Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines • Hacker News Board

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#271

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:27 PM UTC

guy98238710 wrote: post #266

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.

Usually that's because when claims about discrimination against whites and men are made, there's no evidence that they are actively being discriminated against. Rather, the case is usually that they're not being favored as they were. Which, if you are in the previously favored class, may feel like discrimination, but in reality it's simply giving everyone else a chance as well.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#272

Post by village-idiot » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:30 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #156

jowsie wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my retort to this would be that you are obviously attempting to censor my free speech Do you not realise that free speech doesn't apply to whatever random online forum you decided to sign up too?

The idea that "free speech" == "only protection from state censorship" is an americanism, and not some universally accepted dictum. Historically it wasn't even always the state that suppressed free speech - it was often some church, mobs of "concerned citizens", the private interests owning the press, the profits of cinema studios concerned with citizens boycotting lewd movies and thus self-submitting to things like…

It’s impossible to come up with a doctrine of free speech that allows for person A to say what they want, but does not allow person B to express outrage or opprobrium about what person A just said. It’s also well within person B’s rights of free association to not interact with person A because of what person A said.

Of course a literal mob threatening violence is absolutely suppression of speech, very very few people want that. But people saying that they view you negatively because of what you’ve said is not a mob, and is in fact free speech in its own right.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#273

Post by atq2119 » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:31 PM UTC

KirinDave wrote: post #251

atq2119 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Which seems fairly relevant to a technical conference's audience, don't you... > Neither of those seem particularly relevant for conference organization, so it should be possible to point out those simple facts without bein…

I don't know what kind of conferences you attend, but I've never attended one where people got black-out drunk, nor have I attended any with my partner.

On the other hand, I have attended conferences where we were specifically warned by the organizers about pick-pockets and not to go into certain parts of the (rather large, South American) city.

So yeah, if we substitute "rape" for "wallet theft", people are in fact "suffering" through arguments that people throw a fit over when it comes to rape.

(Two caveats, since that kind of thing is necessary with topics that are prone to cause people to go ballistic:

1. I do think there are good reasons for why people throw fits over victim blaming etc. when it comes to rape, but especially since you brought up the comparison, I also think it's good to remember that people are perfectly fine with victim blaming when it comes to wallet theft. There should be a possibility for nuance here.

2. I get what you're trying to say about "crimes of opportunity", but that doesn't mean you can transfer statistics about incident rates of domestic abuse to incidence rates of rape at conferences. After all, both the whole setting and the relationships between participants are totally different. And it should be possible to question the connection without being made a target for the kind of accusation you're making.)

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#274

Post by microtherion » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:32 PM UTC

letstrynvm wrote: post #264

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.

The same copyright law can be used to enforce the terms of the GPL.

And if you don't like a code of conduct, you can equally just stop participating in a community. Unlike rejecting a license, you can even reject a code of conduct and continue to use the software produced by that community.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#275

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:33 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…

"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?"

Then do so. If you cannot articulate why it's bad, and suggest ways to improve it, then you do not have any business reviewing the code. Review is just as important as writing the code itself, and if you are unable to give that task the attention it deserves, then delegate it to someone who can.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#276

Post by lawnchair_larry » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:36 PM UTC

dx87 wrote: post #223

xoa wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

What you're saying makes sense, and I don't think anybody would disagree that having a diverse PoV on a project would be beneficial. In practice though, organizations saying that they strive for diversity normally don't bother to look any deeper than skin color and gender. That's one of the common criticisms of big tech companies; they claim to value diversity, but they still mainly hire people from a handful of top…

To add to this, the benefits of “diversity” are vastly overstated and unproven. I believe that the benefits could plausibly exist in certain narrow cases, mainly things like UX design, marketing, etc. I don’t believe these benefits generally exist in any meaningful way for things like low level code or backend services.

I very much want to weed out bad experiences from turning otherwise interested contributors away, and strongly support that. But when it crosses a line to superficial tokenism, we all lose, including those who are underrepresented.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#277

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:36 PM UTC

jki275 wrote: post #213

sp332 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is flat out not true. Someone constantly attacking your character to others is going to have an effect. Those other people may be influenced by what that person says, and that will affect how they perceive you, which will in turn affect your involvement in the project.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#278

Post by lawnchair_larry » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:37 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…

Yes, you should read it that way, even though your latter description is what makes the most sense.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#279

Post by ryanobjc » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:38 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #247

mcguire wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please do not take a harsh tone towards other participants, and especially don't make personal attacks against them. Go out of your way to show that you are criticizing a statement, not a person. Please avoid statements about the presumed typical desires, capabilities or actions of some demographic group. They can offend people in that group, and they are always off-topic in GNU Project discussions.

A person wasn't even mentioned ...

indirectly implied via the reference to the poster's attitude.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#280

Post by SolaceQuantum » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 7:40 PM UTC

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #231

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, within context of the article, and the ambiguous language of the poster, I'm questioning an example in which politics in context of the article applies to the experiences of the claim in question. The claim in question then refers to an example which does not apply to the context of the article. I remain fairly confused.