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

Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

lunduke.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 447 posts

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#111

Post by thewebcount »

aeturnum wrote: post #42
justinmk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What parts of that email are so objectionable?

Uh, I suppose the name calling, strawman-ing of arguments and insinuations of subterfuge. > toxic loonytoon > The actual goal of the movement behind the ESD > banishing contributors for wrongthink > The "Persona Non Grata" clause is best understood as an attempt to paralyze resistance to such political ratfucking Like I said I don't know the OSI culture (or this context) but nothing about this message strikes me as s…

> engaging in good faith is about taking what people say in collaborative environments as given in good faith.

Or at the very least explaining rationally why you feel the other person is not acting in good faith.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#113

Post by kazinator »

iron0013 wrote: post #104
kazinator wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sort of language is normal in the parliament houses of the developed world, upon which our constitutional democracies are based. If there is some sort of evidence that the candidate in question is in fact a toxic loonytoon, by some sort of objective standard, then it's perfectly fine to use that language. At some point, you have to call a spade a spade, and a toxic loonytoon a toxic loonytoon.

Well okay, if you insist: Eric S. Raymond is a toxic loonytoon. And there’s plenty of evidence to support that assertion.

By the "takes one to know one" principle, we should pay attention to Raymond when the calls out another toxic loonytoon.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#114

Post by derefr »

root_axis wrote: post #91
derefr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Real jerks in f/oss are also a real problem. f/oss groups should ABSOLUTELY eject bullies: not for wrongthink, but for bullying. We must be kind. So, is it illegitimate, then, to have a FOSS project with an intentional/cultivated "culture of abuse", where the idea is that nobody is kind to anybody and that's how everybody likes it? Sort of a... "BSDM but we build something along the way" thing? (For example, pictur…

Any individual or group can do whatever they want in the OSS world, nobody is stopping anyone from being a jerk except those communities that voluntarily self-govern in such a fashion that excludes jerks. Where's the problem?

Mostly the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox.

I've seen a few cases now where a FOSS project community—one that is nominally open to new members, but is in practice a closed and static group of close-knit friends—starts off all perfectly happy with a sort of raunchy/abusive internal demeanor; but then someone comes to them with a suggestion of some Code of Conduct or other standard of decorum; and then everyone suddenly decides that it's a good idea, not because they personally want to change how they interact, or even to see others interact differently with them, but because they don't want to be the one caught arguing against the CoC if it turns out that everyone else wants it.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#115

Post by duskwuff »

kazinator wrote: post #54
zozbot234 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "toxic loonytoon" part, referencing a prominent candidate to the OSI board? I mean, surely we can all have our own opinions about any candidate, but the optics aren't that good.

That sort of language is normal in the parliament houses of the developed world, upon which our constitutional democracies are based. If there is some sort of evidence that the candidate in question is in fact a toxic loonytoon, by some sort of objective standard, then it's perfectly fine to use that language. At some point, you have to call a spade a spade, and a toxic loonytoon a toxic loonytoon.

Calling a person a "toxic loonytoon" for the offense of trying to establish standards of acceptable behavior is ridiculous by any sort of "objective standard". If anything, it demonstrates the importance of having those standards, by serving as an example of the sort of behavior that such a standard should condemn.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#116

Post by core-questions »

sascha_sl wrote: post #76
sneak wrote: post #24

I’m torn on this. On one hand, esr has a point. There is a credible argument that cancel culture has gone too far, and that expressing disagreement itself is now becoming dangerous as those with whom you disagree will take the opportunity to play victim and attempt to defame you simply for disagreeing. Identity politics along these lines have lately become unproductive and distracting. I generally don’t participate i…

I'm not exactly sure where you draw the difference. Minority opinions are sometimes helpful in creating products that work for everyone (my favorite example here being a hand dryer that did not recognize black skin). It can be useful to amplify such voices. If you want to call that "SJWism", fine. But this is literally just a call for civility, recognizing that many people may not want to subject themselves to this k…

> But this is literally just a call for civility, recognizing that many people may not want to subject themselves to this kind of toxic atmosphere

The problem here is that "toxic" is something that gets to be defined by those who would use it as a hammer against everyone else. What one person considers to simply be a spirited conversation may seem as a deafeningly aggressive argument to someone else; but such is life!

The free market dictates that products will survive on their merits, and this is triply true when the product itself costs nothing - people use what works. If a particular development style ends up resulting in more contributors and better code, so be it; but there's no guarantee of that whatsoever. Some of the best code in the world has been written by megalomaniacs who would never pass a CoC sniff test.

> Added to this, note that the attack surface for such toxic behavior might be much bigger if you're a minority group.

Maybe, but there's only one group you're allowed to attack in every modern newspaper, and are not allowed to acknowledge positively in any political campaign.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#117

Post by zozbot234 »

derefr wrote: post #47
sneak wrote: post #24

I’m torn on this. On one hand, esr has a point. There is a credible argument that cancel culture has gone too far, and that expressing disagreement itself is now becoming dangerous as those with whom you disagree will take the opportunity to play victim and attempt to defame you simply for disagreeing. Identity politics along these lines have lately become unproductive and distracting. I generally don’t participate i…

> Real jerks in f/oss are also a real problem. f/oss groups should ABSOLUTELY eject bullies: not for wrongthink, but for bullying. We must be kind. So, is it illegitimate, then, to have a FOSS project with an intentional/cultivated "culture of abuse", where the idea is that nobody is kind to anybody and that's how everybody likes it? Sort of a... "BSDM but we build something along the way" thing? (For example, pictur…

> where the idea is that nobody is kind to anybody and that's how everybody likes it?

Crocker's Rules[0] as CODE_OF_CONDUCT? That's an interesting idea indeed. Especially if you want to actively preempt entryism by the usual faction of CoC-pushers.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20021202223742/http://sl4.org/cr...

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#118

Post by ForHackernews »

sascha_sl wrote: post #76
sneak wrote: post #24

I’m torn on this. On one hand, esr has a point. There is a credible argument that cancel culture has gone too far, and that expressing disagreement itself is now becoming dangerous as those with whom you disagree will take the opportunity to play victim and attempt to defame you simply for disagreeing. Identity politics along these lines have lately become unproductive and distracting. I generally don’t participate i…

I'm not exactly sure where you draw the difference. Minority opinions are sometimes helpful in creating products that work for everyone (my favorite example here being a hand dryer that did not recognize black skin). It can be useful to amplify such voices. If you want to call that "SJWism", fine. But this is literally just a call for civility, recognizing that many people may not want to subject themselves to this k…

> You can ALWAYS voice your concerns in a productive manner in the "meritocratic" ideal.

You, and perhaps most people believe that, but there's a vocal minority who considers even the concept of meritocracy as an aspirational ideal to be offensive. cf. Github having to throw out their dumb pompous rug: https://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug/

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#119

Post by TheOperator »

sneak wrote: post #24

I’m torn on this. On one hand, esr has a point. There is a credible argument that cancel culture has gone too far, and that expressing disagreement itself is now becoming dangerous as those with whom you disagree will take the opportunity to play victim and attempt to defame you simply for disagreeing. Identity politics along these lines have lately become unproductive and distracting. I generally don’t participate i…

I don't see any reason you can't have an open source project which enforces a strong code of conduct, creates a "safe space" for members sensitive to various things, which doesn't tolerate rudeness, jerks, bullies, etc. Or one with a "show me the code, stick and stones" ethos.

I also don't think that has to be every open source project. Put another way Tumblr and 4chan can exist on the same internet and we can complain about both.

I think what perturbs me is this sense that the people who actually contribute to f/oss are less and less in control and I think this is largely what Raymond was talking about. "Code of conducts" inherently drive power away from the contributors to some sort of moderator enforcing the CoC. More and more I see this almost stereotypical situation of somebody who doesn't contribute to a project demanding adherence to some progressive shibboleth, saying that the project and themselves and people they know have been victimised by violence due to said lack of adherence. Which comes off as mutinous.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#120

Post by sneak »

core-questions wrote: post #107
Tomte wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt OSI has stated a "culture of abuse" as their goal, their CoC even indicates the opposite. If someone and his three friends want to be politically incorrect, great, let them. If they open up their little club to the world at large, without any indication that their club is "special", then I guess the world is right to assume some standards of behaviour.

Why does opening up your rude little club imply anything of the sort? Why would you join a club that you don't enjoy the discourse within? I don't understand how people can't see that participation in all of this is 100% voluntary. This isn't like inclusion and diversity efforts in corporate enterprise, this is a different beast, and over-corporatizing it defeats the reasons why many people moved to working in / on o…

> Why would you join a club that you don't enjoy the discourse within? I don't understand how people can't see that participation in all of this is 100% voluntary.

The topic under discussion is the OSI's policies and the application thereof. It seems pretty evident to me that the OSI sees that first part (people not enjoying the way they're spoken to or about) as the potential problem: they want people to voluntarily participate in a group, and feel like others in that group can be expected to treat them with dignity and respect even if they disagree.

Furthermore, to your "100% voluntary" part: OSI just revoked their voluntary association with ESR. It cuts both ways.

I don't think it's unreasonable for a large group that is open to the public to publish some pretty standard "don't be a rude and inconsiderate jerk" rules, and to enforce them. As you've pointed out, they can always go fork if they don't like it. Maybe ESR can go start the 'R(ude)OSI' if he thinks that's a productive use of his time, but I don't think most people in general want to have to deal with having textual abuse hurled at them just to participate.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and such an effort would be successful! I encourage someone who believes that to try; I'm not against the words, I'm against being rude to people who wish to come and contribute who are shunned or discouraged or driven away as a result of it. Many hands make light work. I'd like to see free software take over the world, and I truly believe that it won't be able to do that if many/most groups creating and promoting it give first-timers a terrible negative experience, which has been the status quo since I was a child.

Post reply on HN