Hacker News Reader

Comment by danso | Hacker News Reader

You weren't accused of "making a joke about racism". He posted the part of the CoC [0] that he believed you to have violated. He then gave you a 24-hour-block because your remark "counts as doubling down" on what he originally accused you of.

I guess he didn't appreciate you implying that the CoC is a bunch of facile garbage.

[0] https://github.com/bundler/bundler/pull/5808#issuecomment-38...

View on HN

God damn you people are sensitive. I see a guy (swrobel) venting about a bad API and using words like "infuriating", "REASONS", and several exclamation marks. he was confused about where he was skirting code of conduct because what he'd done was express disapproval of a design decision. he quotes the coc and then alludes to clauses that he believes would actually merit a warning - "slavery" and "indentured servitude" is language in the coc. note this isn't false dichotomy because the extreme end of the spectrum he's distinguished his comments from are explicitly forbidden by the coc. yes he used a smiley. God forbid. he also apologized and but somehow that's not being taken in into account by either you or indirect. then indirect responds with a positive prescription of the coc rather than a negative proscription (ie if it were a real contract it would be completely immaterial to the case since the rules cited don't forbid things only encourage). finally supposing we do take the rules cited by indirect as negative ("only this kind of language and behavior is allowed") there's not a shred of constructive feedback in indirect's initial response other than "don't do this" which just begs the question of whether he did anything to begin with. swrobel didn't show antipathy for anyone (he vented frustration about code). he didn't use exclusive language (he didn't say anything about any people at all), and he wasn't dismissive of any viewpoints because none were expressed by anyone.

so what really happened? indirect felt he was being criticized and used his small bit of power to silence the critic under the auspices of being just. lol.

thank you for stating this far more eloquently than I was able to

> he also apologized and but somehow that's not being taken in into account by either you or indirect.

Making a snide comment is not an apology. @swrobel jumped into a Github issue that was resolved and closed 6 months ago. And instead of taking a minute to read a discussion that agreed with his complaint, went off on a bizarre rant that would be flamed as outright asanine. At least @indirect followed his own CoC and downplayed it as being rude.

Again, what part of the CoC did I violate?

Also, I think it's both possible to apologize for my rant and point out that his CoC-waving was absurd.

Seems like you felt it more important to insult him/the CoC, given that's what you chose to first reply with. I don't know him but it sounds like he figured you were bullshitting.

you teach journalism classes and you don't see how your diction frames what happened in a way that either confirms your own biases or furthers your own agenda (proving swrobel was in the wrong). "snide comment", "bizarre rant", "asanine[sic]".

there's nothing bizarre or ranty or asinine about swrobel comments. it was venting at a poorly documented API - he admitted as much. is that the most professional thing to do? sure maybe not - but it's not cavalier banter about slavery either. and how about I flip it on you: how about a little empathy for him? if you want contribute to open source this is exactly the kind of empathy you need to have: will this choice make my API consumers miserable.

the apology is very clearly delineated from his comment on the coc.

"Sorry man, I was really annoyed because I was late to this party. I apologize for venting here."

it's very clear and unequivocal.

yes his citation of the coc included a sarcastic smiley. I've already said this: God forbid. reread his response without it. is it still snide? I suspect no.

finally getting back to indirect being unable to take the implicit criticism in stride: if you want to contribute to open source (really anything in public space) you have to be comfortable with criticism. swrobel didn't attack indirect personally (e.g. "you're such a dummy for this design choice") he criticized the choice. that's fine even if it was 6 months after it was fixed (because your mistakes will always be yours - they don't magically get stricken from the record after 6 months). if you are afraid that people will be upset with you for making mistakes then don't make things for people.

The asanine part comes from ranting about a bug in a Github issue in which the bug had been discussed, fixed, and closed.

Like I said: the same kind of empathy you expect from swrobel should be extended to him, hence it's not asinine (extremely stupid and foolish) but completely understandable even if still perturbing.

I do empathize with him, as I make plenty of asinine mistakes myself. But between him and the project admin, I empathize more with the latter, who asked him to be polite but got a snide insult as a response.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com