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

251–260 of 447 posts

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

#251

Post by SEJeff »

jrandm wrote: post #163
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 mean to dispute that ESR may be a jerk, but I'd ask you to consider what his position is: > It's less bad that people sometimes got their feelings hurt than it is to institutionalize a means by which dissenting opinions are crushed under the rubric of “not nice”. His point, as I take it, is that a "cancel culture" is antithetical to an open culture. I agree. Excluding someone due to tone, without warning or c…

Torvalds has been exceptionally tame by comparison as of late. He's adopted a formal CoC, admitted he is often a real jerk, and is seeking professional counselling. You know, he is acting like an adult in this entire thing.

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

#252

Post by buckminster »

mikestew wrote: post #30
kick wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That thread is wrong. Unfortunately, for a stupid reason. The OSI removed the messages from their archive after he got banned. Because removing all evidence is totally the correct thing to do. I support getting rid of Raymond, but they couldn't have made themselves come off worse to your average internet commentator.

The OSI removed the messages from their archive after he got banned. Until demonstrated how it might be otherwise, I contend that to be lunacy. Without a dog in the fight, or frankly much interest, I looked at the thread to make my own conclusions. I found nothing from ESR that I consider offensive, and I have much less tolerance for ass-clown behavior than I used to (coincidentally about the time I started working o…

As far as I know this was a natural consequence of their moderation, not a one-off attempt to edit history.

Anyway, you can read ESR's dodgy message quoted in this post:

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists....

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

#253

Post by tropo »

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?

Looks like this one: "Ehmke, Coraline Ada"

She has done more than anybody else to cause destructive internal strife in Open Source software projects. Her being on the OSI board is simply appalling. OSI needs to be defunded and ignored if she can not be removed.

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

#254

Post by derefr »

joe_the_user wrote: post #167
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…

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? The thing about this hypothetical is that it's wildly different from what Linus Torvald mailing list abuse winds up being. The approach is "we have a culture of anything goes, not because anyone likes abuse, but it's best way to get…

Linux might be where many people's minds go by default in this comparison, but it's not the example I meant to conjure here.

I'm talking more about, for example, the FOSS communities around game-console homebrew tooling, where any given project is usually an outgrowth of some private Discord somewhere—some pre-existing group of friends—and so everyone on the project calls one-another names in the [public] GitHub issues; often actively trolls one-another with counter-productive PRs or issue-filings; sometimes creates new projects from scratch to replace/obsolete someone else's project just because A disagrees with B about some minor non-software-related thing, e.g. taste in music, and so "can't respect them or their software"; etc.

These people are clearly playing around as they make this software—and often producing the software rather sub-optimally in the process—but the goal of most of these project communities is clearly to have fun with the process of making software, not to end up with useful software.

And now, back to the question: are these projects, and their processes, to be considered societally acceptable? Or are they "canceled?" Would adding a Code-of-Conduct stating clearly what they're doing in the project even help? (IMHO it doesn't seem like it'd make much of a difference; it's not like these projects get outside contribution anyways.)

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

#255

Post by tensor »

silverreads wrote: post #5

Anyone unaffiliated with a large commercial organization is being systematically rooted out and destroyed in the free software community. I'm honestly ashamed to be a part of this community right now. ESR has done SO MUCH for us, but doesn't align with a position some wishy washy corporate PR departments have OK'd, so he's OUT. There is no "be nice" rule in life, and doubly so for corporate America. This is disgracef…

There may not be a "be nice" rule in life, but there are such rules in communities. Especially in professional civilized ones.

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

#256

Post by zozbot234 »

jshevek wrote: post #239
sam_lowry_ wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 membe…

Yup, that's C. A. Ehmke. I'm not sure why she's so opposed to core FLOSS principles, even going as far as calling them evil and unethical; I feel like we're all circling back somehow to the bad old "Linux is cancer" attitudes from the 1990s.

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

#257

Post by indigochill »

sneak wrote: post #120
core-questions wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I tend to favor the rude crowd on principle, but I agree with the logic supporting OSI. More than just "a large group", they're a corporate brand (and one of the most important ones in the open-source world) and as a brand they have to think about their image. ESR doesn't fit their image. OSI wants to present a softer image. That's their prerogative (and I agree, probably important for the open source community to grow with new people who mostly start young and stupid - that's a good thing).

That said, there is probably space for a ROSI: a group with similar benefits to OSI but which prioritizes software over feelings. Being tactful, even for those who can and want to, costs time and energy. Dispensing with that saves time.

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

#258

Post by temp-dude-87844 »

bcheung wrote: post #181
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…

I don't know about others, but personally, I find the overly politically correct "safe spaces" much less welcoming and counter to the spirit of the internet. It feels like you constantly need to tip-toe around with every word to avoid the risk of offending someone. I'm much more bothered by people trying to police the world than someone who is rude or that disagrees with me. In a properly functioning society, people…

Needing to tip-toe around with every word to avoid the risk of offending someone isn't really new, it's just that many people in skewed power dynamics have been able to be avoid doing so for years. Nowadays, if you're the one being offended, you have a lot more tools to connect with others who may feel the same way, and bring attention to your point of view.

The armor against true accusations is the same as it always has been: don't be a jerk. The armor against false accusations is very similar: don't be a jerk to people with whom you have a skewed power dynamic, as you may find your word against that of your accuser, and you may find yourself reliant on your accuser's peers to come to your defense.

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

#259

Post by luckylion »

Qwertious wrote: post #235
nemo44x wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. yo…

when used in good faith is the key part there, though.

If everything everybody ever proposed was only used in good faith, we'd be living in Utopia.

> 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.

They are usually way too vague to do that. "Be kind" hangs on who decides what is and isn't kind. It's my impression that that is generally by design, because they are supposed to enable selective enforcement.

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

#260

Post by gpanders »

btilly wrote: post #205

I am conflicted. I generally despise SJWs and identity politics, but this couldn't have happened to a nicer person. Data point. Read http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/sextips/ . Data point. It took ESR less than 15 minutes from meeting my ex in late 1999 to make an undesired pass at her. (He knew she was married to me, and was turned down.) Data point. I was at a PerlMongers meeting in 2003. And happened to remark tha…

> but this couldn't have happened to a nicer person.

I think maybe you meant "couldn't have happened to a more deserving person"?

The way you phrased it implies you think ESR is actually quite a nice person who didn't deserve what he got, while the remainder of your post clearly shows that's not what you mean.

Post reply on HN