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

Nanomsg: Stepping Down

garrett.damore.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#31

Post by gedy »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #25
gedy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we have those warnings on lawnmowers because of lawsuit-happy culture, not due to lack of common sense. Rachel Nabor's article is interesting, but not sure how a CoC fixes dealing with a boorish weirdo outside the conference.

Do you imply that maiming should be a common occurrence or that warnings prevent no injuries?

In this context I'm implying CoC do not "prevent" nor the lack thereof causes bad behavior.

This BTW seems to get to the crux of what half of his decision was about. If he thinks CoC are worthless, that is not the same thing as believe abuse should be a common occurrence.

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#32

Post by rdtsc »

bobcostas55 wrote: post #29
rdtsc wrote: post #16

I don't understand. The people who are -1, what do they care if it is adopted? Is CoC that controversial? Are personal attacks, doxing, trolling and slurs part of their daily routine they will be seriously inconvenienced by inability to use them? --- * The use of sexualized language or imagery * Personal attacks * Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments * Public or private harassment * Publishing other's private in…

It's purely a signaling issue, the text of the CoC is completely irrelevant.

> It's purely a signaling issue, the text of the CoC is completely irrelevant.

That's what I am thinking. Why not signal that "yeah these issues exist, we took 10 minutes to create some guide and put it on Github or some place". I understand if it wasn't already done, and its usefulness has to be weighed against the time it takes to do it. But it was already done. Just approve it and move on. Why drive-by and throw -1's out of the window at it.

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#33

Post by mc808 »

WizzleKake wrote: post #6
SwellJoe wrote: post #4

I think the value of a CoC is merely to signal to people who have experienced abuse or disrespect in communities before (which would describe, I think, most women and people of color who have participated in technical communities for more than a short time) that the community is on their side when sexists or racists show up. That has some value. It doesn't really matter to the majority, and it doesn't actually alter…

which would describe, I think, most women and people of color who have participated in technical communities for more than a short time This is an odd assumption to make.

This isn't exactly scientific, but just go over to YouTube and read the comments whenever a woman gives a technical talk. Now imagine a role reversal where, whenever a straight male gives a talk, you can count on it receiving numerous comments from gay men saying they love a guy with brains, or how badly they want to fuck the guy (or that he isn't attractive enough for that), or that he should go back to the garage and fix me a motorcycle. Maybe it's only a small minority of comments, but it doesn't take much to make the whole environment feel hostile.

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#34

Post by SwellJoe »

moonchrome wrote: post #15
SwellJoe wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? It may seem that way to a white dude (I'm a white dude, and I suffered from the delusion that tech communities were inclusive for decades), surrounded by white dudes. You're not alone...lots of people think tech is inclusive. I always assumed that our communities were more welcoming than usual, despite the evidence to the contrary in the form of such low historic participation by women and people of color in t…

>despite the evidence to the contrary in the form of such low historic participation by women and people of color in tech. Are asians suddenly white and only black people are people of color ? I see asians significantly represented in the tech community (especially India with English history and emigration to west). And they are at all levels of tech from CEO to us regular code monkeys.

Do you believe that because Asian folks have reasonable (maybe even over-) representation in tech, that tech is an inclusive environment for all people of color, as well as women?

Edit: And, another thing!...I believe I've personally seen more anti-Asian racism in tech than most other kinds of racism (though the extreme level of sexism in tech far surpasses any racism I've seen). Fake Indian accents and jokes about English skills abound among nerd circles, for example. It may merely be because I know more Asian tech workers than folks from other races and have worked in environments with a reasonably large Asian population. It is possible to ignore racism or sexism and power through and keep doing your job, but it doesn't mean the environment is welcoming or inclusive.

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#35

Post by SwellJoe »

mpweiher wrote: post #19
SwellJoe wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? It may seem that way to a white dude (I'm a white dude, and I suffered from the delusion that tech communities were inclusive for decades), surrounded by white dudes. You're not alone...lots of people think tech is inclusive. I always assumed that our communities were more welcoming than usual, despite the evidence to the contrary in the form of such low historic participation by women and people of color in t…

> despite the evidence to the contrary in the form of such low historic participation by women and people of color in tech Low participation is evidence of exactly one thing: low participation. It says nothing about the causes and is not evidence of non-inclusiveness.

OK.

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#36

Post by DannyBee »

SwellJoe wrote: post #4

I think the value of a CoC is merely to signal to people who have experienced abuse or disrespect in communities before (which would describe, I think, most women and people of color who have participated in technical communities for more than a short time) that the community is on their side when sexists or racists show up. That has some value. It doesn't really matter to the majority, and it doesn't actually alter…

"I think the value of a CoC is merely to signal to people who have experienced abuse or disrespect in communities before (which would describe, I think, most women and people of color who have participated in technical communities for more than a short time) that the community is on their side when sexists or racists show up. "

If a COC becomes a baseline requirement for people to run projects and attract contributors, ISTM the people who don't care will just add COC's, and never enforce them.

You say "But, it does say, "We will excise toxic people. We will try to make you feel welcome here, even if you have been made to feel unwelcome elsewhere.""

It does not actually do that. It's one level removed from that. It's "we say we will excise toxic people.". It in fact, may be the case that you go to ask them to enforce it, and they say "sorry, don't care", even with a COC.

Then you are back to square 1. You essentially are trying to use the COC as a proxy for "communities that will care enough to put a stop to things" and i'm pretty much 100% it will not achieve this goal.

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#37

Post by michaelmior »

Nadya wrote: post #24
rdtsc wrote: post #16

I don't understand. The people who are -1, what do they care if it is adopted? Is CoC that controversial? Are personal attacks, doxing, trolling and slurs part of their daily routine they will be seriously inconvenienced by inability to use them? --- * The use of sexualized language or imagery * Personal attacks * Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments * Public or private harassment * Publishing other's private in…

A CoC lets people stretch something to fall under it to get someone else punished if enforced properly and by the letter. If it isn't enforced by the letter - why does any of this bullshit need to be mentioned? If someone's being a dick, they'll be addressed and dealt with for being a dick. No CoC needed. What is the difference between the following two statements? "We've received a complaint that could be construed…

People have different definitions of what constitutes acceptable conduct. A CoC acknowledges this and takes some steps to make sure people are on the same page. Even if it isn't enforced to the letter, some people need a reminder. I think there's also a hope (maybe not true in practice) that having a CoC is a positive signal to people who feel marginalized in other communities.

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#38

Post by munchbunny »

exolymph wrote: post #2

I disagree with him regarding the usefulness of CoCs -- spelling out the rules of engagement can be powerful -- but I respect that he put his money where his mouth is, so to speak.

I also disagree with him about CoC's, though for a reason that he doesn't really address.

Anybody who has lived for long enough knows at least one person who can be unkind out of obliviousness, not knowing better, or not being aware of social cues.

Also, people in disagreements get mad or passionate, and that tends to incite people to cross the line of professional respect. Passion is good, hostility is not. I've had to remind normally kind people that I manage to "not do ____ again" on multiple occasions, with the implicit threat of firing them.

My conclusion from my own experiences is that "don't be a dick" is not universally understood, and people will make mistakes, often unintentionally. So I think a CoC is useful as one of many different ways any organization has to remind its members to be kind. It's still up to the administrators to enforce things, but a CoC is a useful reminder especially to incoming members to be aware of their conduct.

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#39

Post by nijiko »

mc808 wrote: post #33
WizzleKake wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which would describe, I think, most women and people of color who have participated in technical communities for more than a short time This is an odd assumption to make.

This isn't exactly scientific, but just go over to YouTube and read the comments whenever a woman gives a technical talk. Now imagine a role reversal where, whenever a straight male gives a talk, you can count on it receiving numerous comments from gay men saying they love a guy with brains, or how badly they want to fuck the guy (or that he isn't attractive enough for that), or that he should go back to the garage a…

As much as it is fun to utilize arbitrary examples, a CoC wouldn't solve Youtube comment issues. See what I mean?

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#40

Post by nijiko »

I have attempted to ascertain the need of a CoC for this community by reading through the mailing list and issues... The more that I read through it, the less I see the need for one. It simply appears as a power play from this individual user, as such is identified by this lengthy blog post which signals some red flags.

The previous owner says it all himself pretty clearly:

> The current attempts to adopt CoC in various FOSS projects are IMO doomed for similar reasons. It has zero effect on abusers (no abuser thinks of himself as an abuser) and the message it sends to decent folks is: "There's an elite in the community that will decide what's good and what's bad and enforce it by censoring your emails/posts/contributions." Which in turn erodes trust within the community and, consequently, its ability to spontaneously deal with abuse.

Post reply on HN