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

231–240 of 447 posts

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

#231

Post by core-questions »

sascha_sl wrote: post #219
core-questions wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. Oh, I'm not the only one to notice the rampant transphobia in UK media and the labour party, nice. See how easy I proved your premise wrong?

You haven't proved anything other than the fact that you know exactly what I meant, and are using tactical nihilism to pretend that a tiny fraction of the population not having their every whim catered to is an issue the rest of us should care about.

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

#232

Post by core-questions »

ringzero wrote: post #153
core-questions wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. You should seriously re-examine that argument, because it couldn’t be further from the truth. Critically engage with content on mainstream news and the lenses through which they cast minorities through. I can give you a more blunt and concrete example: most m…

OK, please show me a politician in a major political party seriously advocating on behalf of the group you know I am referring to in the last two decades. Even the Idiot in Chief won't put a name to it.

> Critically engage with content on mainstream news and the lenses through which they cast minorities through.

I'm not in favour of this. But when the group I didn't mention becomes a minority, I wonder whether anyone will have the same considerations for them as they've had for everyone else.

(I won't downvote you, I want the argument. I've upvoted you. If you find it toxic, of course, you're welcome to go have a different conversation elsewhere, just like anyone on an open source project is welcome to move the fuck on with their life instead of moralizing at others).

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

#233

Post by derefr »

frandroid wrote: post #193
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…

The comparison to BDSM is incorrect. BDSM is about "abuse" that one enjoys due to established parameters. I don't think anyone at the receiving end of abuse within F/OSS enjoys the abuse and seeks it out. That's why the codes of conduct exist, to... bring F/OSS in line with the expected ethical standards of scenes such as BDSM, so to speak.

Certainly. I wouldn't expect a big, open-membership FOSS project to "get away with" being abusive in a non-consensual way. That isn't what BDSM is—which I had hoped was carrying some of the weight in explaining what exactly I meant here, by making you picture what an actually-analogous-to-BSDM software community would be like.

But my question still stands. Let me be more precise with it. Is Code-of-Conduct-space actually wide in practice, or is it narrow? Is there really only one societally-acceptable way to run an open-membership out-in-public software project, with the differences coming down only to the fine details; or is it actually possible to do something very different, e.g. having a CoC containing "We like to call each-other names here. Only join if you're into that."?

Would a project that claims different limits than the ones of wider society, be tenable? Or would it, and every other project attempting such a thing, be boycotted, simply for its members being weird and liking things people don't normally like (and therefore making it squicky to contribute to the software if you don't like what they're doing, which must therefore be a moral failing on their part)?

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

#234

Post by riffraff »

cosmiccatnap wrote: post #180
tomc1985 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His statements seem more like the words of a man who feels strongly and passionately about his cause. It's a little suprising that the OSI keeps such high standards for decorum if that was the message that got him banned. It deserves a warning, maybe, but banning him? Cancel culture indeed.

If you said that at work how well would it go you think...

I wouldn't say such a thing, I believe.

But I think if I was in charge and I had to police behaviour a warning would be my first reaction, rather than an immediate ban.

I mean, aren't we supposed to tell people when they're wrong first, and only resort to harsher means later?

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

#235

Post by Qwertious »

nemo44x wrote: post #141
nrclark wrote: post #59

I've read a bunch of ESR's writing, and I disagree with him on an awful lot of political and social issues. Chances are we wouldn't get along very well. Tone-policing, cancel culture, and identity politics are a real problem though, and it seems like they're getting out of hand. This is happening everywhere though - it's not unique to the open source world at all. I don't know what the right solution is. ESR and RMS…

It's just a power grab and has gone on forever in many forms. Redefine language and classify certain language as non-compliant under the guise of whatever it is that works to your advantage. Then use this to create systemic policy to dictate towards your goals and ultimately control whatever resource it is you were trying to colonize or acquire. Language is power and can greatly influence and define what masses of pe…

AIUI, the point of codes of conduct (when used in good faith) are basically like FAQs or What Wikipedia Is Not[1] in that they're social bludgeons to avoid having the same fucking discussion with stubborn idiots, where they do this[2] to cause tedious repetitive arguments of how the project should be run.

A code of conduct, AIUI, has two main effects:

1. You have written, formalised proof you can link to that e.g. you're expected to use XYZ pronouns - no tedious offtopic argument that drives people away. 2. If there is a dispute then there's a formal method of bringing up the argument - a feature request or BG report on the CoC. Or more practically, when writing the thing in the first place.

And on the subject of whether it's warranted, this article[3].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_...

[2] https://xkcd.com/1277/

[3]https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-...

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

#236

Post by SI_Rob »

nrclark wrote: post #59

I've read a bunch of ESR's writing, and I disagree with him on an awful lot of political and social issues. Chances are we wouldn't get along very well. Tone-policing, cancel culture, and identity politics are a real problem though, and it seems like they're getting out of hand. This is happening everywhere though - it's not unique to the open source world at all. I don't know what the right solution is. ESR and RMS…

> Tone-policing, cancel culture, and identity politics are a real problem though

The tyranny of structurelessness[0] strikes again.

All of the above are symptomatic (though sometimes known by different names) of movements whose members disclaim official, understood hierarchies of governance. Members who seem to repeatedly forget, century after century, that power abhors a vacuum, and end up forming increasingly concentric, cryptic, personality-driven, and paranoid structures of influence because whatever the movement's stated objectives may be, someone still has to do the often mundane networking chores necessary to maintain group cohesion.

These individuals then become natural nucleation sites for forms of power that have no direct relationship with the acknowledged objectives of the group.

Such power expressed through the arbitrary control of prevailing group narrative language (tone policing), gatekeeping of influence (cancel culture), and authority over defining the many subjective unspoken rules by which status is acquired and asserted within or with respect to the group (identity politics being an instance of this class that that is inherited by all groups with a degree of internal diversity sufficient to build multiple coalitions behind).

[0] https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

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

#237

Post by luckylion »

joe_the_user wrote: post #203
luckylion wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think open source has a serious problem in the sense that there are a lot of projects headed by single, rather abusive and obsessed individuals. Individuals, who, let's not forget that, are the reason the projects exist in the first place, and who may feel more attachment to the projects than others. That they react more strongly to the impression that some other group is trying to take over their project, often…

Individuals, who, let's not forget that, are the reason the projects exist in the first place, and who may feel more attachment to the projects than others. Absolutely, it's quite a quandary. The thing is, there's a difference between "random tool ten people use and no one would create with person X" and, say, Open Office and there are a variety of shades in between. At some point, the "I created this and I can manip…

I don't know. Generally, "it worked out great the past two decades" is, to me, a good indicator that it's going to work out in the future, too. It might not be nice and you might not want to stand in the line of fire, but it's going to be consistent, and if you like what you saw until now, consistency is what you want. Who knows where Linux will go without Linus. Maybe Google will push DRM into the kernel and in five years you can't run adblock any more on a modern Kernel (yes, I'm being hyperbolic).

What I do like about the "there's no place for niceness here" is one thing over all: if you can make it there, you can take the heat. And if you're in a position of responsibility, that's really something that is extremely important. It sorts out the people that can't stand the heat, and that's ugly and hard on those people, but it's good for the project, because you can't have them only experience the heat for the first time when they are in power and Amazon leans on them with their billion dollar law team and the promise of a cushy office job.

I understand the idea of "this madness and chaos got us this far, but we'll have to grow up and start doing it the way the people do it that we didn't like when we started it, it's just too big and too important". It's very similar to what happened in the crypto scene when a bunch of guys did some cool stuff and then they realize that their little project now is worth more than many countries' GDP, that's probably a sobering talk.

I don't know that it's necessarily a good idea, though. So far, benevolent dictators have worked out great, even if some of them ruled with a sharp tongue and an iron fist. Whether the alternative will work as well remains to be seen.

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

#238

Post by chx »

catalogia wrote: post #225
chx wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Out of curiosity, how long did they ban you for at the time, this was never clearly stated but I believe the shared understanding was indefinite > will they give you any 'parole hearings' for good behavior noone even thought of that > but it's not clear to me what role rehabilitation plays in CoC enforcement. This is not as simple as sitting on the bench for a time and then you are back and yay. I'd say the road to…

> This is not as simple as sitting on the bench for a time and then you are back and yay. Neither are parole hearings. I wouldn't expect them to let you rejoin after a predetermined amount of time, but I would expect them to periodically reconsider the ban given the latest up to date evidence about your personality/character. If you came to understand the error in your ways and made demonstrable moves to improve the…

And so it happened. I reached out when I was ready (I linked that blog post too, it's the last one) and they agreed after a few rounds of discussion.

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

#239

Post by jshevek »

sam_lowry_ wrote: post #93
downerending wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a reference to one of the people pushing very hard on spreading CoCs everywhere. Can't recall the name. (Corin?) Reading some of that person's tweets, though, left me with a very bad impression. Anyway, search and form your own opinion.

Any idea who that may be?

I glanced at the OSI page. I found someone who overtly stated opposition to core FLOSS principals:

>"Giving everyone freedom means giving evil people freedom, too." (OSD FAQ) It doesn't have to be like this.

It's time to stop bad actors from using our work in unethical ways. It's time to give open source developers around the world the tools they need to exercise their ethical responsibilities as engineers and members of human society. It's time for us to stop shirking our ethical obligations, and take responsibility for the use of our work.

From:

https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Main/OSI+Board+of+Directors/...

Also:

https://mobile.twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/12294568573176...

(Edited to include her position in her own words)

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

#240

Post by api »

ForHackernews wrote: post #160
kazinator wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What it would look like: an army of docile microserfs beavering away for free to make FOSS work better for Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Oracle, IBM, ... and the odd government who wants a crypto backdoor or two.

This is a weird rejoinder to make in a thread about ESR, who was one of the loudest voices arguing for corporate-friendly language ("open-source" not "free software") and licenses (permissive, not copyleft).

This might be a good thing then. This has become a pet peeve of mine.

At the last FOSDEM there was a talk on "open source under attack" claiming that anything other than permissive licensing represents an attack on open source:

https://fosdem.org/2020/schedule/event/osi/

Two of the three presenters were lawyers for Google and Facebook, two giant surveillance companies with absolutely closed SaaS silo ecosystems. Evidently the "spirit of open source" is free labor for surveillance capitalism and pop-up SaaS products that monetize open source with paywalled APIs and give nothing back.

FOSDEM != OSI, but there's a common DNA here.

Post reply on HN