301–310 of 912 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it is. What if a contributor is harassing another team member? What if he/she is being openly racist/sexist/etc.?
In my eyes someone is allowed to be as hateful as they want as long as they contribute good code.
Rust however wanted something different and attracted a lot of "snowflakes" because of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But for some reason, the formalization of conduct enforcement stuff around OSS projects still feels weird, off-putting, and very "Corporate HR"-y to me. But if a community already approved such rules is it OK that those would not apply equally for all? Before joining a new community I always check and see if there is a lot of toxicity or just low effort contributions and I am avoiding those, it would suck to join a…
Maybe it will help to explicate what rubs me the wrong way about "corporate HR". The facade of process masking Machiavellian reality is what rubs me the wrong way. I'm always astounded by folks who don't understand that companies are feudal kingdoms and that all the stuff about processes and protecting people who are innocent/do the right thing is just hot air. And I've never been on the wrong side of HR, so this isn…
I don't believe proper free software projects require significant moderation of behavior between individuals. If someone says something that rises to the level of a crime, report it to your local authorities. Otherwise, if a person is generally toxic enough, they will be worked around. Note that expelling a person from a project for being a jerk in one or more instances may do more harm than good. What is the value o…
I think that's a pretty bad example, considering Linus took time off and reevaluated, publicly apologized and acknowledged how his behavior was harming Linux.
> competency often makes people a little rougher around the edges.
That seems pretty unsubstantiated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely, yes. A growing community needs healthy management in order to avoid reputational damage to the core language. There's no shortage of guidance to "stay away from X tech because the community is toxic and non-serious"
Examples? EDIT: it's remarkable that there's none, aside of "someone said something"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without knowing details, I can say from experience that those who feel they are the most righteous are often the most wrong. I’ve been on both sides of this. If this has to be aired publicly, then we need to be able to objectively assess. Otherwise, I’m reading this as ‘we don’t get along with those guys and gals on the core team and vice versa’, which is, fine, it’s just humans not getting along. Which reminds me, I…
I'd rather say that a specific very annoying type of wrong people feels righteous, for reasons that range from psychotic entitlement to not understanding what they are doing. Right people often feel righteous for valid reasons.
https://reddit.com/r/NotLikeTheOtherGirls
So some people are particularly special, huh? I doubt it.
This makes me sad. As someone who's used Rust but isn't fully familiar with the community, what would the expected roles of these moderators have been? Is it just forum moderation or are there other components?
https://github.com/rust-lang/team/blob/master/teams/mods.tom...
The "description" field says "Helping uphold the code of conduct and community standards" which is why they left. My guess is people could of done literally any number of things that violated the Code of Conduct. They want to not start a witch hunt which is respectable. As someone else around this thread said though, it leaves room to interpret it as the absolute worst. I am going to assume it's not as awful as it seems and might just be something to the tune of differing opinions. Maybe another Linus Torvalds scenario, I rather not make assumptions that are really bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You call it mature but an outsider would have no idea about what's happening. I have no way of forming an idea whether it's utter bs or if there is something actually going wrong.
Moderating a community is not meant to entertain outsiders, but to prevent escalation within the community. No offense, but what do you expect to be able to contribute to this situation as an outsider? Would your contribution to the community be improved by additional information?
Is there any good way to craft a message like this? If they outlined specific issues then it would invariably devolve into armchair quarterbacking of those issues rather than the the underlying question of what kinds of checks-and-balances should exist for the Core Team -- gossip, accusations, and political discussions are a lot more fun than debating governance structures. On the other hand, if no specific issues ar…
> Is there any good way to craft a message like this? "We are resigning and our reasons have been shared privately with X group. " But since the goal of the whole exercise is to generate publicity and drama, the above was an unacceptable approach and the approach actually taken was highly effective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An accusation substantiated in secret is not an accusation substantiated. This is a fundamental principle of justice, dating back centuries.
Protecting people's privacy is a fundamental principle of justice, too. It's extremely common for court records in cases regarding people's conduct to be sealed. Forcing people to air all their dirty laundry in public, as the Puritans did, is not just, and tends to severely limit already-marginalized people's access to justice.