> The CoC normalizes abuse. Please explain how an anti-abuse system normalises abuse? > If someone is abusive without a CoC thryvcan ve easily removed. It has long been argued that Linus was abusive, and he wasn't removed at all let alone "easily".
Anti-abuse system allows abusers to live in its cracks. The article explains that at length, with examples of offensive (though superficially compliant) language used by US managers.
If the CoC has cracks large enough to sustain an abuser ecosystem, those cracks will be identified and paved over.
I am a gay man[0] who has contributed to a number of open source projects significantly. However I stopped when they implemented “Code of Conducts” that deny basic rights such as innocent until proven guilty and the right to face your accuser. (The popular one keeps accusers anonymous, thus the victim has no chance to defend themselves.) The truth is a maintainer can eject someone without a CoC. The purpose of CoC, a…
> The purpose of CoC, as stated by its author ... is to eradicate meritocracy. For the sake of clarity, it's important to note here that "meritocracy" is a deeply contentious word. What "merit" is being rewarded? True technical ability/contribution? Measured how? Or access and privilege (for which it's a misnomer but still often used)? Which definition does the author of the CoC oppose? Which definition do you defend…
It's also worth noting that the term "meritocracy" was coined to highlight questions like yours.
I really, genuinely, don't understand why such a bland code of conduct would be a turn off to anyone. I may not be easy to be around, but I try not to be abrasive while, at the same time, making clear why I think something is the way I think. If you think someone is wrong very often, I believe saying why the person is wrong on every occasion will provide them with actionable information much better than calling them…
> Behaving like a decent human being isn't that hard. It can be quite hard to live up to everyone's standards of "decency". You just failed to do it. > I shouldn't respond to hyperbolic language with the like. Write that on the chalkboard one hundred times and maybe we'll let it slide. This time.
Yeah, I was called out on it, and I corrected myself. I wouldn't want to be part of a project that bans people who make an effort towards decency. The fact that standards differ and a consensus needs to be found for what constitutes decency is not an argument against it. What point are you trying to illustrate? Are you saying I shouldn't have been called out on it? Because I disagree. The fact was, I found the post I…
I think part of the problem is that in the CoC context, the slighted party now looks at your username, cross references it against reddit and twitter, searches your posts for something else to take umbrage at, and makes the case that you should be excluded from the community. The result is a very real chilling effect on speech on all public platforms because now you're never allowed to make a comment that might be taken out of context to offend now or at any time in the future.
I find the doom-and-gloom over the CoC change absolutely silly. Plenty of projects have a CoC and none of them have just died a fiery death because there were rules against treating people badly. As other people pointed out, there's a big difference between putting everything into 15 layers of business speak and just not insulting people. Linus is, to me, obviously advocating the latter.
CoC encourages harrassment through doxing and witch-hunts. It actually has the opposite effect. You were rude to me on a bug tracker? I'll dox you and find something you said 5 years ago which is offensive and report it to the committee to get you banned.
This is the CoC that many projects subscribe to: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-con... The relevant snippet is here: -------- Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks Public or private harassment Publishing others’ p…
Any open source project that gains enough traction to require a proper governance model has adopted a code of conduct. (Although I'd be interested in seeing if there are any notable counter-examples). Whether or not it is based on the Contributor Covenant is irrelevant -- the language is roughly the same broad brush strokes with which you appear to have ideological differences. Do you take issue with the "Enforcement…
> Any open source project that gains enough traction to require a proper governance model has adopted a code of conduct. That sentence probably needs some adjustment for time dependence. There were plenty of open source projects with proper governance models in the 90s (e.g. GNU, Debian) but AFAIK CoCs are a relatively recent thing.
Well, sure.
But a governance model that relies on a couple of hundred self-policing contributors needs to evolve with scale, right?
Yeah, I was called out on it, and I corrected myself. I wouldn't want to be part of a project that bans people who make an effort towards decency. The fact that standards differ and a consensus needs to be found for what constitutes decency is not an argument against it. What point are you trying to illustrate? Are you saying I shouldn't have been called out on it? Because I disagree. The fact was, I found the post I…
I think part of the problem is that in the CoC context, the slighted party now looks at your username, cross references it against reddit and twitter, searches your posts for something else to take umbrage at, and makes the case that you should be excluded from the community. The result is a very real chilling effect on speech on all public platforms because now you're never allowed to make a comment that might be ta…
This is the key to the whole thing and I'm glad someone finally said it. Open-source projects aren't incapable of getting rid of contributors who cause problems to the detriment of project productivity without having a formalized Code of Conduct. Why add something to a project that causes more problems than it solves? CoC proponents have good intentions but fail to see the chilling effect potential, even as it plays itself out in real time, right on cue (Ts'o).
These CoC's are weapons, disguised as a harmless decency. In the case of linux, it was yielded within a very timely manner: https://old.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/9hhnev/less...
If the CoC is used to bully people, then fight the bullying. It's a false dichotomy that we have to accept one type of bullies in order not to empower another type of bullies. That said, your link also just peddles various conspiracy theories as "proven", and imagines a vast conspiracy of SJWs who specifically target powerful men. Which, BTW, should it exists, is clearly utterly ineffectual.
>If the CoC is used to bully people, then fight the bullying.
Why add something to a project that begins an endless spiral of fighting? Does this seem productive to you?