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

Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 412 posts

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#121

Post by lgleason »

Long term I expect to see the quality of GNU and Linux software falter over efforts like this. This is not because I don't advocate for treating other people well, on the contrary I do. It is because in practice these are politically motivated trojan horses meant to tear down things like a meritocracy, the very thing that created this great software.

I've personally watched the activists pushing these target women and other under-represented minorities using these documents for the crime of disagreeing with the narrative.

IE: https://medium.com/@marlene.jaeckel/the-empress-has-no-cloth...

I fully expect to see purges happen of talented individuals based on politically motivated targeting etc. with secret tribunals where the accused are guilty until proven innocent etc.. It's happened to people like Larry Garfield of Drupal, the Opalgate crew tried to do it to a guy who dared to express his conservative views on Twitter in a personal capacity etc..

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#122

Post by jakelazaroff »

whatshisface wrote: post #91
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that whole issue was, while it may be amusing to watch the drama unfold, that valuable contributors were being disaffected. No, its not about how entertaining the email chain reads. Its about getting work done? And it's disingenuous to describe the vicious attacks as 'snippy' and 'glib'.

Different people saw those emails in different ways. In fact, some people are invigorated by strong words as opposed to being cowed and driven away by them. I'm not saying that you didn't perceive them as vicious attacks, I'm saying that the spectrum of human behavior includes people who think being harsh is fine, and give and take it freely. You can't just throw out everyone that behaves in a way that makes you unco…

I think you realize that at some point a line has to be drawn, given you called "targeting another person's emotions" wrong; and also that everyone's line is in a slightly different place and what's reasonable to some will be uncomfortable or hurtful to others.

Given that, why is it wrong for people to try and influence their community in such a way that it minimizes people's discomfort? Shouldn't every community have the right to self-determine what conduct they're okay with?

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#123

Post by yebyen »

ubernostrum wrote: post #66
village-idiot wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony of unkind communication in a thread discussing new guidelines around kind communication is just painful. Please don't accuse others of not paying attention. It's not nice, and it does a bad job of communicating your message.

The irony of unkind communication in a thread discussing new guidelines around kind communication is just painful. If I were the type of the anti-"diversity" person, my retort to this would be that you are obviously attempting to censor my free speech, by making certain types of speech out of bounds, and then assert that free speech is a good in itself -- one of the highest, if not the single highest such good -- and…

> a factual statement -- people either are not paying attention, or are being misinformed -- is unkind.

That is bluntly unkind. You've taken an opinion and phrased it as "a factual statement." The "fact" you're positing is that there are two camps, those that don't understand because they are purely ignorant, and those that don't understand because they are intentionally fed false information. (How charitable!)

What was the original "factual statement" again? I don't even know, because you've told "me" that whatever my opinion is, if it disagrees with yours, then I'm in one of two camps and they're both wrong.

(NB: you didn't tell me anything, I'm just trying to engage you in this thought exercise that you seem to want to have.)

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#124

Post by defgeneric »

wpietri wrote: post #15

On the one hand, I'm glad that he's at least acknowledging that this is a problem. It's disappointing to me that he talks about the problem as if people first noticed it in August, when I've heard it discussed for a decade or more. But still, baby steps. There's also a crashing lack of self-awareness here. This bit sounds great: "The only political positions that the GNU Project endorses are (1) that users should hav…

This is not an argument.

You've merely listed things you don't like, punctuated by little insults ("crashing lack of self-awareness", "baby steps").

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#125

Post by kadendogthing »

yarrel wrote: post #119
kadendogthing wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How much damage have Linus's snippy emails really caused Don't downplay how he acted by using words like "snippy." There are contributors who have either left the project or actively avoid directly talking with him. There is a reason why Linus admitted he had a problem. It wasn't productive or useful. https://plus.google.com/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/post... >But more importantly, I'd actually put some blame o…

systemd is not a good advertisement for prioritizing social pacification over software quality.

>for prioritizing social pacification over software quality.

Well quite literally it's doing the opposite. Social derisiveness does nothing for the community. That's just one example of many. And of course you had to nitpick about systemd instead of understanding what's being discussed. Missing The Point (TM) 2018. Linux itself isn't really a good example of sane kernel development and architecture. It's popular and it works.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#126

Post by binaryapparatus »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #89
binaryapparatus wrote: post #31

Being politically correct vs getting the job done, I'll always choose getting the job done. There is plenty or role playing projects where your feeling matter more than your skills. In last couple of jobs I am always asking about company policy, if they start piling about diversity and getting everybody heard and how everybody's feelings are most important thing, I don't want to work there. Earn your place with your…

> Being politically correct vs getting the job done, I'll always choose getting the job done. I am absolutely baffled at the idea that there is ever a situation where getting the job done requires a choice to be politically incorrect as implied here. Do you have an example of the phenomenon you're discussing?

Yeah, like mirko said, being pressured by project leader to merge absolute crap (I was in charge of merging), "because it works and we don't want to suppress less skilled colleagues". "Try to explain nicely how to do it better" while that other guy a) doesn't want to learn and b) has feelings that are more important that making better software / learning.

Edit: to clarify, that other guy couldn't understand the project or how to do proper code so all the PC dance afterwards is the perfect shield and role playing. I just walked away after few weeks.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#127

Post by indigochill »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #90

When people are arguing for "diversity" what they are meaning, generally, is "there is already an enormous thumb on the scales, this can be shown empirically by outcomes". So to the extent Stallman's intent is to take the thumb off the scales and make everyone welcome, it is very reasonable. That said, I think he's wrong to devalue quota type approaches, because in some circumstances, particularly institutional ones…

>those are a very effective way to force a noncompliant culture to take its thumb off the scales.

I think some would argue that quota approaches aren't quite this, but rather that they're a thumb on the other end of the scale. The first thumb is still there because non-compliant cultures that aren't fundamentally converted to becoming compliant at the cultural level will generally continue to be non-compliant cultures and only comply insofar as the quotas require (to take a rather contrived example, you can hire 50% women, but what about when 30% of them are harassed, feel unwelcome, and leave?).

I'm personally of the mind that the only way to really take the first thumb off the scales is to persuade the non-compliant culture that complying is in their best interest. Which seems to be the gist of these guidelines: "We all agree contributors are a good thing. Let's be welcoming to all demographics so we optimize the number of contributors."

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#128

Post by s73v3r_ »

debacle wrote: post #51
ubernostrum wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, here's the thing. Statements like this? Rather, the problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out on possible contributors. And very likely also others that are not in demographic D. This is not a new statement. This is what people pushing diversity have been saying for years and years. The only ways for this to be a new and refreshing thing to you are: 1. You were not paying attention, or…

We don't need this kind of accusatory commentary on HN, I don't think.

On the contrary, I think more often than not, people here need reminders like this. Nothing they said was wrong.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#129

Post by lliamander »

KirinDave wrote: post #87
phoe-krk wrote: post #5

A code of conduct states rules, with punishments for anyone that violates them. It is the heavy-handed way of teaching people to behave differently, and since it only comes into action when people do something against the rules, it doesn't try to teach people to do better than what the rules require. To be sure, the appointed maintainer(s) of a GNU package can, if necessary, tell a contributor to go away; but we do n…

> That is the paragraph that captures the essence of the CoC issues for me. A CoC seems to be used as a weapon for killing those that do not abide by its rules, not as a tool for teaching each other to be awesome to each other. Can I ask an honest question? Do you really think that men advocating for molestation of women, or open racists, are just... you know... undereducated and waiting for you as a thought-savior t…

> Do you think that Ts'o just needed you to step in and explain how domestic sexual abuse is rape and that he's just being insufficiently awesome[0]?

So you believe that Ts'o claimed that domestic sexual abuse is not rape? Let's see what he actually wrote:

> Also in the survey, in the rapes that were reported via a randomized telephone survey, in 66.9% of those cases, the perpetrator did not threaten to harm or kill the victim. (Which makes it no less a crime, of course, but people may have images of rape which involves a other physical injuries, by a stranger, in some dark and deserted place. The statistics simply don't bear that out)

OK, so it seems that his own words contradict your assertion. Care to explain?

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#130

Post by yarrel »

repolfx wrote: post #100
jordigh wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was there to witness the private mailing list that culminated in this, and there was a very clear example of that happening there. A certain GNU contributor, let's call her Sal, was voicing concerns with current practices. Someone else replied to her with "Sally," condescendingly talking down to her. To this she said, "I did not invite you to call me by a nickname. Call me Sal." A sub-discussion then erupted about…

That sounds utterly trivial - why was Sal/Sally so upset by an attempt to be polite by not using a short form/pet name. That must happen to her all the time in formal settings. As for "voicing concerns with current practices", what were those concerns and practices? Technical?

It wasn't an attempt to be polite. They didn't use the long form of their name (which would be irritating but I can see that being an attempt to be polite), they used a rather infantilising diminutive. The effect was condescending and "Sal" was well within their rights to object.

In the general case, telling someone that actually you are the person who has the last word on what they are called is bullying.

Post reply on HN