Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines • Hacker News Board

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#51

Post by debacle » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 3:29 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #42

brobdingnagians wrote: post #17

> The way we do this, rather than ordering people to be kind or else, is try to help people learn to make their communication more kind. This is excellent; using love and persuasion to help someone improve is so much better than by force, compulsion, and fear. How many children rebel against restrictive and domineering parents? but a child who is loved and taught, but allowed to make choices and pursue independence u…

So, here's the thing. Statements like this? Rather, the problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out on possible contributors. And very likely also others that are not in demographic D. This is not a new statement. This is what people pushing diversity have been saying for years and years. The only ways for this to be a new and refreshing thing to you are: 1. You were not paying attention, or…

We don't need this kind of accusatory commentary on HN, I don't think.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#52

Post by dang » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 3:32 PM UTC

fossdev wrote: post #39

Diversity as a goal is fundamentally flawed. It is what leads to policies like "affirmative action" which are in themselves simply a form of reverse discrimination.

Please don't take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents. They are all the same and resolve nothing.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18275156.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#53

Post by jordigh » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 3:32 PM UTC

funkythings wrote: post #11

> In August, a discussion started among GNU package maintainers about the problem that GNU development often pushes women away I'm not trying to offend people or anything, but where is the evidence for this in GNU specifically?

I was there to witness the private mailing list that culminated in this, and there was a very clear example of that happening there.

A certain GNU contributor, let's call her Sal, was voicing concerns with current practices. Someone else replied to her with "Sally," condescendingly talking down to her. To this she said, "I did not invite you to call me by a nickname. Call me Sal."

A sub-discussion then erupted about the etymology of "Sally" and whether or not it was technically correct to someone who preferred "Sal" to be called "Sally" instead. Instead of, you know, just calling people what they want to be called and be done with it. And not be condescending about it.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#54

Post by levythe » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 3:34 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #42

brobdingnagians wrote: post #17

> The way we do this, rather than ordering people to be kind or else, is try to help people learn to make their communication more kind. This is excellent; using love and persuasion to help someone improve is so much better than by force, compulsion, and fear. How many children rebel against restrictive and domineering parents? but a child who is loved and taught, but allowed to make choices and pursue independence u…

So, here's the thing. Statements like this? Rather, the problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out on possible contributors. And very likely also others that are not in demographic D. This is not a new statement. This is what people pushing diversity have been saying for years and years. The only ways for this to be a new and refreshing thing to you are: 1. You were not paying attention, or…

It's everything surrounding this statement that is refreshing. Hearing, "Diversity is not our goal; creating an environment that welcomes diversity is," runs counter to the incessant assumptions that going out of our way to collect diversity tokens is the end all and be all to facilitating diversity.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#55

Post by village-idiot » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 3:34 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #42

brobdingnagians wrote: post #17

> The way we do this, rather than ordering people to be kind or else, is try to help people learn to make their communication more kind. This is excellent; using love and persuasion to help someone improve is so much better than by force, compulsion, and fear. How many children rebel against restrictive and domineering parents? but a child who is loved and taught, but allowed to make choices and pursue independence u…

So, here's the thing. Statements like this? Rather, the problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out on possible contributors. And very likely also others that are not in demographic D. This is not a new statement. This is what people pushing diversity have been saying for years and years. The only ways for this to be a new and refreshing thing to you are: 1. You were not paying attention, or…

The irony of unkind communication in a thread discussing new guidelines around kind communication is just painful.

Please don't accuse others of not paying attention. It's not nice, and it does a bad job of communicating your message.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#56

Post by fixermark » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 3:34 PM UTC

folknor wrote: post #47

dangerlibrary wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The relevance of the quote you've posted might be less obvious than you think it is.

It's relevant because this wave of CoC attacks on open source projects was started by someone who has literally said "I can’t wait for the mass exodus from Linux now that it’s been infiltrated by SJWs."[1], in reference to the kernel adopting their CoC. This person obviously does not care about the people who contribute to the kernel. They wrote the "Contributor Covenant"[2], which is what the kernel (among tons of o…

> This person obviously does not care about the people who contribute to the kernel.

Double-check the source and followup; I think you have misinterpreted the intent of the linked tweet (sarcasm travels poorly over text media, especially one that enforces a curtailed message length).

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#57

Post by yosefzeev » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 3:34 PM UTC

To me, the answer has more to do with discerning the spirit of the conversation rather than adopting any particular protocol. There will always be some joker somewhere that will violate the rules that one adopts in such a way that debate is created that causes a system to self-destruct.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#58

Post by ubernostrum » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 3:35 PM UTC

folknor wrote: post #47

dangerlibrary wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The relevance of the quote you've posted might be less obvious than you think it is.

It's relevant because this wave of CoC attacks on open source projects was started by someone who has literally said "I can’t wait for the mass exodus from Linux now that it’s been infiltrated by SJWs."[1], in reference to the kernel adopting their CoC. This person obviously does not care about the people who contribute to the kernel. They wrote the "Contributor Covenant"[2], which is what the kernel (among tons of o…

Your uncharitable interpretation of the tweet you linked cannot be read as accidental.

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#59

Post by ubernostrum » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 3:38 PM UTC

levythe wrote: post #54

ubernostrum wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, here's the thing. Statements like this? Rather, the problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out on possible contributors. And very likely also others that are not in demographic D. This is not a new statement. This is what people pushing diversity have been saying for years and years. The only ways for this to be a new and refreshing thing to you are: 1. You were not paying attention, or…

It's everything surrounding this statement that is refreshing. Hearing, "Diversity is not our goal; creating an environment that welcomes diversity is," runs counter to the incessant assumptions that going out of our way to collect diversity tokens is the end all and be all to facilitating diversity.

OK, let's argue the way the "anti-diversity" people normally do in these threads.

You assert that advocates of diversity want people:

going out of our way to collect diversity tokens

You must now present, to me, and separately and individually to any other person who asks it of you, a minimum of five credible primary sources of people who advocate diversity and who have used exactly this phrasing -- no paraphrasing, no "well that's what they meant", nothing other than precisely those literal words -- in an explicit demonstrative factually-intended statement of their goals.

(hint: you won't be able to, because you're in the "get all your information from people who want to misinform" camp)

Re: Announcing the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

#60

Post by joshuamorton » Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 3:39 PM UTC

So, I read through the list of guidelines, and while I have some minor quibbles with them, overall they seem fine and reasonable.

But what happens if someone refuses to be kind? What happens if that person is a major contributor? What would happen if, in some strange alternate reality, Linux was a GNU project, and Linus-of-2012 said he'd really rather not care about all this politeness nonsense, and would prefer to continue on the way he was?

The problem I see with your bees/honey comment is that there is no commitment here from the maintainers and leaders of the project. This is just a more verbose "Be kind to each other", but without any commitment from the leadership of the project to actually maintain a kind, welcoming environment.

A non-committal claim to be kind may be honey, but its on a flytrap, and many people recognize this.