Live data from Hacker News

Nanomsg: Stepping Down

garrett.damore.org

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#51
post #20
post #13

CoCs are worthless. If a community is not able to detect poisonous behaviour by itself, a .txt file won't help.

You may think they are "worthless" but clearly some people think they they have value. Which one do you think is more poisonous? Making a fuss over the maintainer wanting to impose one or just accepting that someone else sees value in something you don't and agreeing to the CoC.

Why should someone have to agree simply because someone else does, and accept it?

The other person should have the same approach, accept that others do not see it as a worthwhile and not have it.

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#52
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 -…

What do you mean by "-1"? RE signaling issue - those people who are opposed to CoC are reacting because the CoC trend did not appeared from nowhere - it's the result of the SJW narrative that's been spreading around the Internet. So by accepting the CoC they feel they're legitimizing (what they perceive as) the culture of outrage and censorship that hides beneath the talk of preventing abuse.

See the original proposal in the mailing list. The maintainer drafted the CoC contents. Shared the link. Asked people what they thought. A lot of them simply replied back with -1. Some explained their choice, but a lot didn't.

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#53
post #30
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its philosophical. Note how you discuss if the CoC is controversial, not the maintainer wanting to enforce it, or how you phrase it as "there is a CoC" rather than "the maintainer will apply force as necessary". Folks with agency or autonomy will personally act to eliminate harassment, without need for rules, for example. Troll on my turf, I will ban you. Not some set of rules taking action, a human (that being me) w…

> So what is the use of a CoC? In this case the use is that the maintainer took the time to create it. You can argue that it is useless. Even the maintainer seem to largely agree. So why not have it? It is already there. Why show negativity. A CoC is a bit like a trademark. To be useful it has to be enforced. So it can just sit there, and if nobody bothers to look at, it will just occupy some extra bytes on some serv…

it sends a message

Does that actually work?

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#54
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 contributor…

Of course a CoC can't make a community actually do anything. These are Open Source communities we're talking about here, and nobody can make anyone do anything at all.

You're alleging that a CoC is meaningless, but why implement a CoC, as a community, if you don't actually want more women and people of color becoming involved in your projects? The CoC is the signal saying, "We, as a community, want you to feel welcome here."

That's all I'm saying it does, and all I'm suggesting it can do, and I say that's sufficient cause to implement a CoC, if you want more women and people of color in your community.

So, to repeat, a CoC is a signal of desire to be inclusive. It is not a law, it is not a guarantee, it won't make assholes stop being assholes. It is a sign on the door saying, "We're gonna try to be welcoming. Come on in."

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#55
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "-1"? RE signaling issue - those people who are opposed to CoC are reacting because the CoC trend did not appeared from nowhere - it's the result of the SJW narrative that's been spreading around the Internet. So by accepting the CoC they feel they're legitimizing (what they perceive as) the culture of outrage and censorship that hides beneath the talk of preventing abuse.

See the original proposal in the mailing list. The maintainer drafted the CoC contents. Shared the link. Asked people what they thought. A lot of them simply replied back with -1. Some explained their choice, but a lot didn't.

I would guess because it can become dangerous to one's career to explain in these circumstances but they believe it to be a bad thing. -1 is a vote. The more words you put down the easier it is the interpret what you say in the worst possible way.

Heck, following the wrong person on Twitter gets you on a ban list, so expressing opposition at all should be taken seriously.

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#57

We as a community should be embarrassed that a significant portion of our community believes Codes of Conduct are necessary.

We should be embarrassed that they're necessary for some groups to feel safe.

As we see in this thread, whether CoC "mean something" or "are needed" aren't absolutes — clearly they are to some, and aren't to others. The key for me is that they're not important to people who don't need them to feel safe, and vice-versa.

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 E…

>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? IMO tech industry is the most meritocratic sector I've seen, even more the little I've seen from academia. Note - it's far from being some ideal meritocracy, there's plenty of PHB, politics and plain old corporate bullshit, but low barrier…

I don't want to keep harping on the "as a white dude" theme, here, but that's what I keep hearing. As white dudes we don't see race or gender, because we aren't made to see it in our daily lives.

Tech is a meritocracy for white dudes. For everyone else, it is a little bit meritocracy, and a little bit toxic environment where they are made to feel their minority status on a regular basis. I'm not saying this because I want white dudes to feel guilty, or I don't want white dudes to continue to feel welcome in tech communities (again, I'm a white dude). But, until we acknowledge that women at tech conferences are simply not treated the same as white dudes; black folks are not treated the same as white applicants when applying for jobs; trans folks are gendered incorrectly casually or jokingly (I've seen it happen here at HN numerous times); we're contributing to the problem.

"tech industry shouldn't be reaching backwards to support underrepresented groups simply because they are underrepresented"

So, I'm confident you aren't intending to be racist or sexist...but, do you realize what you're suggesting here? That welcoming women and people of color into our communities is to "reach backwards"? Are you genuinely suggesting there are no women or people of color that are capable of contributing to projects you work on? That their contribution would be detrimental to a project?

They are underrepresented in many communities because they have been pushed out, repeatedly. Certainly, there are systemic problems, as well. And until we have large numbers of female hackers and black and brown hackers in the world at large, we won't see significant numbers of them in our communities. But, we've been told by women who are hackers that they've been made to feel unwelcome, unsafe, harassed. We've been told by black and brown folks who are hackers (sometimes impressively so) that they've experienced racism. And, that those situations have led to them leaving or never joining in the first place. Why do so many white dudes want to insist those stories are lies?

"If the society sees a problem with this imbalance then they are free to fix the issue at the source instead of trying to fix a thing that works relatively well."

So, it is society's responsibility to make the open source projects we work on more inclusive? I don't follow. I think we should start with what we have the most direct control over. I have commit bits on a handful of large open source projects. I can make something happen there. I don't have "commit bits" on the education system, the police, the federal or local government, television or movies, or much of anything else.

In short, you say we're trying to fix something that isn't broken...but, I believe women and people of color when they tell me that it is broken for them. I don't see it; it's never been broken for me. But, I'm white and male in America. The system (whatever "system" we're talking about) is pretty much always functional for me.

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#59
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what is the use of a CoC? In this case the use is that the maintainer took the time to create it. You can argue that it is useless. Even the maintainer seem to largely agree. So why not have it? It is already there. Why show negativity. A CoC is a bit like a trademark. To be useful it has to be enforced. So it can just sit there, and if nobody bothers to look at, it will just occupy some extra bytes on some serv…

it sends a message Does that actually work?

> Does that actually work?

Don't know that's why I said it was "a positive hypothetical upside". It was in response to gp post about "well what if it has a has a negative effect somehow". So I just replied with an equally un-substantiated claim "Well it could have a positive effect too".

Re: Nanomsg: Stepping Down

#60
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…

This, absolutely.

Communities can be healthy without a CoC, or unhealthy with one. But having a CoC sends a big, clear message to women and other groups frequently marginalized in the tech scene that your project is healthy and welcoming.

Here's why that's a big deal: joining an open source project is an investment. If you are a woman, or black, or trans, or god forbid, some combination thereof in tech, you really don't want to become invested in a community that will at some point treat you like shit. And let's be real guys, many, many communities do treat women and minorities like shit.

A CoC, and just as importantly, the discussion surrounding one, is a simple sign that a community is a place where you can be a woman or a minority and contribute to open source without fear of harassment, abuse, marginalization, and other dangers faced by non-white-dudes in tech.

Post reply on HN