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

Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

shujisado.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 270 posts

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#81

Post by ranger_danger »

danaris wrote: post #77
serial_dev wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)…

> If someone is behaving poorly, first of all, a CoC will not deter them. I'm sorry, but that's just not true. You're treating humanity as if it's divided into two distinct sections: Those Who Behave Well, and Those Who Behave Poorly. In reality, different humans have different ranges of ways they prefer to act, and most are quite amenable to reasonable, clearly-stated codes of conduct for interaction in a particular…

> But there are many, many more who would cause friction with others in such a community without a code of conduct

Hard disagree... I've never seen one have this effect. IMO you don't need a CoC to suddenly understand what should already be common sense i.e. don't be a dick. Either they were already going to act that way, or they weren't.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#82

Post by ranger_danger »

StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #23

CoC always appeared to me as a US issue which could pretty much be safely ignored by anyone living in the rest of the world. I generally dislike how they tend to be written as objective rules while actually being imperialist but most of them can safely be boiled down to act like a normal professional person. The implied subtext of "avoid topic the US finds morally objectionable and when in doubt act like an American…

The problem I have seen with them is that they get weaponized. Someone can point to a specific rule in the CoC that has very subjective language in it, and claim that you are violating the rules, when really they're just doing that to silence opinions they don't like.

This is further proven when any attempts to discuss said rule/policy are immediately shut down with even more staunch black-and-white opinions and zero empathy... even if you wait until later to discuss it in a different setting.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#83

Post by belorn »

chrislo wrote: post #21
curtisblaine wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What evidence do you have for that? I was involved in adopting a code of conduct for a local tech meetup and we did that because a couple of incidents that weren't handled very well left other people feeling unsafe and unwelcome. Having some guidelines in place reassured folks that we took those concerns seriously and gave us a framework to deal with unwanted behaviour.

From my experience, writing rules directly after incidents and as a reaction to incidents do not produce good results. New members of the community 5-10 years later will have no understanding of what the rules are trying to do or why they exist, and when a new incident occur the rules get rewritten again and again. The only effect is the optics as in sending a message that "we take those concern serious", but without substance, and again from experience, those people who was leaning to leave will still leave regardless.

What has worked in communities I have been active in is to have continuously conversations, in combination with a no-blame culture that provide social safety for people to bring up issues and also room for people to improve without feeling personally attacked (which is the opposite of social safety).

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#84

Post by ranger_danger »

w4rh4wk5 wrote: post #15

Maybe a bit of an unpopular opinion here, but I still think the benevolent dictator is the way to go for open-source projects. If you are unhappy with how things are handled, fork it and do better. However, there's probably a cutoff point for core infrastructure where we should move away from having a single person in charge.

> If you are unhappy with how things are handled, fork it and do better.

Yes, but often the projects where this happens are just big enough to where one person cannot realistically maintain their own fork to the same level that users will expect if they are looking to jump ship.

What I've seen happen more often than not, is even if the person does attempt a fork, they either get constantly attacked by existing users, or stop working on it within a year, or both.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#85

Post by astanm »

HelloNurse wrote: post #61
pjc50 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of those things that falls apart on the actual content. If you have a trans contributor and someone who comes in with trans-eliminationist rhetoric, you can't then turn round and say the trans person is being "inflexible" for refusing to work with them.

The correct answer is reacting harshly to "trans-eliminationist rhetoric" from a weird extremist, with an ultimatum or immediate expulsion, before the trans contributor complains.

If someone is posting along the lines of "send them all to the death camps" etc. on the mailing lists or discussion boards, for any group, that would be covered under the other items in the Ruby CoC, where participants are expected not to harass or disparage.

Also it would be very off-topic for a programming language forum.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#86

Post by majorchord »

squigz wrote: post #33
ricardobeat wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A written code of conduct can legitimize petty disputes based on interpretations of the text, even if the issue itself is something easily addressable like using the word “master” in a programming context. It can become a tool for manipulation (pushing someone out for “CoC violation” vs simply correcting the wording).

I don't see how that is an issue with CoCs. Those people would still try this with or without a CoC - whether the moderators/maintainer acquiesce is the real issue, and, again, is separate from having a CoC.

> Those people would still try this with or without a CoC

Perhaps, but I think it may make the moderator more likely to side with the abuser if they are able to point to a specific part of the CoC that is allegedly being violated, even if that requires colorful interpretation.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#87

Post by notarget137 »

swiftcoder wrote: post #54
astanm wrote: post #16

This, from the Ruby CoC, is key: > Participants are expected to be tolerant of opposing views. If you can't tolerate that others will have different perspectives to you then it means you're likely to be a very difficult and inflexible person to work with.

Something, something, paradox of tolerance. Diverse views on software development? Great. Diverse views on whether various groups deserve human rights? Not great.

It's almost like theese two should not collide in any context from either side...

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#88

Post by majorchord »

lowsong wrote: post #63
mytailorisrich wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ('…

> For software projects that are overwhelmingly conducted online the very concept of "marginalized group" is close to irrelevant I wish this were true, but it simply isn't. If a group is full of white cis heterosexual guys and someone turns up with a random screen name and says nothing about themselves, everyone assumes they are also a white cis hetero guy even if they're not. The implication is "you have to conform,…

> everyone assumes they are also a white cis hetero guy even if they're not

Hard disagree. And how is this even relevant?

> The implication is "you have to conform, and if you don't then you don't belong".

Conform to what, being nice? That was already the case. A group is very unlikely to change their ways regardless, especially just because you barge in and say you are marginalized and start getting offended at things.

For one, "hey guys" is often said by people of every possible group known to humankind, but also if you really wanted to, you can ask them to use a different term without saying you are part of some marginalized (or any) group at all.

The fact that they belong to some group is still (IMO) meaningless in this context, the reality is that they want to play politics and try to get people to change how things operate... you don't need to be part of any group to do that. IMO that's just being difficult.

Maybe you believe it is necessary to identify yourself online as belonging to some group, perhaps in order to force a change, but again I think this is just trying to play politics where it's often not welcome.

If online discourse can exist without people even knowing this much about a person, then I think it's far less likely that they will be targeted for belonging to a group that people are not even aware they belong to.

I'm not saying people need to hide, but I think it's just easier if people can assume "on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog"... if nothing else simply because some people suck, and it's easier to get along in a purely technical project if we don't know that much about you personally.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#89

Post by majorchord »

satisfice wrote: post #19

I 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…

I would like this too, and it sounds like a good idea in theory...

But what I worry about is that it may presume that the staff themselves already operate in (your interpretation of) good faith, and I don't think that is always the case.

What is a user's recourse when they disagree with the mods? And what says they will comply with any decision reached from said recourse?

You could say "we must allow disagreements", but at some point this becomes a paradox of tolerance and then you risk it devolving into pointless arguments on either side.

I think the whole "good faith" part could only be enforced by a universally trusted party, like maybe a robot. But even then, people will disagree about how it operates... so maybe this problem is impossible to solve.

Re: Heavy codes of conduct are unnecessary for open source projects

#90

Post by notarget137 »

astanm wrote: post #80
swiftcoder wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something, something, paradox of tolerance. Diverse views on software development? Great. Diverse views on whether various groups deserve human rights? Not great.

The latter would be off-topic for a programming language discussion forum, certainly. But working with others that happen to hold differing views on that topic? Not a problem. It would be unreasonable to expect everyone to have the same perspective on political issues.

It baffles me how much political every aspect of life has become. We can't just talk about things and hold genuine discussion. It always boils down to "us vs. them" standpoint.
Post reply on HN