31–40 of 637 posts
Still doesn't remove the need for good moderators though.
Not a fan of the "you should educate yourself" retort whenever people ask for definitions. It happens in that Github thread over what a "protected class" entails.
[1] Home Owners Association, for those outside the U.S. and unfamiliar with the term.
Title seems wrong according to the diff on GitHub.
https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/pull/2691/files
At face value, it seems even worse than presented.
Removed:
>"Participants will be tolerant of opposing views."
Modified:
>Before - "Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated."
>After - "Behaviour which can be considered harassment against protected classes will not be tolerated."
The "reasonably" removal aside - for an attempt to be much more precise and inclusive with language, why would they narrow the previous "harassment" to "harassment against protected classes"? I'm sure this wasn't the intention, but rather than adding or intensifying any protections, the change, if read literally in the context of the diff, makes it seem like harassment is now tolerated if you aren't a protected classes whereas it previously wasn't tolerated at all.
I think a better route would've been to keep that line as-is and add a new line saying something like "any remarks that could be considered disparaging, mocking, or exclusive towards any protected classes will not be tolerated". This makes it clear that any kind of singling-out of protected classes is disallowed, regardless of the fact that some people may consider the definition of "harassment" to require something more severe than that.
Almost more surprising is that this was removed: > When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants should always assume good intentions. In favor of this: > Participants should speak and act with good intentions, but understand that intent and impact are not equivalent. Also changed yesterday: > Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated. became: > Behaviour which ca…
"Protected class" means stuff like race, sex or veteran status. So if you harass a random conference-goer at a Ruby-focused event, that cannot be addressed under the CoC because you haven't evidenced harassment towards a protected class as a whole (e.g. all veterans)? How does that even make sense?
This whole CoC thing is just stupid. Why do they need to write this kind of rules in the first place?
Because people keep saying and doing crappy things, and then when they are called out for it, they claim its just a joke.
[flagged]
What I think is odd is that "protected classes" language is a highly us-legal-system-centric concept.
(to be clear, I'm completely in favor of protecting people from harassment and abuse, though I strongly disagree with reserving that only to legally protected classes).
This whole CoC thing is just stupid. Why do they need to write this kind of rules in the first place?
This github links to a twitter thread about rationale for the change which mentions a sexist joke that was in the ruby mailing lists but doesn't link to it. I feel like I've read entire news articles about kinds of events like these where no one will actually show what was said. We're just supposed to agree it was really bad sight unseen. Here's my guess at the joke at the core of this for anyone wondering: http://bl…
Date.today
Date.today +1 # no error, but wrong result!
# Maybe this has been written for women, having calculated their age ;)