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

Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

lunduke.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 447 posts

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#131

Post by zionic »

josteink wrote: post #72
aeturnum wrote: post #10

From the previous discussion, plorkyeran[1] found the email that they suspect got ESR banned: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.... I'm not familiar with the culture or standards of the OSI but I don't think I'd wanna participate in a community where this kind of engagement is normal, so good for them I suppose? Edit: replaced plorkyeran's account link with their post. I also now notice othe…

I find that email a perfect summary of the current situation. A bit rough tone, sure, but I think that shows that he’s actually passionate about these things. That’s good, not bad.

Passionate speech is not allowed in the borg-cube of a culture we're growing.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#132

Post by tunesmith »

justinmk wrote: post #22
aeturnum wrote: post #10

From the previous discussion, plorkyeran[1] found the email that they suspect got ESR banned: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.... I'm not familiar with the culture or standards of the OSI but I don't think I'd wanna participate in a community where this kind of engagement is normal, so good for them I suppose? Edit: replaced plorkyeran's account link with their post. I also now notice othe…

What parts of that email are so objectionable?

It's inefficient, and occludes what the discussion is actually about. As someone not deeply familiar with the discussion, I am no further to understanding what ESD is, as the language used is mostly a string of assertions without proof, and little definitional value. In other words, there were better, more effective ways to answer the question, still completely unfettered by any need to be "PC".

There's expressing yourself fully and accurately, and there's expressing yourself respectfully. It's entirely possible to do both, and that quoted response really didn't do much of either.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#133

Post by duskwuff »

derefr wrote: post #47
sneak wrote: post #24

I’m torn on this. On one hand, esr has a point. There is a credible argument that cancel culture has gone too far, and that expressing disagreement itself is now becoming dangerous as those with whom you disagree will take the opportunity to play victim and attempt to defame you simply for disagreeing. Identity politics along these lines have lately become unproductive and distracting. I generally don’t participate i…

> Real jerks in f/oss are also a real problem. f/oss groups should ABSOLUTELY eject bullies: not for wrongthink, but for bullying. We must be kind. So, is it illegitimate, then, to have a FOSS project with an intentional/cultivated "culture of abuse", where the idea is that nobody is kind to anybody and that's how everybody likes it? Sort of a... "BSDM but we build something along the way" thing? (For example, pictur…

> So, is it illegitimate, then, to have a FOSS project with an intentional/cultivated "culture of abuse", where the idea is that nobody is kind to anybody and that's how everybody likes it? Sort of a... "BSDM but we build something along the way" thing?

It's nonviable for anything beyond a small hobby project, for the simple reason that such a culture would make it essentially impossible for anyone to participate in the project as a representative of their employer.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#134

Post by seanhunter »

silverreads wrote: post #5

Anyone unaffiliated with a large commercial organization is being systematically rooted out and destroyed in the free software community. I'm honestly ashamed to be a part of this community right now. ESR has done SO MUCH for us, but doesn't align with a position some wishy washy corporate PR departments have OK'd, so he's OUT. There is no "be nice" rule in life, and doubly so for corporate America. This is disgracef…

There can be a "be nice" rule in both life and corporate America. Lots of organisations have a "no assholes" rule and this goes double for organisations with a substantial volunteer/not-for-profit ethos as a few unpleasant people who create a lot of drama can drive away a lot of quiet contributors by making their lives unpleasant.

ESR has always been someone who has created drama. Look up the CML2 controversy on the linux kernel mailing list where ESR created so much drama that in the end the kernel devs just gave up on trying to work with him.

It's quite possible that the OSI just decided the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#135

Post by turbinerneiter »

LiNeXT wrote: post #57
turbinerneiter wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about him no being an ally I'm the 70. It's about him conflating homosexuality with pedophilia _today_. I'm thankful for his work, but today people like him are driving away people from open source. And this is not a Linus Torvalds sometimes uses rude language kind of thing. It's about a person spewing hatred and toxic lies.

What relevance does his personal opinion on homosexuality, expressed on his personal blog, have to his participation in an OSI mailing list about open source licensing?

It spills over. He is fighting against codes of conducts and diversity because he thinks its about normalizing homosexuality and he thinks that normalizing homosexuality is the first step towards normalizing pedophilia.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#136

Post by zionic »

planetzero wrote: post #127

How ironic: A person railing against cancel culture gets cancelled by cancel culture. Simply disagreeing with politically charged topics gets you a boot from many open source projects. Many people that claim to want tolerance, actually want nothing less than exuberance for their own causes and have no problem painting people they disagree with as non-human, so they can harass, get them fired from their jobs or positi…

>Many people that claim to want tolerance, actually want nothing less than exuberance for their own causes

This is absolutely brilliant

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#137

Post by catalogia »

TheOperator wrote: post #119
sneak wrote: post #24

I’m torn on this. On one hand, esr has a point. There is a credible argument that cancel culture has gone too far, and that expressing disagreement itself is now becoming dangerous as those with whom you disagree will take the opportunity to play victim and attempt to defame you simply for disagreeing. Identity politics along these lines have lately become unproductive and distracting. I generally don’t participate i…

I don't see any reason you can't have an open source project which enforces a strong code of conduct, creates a "safe space" for members sensitive to various things, which doesn't tolerate rudeness, jerks, bullies, etc. Or one with a "show me the code, stick and stones" ethos. I also don't think that has to be every open source project. Put another way Tumblr and 4chan can exist on the same internet and we can compla…

> "Code of conducts" inherently drive power away from the contributors to some sort of moderator enforcing the CoC.

Could we have both? e.g. CoC moderators elected by contributors from the ranks of contributors?

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#138

Post by root_axis »

derefr wrote: post #114
root_axis wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any individual or group can do whatever they want in the OSS world, nobody is stopping anyone from being a jerk except those communities that voluntarily self-govern in such a fashion that excludes jerks. Where's the problem?

Mostly the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox . I've seen a few cases now where a FOSS project community—one that is nominally open to new members, but is in practice a closed and static group of close-knit friends—starts off all perfectly happy with a sort of raunchy/abusive internal demeanor; but then someone comes to them with a suggestion of some Code of Conduct or other standard of decorum; and then e…

That's still a voluntary choice made by those individuals. If the group doesn't want to follow the suggestion of an outsider they don't have to do that.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#139

Post by kazinator »

duskwuff wrote: post #115
kazinator wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sort of language is normal in the parliament houses of the developed world, upon which our constitutional democracies are based. If there is some sort of evidence that the candidate in question is in fact a toxic loonytoon, by some sort of objective standard, then it's perfectly fine to use that language. At some point, you have to call a spade a spade, and a toxic loonytoon a toxic loonytoon.

Calling a person a "toxic loonytoon" for the offense of trying to establish standards of acceptable behavior is ridiculous by any sort of "objective standard". If anything, it demonstrates the importance of having those standards, by serving as an example of the sort of behavior that such a standard should condemn.

What, like no toxic loonytoon in human history has ever tried to impose standards of acceptable behavior?

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#140

Post by gonehome »

kazinator wrote: post #54
zozbot234 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "toxic loonytoon" part, referencing a prominent candidate to the OSI board? I mean, surely we can all have our own opinions about any candidate, but the optics aren't that good.

That sort of language is normal in the parliament houses of the developed world, upon which our constitutional democracies are based. If there is some sort of evidence that the candidate in question is in fact a toxic loonytoon, by some sort of objective standard, then it's perfectly fine to use that language. At some point, you have to call a spade a spade, and a toxic loonytoon a toxic loonytoon.

I don't agree - I think you come across a lot more persuasive when you attack the ideas rather than the person and you do it with less colorful language.

Otherwise I think you only 'persuade' people that already agree with you and others that might have otherwise changed their minds are alienated.

That said, I generally like the idea of not banning people and I have a high tolerance for this kind of communication not really bothering me that much - but I still think it's generally bad form and probably does scare away others.

Post reply on HN