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

231–240 of 412 posts

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#231

Post by dec0dedab0de »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #221
mirko22 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example not calling a problem in the code “a problem” but “possible place for improvement” as to do so might lead people to think their code is “problematic”... then i resigned...

I’m unsure if this is the sort of politics that’s the context of the article in question. For clarity, the article in question spawned off of an email thread regarding calling women by nicknames in a condescending manner without their consent.

I am absolutely baffled at the idea that there is ever a situation where...

{example}

I’m unsure if this is the sort of politics that’s the context of the article...

I think it's fair to assume they were replying to you, not the article.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#232

Post by wpietri »

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").

Yes, you have correctly detected that I wasn't making an argument. Into the "add comment" box, I put my comment.

I think that's fine given that I'm in the target audience for his post. I'm somebody who has been making occasional open-source contributions since the early 90s but who has mainly stayed out of it given that it tolerates a high level of jackassery up to and including outright abuse. This is a good step forward, but a small step done at a point I'd call very late in the game.

Is there some specific thing I'm supposed to have an argument on? As far as I can tell, Stallman has had a very "it's my bat and ball" attitude and has for decades, so even if I had some sort of argument, I don't have any impression he'd listen to it. I'm content to let him continue being very Stallmanesque until he retires. I'm much more interested what the younger generation is up to, as I think they're much more plausibly the future of open source than he is.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#233

Post by pseudalopex »

M_Bakhtiari wrote: post #160

> For instance, call them by the names they use, and honor their preferences about their gender identity That's a backhanded way of cementing the validity of the concept of "gender expression" throughout the GNU project. I would have been perfectly on board with a guideline that simply said not to police people's gender expressions, the question being rather off-topic and disruptive in the given context. That would d…

The question is how to talk to and about other members of the community.

Calling other people by their preferred names is a basic norm that goes beyond gender.

Gender expression is rarely relevant in the context of software development, but gendered language is common enough in English to make the issue of gender identity unavoidable. You can require speakers to respect others' preferences, mandate gender-neutral language, or allow speakers to refer to others however they like.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#234

Post by wpietri »

mschuster91 wrote: post #200
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…

> E.g., it was only in May he declared it important to keep a stale joke about American politics in the code Given Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court and the ever more massive fight of "pro lifers" and other religious hardcore bigots to ban abortions and thus invade the right of womens' bodily autonomy, that joke is everything but stale, and not even restricted to the USA! As a matter of fact, in Germany a doctor (Kristi…

I don't think the topic is particularly stale. The joke is very stale. It was an adequate joke at the time, but if one were to make a joke today with similar intent, it would be written much differently.

And just to be clear, I agree with your politics here, and probably Stallman's to the extent I understand it. My issue is with him planting a firm flag for "neutrality", when "neutrality" actually means something more like "agreeing with my conveniently unstated political views".

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#235

Post by hueving »

ubernostrum wrote: post #42
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…

So, here's the thing. Statements like this? 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. This is not a new statement. This is what people pushing diversity have been saying for years and years. The only ways for this to be a new and refreshing thing to you are: 1. You were not paying attention, or…

The fact that companies have programs targeting recruitment specifically to minorities says otherwise.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#236

Post by wpietri »

skybrian wrote: post #62
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…

Yes, but under the circumstances, I'm unconvinced that hypocrisy is a bad thing. Consistency is overrated. It's good when people change their minds. Rigidly sticking with the same bad position seems like a bigger problem?

Sure, if I have to choose between hypocrisy and improvement, I'll take improvement. But I'd rather have both. And given the extent to which this is written as highfalutin moral principle, I don't think it's unreasonable to deal with it on its own terms. He could have just announced this as an improvement without taking slaps at political views he disagrees with.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#237

Post by TimTheTinker »

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…

I wonder if the skew towards men in software starting in the 80’s corresponded with the rise of the “meritocratic” software community because that movement made people on the autism spectrum (including aspies) more comfortable in software development (judged based on their contributions alone) —- which may have helped to create the impression/generalization that people in software are “geeks” and socially challenged—-and thus others (including women, among whom autism occurs less frequently) felt less inclined toward that community.

Sorry - quickly tapped out. Hope that makes sense.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#238

Post by hueving »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #128
debacle wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need this kind of accusatory commentary on HN, I don't think.

On the contrary, I think more often than not, people here need reminders like this. Nothing they said was wrong.

What reminder? The OP threw out an awful no true Scotsman argument.

Pro diversity programs in all of the big tech companies that specifically target diversity quotas are a blatant example.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#239

Post by naasking »

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…

> by writing that codes of conduct are "punitive spirit", RMS shows a misunderstanding of how these texts came into existence

Why? It seems like he's just recognising that these codes are heavily focused on identifying and punishing "bad actors" rather than correcting the undesirable behaviour, or developing practices that reduce the chance of undesirable exchanges from occurring.

If Linus really is as socially incapable of recognising the effects of his tone, then punishing him for something he doesn't understand serves no purpose, and you'll lose a good contributor as well.

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

Aren't you assuming the conclusion here? Uneven demographics are not necessarily indicative of any kind of bias. If you just focus on good encouraging good communication practices that aren't exclusionary, anything beyond that is unnecessary to officially codify. Certainly you can make that a personal goal, but you're talking about taking it far beyond that.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#240

Post by hueving »

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…

>As such, correcting the biases, conscious or not, that have led to the poor diversity of our communities, must be part of our mission.

Free software can easily empower people that aren't part of the development community. There is no reason to think that you need a black developer to have a mail client that works for black people.

If your software has actual different implication for certain demographics (e.g. languages or skin color for image recognition) then it helps to have representatives, but that's not the case for most software (beyond providing UI translation files).

Your effort to "correct biases" creates a hostile environment both for those who want to help but are overrepresented and those who are underrepresented. The former because there is no enthusiasm when they say they are interested in helping and the latter because people end up assuming "diversity candidates" were brought on to fill a diversity quota, not because they were the most qualified.

Post reply on HN