Is programming lame enough yet that we can get away from everything being done by hr and get back to doing cool things with weird people?
Define "weird people".
Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects
41–50 of 270 posts
Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects
#42The thing is that codes of conduct do not help honest actors “regulate” and deal with troublemakers. I used to organize meetups and I visited meetups organized by others who had code of conduct, and I just never understood what they were hoping to achieve with that. If someone behaves poorly, you can point at a document all you want, but it doesn’t help you deal that the problematic individual. A document that you pu…
> And we didn’t even talk about how it is being misused. People would point to these documents to silence and shut out people they don’t like and at the same time tolerate poor behavior that are clearly in violation of code of conduct by people they do like or whose politics or opinions they share. Has it occurred to you that's actually exactly why they exist? :)
I have seen multiple CoC being installed with completely good intentions so no.
Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects
#43I want a code of conduct that explicitly allows debate, disagreement, and normalizes hurting other people’s feelings with your words. What matters is that people are operating in good faith. I would also say that IF you have been accepted as a member of a community then you and your feelings must matter to that community unless and until you are ejected from the community. There needs to be a system for accepting and…
> What matters is that people are operating in good faith.
Any asshole can claim to be acting in good faith, regardless of what they've done.
Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having something you can point to and say "This is why you're being removed" often removes some headaches. Some people will claim it's unjustified, moderator abuse, etc, if you don't. At least with some rules, there's less wiggle room. Of course, some people are going to respond poorly even with some rules, but it's also not just about the offenders - other community members being able to see there's some logic and r…
> often removes some headaches (...) with some rules, there's less wiggle room ... I understand that's the theory, but in practice, I've never seen it working that way. I don't see how having the CoC affects any of this. If someone is behaving poorly, first of all, a CoC will not deter them. If someone behaves so poorly that you decide you need to remove them, the community (the small portion of people who give a f)…
People have different level of tolerance to negative behavior. That includes both your team and your community. Having a clear rules allows you to
1) point both involved and uninvolved people to the code of conduct when you end up taking action.
2) avoid disparity of enforcement within your team
3) funnel disagreements (from both teammates or community members) by focusing them on the rule, rather than on a general debate on how should the community should be managed.
If people commit a lot of energy to a community/project then for many "I didn't like this behavior, end of discussion" won't cut it.
Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects
#45A big part of a CoC that this article, as most discussions on the topic, miss is that they provide a signal to new contributors from marginalized groups, who may have faced abuse or violence in other spaces, that this community will be safe for them to contribute to and - as many anti-CoC folk like to say - get on with the tech. Not having a CoC doesn't mean a project is going to be unsafe to work in. But it means wh…
> to new contributors from marginalized groups,
For software projects that are overwhelmingly conducted online the very concept of "marginalized group" is close to irrelevant and meaningless [1].
I think what happens is that some people want to be very, very vocal about whatever "group" they belong to and want to feel offended and oppressed. In recent years, arguments and campaigns against specific technical terms ('master', 'blacklist', even 'legacy code' spring to mind) are examples of this, IMHO.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...
Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anti-meritocracy was in in some CoCs, arguing in its favour was a reason for exclusion from an event / project. Even if the argument happened somewhere else on the internet and not in the project.
Whenever I see someone dying on the hill of fighting for 'meritocracy', in the words of another poster in this subthread, I have found them to be: > ...a zealot about their cause. Deflecting and uncompromising, very unagreeable. They would be the last persons to know how to make a community comfy. ... And typically with a giant chip on their shoulder. The real world's a little bit more complicated than the spherical…
I'm not sure how your comment is relevant. No one is fighting for meritocracy here. Only providing the requested information about a case where CoC pushed a specific political view and excluded others.
Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects
#47Yeah, nah.
Watch how an open discussion here: https://github.com/nixos/rfcs/pull/98
... devolves into a massive outcry because a bunch of folks not behaving in good faith didn't like "we don't support fascism or bigotry".
It reached the level of
* Vile sock puppet attacks on a trans individual, who merely kept saying "Fascism, no thanks in this community" * "Denounce the Marxists!" As a rallying cry becomes a talking point
If you reflect on the behaviours seen there and ask why is this so heated for proposing consequences for bad behaviour; you may come to the realisation that the advocates of bad behaviour... don't want to be accountable.
This post is translated, perhaps some of the nuance is lost. But it hand waves away dhh's behaviour as "controversial figures in the community"
If that's genuinely what is believed, I'd like a replacement on this Overton window, thanks! It has been fractured.
The article does not consider the consequences or implications of malicious acts, and the harm on others adequately.
A clear CoC or similar outlines expected norms, and does not have to be copypasta/is infact better if it is derived from a consensus. It's a statement of what the people with power will hold themselves to, and if that turns out to be a lie - a performative document that is not actually used - newcomers can view the behaviour they observe against that standard; and leave or demand justice if they are wronged.
By not publishing an ethical or moral standard you abide by, even if it's a text file with "get bent" in it; you invite people to interact with you with expectations. If you are part of the 1-4% of the population who are sociopaths, you are advocating to hurt people without consequence. If they are part of the 1-4% you are permitting behaviour without recourse.
Could you imagine a post advocating for "don't fix security holes because 92-98% of people don't know about exploiting them?" Would that be acceptable?
Why would you not state a policy?
Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects
#48Posts like this always remind me of Vaclav Havel's "The Power of the Powerless". You are completely misunderstanding the original purpose behind the CoC. Here's the relevant part:
"The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?
I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.
Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?
Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology."
Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects
#49I want a code of conduct that explicitly allows debate, disagreement, and normalizes hurting other people’s feelings with your words. What matters is that people are operating in good faith. I would also say that IF you have been accepted as a member of a community then you and your feelings must matter to that community unless and until you are ejected from the community. There needs to be a system for accepting and…
> normalizes hurting other people’s feelings with your word
This is the Trammel problem: if you want a PvP-enabled project, you discover that people are mostly interested in the part where they hurt others feelings and then go bananas when their own feelings are hurt.
> needs to be a system for accepting and expelling people
The private member's club is an old institution. But people tend to notice and object when it ends up being white guys only.
Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects
#50> DHH condemned detailed and strict CoC like the Contributor Covenant as a “trojan horse” that should be purged from projects.
Of course he would, he has made several transphobic remarks in the past. Normal people shouldn't take issue with the mere existence of a markdown document that basically says "don't be a dick to people because of who they are". Ostracizing people from projects because you are prejudiced against them, now that hinders open-source. How many potential contributors were scared away by such remarks?