181–190 of 270 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not for people with boundaries. I've done work I was absolutely delighted with in both process and product with people whose views I detest. If you can't grow up enough to do that, you can't have a civilization. If I have to like you in order for us not to fight, I warn you that we're going to have to fight.
What was the most detestable view?
I dealt with abusive contributors at Wikimedia Foundation for years, and it wasn't until a CoC was added that coordinators were actually empowered to ban those abusive volunteers. Can you guess which members of the community were also the most vehemently against the CoCs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Likely more than 50% of the world's population agrees with viewpoints that some would label "trans-eliminationist rhetoric". So if you are saying anyone who ever expresses such viewpoints–even in forums completely unrelated to the project–is barred from contributing to it, you are potentially excluding more than half of contemporary humanity.
A community doesn't exist for "the majority of the world". It exists for its community. If a community doesn't want bigots (as they shouldn't), they absolutely should exclude them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry it's difficult to tell, but is this part of the genuine discussion?
Yes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If someone is behaving poorly, first of all, a CoC will not deter them I think you mean, "if someone is behaving poorly, the coc did not deter them". The people who it did deter aren't behaving poorly.
I'm just having a hard time imagining someone who wants to be racist sexist xenophobe jerk to other people, but they saw you drafted a CoC last year in the root of your repository, so they won't... Or they were racist sexist xenophobe jerks, then you point out that "our community has a CoC", and they will stop. None of these things happen in real life.
You are so focused on the strawman of problematic people being mustache-twirling villains trying to disrupt spaces they dislike, that you're discounting the actual purpose of CoCs, which is to make it clear who your space is for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you should understand quite how bad your examples are. I understand the examples you gave are given in the best of intentions, but this reads as pure blissful ignorance. PETA literally funded a terrorist convicted of arson. > A page from the 1995 annual tax return (form 990) of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), showing a $45,200 payment for the ``support committee'' of Rodney Coronado, a fel…
The examples are deliberately chosen as extremes, where they have an ethical standpoint. I suggest the examples work even better with the context you add - you do not have to agree with the ethics or like them! On the "funding terrorism" insinuation... Did PETA publish an ethical statement about: - Protecting university infrastructure - Obeying authorities - Agreeing with negative media coverage about them I sincerel…
No it isn't. We all have to pay our taxes. PETA didn't have to pay Rod Coronado.
> I would argue you have this talking point because of a concerted media effort to brand things as "Eco-Terrorism"
They firebombed research facilities to effect ideological change.
This is the textbook definition of terrorism.
> In which scenario are you more surprised? In which scenario were you given the most choice about how you can interact with the group; apply your own standards of behavior or what to expect?
The problem is the very obvious Motte-and-bailey fallacy that you're falling for here, as so many people do.
You brought up NixOS earlier. I like NixOS. I fund some of the development. I attend some of the conferences and meetups.
Any reasonable person in the community would be against violence, I'm sure you'll agree. The last time I attended a NixOS conference, I saw many attendees with… Actually you know what, I've written about this before. You can read it if you wish, and you might then understand where I'm coming from.
The 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…
What I like about the simplicity of our CoC is that anyone can read it in a few seconds, and we can point it out to people without seeming bureaucratic or annoying.
Happy to share with others. Complicated CoC documents I've seen at other groups don't seem to do anything besides giving the organisers a feeling of power/that they're doing something. Simplicity might be key here.