Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines • Hacker News Board

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#161

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:01 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #138

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.

[deleted]

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#162

Post by will4274 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

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]?

Am I missing the back story here? The poster explicitly says he is not trying to diminish the awfulness of rape, just concerned that some cited statistics are inaccurate about its frequency.

I'm not sure how this topic comes up in a software project, but, is this really an example of rape apology to you? Surely everybody wants to discuss issues honestly, using the best possible data.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#163

Post by usrusr » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

> Please avoid statements about the presumed typical desires, capabilities or actions of some demographic group. They can offend people in that group

You can tell a programmer's writing by how closely that rule dodges recursing upon itself.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#164

Post by adamrezich » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #3

Side note: This is the first E-Mail I've seen from Stallman in over 4 years that hasn't started with his usual boilerplate: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] See e.g. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2018-10/msg00... (just picked his…

Maybe he wants the NSA and FBI to take note as well.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#165

Post by mcguire » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:03 PM UTC

frogeg wrote: post #147

Spivak wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People who avoid saying what they think because they are afraid of losing internet points are retarded to begin with.

Please do not take a harsh tone towards other participants, and especially don't make personal attacks against them. Go out of your way to show that you are criticizing a statement, not a person.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#166

Post by ajross » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:04 PM UTC

frogeg wrote: post #149

ajross wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current push for codes of conduct in software projects isn't about harassment per se. Realistically anyone can be harassed out of a community regardless of rules. The point of the rules is to change the norms such that behavior that would otherwise have been exclusionary or just off-putting is specifically called out and recognized as "wrong". "This code is fucking garbage and you should be ashamed" may or may no…

Do you really need a CoC to know someone who says "This code is fucking garbage and you should be ashamed" is an idiot? Do you really need a CoC to kick out someone who says that?

That kind of behavior is endemic in our community. So... yes, I guess we do.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#167

Post by seattlebarley » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:04 PM UTC

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…

I'd just like to know how you come to the conclusion that evening out the demographics in the free software community could in any way improve the quality of projects. I guess you're looking for better harmony in the community? Still, please explain how setting quotas would improve anything, rather than stirring up more strife.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#168

Post by sp332 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:05 PM UTC

frogeg wrote: post #149

ajross wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current push for codes of conduct in software projects isn't about harassment per se. Realistically anyone can be harassed out of a community regardless of rules. The point of the rules is to change the norms such that behavior that would otherwise have been exclusionary or just off-putting is specifically called out and recognized as "wrong". "This code is fucking garbage and you should be ashamed" may or may no…

Do you really need a CoC to know someone who says "This code is fucking garbage and you should be ashamed" is an idiot? Do you really need a CoC to kick out someone who says that?

Just the opposite: you need the CoC to make sure they do get kicked out. Because for example if the writer of that comment is friends with the moderators of the forum, they might get a slap on the wrist and allowed to continue. Having a written CoC lets people know that the mods can be held accountable to the document. Another example making the same point, this time of actual harassment being ignored: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxLENeCf3OA

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#169

Post by mcguire » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:07 PM UTC

defgeneric wrote: post #124

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").

Please assume other participants are posting in good faith, even if you disagree with what they say. When people present code or text as their own work, please accept it as their work. Please do not criticize people for wrongs that you only speculate they may have done; stick to what they actually say and actually do.

Please do not take a harsh tone towards other participants, and especially don't make personal attacks against them. Go out of your way to show that you are criticizing a statement, not a person.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#170

Post by cipherzero » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:09 PM UTC

jelly wrote: post #33

noch wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's always someone who tries to read between the lines and strawman people for what they did not say/express. The claim that there is always someone creating strawmen is itself the creation of a strawman. If you assume good faith of participants then it might be useful to assume good faith of those who criticise even if they misunderstand or misread or assume unwarranted implications.

"There's always one" is a common rhetorical device whose meaning is closer to "There's often one, and I easily forget the times there's not." I don't think the parent's intention was to make such a claim.

Whether GP meant to make a strawman or not, i found the comment to be a good reminder to apply the strategy GP espoused. Hopefully that’s how it’s perceived- and not as an indictment of hypocrisy.