Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines • Hacker News Board

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#181

Post by waterhouse » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:19 PM UTC

brobdingnagians wrote: post #17

> The way we do this, rather than ordering people to be kind or else, is try to help people learn to make their communication more kind. This is excellent; using love and persuasion to help someone improve is so much better than by force, compulsion, and fear. How many children rebel against restrictive and domineering parents? but a child who is loved and taught, but allowed to make choices and pursue independence u…

>>I disagree with making "diversity" a goal. If the developers in a specific free software project do not include demographic D, I don't think that the lack of them as a problem that requires action; there is no need to scramble desperately to recruit some Ds. >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.

Just as long as we're clear that demographic D being underrepresented relative to the general population is not evidence that we make demographic D feel unwelcome. Representation relative to the population of graduated CS majors or working programmers is better, but still not necessarily the right comparison. Representation relative to, say, the population of programmers who are experts in your implementation language, or who are users of the project, or the intersection of the above, might be better. Even then, that's not direct evidence that making D "unwelcome" is the specific reason.

Direct evidence would probably be something like, take some online exchanges and show them to a bunch of {working programmers or some other decent approximation to the population your volunteers might come from}, and ask them a few questions about how they would react to these exchanges, how much it would discourage them from volunteering, whether things like it have discouraged them from volunteering in the past, etc., and then show that demographic D has a much worse response.

By the way, has anyone done studies that showed that women respond much more negatively to harsh online exchanges than men? I have a feeling they would be called sexist if they were published, but... The closest one I can think of is Pew's online harassment study[1], which said, among other things, "Women were more likely than men to find their most recent experience with online harassment extremely or very upsetting—38% of harassed women said so of their most recent experience, compared with 17% of harassed men."

http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#182

Post by atq2119 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:19 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…

In fairness, the context of the Ts'o email seems to be conference organization, and it points out that large fractions of the rape statistics are made out of domestic abuse and drunk undergrads.

Neither of those seem particularly relevant for conference organization, so it should be possible to point out those simple facts without being immediately tarred as a rape apologist.

I do believe most of the people in favor of CoCs mean well, but the first paragraph of your comment basically reads like an unsubstantiated attempt at character assassination of and by a random person on the internet, and I guess lots of people are (probably unjustifiedly, but whatever) afraid that CoCs will provide cover for engaging in precisely this kind of poisonous behavior.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#183

Post by iambvk » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:20 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #168

frogeg wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.yo…

Instead of punishing the other party, you have a choice to ignore that person by setting a filter for that person's email.

This way, if enough people filter-out, the person will be silenced. Others, who are more forgiving, would continue to receive that person's contributions.

My rule is, I make decisions for myself and only myself.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#184

Post by pmyteh » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:21 PM UTC

jowsie wrote: post #133

ubernostrum wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

This is highly unlikely, if only because such hiring practices would be unlawful in Britain in almost all cases.

You can use diversity as a tie-breaker, and you can actively try to persuade people from various under-represented groups to apply, but you can't specifically state that you only take Black candidates (source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...)

The BBC is a large centralised organisation with a hefty HR team and a lot of people who like to beat on it. They're the last people I would expect to be advertising illegal hiring practices.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#185

Post by bitL » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:21 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #44

marijn wrote: post #13

While it sounds very reasonable, friendly, and non-authoritarian, a big problem with an approach like this, without real teeth or rigidity, is that it is very easy to harass people out of a community while staying within its constraints, and provides very little recourse for those being harassed (who often are not in a position of power) to put on pressure for getting something done about it. The approach taken large…

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…

What if the code was indeed garbage, and it cost a lot of time (super precious asset) and brain power (a precious asset) to evaluate and reject? Such a reaction would be understandable even if hurtful. No wonder people leaning towards the Asperger/autistic spectrum of brutal honesty would state that; such is their nature.

What would you propose for addressing it? Ghosting? Silent blacklisting? English-style "there is a minor hiccup with the code"? A compiled list of what is wrong with the code (taking another few hours to prepare)? Any realistic ideas?

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#186

Post by komali2 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:24 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #150

x220 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love to promote this whenever I can. This method has a fantastic reward given the time it takes to learn and practice it and has made my in-person communication a lot better whenever I use it.

I have heard about it, but always sorta wrote it of because while I can learn it, most other people wouldn't. I do wonder though, how does it work when only one side practice it? Do the user get the suckers payout?

Not really, at least for me because even if someone else "doesn't use it," you still have the satisfaction of knowing you're following your well defined value system to the letter, and there's nothing you could have done anyway without acting outside your value system.

Dale Carnegie was writing about this stuff decades ago, so another way to look at it, if you really need a reason other than "feels good," is it gives you a tremendous advantage in social situations of all kinds. You're more likely to "get what you want" in the end, though that kind of thinking is not really the point imo.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#187

Post by mcguire » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:26 PM UTC

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.

If in a discussion someone brings up a tangent to the topic at hand, please keep the discussion on track by focusing on the current topic rather than the tangent. This is not to say that the tangent is bad, or not interesting to discuss—only that it shouldn't interfere with discussion of the issue at hand. In most cases, it is also off-topic, so those interested ought to discuss it somewhere else.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#188

Post by komali2 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:26 PM UTC

waterhouse wrote: post #181

brobdingnagians wrote: post #17

> The way we do this, rather than ordering people to be kind or else, is try to help people learn to make their communication more kind. This is excellent; using love and persuasion to help someone improve is so much better than by force, compulsion, and fear. How many children rebel against restrictive and domineering parents? but a child who is loved and taught, but allowed to make choices and pursue independence u…

>>I disagree with making "diversity" a goal. If the developers in a specific free software project do not include demographic D, I don't think that the lack of them as a problem that requires action; there is no need to scramble desperately to recruit some Ds. >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 demogra…

Such a study would be extremely difficult to interpret, given societal pressure on men to "close off" their emotions, and societal pressure on women teaching them that they are "emotional creatures."

I guess if it was treated like an anthropological analysis of Western culture, sure, but as a psychological or physiological one dealing with actual brain chemistry, no way.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#189

Post by whiddershins » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:27 PM UTC

TotempaaltJ wrote: post #8

> Rather than trying to have the last word, look for the times when there is no need to reply, perhaps because you already made the relevant point clear enough. If you know something about the game of Go, this analogy might clarify that: when the opponent's move is not strong enough to require a direct response, it is advantageous to give it none and instead move elsewhere. I love this analogy of why not responding m…

I was very influenced when I read Paul Graham’s assertion that comment quality tends to be inversely proportional to reply depth.

I can’t find the reference but I really took that to heart, and try as hard as I can to avoid replying to a reply to one of my comments, here and elsewhere. The exception would be if I was very unclear originally, or if someone asks something specific that only I can answer.

What’s interesting is how effective this seems to be. If my original statement is worth defending usually someone else will chime in.

Otherwise it’s a great mental exercise to just let the criticism stand, and try to think how to be more airtight in the future.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#190

Post by mcguire » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:29 PM UTC

patrickg_zill wrote: post #179

scrollaway wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Systemd breaks fundamental Unix principles. Those principles have been around since the 1990s at the latest. So yes the use of objectively does fit...

Please don't argue unceasingly for your preferred course of action when a decision for some other course has already been made. That tends to block the activity's progress.