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

131–140 of 412 posts

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#131

Post by joshuamorton »

stcredzero wrote: post #103
joshuamorton wrote: post #60

So, I read through the list of guidelines, and while I have some minor quibbles with them, overall they seem fine and reasonable. But what happens if someone refuses to be kind? What happens if that person is a major contributor? What would happen if, in some strange alternate reality, Linux was a GNU project, and Linus-of-2012 said he'd really rather not care about all this politeness nonsense, and would prefer to c…

This is just a more verbose "Be kind to each other", but without any commitment from the leadership of the project to actually maintain a kind, welcoming environment. "Be kind, generous, and accepting, or there will be consequences!" is just a few steps removed from, "The beatings will continue until morale improves." The conundrum with linux, was that it was organized in a self-contradicting way. It's fine to have a…

See my longer comment[1]. At some point, with some hopefully small fraction of members, the maintainer will need to make a call between keeping the member and letting other people suffer, or kicking someone out of the project. Stallman even mentions this:

>the appointed maintainer(s) of a GNU package can, if necessary, tell a contributor to go away; but we do not want to need to have recourse to that.

in his email, although leaves that out of the guidelines themselves. Why on earth is being forthright about the fact that abuse will lead to exclusion worse than being cagey about that fact? If the end result, you can be kicked out, is the same, why would you prefer that the circumstances be entirely up to each individual maintainer's discretion instead of a somewhat objective (and importantly, public and available!) set of criteria?

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18275994

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#132

Post by reaperducer »

ubernostrum wrote: post #59
levythe wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's everything surrounding this statement that is refreshing. Hearing, "Diversity is not our goal; creating an environment that welcomes diversity is," runs counter to the incessant assumptions that going out of our way to collect diversity tokens is the end all and be all to facilitating diversity.

OK, let's argue the way the "anti-diversity" people normally do in these threads. You assert that advocates of diversity want people: going out of our way to collect diversity tokens You must now present, to me, and separately and individually to any other person who asks it of you, a minimum of five credible primary sources of people who advocate diversity and who have used exactly this phrasing -- no paraphrasing,…

You must now present, to me,

First off, thanks for that. To think that any random stranger on the internet "must" do something for you... well, that's quality humor right there.

and separately and individually to any other person who asks it of you, a minimum of five credible primary sources of people who advocate diversity and who have used exactly this phrasing

My guess is that he's capable of original thought, and this might be one of his original thoughts. Not everyone builds a facade of intelligence by regurgitating quotations from other people. Because someone else hasn't posted something on the internet doesn't mean it's not a valid thought.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#133

Post by jowsie »

ubernostrum wrote: post #59
levythe wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's everything surrounding this statement that is refreshing. Hearing, "Diversity is not our goal; creating an environment that welcomes diversity is," runs counter to the incessant assumptions that going out of our way to collect diversity tokens is the end all and be all to facilitating diversity.

OK, let's argue the way the "anti-diversity" people normally do in these threads. You assert that advocates of diversity want people: going out of our way to collect diversity tokens You must now present, to me, and separately and individually to any other person who asks it of you, a minimum of five credible primary sources of people who advocate diversity and who have used exactly this phrasing -- no paraphrasing,…

He won't be able to because anyone employing such a technique generally wouldn't be stupid enough to use those exact terms.

There are plenty of examples in the UK, specifically with the BBC, putting out recruitment campaigns that specifically state they only take in Black/Minority candidates. There is no reason for it other than to boost 'diversity'. The jobs are just as capable of being done by black people as any other colour.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#134

Post by scrollaway »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #115
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, invented by the guy you are quoting, is, however, objectively crap. I am about to start a separate, new service and have wide leeway in how it will run. I am moving away from Linux towards a mix of BSD and Solaris/Illumos. And Systemd played a part in this technical decision.

Feels like you might not know the meaning of the word "objectively".

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#135

Post by jowsie »

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…

> my retort to this would be that you are obviously attempting to censor my free speech

Do you not realise that free speech doesn't apply to whatever random online forum you decided to sign up too?

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#136

Post by jf- »

joshuamorton wrote: post #131
stcredzero wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just a more verbose "Be kind to each other", but without any commitment from the leadership of the project to actually maintain a kind, welcoming environment. "Be kind, generous, and accepting, or there will be consequences!" is just a few steps removed from, "The beatings will continue until morale improves." The conundrum with linux, was that it was organized in a self-contradicting way. It's fine to have a…

See my longer comment[1]. At some point, with some hopefully small fraction of members, the maintainer will need to make a call between keeping the member and letting other people suffer, or kicking someone out of the project. Stallman even mentions this: >the appointed maintainer(s) of a GNU package can, if necessary, tell a contributor to go away; but we do not want to need to have recourse to that. in his email, a…

> why would you prefer that the circumstances be entirely up to each individual maintainer's discretion

Exactly so that the same judgement isn’t applied everywhere. Different maintainers will end up having different audiences. I see that as acceptable, maybe even preferable.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#137

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#138

Post by s73v3r_ »

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."

False choice; there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that one would ever need to choose between being polite to others and getting the job done.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#139

Post by scrollaway »

Spivak wrote: post #85
civodul wrote: post #28

As co-maintainer of GNU Guix, I want to point out that the views expressed in Richard Stallman's message are his and not those of the Guix maintainers. In particular, by writing that codes of conduct are "punitive spirit", RMS shows a misunderstanding of how these texts came into existence. More importantly, by writing that he disagrees with "making diversity a goal", RMS seems to deny the role we free software peopl…

Speaking counter to not only RMS but also the tide of popular opinion not only on HN but the internet at large I'm sure takes a lot of courage -- and I just want to say thank you.

This isn't Reddit and downvotes, if any, don't come with jail time. Can we maybe dispense with making it sound like the above poster is reporting on free speech in Saudi Arabia? It's kind of inappropriate.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#140

Post by deltron3030 »

ubernostrum wrote: post #71
exprA wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Affirmative action is racist. Accepting that, you can of course debate what sorts of racism we should allow, and perhaps even encourage. I probably disagree with you, but that's just my opinion.

Observing a bias, quantifying it as best as possible, and deploying countermeasures in corresponding degree to reduce its impact, is not racism. But if you believe anything which assigns admission/hiring/recruiting scores on any basis other than objectively-measured individual merit is "racist", you cannot plausibly be in favor of current hiring, recruiting or admissions practices, and have far larger fish to fry tha…

An extravertedness bias in underclass culture is the main reason people why people don't get into coding, which is historically more something for introverts and a "nerd thing". It's still in peoples minds, nobody in High School wants to be like Steve Urkel, it's a vulnerabilty in certain circles.

This can only be changed by changing the image of coders within mainstream pop culture, which in turn is mainly influenced by lower class culture, especially Hip-Hop culture in the last decades.

Post reply on HN