Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines • Hacker News Board

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#211

Post by jki275 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:47 PM UTC

jt2190 wrote: post #177

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, which is a very different thing than correcting biases. I don't understand this assertion. Is there a subtlety of terminology I'm missing here? Should I read "diversity" only as a goal to produce a group that is composed of x% from group A, y% from group B, etc., rather than the more generous reading that the goal is to ensure that members of various groups feel welcome…

What you state about percentages is exactly what has been pushed under the guise of diversity in many cases. Meritocracy has been specifically targeted by the more recent "code of conduct" silliness going around.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#212

Post by pjc50 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

trhway wrote: post #198

pjc50 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about whether you "like" to read them or not, it's about whether the people they're directed at (and the audience) read them and decide to withdraw from the project (or never join it).

good software engineering requires some minimal level of mental strength, and if a one cant take a snippy (in the one's opinion as in my opinion Linus' emails are very reasonable, precise and thorough explanatorial) email i'd question whether that one would be a valuable member at all.

Like the "you should be retroactively aborted" one?

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#213

Post by jki275 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:49 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #201

iambvk wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can't be harassed if you don't listen.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#214

Post by PurpleBoxDragon » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:54 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #178

will4274 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

" This appears to be the source of the 1 in 6 figure (17.6%). But it's worth going deeper. If you look at percentage of women reporting rape since age 18 (taking out the child abuse and statutory rape cases, which they also treat in detail), it becomes 1 in 10 (9.6%), and of those over 61.9% were at the hands of their intimate partner, as opposed to an acquaintance or stranger. Also in the survey, in the rapes that w…

In some states, definitely in the past and perhaps even today though I haven't kept abreast of the law, there were different ages deemed legal for a relationship based on the genders involved. To defend the statistic is to, likely unknowingly, defend the discrimination the laws hold in both structure and application. I am not saying one should discount all cases covered under the law, but it does deserve some context given the sometimes sordid history of the laws.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#215

Post by ve55 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:54 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…

>correcting the biases, conscious or not, that have led to the poor diversity of our communities

What you're missing is a proof that the only reason a community is not 'diverse' is due to 'biases' within the community. You will find this is a very hard thing to prove as a general concept. Reminds me of the following paragraph:

>For the record, here is a small sample of other communities where black people are strongly underrepresented:

>Runners (3%). Bikers (6%). Furries (2%). Wall Street senior management (2%). Occupy Wall Street protesters (unknown but low, one source says 1.6% but likely an underestimate). BDSM (unknown but low) Tea Party members (1%). American Buddhists (~2%). Bird watchers (4%). Environmentalists (various but universally low). Wikipedia contributors (unknown but low). Atheists (2%). Vegetarian activists (maybe 1-5%). Yoga enthusiasts (unknown but low). College baseball players (5%). Swimmers (2%). Fanfiction readers (2%). Unitarian Universalists (1%).

>Can you see what all of these groups have in common?

>No. No you can’t. source: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/11/black-people-less-like...

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#216

Post by repolfx » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:56 PM UTC

yarrel wrote: post #130

repolfx wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, if someone says "call me this" and you don't, I agree, that's annoying. But it should be a polite request, not the start of a fight.

And what is the long form then? The only female name I can think of that shortens to Sal is Sally. This whole story seems suspect.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#217

Post by flomble » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:56 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…

> No wonder people leaning towards the Asperger/autistic spectrum of brutal honesty would state that; such is their nature.

Actually, it is not "their nature". The nature of people on the spectrum is to have difficulty understanding social conventions. Having a system whereby social conventions are explicitly spelled out in detail is likely to help people on the spectrum adhere to them, because they no longer have to be inferred.

People on the spectrum deserve understanding (like everyone else) when they break social norms or say hurtful things due to not understanding that they're doing anything wrong. When they know that what they're doing is not acceptable, they are as responsible as anyone else who knowingly acts like a jerk.

I'm also highly skeptical of the idea anyone outside of a tiny minority would be unaware that "garbage" is an intentionally insulting term, especially given that it is a metaphor. Even "completely fails to meet standards" is vastly better and more descriptive (outside of the emotional content of "garbage").

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#218

Post by nrclark » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

mpalczewski wrote: post #203

nabla9 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I haven't read much about NVC, so I can't speak to how the term is used there.

But if it's anything like Crucial Conversations, they define/analyze conversational violence in a lot of detail. I thought it was a really interesting read. CC defines conversational violence as things like labeling, misrepresentation, accusations, defensiveness, getting angry, etc. I'd assume that NVC probably has a similar definition.

I thought that the use of the word 'violence' was kind of weird in that context at first, but my perception really changed as I thought about it more. The intent is to damage the other person, and to win by beating them - not really so different than physical violence.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#219

Post by blt » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 6:04 PM UTC

davidkellis wrote: post #35

This seems to be a verbose restatement of the Golden Rule - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule - that one is taught as a child.

But then people use excuses like "I have thick skin, I wouldn't be offended if someone else said the same thing to me, I prefer honesty over decorum", etc. Most often these people come from a privileged background where negative feedback rolls off more easily because they know that, at the end of the day, they'll always have a comfortable life without any serious hardship.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#220

Post by microtherion » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 6:05 PM UTC

Clearly RMS believes in having software licenses with teeth, which is why he so strongly advocates the GPL over the BSD and MIT licenses. When he disagreed with Apple's stance on IP litigation, he didn't just exhort them to be excellent — he boycotted them for several years. So it's not that RMS is strongly opposed to coercive enforcement; he just doesn't value people as highly as he does code.