Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines • Hacker News Board

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#201

Post by sp332 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:37 PM UTC

iambvk wrote: post #183

sp332 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At that point the abusers who move in will realize you can't see them and will harass your members with impunity. That doesn't seem like good community management. Actually it seems like throwing new members into the deep end (exposing them to every bad actor you already knew about) and at some point I suspect the only people who join your site will be malicious.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#202

Post by xoa » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:39 PM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #37

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…

Stallman’s guidelines fully support correcting biases. Making diversity a goal is identity politics, which is a very different thing than correcting biases.

>Making diversity a goal is identity politics

I think you may be being too absolutist here? This would only be true if literally every demographic thought identically about every aspect of a project or product and brought the same point of view. Then everyone would be interchangeable beyond pure technical competence. However I don't think that's always true, and when it's not that means that diversity can have some value purely in and of itself since it will bring a better reflection of global usage goals and UX considerations.

I want to emphasize that this doesn't mean it's a more important value then anything else, which might be where some of the reflexive opposition comes from. It shouldn't be a zero-sum game, where gaining diversity means necessarily losing on other important values. But neither is diversity never of any inherent positive value, it can be, and that in turn is worth some positive effort to pursue isn't it? Not merely correcting biases, but actively seeking a wider array of PoVs from intelligent people could help avoid mental boxes and unpleasant surprises when something goes out into the general world.

So maybe a better version of what you said would be "making diversity the only goal" or even "the goal above all else" or "diversity a goal but never taking into account whether any cost/benefit tradeoffs to existing culture makes for a net win" or something along those lines?

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#203

Post by mpalczewski » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:39 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #43

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…

Agree. I'm fan of Nonviolent Communication a.k.a Collaborative Communication. NVC acknowledges that moralistic judgments and demands make communication harder, not easier. Still it's important that people should be able to communicate the feelings, needs and make requests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication

NVC is great and has improved my speaking and listening skills. However, I have to take issue with the name. Co-opting the word violence, is great marketing but dishonest.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#204

Post by pjc50 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:40 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?

Well, Linus has been doing that for years and widely praised for it. And because kicking him out was inconceivable, people did nothing and concluded nothing could be done.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#205

Post by mcguire » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:40 PM UTC

lgleason wrote: post #121

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 an…

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.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#206

Post by dvdkhlng » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:41 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?

No, I think it works pretty well if practiced uni-laterally. There are two sides to NVC: speaking and listening. Even if the other side in a conversation lacks motivation or skills to talk non-violently, NVC gives you a perspective to interpret the other's message in a NVC way, thereby making the conversation much less stressful and (in my experience) steering it into a more productive and less heated direction.

[edited to add:] With "interpreting the other's message a NVC way" I refer to e.g. seeing the anger of somebody disagreeing with you as something caused by violated expectations and needs that can be talked about, without immedeately feeling the urge to defend oneself and feeling guilty about the situation.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#207

Post by tristor » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:42 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #169

defgeneric wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 attac…

I assume you realize what you're doing, but quoting the text of the CoC to people defending the CoC when they respond to a criticism of any kind and in any fashion of response is exceptionally passive-aggressive to the point of being inappropriate. You've done the same thing in response to multiple commenters on this thread. Perhaps you should try also practicing what you preach?

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#208

Post by binaryapparatus » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:44 PM UTC

mwfunk wrote: post #191

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…

All of this stuff is in service of getting the job done. If people can't usefully collaborate with other people because they literally never developed adult social skills (not uncommon in the tech world), then they're not going to be good contributors or collaborators. They won't know how to constructively criticize others, or take constructive criticism, they won't learn from their mistakes, and they might not even…

What are the priorities? Is 'collaborating' supreme goal on its own?

a) Quality b) Feelings c) Having as many as possible people 'collaborating' d) Getting job done

Pick two. They are not excluding others but I wonder what the priorities are.

I pick A and D, C is welcome but not priority, B only if it doesn't clash with any of other goals.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#209

Post by dang » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:44 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #205

lgleason wrote: post #121

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 an…

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.

Can you please stop doing this? It might have been funny the first time but a half dozen is spamming the thread.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#210

Post by yebyen » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:47 PM UTC

bitL wrote: post #185

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…

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…

I honestly have long agreed with your premise, but I have to say I can't bring myself to agree with your whole statement. I see it more often each passing year, that someone who behaves a certain way is "charitably" accused of having some disorder, or "being on the spectrum." I do not accept this.

And you can do better than "this code is fucking garbage." Even "this code is poorly done, try harder" is much better. It is more polite, and the more times I see this discussion, the more I like the idea that you should just treat your colleagues like ladies and gentlemen, or whatever.

At a given point in my TDD learnings, I thought I invented a new term for a really powerful idea – "Shame-Driven Development" – turns out I was not the first person who named this idea.

My idea of "SDD" is basically that noticing a failing test will motivate you to fix your code, so it's imperative that we set up CI early in development and shine a light on those failing tests at every opportunity. My idea is not important, if you google the term, you'll see that it really is a bigger idea than that, and all of the top links are perhaps obviously not presenting it in a positive light.

You don't want "shame-driven development." Embarrassment is only a powerful motivator for the people you haven't used it on yet. Other people will seek to avoid being embarrassed, but the person you embarrass will only be left feeling bad.