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

Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 637 posts

Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

#71

Post by bawolff »

simonsarris wrote: post #4

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…

Isn't protected class an american legal term? Seems weirdly ameri-centric for a document of this nature. Not to mention that gay people weren't even a protected class in the usa until last year afaik. Not exactly a very inclusive definition.

Not to mention the implication that harrasment is somehow ok against people who are not members of the protected class? I appreciate minorities get a lot of shit that others don't, but its not like bigioted assholes are the only people who harrass other people.

Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

#72

Post by geofft »

nemetroid wrote: post #13

What's with the recurring comments about corporations and businesses? > Some people may have views that when expressed, may be harmful to the interest of particular groups of people like big corporations. This has to be taken into account. > universally accepted corporate values > That's California Core Corporate Policies in work > For instance, members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected cl…

I find it confusing too, but my reading of this is that @hmdne is trolling, but the actual changes @hmdne wants to make are fine and defensible in their own right and in fact make it easier to kick out trolls like @hmdne (e.g., a troll can claim that their trollish proposition is an "opposing view" that one needs to be respectful of), and so people are engaging in good faith to try to deflate the troll.

Some of these comments are obviously bait to me - e.g., the one about how we should privilege members of boards of directors - and this looks like a careful attempt not to take the bait.

Note that PR 2690 is not from @hmdne and was unchanged from how it was proposed. PR 2691 is, and perhaps should not have been accepted in its present form because of the "protected class" language, but there are good-faith comments in 2690 (with no mention of corporations) about why the "opposing views" line should be removed.

Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

#73

Post by i_cannot_hack »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #40
sarlalian wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about not telling offensive jokes, not making offensive assumptions, or just not being offensive. Its a programming language mailing list, what exactly is it about a sexist joke that you think belongs there?

.

You viewpoint don't seem to be very convincing if snark is your best response to that question.

Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

#74

Post by kook_throwaway »

tailrecursion wrote: post #45
andrewxdiamond wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems the intention is more about setting a higher bar for harassment against protected classes, rather than setting a lower bar for harassment otherwise

You're assuming good intentions on the part of the authors, but the impact is people will take away that harassment of those outside a protected class is OK. The intentions don't really matter here :-)

[CoC authors] should speak and act with good intentions, but understand that intent and impact are not equivalent.

Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

#75

Post by ameister14 »

eli wrote: post #30
zkldi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - no longer assuming good intentions is a weird thing to change. I guess it makes it easier to claim bad intentions?

It makes it easier to fight trolls who hide behind bad faith arguments.

Changing it enables a certain kind of flame-war where people become entrenched in thinking the other side is out to get them and actually evil. Assuming the best intentions is a good way to make sure you combat what someone is doing rather than attacking them as a person.

Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

#77

Post by version_five »

temp8964 wrote: post #2

This whole CoC thing is just stupid. Why do they need to write this kind of rules in the first place?

Yeah I don't really see a distinction between trolls coming in and posting offensive stuff and ideologues coming in and hijacking a project for their cause. Both are detrimental to actually building something good, and both basically need a benevolent dictator to keep them at bay.

Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

#78

Post by andrew_ »

phone8675309 wrote: post #59
zkldi wrote: post #6

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.

Can't educate myself if you don't give me a pointer. That said, "please help me understand" is sometimes a bad faith tactic to claim ignorance of basic empathy.

the "bad faith actor/tactic" argument is a dismissive mechanism to justify overreaction.

Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

#79

Post by eli »

jonas21 wrote: post #50
eli wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, many other rules would still apply including “Behavior which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.”

That's one of the rules they removed.

No it isn't? It's unchanged in the linked PR.

Re: Ruby removed “Participants will be tolerant of opposing views” from its CoC

#80

Post by pseudalopex »

nemetroid wrote: post #13

What's with the recurring comments about corporations and businesses? > Some people may have views that when expressed, may be harmful to the interest of particular groups of people like big corporations. This has to be taken into account. > universally accepted corporate values > That's California Core Corporate Policies in work > For instance, members of board of directors of the big corporations are a protected cl…

No search results for California Core Corporate Policies. But CCCP looks just like the Russian initials for the Soviet Union.

Someone with the same name invoked the old good intentions clause on the mailing list.[1] Apparently sincerely.

[1] http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/...

Post reply on HN