81–90 of 136 posts
GitHub ? Looks like TODO group are more companies than just GitHub [1]. [1] http://todogroup.org/members/
But now I guess my question shifts to - what does it mean to be a "member" of this group? Is using any of the services provided by member companies binding me to that CoC somehow?
EDIT: Ah, looks like there's answers in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10027561
>Physical contact and simulated physical contact (eg, textual descriptions like “ hug ” or “ backrub ”) without consent or after a request to stop. [violates the code of conduct] I can't tell if this is a joke or not.
What gets me is that they don't distinguish between description and simulation.
Looking through some of the issues on that repo, the amount of bad faith people have in the very idea of a code of conduct is astonishing. Not to mention the sheer ignorance of issues affecting minorities within the tech community (seriously, Jon Stewart could have had a weeks worth of material). Sure, the wording of the code of conduct wasn't perfect, but it'd be much nicer if people wanted to see it improved in goo…
Part of the problem may be that there have a been a few high profile cases (posted to HN, etc.) where a bunch of people unrelated to a project (not committers, not forkers, not users) have come in and started big commotions over committer behavior outside of the project (i.e. on their personal twitter account having nothing to do with the project), or have demanded changes like "he" be replaced with "they" or "he/she" in the documentation. Basically, a bunch of political stuff that doesn't have perceived technical value for the project.
It could be that a GitHub endorsed "code of conduct" would give those people more ammunition against projects, and I think that worries people. Most GitHub users aren't big OSS projects, they're just using it to host their hobby projects, they're not out to make political statements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In an employment environment, that is clearcut sexual harassment. The OCC is bringing some of that professionalism to open source communities. Why would it be a joke to ban annoying personally-targeted behaviors that are unrelated to the work product? I can't think of a case where discussing cuddling someone is appropriate for a Pull Request, mailing list, or IRC chat
In an employment environment, that is clearcut sexual harassment. Wait, really? I've never posted it myself, but textual descriptions like "[hug]" as a way of expressing gratitude or solidarity are common and mundane in plenty of communities. Now, sure, cluttering technical discussions with stuff like this isn't preferable. To call it "clearcut sexual harassment" is ludicrous and completely devalues the term in quest…
I'd bet none of the communities you've seen it is a workplace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In an employment environment, that is clearcut sexual harassment. The OCC is bringing some of that professionalism to open source communities. Why would it be a joke to ban annoying personally-targeted behaviors that are unrelated to the work product? I can't think of a case where discussing cuddling someone is appropriate for a Pull Request, mailing list, or IRC chat
I for one read that part of the code of conduct and think of a few grey areas. I mean, it's not uncommon for people to write ' hugs ' or something like that - surely that should be fine (assuming it's not wildly off topic)?
(And if you don't think that the words matter because it's just text in a browser, imagine that next time you make an angry/frustrated post, I reply "aww, boo hoo. ruffles your hair". You'd be fucking pissed. Words have meaning, that's why we use them)
Looking through some of the issues on that repo, the amount of bad faith people have in the very idea of a code of conduct is astonishing. Not to mention the sheer ignorance of issues affecting minorities within the tech community (seriously, Jon Stewart could have had a weeks worth of material). Sure, the wording of the code of conduct wasn't perfect, but it'd be much nicer if people wanted to see it improved in goo…
This is probably a parallel, but I still think Apple came up with the best, most self-disciplining code of conduct of all times: > We will reject Apps for any content or behavior that we believe is over the line. What line, you ask? Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, "I'll know it when I see it". And we think that you will also know it when you cross it. Yes, they do publish more direct rejection reasons too…
The distinction doesn't seem that clear to me. It seems like this committee has gotten together as a response to the well known social issues that have cropped up over and over in specifically the github community and more generally the open source and software development communities.
You bless the Apple rule or guideline around religious hate, but dismiss the entire code of conduct here? Do you have any specific gripes or examples of policies you think are wrong? Could it be that you agree more with the rules Apple has put in place, or at least don't feel as strongly about the rules of the App Store, but maybe feel some distaste for someone trying to "police" this somewhat different arena?
This is probably a parallel, but I still think Apple came up with the best, most self-disciplining code of conduct of all times: > We will reject Apps for any content or behavior that we believe is over the line. What line, you ask? Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, "I'll know it when I see it". And we think that you will also know it when you cross it. Yes, they do publish more direct rejection reasons too…
The problem with blank statements such as this is that "the line" is a moving goalpost. I'd (reluctantly) support even completely arbitrary enforcement, as long as it's not retroactive. But if they first accept apps with Confederate flag, and then ban them later, that's IMO a very bad precedent.
You can choose to think about your content carefully before you put it out in the world, or you can choose not to :)
That's the smartest thing they've done all week. Now it's time to bury it dead. This is a solution looking for a problem (tm). The only thing this code of conduct does beside state the obvious (behave like adults) is the implied distrust expressed by introducing it in the first place: that without being nannied into proper behaviour, we would all act like vile animals. Generally I find such nannying deeply offensive.
I agree. I have yet to encounter a truly bad interaction on Github. And what if I did? Learning to ignore things that could unreasonably sour your mood is a valuable skill in life anyway. Life itself doesn't really have a code like proposed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. I have yet to encounter a truly bad interaction on Github. And what if I did? Learning to ignore things that could unreasonably sour your mood is a valuable skill in life anyway. Life itself doesn't really have a code like proposed.
> And what if I did? Learning to ignore things that could unreasonably sour your mood is a valuable skill in life anyway. Life itself doesn't really have a code like proposed. De-escalated depending on the context of the situation. Code of Conduct defines problems and could turn anything funny, innocent, etc. into an excuse to ruin someone's life. 9/10 times it's someone who doesn't program (an Adria Richards, Shanle…