Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New FreeBSD Code of Conduct

freebsd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 156 posts

Re: New FreeBSD Code of Conduct

#71

Post by loeg »

mrchicity wrote: post #67
codemusings wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FreeBSD's new CoC wouldn't ban a sexist comment like this, because of the odd "oppressed group" language. Hopefully it was just a copy/paste mistake from the Geek Feminism code. 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 whi…

FreeBSD wouldn't sanction the poster for that comment for several reasons:

1. The CoC committee acts on reports -- someone has to be bothered by it.

2. It isn't an insult.

3. It isn't sexist.

Re: New FreeBSD Code of Conduct

#72

Post by Caveman_Coder »

I wonder why tech communities need their CoC...

I'm a member of a local HAM radio group and we don't have any CoC and we don't have any issues at all. The male/female makeup is about 70/30 and there are people of various political/religious viewpoints, but I haven't once seen any issues over these differences. I've seen leftists amicably talk and work with conservatives because when we meet as a group it is all about HAM radio, nothing else. I'm not sure why tech communities have all these problems to be honest...it seems like there are groups that purposefully want to stir up discord because they make money (get funding) if there are issues...

Re: New FreeBSD Code of Conduct

#73

Post by soyiuz »

I am always surprised at the backlash against such codes of conduct. One can point to numerous cases of harassment, abuse, and inequality in the tech community. Who is harmed by a stronger CoC? Let's discuss an example where CoC led to a negative outcome for some group.

Re: New FreeBSD Code of Conduct

#74

Post by ygaf »

Joky wrote: post #7

I very much empathize with Code of Conduct, and as many I regret that it is necessary to have to make explicit what seems fairly obvious. On a tangent though, I feel the word "harassment" is now generalized and used for any "inappropriate conduct". It loses the meaning that I'm getting from dictionaries ( https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/harassment and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harass ) o…

>I regret that it is necessary to have to make explicit what seems fairly obvious.

I don't think it was (necessary). Given the incident where someone tried to get a github user 'fired' from a project for 'transphobia' on twitter, I have no faith anything wrong even happened in FreeBSD's virtual workplace.

Re: New FreeBSD Code of Conduct

#76

Post by soyiuz »

Caveman_Coder wrote: post #72

I wonder why tech communities need their CoC... I'm a member of a local HAM radio group and we don't have any CoC and we don't have any issues at all. The male/female makeup is about 70/30 and there are people of various political/religious viewpoints, but I haven't once seen any issues over these differences. I've seen leftists amicably talk and work with conservatives because when we meet as a group it is all about…

CoCs are useful for coordination among large, non-local, diverse communities.

Have you considered that instead of "purposefully want[ing] to stir up discord" for funding the rules are meant to reduce the incidence of actual harassment/abuse? Or to promote inclusivity?

How does an articulation of values "stir up discord?" I can point you to numerous examples of harassment and inequity in the tech community. Can you point me to an example of "discord" brought about by better rules of conduct? Or to this funding that you mention?

Re: New FreeBSD Code of Conduct

#78

Post by mrchicity »

loeg wrote: post #71
mrchicity wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FreeBSD's new CoC wouldn't ban a sexist comment like this, because of the odd "oppressed group" language. Hopefully it was just a copy/paste mistake from the Geek Feminism code. 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 whi…

FreeBSD wouldn't sanction the poster for that comment for several reasons: 1. The CoC committee acts on reports -- someone has to be bothered by it. 2. It isn't an insult. 3. It isn't sexist.

"Unfortunately the [group engaging in negative activity] is also almost entirely comprised of [x]." where x is some immutable or deeply personal characteristic, is advancing an offensive stereotype.

Re: New FreeBSD Code of Conduct

#79

Post by to3m »

said wrote: post #25
rayiner wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the exact opposite: It's rules for how to work on code without bringing personal crap into it. Do you want a date? Do you think there is something wrong with trans people? Do you have thoughts on race relations? Nobody cares, check that baggage at the door.

"Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion." This doesn't preclude thoughts on race-relations—if that was the goal, it would've simply said so. We know what this means.

OK then, what does it mean?

Re: New FreeBSD Code of Conduct

#80

Post by soyiuz »

klipt wrote: post #44
alangpierce wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of potential technicalities like that are handled pretty well by this paragraph at the start: > This document is not an exhaustive list of things that you should not do. Rather, consider it a guide to make it easier to enrich all of us and the technical communities in which we participate.

That's vague and hand wavey. Their definitions are ripe for abuse and I'm sure someone will create e.g. an app for female rape victims and argue that excluding male rape victims is fine because "you can't be sexist against men."

Your hypothetical worry about "excluding male rape victims" is strongly outweighed by the needs of actual rape victims.
Post reply on HN