61–70 of 156 posts
This makes me sad. Do people really need to be told what not to do and say like that? To me it feels insulting that I am not trusted to be nice to others.
This makes me sad. Do people really need to be told what not to do and say like that? To me it feels insulting that I am not trusted to be nice to others.
Given that there's groups of people railing against being told not to do the things on this list, yes, apparently.
Reddit discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/freebsd/comments/7xapx2/freebsds_ne...
Comments from one of the people responsible for creating the CoC are here: https://www.reddit.com/r/freebsd/comments/7xapx2/freebsds_ne...
1. No politics
2. No religion
3. Don't be a cunt
If more and more groups insist on forcing their ideological agenda down the throats of contributors and users maybe it's time to start hacking on projects that don't feel the need to bring politics into software.
Open source software is as much a social endeavor as it is a technical one. As such it is important for people to get along if a project wants to get anywhere. There are far too many developers that use their technical prowess as an excuse for their lack of basic social skills. Unfortunately the same group of developers is also almost entirely comprised of men.
There's no place in a software project for insulting someone's gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. just because it's a more typical one. There are certain toxic community members who use well-intended rules like this a shield while they proceed to insult certain groups or stereotype them.
Better to avoid that type of discussion entirely. It's a software project, not a place to discuss politics or race relations. Hopefully they take a look into this and adopt a more neutral CoC like LLVM's: https://llvm.org/docs/CodeOfConduct.html
This document serves no real purpose, aka 'virtue signaling'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly. But the benefits outweigh the marginal scenario you are envisioning. I again return to the example of HN, which has higher standards of conversation than many other boards, due in part to strong moderating guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html To draw a parallel, do you think HN would be more successful if it relied on "intuition" for norms of discussion?
The benefits of that kind of CoC remain to be proven. Meanwhile, I note that HN's moderating guidelines do not mention sex, gender, religion, food choices, or most of what FreeBSD's new CoC describes. HN's moderating guidelines are about content whereas FreeBSD's new Code of Conduct codifies human behaviour, as the name would imply. They are different things.
To your second point: The BSD guidelines address content ("comments") and physical meetings, which I assume apply to conferences and hackathons. I don't see the distinction you are making between "content" and "human behavior," as content is human behavior online. There is good research on moderated communities. Anecdotally, I am talking to you here and not on Reddit because of stronger guidelines (and the resulting, to my mind, higher quality of discussion).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly. But the benefits outweigh the marginal scenario you are envisioning. I again return to the example of HN, which has higher standards of conversation than many other boards, due in part to strong moderating guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html To draw a parallel, do you think HN would be more successful if it relied on "intuition" for norms of discussion?
The benefits of that kind of CoC remain to be proven. Meanwhile, I note that HN's moderating guidelines do not mention sex, gender, religion, food choices, or most of what FreeBSD's new CoC describes. HN's moderating guidelines are about content whereas FreeBSD's new Code of Conduct codifies human behaviour, as the name would imply. They are different things.