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

261–270 of 412 posts

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#261

Post by _m7bj »

joshuamorton wrote: post #118
Sir_Substance wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But what happens if someone refuses to be kind? Then you work as a group of not-socially-incompetent people to find a compromise solution that hits the local maxima of what can be done with the situation, or make a considered decision to move down from the local maxima in the short term to find a higher maxima in the long term. Maybe discuss with that person the possibility of continuing their work but having a smal…

>Maybe discuss with that person the possibility of continuing their work but having a small group of other people between them and the general public as an interface layer that handles the less important work. So you mean you want to unseat me from leading the project I'm in charge of? What kind of punishment is this for violating some silly guidelines? [1] >If you think that setting up such a compromise might either…

>In case my point isn't obvious here, an explicit CoC has a number of advantages over a document like this one when it comes to actually resolving conflict, instead of trying to prevent it. It makes value judgements, but only because at some point in the conflict resolution process, leadership will be forced to make value judgements.

I disagree. Sociopaths weaponise hard and fast rules. It's better to not make rules that aren't required and stick to communicating as people rather than attempting to rule like computers. Don't choose to be a bureaucrat, choose to be a leader.

Put another way, there's no substitute for not being a horrible human being. Projects that have good people on them have no need for CoC's. Horrible people will not stop being horrible because there is a CoC there, nor will a CoC drive them away.

I don't really feel like getting into a roleplay with you about your specific Angry Project Lead scenario on hacker news, it's a bad forum for that since such discussions tend to be long and nuanced, but you should remember that when you have to tell someone their behavior is a net loss for their organization, it's never going to be a fun conversation. Obviously the person will protest, and depending on their personality that might range from pleading to outright physical aggression.

Everyone coming away from such discussions feeling unhappy is normal, what matters is that there is some form of resolution in the process. Yeah, the outcome might be a forked project, or it might be someone being asked to leave. Those are not comfortable outcomes but they are hopefully necessary, otherwise why bother to have the conversation? As long as you can bring the project to a state where you've moved past the obstacle and it's no longer at the forefront of peoples minds, you've succeeded. If people are still discussing your ruling and what it means for contributors months or years later, you've failed.

If resolution can be achieved without verbal, societal, technological or physical violence, that's the best that can be asked.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#262

Post by favorited »

reitanqild wrote: post #158
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…

> In particular, by writing that codes of conduct are "punitive spirit", RMS shows a misunderstanding of how these texts came into existence. I'll not argue over why they came into existence as the idea seems good enough (and if you'd asked me a few years ago I'd even said it was a good idea), but now I'll ask: Over the years I've heard a number of times where a CoC has been used to make a lot of trouble in projects…

> Can anyone point me to one ore more projects where CoCs have actually improved open source/free software projects or communities

For the record, the purpose of a project adopting a CoC isn't always to improve something, but can be to codify existing (but unwritten) community guidelines.

The LLVM project talked a lot about this when discussing adopting a CoC. They weren't necessarily doing it to change anything – but they wanted to have a written set of the community guidelines that they were already following.

There is a benefit in having such policies available in a form where people can reference it, and not have that institutional knowledge of community policies exist only in lots of people's heads.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#263

Post by yebyen »

bitL wrote: post #245
yebyen wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't believe SDD would work for these reasons: 1) people that start a serious open source product must be self-assured and innately isolated from any external community/pressure in order to avoid distractions from their goal. Shame has likely 0 effect, or negative (i.e. the person/group doing the shaming would get banned from any future interaction). It takes a certain type of person that is likely "very thorny" t…

I may not have made myself clear, I'm already convinced that either vision of Shame-Driven Development was a bad idea. That being said, thanks for your thoughtful reply!

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#264

Post by letstrynvm »

microtherion wrote: post #220

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.

There are no punitive 'teeth' in GNU licences. If you don't like the terms, don't use the thing under that license.

Stallman is his own man and can boycott what he likes and explain why to others.

"Punitive" "teeth" as found in proprietary EULAs and various unreasonable copyright laws looks like jailtime and financial ruin.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#265

Post by WalterGR »

reitanqild wrote: post #158
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…

> In particular, by writing that codes of conduct are "punitive spirit", RMS shows a misunderstanding of how these texts came into existence. I'll not argue over why they came into existence as the idea seems good enough (and if you'd asked me a few years ago I'd even said it was a good idea), but now I'll ask: Over the years I've heard a number of times where a CoC has been used to make a lot of trouble in projects…

Over the years I've heard a number of times where a CoC has been used to make a lot of trouble in projects that where originally more or less healthy.

Examples?

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#266

Post by guy98238710 »

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…

A bit OT, but perception of discrimination is itself subject to bias, for example discrimination of women and minorities is taken seriously while discrimination of whites and men is laughed off. Bias in perception of discrimination would prevent you from even recognizing existing biases, not to mention weighting them correctly, and possibly lead you to aggravate existing discrimination.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#267

Post by skybrian »

wpietri wrote: post #236
skybrian wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair enough. But I don't think avoiding politics is possible when making a clear distinction between his and other approaches is important to the author.

It's a tricky communications problem to say "I think my approach is better" about a hot topic, explain why, and convince people it really is different, while not implying other ways are worse. I'm inclined to be forgiving, as long as there's an attempt at politeness.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#268

Post by haberman »

nrclark wrote: post #218
mpalczewski wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I like those insights. The danger with labeling words as violence though is that it leads many to the conclusion that words should be policed in the way physical violence is. A critical difference between words and physical violence is that words can cause harm to a listener based on the listener's interpretation and reaction to those words. If a fist hits my jaw I can't control whether it breaks it. But I have control over how I interpret people's words, and the effect they have on me. A person's words can hurt others even when that is not the speaker's intent, and indeed, sometimes there is no way to express a certain idea that won't hurt certain people. But that should never be pretense to treat words like physical violence in the way we police the latter.

(I'm not meaning to suggest that you were advocating for that. Just that it's a risk of not clearly distinguishing between words and physical violence.)

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#269

Post by letstrynvm »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #98
allannienhuis wrote: post #73

> 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. I've seen this so many times in non-oss work too. Why do some people have such a hard time letting go? Even more so for Open Source projects - If you care _that_ much about your ideas - fork and move on; otherwise spend you and your co-contribut…

I have a hard time letting go when I feel like my input was dismissed out of hand, or not understood.

It helps me to remember in a public forum, whether my point is acknowledged by the OP or not, is only a small fraction of the number of people who may read and accept it. If the OP unreasonably denies or refutes it, in fact they may be silently judged accordingly.

No need to make your good point a hostage in your own mind to whether the OP will publicly accept it.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#270

Post by letstrynvm »

crooked-v wrote: post #101
interfixus wrote: post #27

A CoC in any other name is still a CoC. A very thin end of a wedge is stil the end of a wedge.

A wedge towards... what? Polite and professional behavior isn't a bad thing.

"professional behavior" would make sense if both sides are getting paid.

If only the user is getting paid, and he wants support or something else from the FOSS author, why should the FOSS author be held to this "professional behavior" standard?

Post reply on HN