *codes of conduct
- Nadya 11y ago
  >because gamergaters don't realize women can video games and so on I'm going to try and not be vindictive, but I assume you think #NotYourShield is nothing but sockpuppet accounts and doesn't have any support from GG supporters and that Liz, a prominent female supporter of GG who was doxxed and threatened by anti-GGers, was not supported by GG? I spent 2-3 months browsing the tag and found it to be a far more diverse group of people than the primarily white, upper-middle class, SanFran group of SJW people who oppose the Twitter movement. >because bros don't realize gay isn't a synonym for bad Linguistics says you're wrong. You can dislike that the word has multiple meanings and that one refers to a demographic of people, but I know of nobody who makes the connection between the two definitions. Hell - most of my homosexual friends of mine have absolutely no issue with the usage of the word in the contexts people tend to use it negatively in, and I've asked them. Only the extremely PC-types give a shit. >because creepers don't realize that it's not okay to hit on every women they see I like how a flirtatious/promiscuous woman is a "slut" and the chosen term for a flirtatious/promiscuous man is "creeper". It makes defending the "creeper" put one in some sort of negative moral standing. Which is a way to pull emotional/political biases into the argument. Humans enjoy sex. Society tends to shame people with multiple partners. Single people, therefore, tend to flirt with other single people. Maybe one of them wants to join them for sex. The more you flirt with other single people - the more likely you are to receive a positive response from one of them. Therefore, if your goal is sex, you flirt with as many single people as possible. Congratulations - you've just discovered human motives backed by human nature. Do you share these vindications against sluts? Or does it only apply to creepers? Lastly - members of these same minority groups are sick of people like you being offended on their behalf [0] [1] [2]. This isn't an uncommon sentiment either. Being offended on their behalf is treating them as less than you. As if they cannot make up their own minds to be offended or not. As if they are too weak to speak up and need you to do it for them. Sometimes they just don't care [3]. [0] http://dlmagazine.org/2013/10/dear-white-people-stop-apologizing-offending/ http://dlmagazine.org/2013/10/dear-white-people-stop-apologi... [1] http://groupthink.kinja.com/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-a-minority-group-723414719 http://groupthink.kinja.com/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-a-... [2] http://blog.holytroll.net/2012/04/dont-be-offended-for-me/ http://blog.holytroll.net/2012/04/dont-be-offended-for-me/ [3] http://funnyasduck.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/funny-pictures-ill-be-offended-on-your-behalf-racisim-comic.jpg http://funnyasduck.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/funny-pict...

91 points by sethammons 11y ago

1. We are all adults. Capable of having adult discussions. 2. We accept everyones contributions, we don’t care if you’re liberal or conservative, black or white, straight or gay, or anything else! in fact, we won’t bring it up, or ask. We simply don’t give a shit. 3. nothing else fucking matters! This reminds me a lot of the WTFPL... DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, December 2004 Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed. DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.

imsofuture 11y ago
Also, the Crowley license: http://copyfree.org/content/standard/licenses/ctl/license.txt http://copyfree.org/content/standard/licenses/ctl/license.tx...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
SamReidHughes 11y ago
See also https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=DannyBee https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=DannyBee

xophe 11y ago

..reminds me of https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/

seattle_thrwawy 11y ago

Looking forward to a day that I don't have to hide behind a throwaway to enthusiastically agree.

Jimmy 11y ago
I'll go ahead and enthusiastically agree as well, but with no throwaway, to get the ball rolling! I don't think I'm important enough for anyone to care what I say on HN though...
judah 11y ago
No throwaway, and I enthusiastically agree. The recent instances of people demanding resignation of a technical person from an open source project because somebody dislikes his personal views is a form of coercion to uniformity, political thought-policing. In line with this theme, the NCoC site says: Q: How can I contribute to your project or community when I see someone said something on a different site or community which directly makes me feel awful? A: We are not in the business of policing people’s personal lives. Hopefully they also don’t give a shit about that when they are here. Part of not discriminating people, is not discriminating people. This is not world court. Sometimes people have different views. Just because they express this elsewhere, doesn’t mean we give a shit.
- seattle_thrwawy 11y ago
  Yeah. I saw have seen some talented people get fired over the years, including at my current company. I have heard all sorts of offensive comments throughout the years from all sorts of sexualities and nationalities. The only people who ever get fired for them are white (or white-passing) males.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

rfrey 11y ago

Nearly every point in this list assumes the issues people are addressing with code of conducts boil down to over-sensitive, reductivist prima-donnas. It is essential an extended denial that there is ever a real problem. That might be, but the article doesn't even try to make that argument. Instead it makes a caricature of people who think there is sometimes a problem, and furthermore think that making expectations explicit rather than implicit is a good and helpful step. The article is lazy, cynical, and reflects shallow thinking.

sombremesa 11y ago
"in fact, we won’t bring it up, or ask" Sounds like a CoC.
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  I can't speak for everyone, but the communities I'm involved in are far too technical and busy doing technical things to give a shit about anyone's gender, sexuality, skin tone, or culture. (Religion isn't even on our radar.) Can you provide insight into something of a technical nature? YES: Welcome, friend. NO: GTFO and/or LMGTFY That's not really CoC-ish.
  - geofft 11y ago
    Then how will you notice if some of the people doing technical things are specifically giving more insight or more benefit of the doubt based on gender, sexuality, skin tone, culture, or religion? If you are not paying attention, you're open to abuse. Hopefully there is no abuse; most people are good at heart. But you have no way of knowing. This strikes me as an un-technical way to approach problems, especially if you know that there are problems in other projects.
    - sarciszewski 11y ago
      > Then how will you notice if some of the people doing technical things are specifically giving more insight or more benefit of the doubt based on gender, sexuality, skin tone, culture, or religion? We don't care. Or, to be completely intellectually honest, at least I don't. I'm interest in the output and the ideas that are shared. The input is none of my business. I judge people for their relevant behavior, not their state.

imsofuture 11y ago

I'm not sure why there's ever been a need for a code of conduct beyond the golden rule. Just, like, be nice and stuff.

maxerickson 11y ago
There are a lot of people that really don't have any idea how to be nice and stuff. One thing codes of conduct do is clarify what other people are expecting (hopefully they clarify the shared expectations of the group).
- imsofuture 11y ago
  Earnestly, I don't think there is anyone that doesn't know how to be nice. There might be people that aren't nice or don't want to be nice but let's not confuse that with actual ignorance.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >There are a lot of people that really don't have any idea how to be nice and stuff. The CoC won't help those people in the first place.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    I believe it would simplify conversations about negative behavior. Point to the CoC and say that it is an agreement to avoid acting in certain ways, please don't act in those ways. I don't think it is a cure all or anything, but it at least provides an opportunity to avoid counter productive arguments, and at worst is still incrementally less arbitrary than banning/shunning difficult people outside of a CoC.
x0x0 11y ago
Except some people aren't nice, and people don't even agree on a common definition of nice. What then?
- sarciszewski 11y ago

jellicle 11y ago

So, someone got booted out of the ubuntu forums for being a dick and then instead of growing up, decided to make a tumblr blog. Is that a correct reading of the situation here?

tree_of_item 11y ago
No, here's what happened: http://nocodeofconduct.com/post/121966770584/on-opalgate http://nocodeofconduct.com/post/121966770584/on-opalgate

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

Most projects already have formal or informal rules set in place for discussion, project management, issue tracking. A code of conduct would be redundant as such. More often than not, it seems to mostly be a veiled appeasement. The Linux kernel's "Code of Conflict" is a blatant and hilarious example of this.

grayclhn 11y ago

There have got to be more constructive ways of making the same point. Throwing up specious strawman arguments as a mock "FAQ" kind of undermines point 1: "We are all adults. Capable of having adult discussions." Edit: it's going to bother me all weekend if I don't add that I find the viewpoint expressed in this link, i.e. "people who are concerned about reaching out to members of non-majority groups and making them feel welcome in a technical community are idiots worthy of ridicule," to be absolutely appalling. It's very different than the view that people should be judged purely on their technical contribution.

istvan__ 11y ago

Long time needed project, recent developments on Github where people try to turn a version management system for code hosting and working into a political platform have to be stopped. #politicsfree

geofft 11y ago
I thought GitHub was about social coding.
- istvan__ 11y ago
  Social has very little to do with political agenda and misrepresenting people that I was referring to. Example: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 What the guy said: https://twitter.com/krainboltgreene/status/611569515315507200 https://twitter.com/krainboltgreene/status/61156951531550720... It is very sad that this is happening. Question to you what has social to do with political extremists?

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Also related is this thread from yesterday, where 'meh' stood up to an angry mob and refused to kick out a core committer for his unrelated political views. https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 It's great to see some pushback against the modern McCarthyism that's currently becoming fashionable.

bsaul 11y ago
Damn, this github issue is such a tragedy... If you like politics, please engage in politic groups or parties. But everything is NOT about politics. Only the worst fascist regimes think so as they try to mold every parts of society to their own beliefs. I guess it's the downside of the geek culture being fashionable and not an underground culture anymore. People that love talking more than coding start polluting discussion group to get some sort of recognition for something different than plain hard work... EDIT : i read it again. Do people advocating for the firing of the contributor who posted on twitter realize what the long term consequence is, provided people choose a technology based on politics ? You'll have "gay friendly" technology, and "conservative" technology. You'll have "christian" technology and "muslim" technology (because, hey, saying Jesus is the son of god on twitter hurts muslim's feelings). You'll have "meat lovers" programming languages. And "pro guns" Operating Systems. Is that the technological world you want to live in ?? Don't you think computer science and interoperability is difficult enough so that we don't bring in those kind of considerations ?

mbrock 11y ago

"We are all adults." I've yet to see any evidence of this.

sarciszewski 11y ago
Let's troll them for being ageist!

dmansen 11y ago

this is bad and whoever made it should feel bad

dkuntz2 11y ago

What exactly is bad about a code of conduct? Yes, they can get overly complex, and aren't always perfect, but 99% of the time, a formalized code of conduct is just a way of saying don't be a dick, and if you're a dick, here's how we're going to deal with it.

x0x0 11y ago
Some people throw tantrums when their be-a-dick privileges get yanked.
13thLetter 11y ago
In the Opal situation, the fear was that the code of conduct would be used as a weapon against people expressing unrelated political opinions outside of the context of the project itself. This is not an unreasonable fear, given that the people who are demanding the CoC explicitly said they wanted to do this.

davesque 11y ago

I don't really have a stake here but I just have to point out that this is very ironic. For one thing, the author claims it's a good idea to keep things private and not make a scene. However, they went ahead and created a website with a big white-list and black-list for projects that they either do or do not like. How is that not making a scene?

serve_yay 11y ago

I sometimes find codes of conduct a little "grandstandy" if you will, but I prefer that state of affairs to this. This just feels like re-entrenchment.

geofft 11y ago

> If you feel this way simply because we do not have a code of conduct, it is hard for anyone to relate to you. Huh, really? Anyone? Not even me? Wow! I didn't know I was unable to relate to people. The entire premise here seems to be based on the assumption that if the world ought to work a certain way, it necessarily does, and if certain things don't seem like they should be problems, they aren't. That's a popular hacker culture anti-pattern, and applied to technical decisions, it's what brought us things like C and Linux. (I'll note that C and Linux are on the "good list".)

dkuntz2 11y ago
Except the Linux Kernel technically does have a code of conduct, it's just called the Code of Conflict, and while it basically states they'll deal with problems on a case-by-case basis, it does explicitly give people a way to air their grievances and attempt to have problems addressed. Additionally, while C itself doesn't have a specific code of conduct, the International Standards Organization (which C belongs to and is governed by) has a code of conduct and code of ethics.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

pdabbadabba 11y ago

No coincidence that this was written, apparently, by a youngish white male. This sounds like an effort to impose a code of conduct that only restricts the sort of conduct that frequently bothers him (being accused of having violated social norms that he does not find important--probably because they do not benefit him), while consciously deciding not to address the challenges that face other people online. He's free to run a community in that way, but I won't be joining it.

acbart 11y ago
I was amused that he defended himself by pointing out that he helps design software for a gay community. Okay, but does that really make you a minority in any way? Regardless of whether privilege is an issue in this discussion, the logic doesn't really flow here.
- slipjack 11y ago
  Yeah, it's almost like intersectionality is a thing.
  - acbart 11y ago
    Intersectionality would come into play if he was arguing that he was a member of multiple minority groups. Here he was arguing that he was a contributor (not necessarily a member!) of a single group, distinct from the previously discussed ones. It's entirely possible he's a member of multiple groups, my point was just that his argument didn't reference that and it was therefore illogical.
    - slipjack 11y ago
      Yup. It's annoying to hear that I should stop whining because the internet is fine, when he almost doesn't experience oppression in the same way.
      - acbart 11y ago

ad_hominem 11y ago

I agree with the spirit of this, but "we are all adults" is a bit overly-specific. There are people that are not yet adults that contribute to open source too. Maybe "we are all rational?"

nostrebored 11y ago
There are people who are not rational that contribute to open source as well. Contributing to their delusions is overly-harmful! You're never going to find a blanket affirming, feel-good statement that's actually true.

marklavey 11y ago

(creates throwaway account to avoid shitstorm) I run an event with a CoC. However I do see the other side of the argument: - the common CoCs from http://confcodeofconduct.com/ http://confcodeofconduct.com/ are vague: they're defined by what is 'offensive' - choosing to be offended is very much a personal matter and it can be hard to guess what will offend others. 'Dongle' jokes? I've seen female speakers make a 40 min presentation on regular expressions filled with rude words, that, if they weren't female, would have caused a shitstorm. - CoCs being inconsistently enforced - a major hard-left conf organiser regularly retweets a well known online troll who constantly says things that violate their code of conduct, but since the trolls target a particular race and gender it's considered 'edgy' or 'ironic'. - The CoCs mix things people consider innate (gender, sexuality) with ideas (spirituality) and what many medical professional would consider lifestyles choices (obesity). These are not worthy of the same degrees of protection. I don't think fat people should feel bad, but I don't think saying someone is fat is the same thing as saying they'll go to hell because they're gay. - CoCs conflict with each other: spiritual views conflict with each other (I think God isn't real, someone else thinks that it is and disbelievers will go to hell, spiritual views conflict with sexuality (Christianity and gay marriage). Either party could feel offended. OK fine, lets not discuss religion or sexuality. Kind of feels sad to limit discussion.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

rando3826 11y ago

> 1. We are all adults. Stopped there. We aren't. I've been amazed at finding that code came from a 15 year old.

cosrnos 11y ago

The main problem I have with arguments like this is that it's made for the ideal world. Yes, people should act like adults in OSS. Yes, people shouldn't be judged for who they are. Yes, we shouldn't have to say these things. But in reality, people don't act like adults in OSS, people are still judged for things that should be completely irrelevant. We need to spell these things out because apparently there are still people in the world who need to be told that they should treat others the way they want to be treated.

wvenable 11y ago

I "run" an forum that is an offshoot of a very popular professional software development blog. The original forum was closed by the blog author and my site replaced it. This forum has rules but they're pretty minor (no doxxing, etc) and users cannot be filtered away, only posts can be removed. Having run this forum for over a decade, I have a lot of insight into running an anonymous free form nearly censorship free place on the Internet. 1. There are many mentally disturbed people on the Internet. So point #1 of the article, "We are all adults. Capable of having adult discussions." is already off the mark. And even perfectly normal people tend to be worse human beings online (The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory). And these are people, like you and me, who earn their living making software. 2. "We accept everyones contributions." Yes, but bytes being free creates a situation where some contributions will overshadow other everyone else's contributions. 1 person can literally post 10,000x more than anyone else. And they will, see point #1. This creates an unbalanced situation that is very hard to resolve. In my opinion, if you want to be inclusive it's pretty damn hard without any rules, moderation, censorship, limited access, etc.

13thLetter 11y ago
This is all definitely true. What happens, though, when the "mentally disturbed people" -- or even just some completely sane people who happen to have a political/cultural agenda foremost in their minds, rather than the good of the project or organization -- work their way into control of the rules, moderation, censorship, and limited access? This is not just possible but highly likely, given that moderation is an unpleasant and time-consuming job and anyone who volunteers is quite likely to get it. And once the power to deploy these rules is in the hands of the people who were supposed to be restrained by these rules, things tend to get very dark, very quickly.
- wvenable 11y ago
  Everyone always thinks moderators are evil. They have "the power" and you do not. It's basic human nature. The reality, of course, is that it's a thankless but necessary job that can't please everyone. Most give up after being constantly harassed and accused of having an agenda. Moderation decisions are imperfect because there are plenty of competing interests and there is often no obvious right answer. Conspiracy theories abound these days and it's mostly ridiculous.

slipjack 11y ago

> Whatever do you, do not make a scene, as that will burden the entire community with your issue... Remember, this is not the time or place to start these kind of discussions. Cool. I'll make sure not to make a big issue out of being sexually harassed online... online.

nateberkopec 11y ago

Not having a CoC is like not having an employee handbook. In theory, we're all nice people, and nice people don't need laws or handbooks to tell them what to do or who to behave. But we're not all nice people. And when bad things happen, you need to have something written down that you can point to and say: "Hey, you violated this thing you said you agreed to." CoCs are not preventative measures (they don't proactively reduce bad behavior), they're more helpful for throwing out community members when they do something bad.

rtz12 11y ago
> Not having a CoC is like not having an employee handbook. I have never heard of that a so called "employee handbook" and the company I work for is still a pretty civil place. I wonder how we manage that?
istvan__ 11y ago
Many companies do not have an employee handbook...

Boxbot 11y ago

1. We are all adults. Capable of having adult discussions. When your first point is so blatantly, demonstrably wrong why on earth should anyone bother giving any further consideration to your argument?

ecopoesis 11y ago

"We are all adults. Capable of having adult discussions." How I wish this was true, but it's not. That's why we have code of conducts: because creepers don't realize that it's not okay to hit on every women they see, because bros don't realize gay isn't a synonym for bad, because gamergaters don't realize women can video games and so on. The sad truth is, there is a portion of our society that does not act in a mature and adult way, and they hurt others as a result. As someone who plays life on easy mode[1] like I imagine most commenters here, it's hard to remember that most people play life on hard mode. Code of conducts are aimed at making hard mode a little better: hopefully by reminding people where the boundaries are, and for correcting problems when those boundaries are crossed. Are codes of conduct a perfect solution? No. But the response to lack of perfection shouldn't be to give up: it should be to try harder. Centuries of civilization has show us that ignoring problems don't make things better. We have to fight the good fight and force the world to be a better place. [1] http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/ http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th...

nattofriends 11y ago
*codes of conduct
Nadya 11y ago
>because gamergaters don't realize women can video games and so on I'm going to try and not be vindictive, but I assume you think #NotYourShield is nothing but sockpuppet accounts and doesn't have any support from GG supporters and that Liz, a prominent female supporter of GG who was doxxed and threatened by anti-GGers, was not supported by GG? I spent 2-3 months browsing the tag and found it to be a far more diverse group of people than the primarily white, upper-middle class, SanFran group of SJW people who oppose the Twitter movement. >because bros don't realize gay isn't a synonym for bad Linguistics says you're wrong. You can dislike that the word has multiple meanings and that one refers to a demographic of people, but I know of nobody who makes the connection between the two definitions. Hell - most of my homosexual friends of mine have absolutely no issue with the usage of the word in the contexts people tend to use it negatively in, and I've asked them. Only the extremely PC-types give a shit. >because creepers don't realize that it's not okay to hit on every women they see I like how a flirtatious/promiscuous woman is a "slut" and the chosen term for a flirtatious/promiscuous man is "creeper". It makes defending the "creeper" put one in some sort of negative moral standing. Which is a way to pull emotional/political biases into the argument. Humans enjoy sex. Society tends to shame people with multiple partners. Single people, therefore, tend to flirt with other single people. Maybe one of them wants to join them for sex. The more you flirt with other single people - the more likely you are to receive a positive response from one of them. Therefore, if your goal is sex, you flirt with as many single people as possible. Congratulations - you've just discovered human motives backed by human nature. Do you share these vindications against sluts? Or does it only apply to creepers? Lastly - members of these same minority groups are sick of people like you being offended on their behalf [0] [1] [2]. This isn't an uncommon sentiment either. Being offended on their behalf is treating them as less than you. As if they cannot make up their own minds to be offended or not. As if they are too weak to speak up and need you to do it for them. Sometimes they just don't care [3]. [0] http://dlmagazine.org/2013/10/dear-white-people-stop-apologizing-offending/ http://dlmagazine.org/2013/10/dear-white-people-stop-apologi... [1] http://groupthink.kinja.com/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-a-minority-group-723414719 http://groupthink.kinja.com/getting-offended-on-behalf-of-a-... [2] http://blog.holytroll.net/2012/04/dont-be-offended-for-me/ http://blog.holytroll.net/2012/04/dont-be-offended-for-me/ [3] http://funnyasduck.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/funny-pictures-ill-be-offended-on-your-behalf-racisim-comic.jpg http://funnyasduck.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/funny-pict...