Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

RMS: GitHub has done terrible harm to our community

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 126 posts

Re: RMS: GitHub has done terrible harm to our community

#81

Post by devnonymous »

dbdjfjrjvebd wrote: post #49
thundergolfer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? I'm very confused. "coc" is a "Code of Conduct" document right? How is that you're opposed to CoC _in general_?

Because reasonable people already know how to behave and don't need a document to tell them. I've never seen a case where a coc improved software.

> Because reasonable people already know how /letting people use/modify/redistribute modifications is good for software/ and don't need a /license/ to tell them. I've never seen a case where a /copyleft license/ improved software.

Don't you see the absurdity of the argument ?

Re: RMS: GitHub has done terrible harm to our community

#82

Post by viraptor »

dbdjfjrjvebd wrote: post #78
viraptor wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people "know" not to steal. Yet we need to have laws so we agree on rules and boundaries. You can think of it like a list of rules agreed on early, so the project leaders don't have to go through the arguments about what's accepted after someone crosses one person's boundaries, but not another's.

If someone steals from another project member or breaks other laws the police should be called.

Stealing was used here as a specific example why laws are written, not CoC. I think you missed the point of my comment.

Re: RMS: GitHub has done terrible harm to our community

#83

Post by dbdjfjrjvebd »

viraptor wrote: post #82
dbdjfjrjvebd wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone steals from another project member or breaks other laws the police should be called.

Stealing was used here as a specific example why laws are written, not CoC. I think you missed the point of my comment.

Nope I understand your point. But I disagree with you.

Re: RMS: GitHub has done terrible harm to our community

#84

Post by belorn »

elcaminocomplex wrote: post #21
sergiotapia wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously it's hyperbole - but a lot of people are definitely put off by coc, myself included. It's a wretched, insidious text sneaked in by very bad actors into mainstream open source repositories.

The great thing about CoC is that they tend to be self-reinforcing, keeping out exactly the people who are bound to conduct themselves in ways that are inconsistent with the principles behind them.

I participated and co-ran a gaming community for about 10 years, and whenever drama occurred we added whatever behavior triggered it to the rule list. It grew, and grew and grew into a very large CoC. By a few year into it people caused drama over the rules, people "lawyer" over them, they got enforced selectively, people accused each other of favor-ism, splits occurred and the community almost killed itself over the rules.

When the game moved into a sequel we changed the rules. Now it says "Treat others with respect and courtesy", which don't really qualify as a CoC since its basically common sense. People see it as so obvious that it not even a rule, more of a guideline.

This new rule has since then been pretty stable. It keeps out exactly those who can't behave but welcomes everyone else. There has not been a single instance of arguments about selective enforcement or favor-ism in terms to how the rules get enforced.

My own experience from that seems very similar when people complain about CoC. Long CoC lists tend to create fear, uncertainty and doubt within the community. It creates tiers of people where different class of people get the rules enforced differently. This in turn create a deep seated distrust.

Re: RMS: GitHub has done terrible harm to our community

#85

Post by rimliu »

lidHanteyk wrote: post #61
Godel_unicode wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is falling prey to the great man theory of history. How can you know that nobody else would have championed FOSS if not for him? There are lots of FOSS advocates who were turned off to the whole movement because of him; what might they have done with him absent?

Sure, "copy-center" attitudes like those common in BSD communities would have prevailed, likely, and we'd have entered the shared-source/commons-licensing phase a decade earlier. Without the option of copyleft, an entire pillar of philosophy would be missing, but it likely would not matter, since the world would still be just as corporatist. The main thing missing in that world would be a belief that copyright can an…

I am still not getting that someone else would not come up with these or better ideas.

Re: RMS: GitHub has done terrible harm to our community

#86

Post by madiathomas »

thethrowboat wrote: post #57
madiathomas wrote: post #39

GitHub probably did more good for the FOSS community than any other project I can think of. Before GitHub, it was so difficult to share code. Solutions available weren't anywhere close. I don't understand why he wants every little piece of software to be open sourced. GitHub was attractive to investors because it had closed source projects that have to pay in order to use it. I don't see how GitHub was going to succe…

If you wanted to use that little piece of code, wouldn't it be better if it was open source? I remember when you could only get exe and projects didnt even think of sharing the code, even if it was just some small project.

If it is a library, I will prefer an open source one, but if it is some software, I don't mind even when it is closed source.

Re: RMS: GitHub has done terrible harm to our community

#87

Post by belorn »

viraptor wrote: post #74
dbdjfjrjvebd wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because reasonable people already know how to behave and don't need a document to tell them. I've never seen a case where a coc improved software.

And people "know" not to steal. Yet we need to have laws so we agree on rules and boundaries. You can think of it like a list of rules agreed on early, so the project leaders don't have to go through the arguments about what's accepted after someone crosses one person's boundaries, but not another's.

The core principle of laws is that they are common and enforced equally onto every citizen. Laws and enforcement are transparent and has check and balances.

The most common objection to CoC is that they are not enforced equally. Different classes of people get treated differently and enjoy different rights. The enforcement have no transparency and no check and balances.

To take two recent well known examples, we had during the last year the stackoverlfow controversy over the new CoC, and wikipedia ban of an admin over CoC. In both cases there were major issue of transparency and selective enforcement. In the wikipedia case there was also problem with lack of check and balances. In the stackoverflow case there was also voices raised about other common rules now being unenforced in order to comply with the CoC creating a situation where different people get enforced by different rules.

Laws can be good. Rules and Boundaries can be a positive thing. They are not all good, not all positive. It depend. Without careful process and system for fairness it is very likely to turn bad as the above examples illustrates.

Re: RMS: GitHub has done terrible harm to our community

#88

Post by jimnotgym »

sergiotapia wrote: post #16
wichert wrote: post #7

There is some awful stuff in that thread, like this gem [1]: After microsoft puchased Github, they encouraged "Codes of Conduct". So now 40k "opensource projects" hace CoC's. Obviously men won't be contributing to said projects, other than the people allready in them. [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-system-discuss/2019-1...

Obviously it's hyperbole - but a lot of people are definitely put off by coc, myself included. It's a wretched, insidious text sneaked in by very bad actors into mainstream open source repositories.

I submit that all groups of people have a code of conduct. Not all groups write them down.

Re: RMS: GitHub has done terrible harm to our community

#89

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

vertex-four wrote: post #38
sergiotapia wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

before coc was snuck into these repos, was it just a shitshow of nasty people acting a fool in open source communities? I don't remember it that way.

Before codes of conduct, it was reasonably common for misogynistic men to get away with poor behaviour towards women in their communities “because they write good code”. I’ve suffered this directly, so have others I’m close to.

> Before codes of conduct, it was reasonably common for misogynistic men to get away with poor behaviour towards women in their communities “because they write good code”.

And now they're just as misogynistic, but we don't get to enjoy their code. They're also hidden from view so it's less likely that someone is going to tell them to cut the crap and maybe re-evaluate their world-view. They've essentially been shoved into an echo chamber.

In the end, arguing about code of conduct means arguing about the core ideas of free speech, one of them being: Do we want to segregate wrongdoers, or attempt to deal with them?

Re: RMS: GitHub has done terrible harm to our community

#90

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

laresistance wrote: post #69
Godel_unicode wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recommend you Google the name Linus Torvalds. You will find some truly shocking language directed at his fellow human beings.

Linus' use of explicit language was exactly something that should be used as an example. He rarely attacked people, but instead attacked the actions that they did or ideas that they had.

He's the Gordon Ramsay of the software world. Sometimes it just takes strong language to get a point across: "your code is low quality and you're wasting my time by having me review it". And to be honest, I'd gladly take being insulted over having to waste my time. Strong language doesn't hurt anyone, but you won't ever get that wasted time back. I consider it verbal self-defense.
Post reply on HN