Linux developers threaten to pull “kill switch”
lulz.com
lulz.com
I'm far from a so-called SJW but to me it's just common sense written down and formalised.
Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment include:
Using welcoming and inclusive language
Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
Gracefully accepting constructive criticism
Focusing on what is best for the community
Showing empathy towards other community members
What is wrong here? Isn't this how any professional should act in the workplace? Why shouldn't this apply to one of the largest open source projects around?
Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:
The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances
Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
Public or private harassment
Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission
Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting
Same here. Most of this is illegal and morally wrong to do inside (or even outside) the workplace too.
Seems like a few people getting annoyed over nothing.
These sorts of terms are impossible to define, so the decision to ban people comes down to personal, subjective interpretation. In the name of setting standards, there are no standards at all.
But wouldn't you agree that it's generally better to have a set of pretty clear guidelines that might not always be watertight, versus an _entirely_ personal, subjective set of inscrutable rules?
Of course there are grey areas. There inevitably are with any set of guidelines. But what do you realistically expect them to contain? An itemised list of every action which is allowed or proscribed?
Instead, these are a general set of guidelines as to how a community should conduct itself – subject as any are to interpretation by those with influence – but a useful reference nonetheless. I'm frankly baffled at the idea that people find this hard to grasp.
...
the same with "Focusing on what is best for the community" .. there is no single "best" and no single "community". its a melting pot of cultures, countries and people. what benefits one might not benefit the others.
this CoC is just an attempt to regulate what you cant regulate. maybe just replace it with "dont be an idiot, respect others and assume good intentions".
It could be. That's why subjective interpretation and reasonableness are concepts.
there is no single "best" and no single "community"
There is clearly a single community by any reasonable definition – diffuse though it may be. The role of a set of guidelines is to establish what behaviour that community has generally decided is acceptable or not acceptable. We accept this kind of moderation guideline all of the time.
maybe just replace it with "dont be an idiot, respect others and assume good intentions".
Yeah, that's basically what it says in a little bit more detail, and with a few more examples. So where's the issue?
just look at the stuff happening to Theodore Ts’o https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504
In this case, I'd prefer to either have something more objective, or nothing at all for such abusive people to hide behind.
This is just being clear about a reality that exists in all communities with moderation standards. Moderation has to be enforced by someone and there isn't always an objective test to determine harassment or trolling. Yet most communities that are successful in the long run have some policy like this, whether explicit or implicit.
As described in the article by a CoC critic, it used to be:
"only whether their code was good"
Not exactly a shining example of clearly defined, objective, universal judgement. Of course, back then it could really "if Linus thinks their code is good", which is a lot more clear. But that time has passed.
The CoC tries to address the problem where people ARE in fact being excluded or lost by the Linux community, in less visible and obvious ways than a straight ban, for reasons equally less visible and obvious, but no less real.
You may or may not believe that this happens, that this is a problem, that the CoC helps or doesn't help with this problem, and even that the net effect of the CoC is positive or negative.
Is Sage Sharp contributing better code to the linux kernel than Theo Ts’o ? Would you replace all Ts'o contributions by Sharp's ?
I'm a die-hard liberal, but this is getting ridiculous now. Move on, do your work, learn to deal with difficult people in the world.
I think we're done here.
Although...lulz.com is the source for this? Interesting.
Do you know of a better policy for mailing lists?
If a project has done well for 20+ years without CoCs and bringing in CoC is creating fissures and conflict may be CoC is not good this group, but again that is for them to decide with proper process what ever it is.
I'm just stating the plain obvious.
"In all that time I never had to know or care whether my fellow contributors were white, black, male, female, straight, gay, or from the planet Mars, only whether their code was good’; namely, in a project that receives contributions from volunteers who are anonymous beyond a chosen handle, specious claims of exclusion and harassment crumble beneath the most haphazard scrutiny. Contributors reveal as much about their race, sex, and orientation as they want because no one cares about that tangential shit at the end of the day. If there really was some “straight white males only” mentality, the community would insist on determining whether a new contributor is “one of us” before accepting their code, but they don’t do that in the slightest. Thus, it’s patently clear there is no culture of exclusion, but rather a culture of total indifference to individual differences beyond coding ability. The rhetoric of diversity and inclusiveness is just a weapon being used to attack a community that is inherently opposed to identity politics, which is why they’re seen as such a threat to these SJW gestapo."
The CoC is nothing but force feeding political vomit down coders throats. Who by the way, don't give two shits weather a contributor is a woman, black, gay, etc.
They don't want professionalism, they want a tool to attack people with. Linux, internet, etc has been around for decades and working fine. All of a sudden a bunch of extremists are trying to destroy it just for their own political agenda.
Maybe Vulkan or OpenGL. Oh wait; they're putting a basic CoC over those projects too. Perhaps there are local State Surveillance projects you'd be happy to contribute to?
B: But the behavior of some most active CoC proponents is not exactly welcoming and professional, are you sure that's what you are about?
A: GTFO, maybe there are some spy agencies that agree to take a deplorable like you. We certainly don't want your kind here.
B: Sigh.
B: <unsubstatiated allegation>
A: <reasonable dismissal>
B: <cries of oppression>
A: Arguing that a CoC should be welcoming to the behavioral abuses it is trying to protect is sophistry no one should feel the need to engage with honestly. It's as absurd as those, "To be tolerant you must be tolerant of intolerance" arguments that people raise as if they're credible or novel. We also laugh at those.
B: Sigh.
Nobody argues that. What is being argued that a) proponents of the CoC seem to be prone themselves to behavioral abuses, yet let themselves off the hook because they are on the Light Side, so it's ok for them; and b) people (often the very same people) use CoC to argue that disagreement on any political topic represents "behavioral abuse", since they feel very bad if somebody disagrees with them, so it's virtually the same as physical violence. Since there's no objective definition of "behavioral abuse", and the people in question are holding the reins, other people who might disagree with them, eventually, feel like they are getting the bad end of the deal here.
Or will activists do their best to hunt down my online handles and use the CoCs to get me kicked off any FOSS projects I contribute to?
Because I've seen this happen on GitHub projects.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. If I have to endure constant harassment for being genderqueer in public, then the least you can do is own your tacit approval of folks who are doing the dirty work of making your proclivities reality.
Yeah but when you and your kin are the self appointed constables of inflicting said consequences, that's just a euphamism for "freedom of speech justifies jungle justice." I believe freedom of speech should be freedom from consequences for all but the most egregious forms of speech. I don't kick athiests off my projects even when they openly lambaste beliefs I hold dear on Twitter. I don't kick anti-vaxxers off my projects even though they openly spread misinformation. In the context of my project, code is king and as long as everyone is treating each other with respect, that's all that matters. I expect the same courtesy from other project maintainers if people disagree with (off-project) opinions.
This argument is symmetrical. I get pushback for not being cis straight every day. For not shutting up and pretending. Every day. And your "non-conformist" views are in alignment with that pushback, no matter what methodology you want. Every moment you believe you have the right to dictate to someone how to live, who to love, or what to do with those feelings you give cover to the violence perpetrated in the name of those ideals.
Being a minority component of society is no fun, huh? Believe me, I know.
> I don't kick anti-vaxxers off my projects even though they openly spread misinformation.
I actually did that once. Even faster than I kicked off the person who had some racist views. At least most racists come by their views honestly in a society that has taught it to them at a fundamental level. Anti-vaxxers have far less excuse.
> code is king and as long as everyone is treating each other with respect, that's all that matters.
I don't think I've ever met a developer so valuable that I can ignore the externalities surrounding them. I accept one might exist, but if they don't convince me of this fact they've failed the test by definition. I can write the code, or get someone else to write it. There's no shortage of such opportunity in 2018.
> I expect the same courtesy from other project maintainers if people disagree with (off-project) opinions.
So do I. Neither of us gets what we want, now do we?
But keep in mind, the top post here is about a group of conservatives adopting the very strategy you're decrying here because a project is changing its code of conduct specifically for in-band communication. So forgive me if I don't take you very seriously.
𐑚𐑰𐑦𐑙 𐑝𐑦𐑟𐑦𐑚𐑳𐑤 𐑦𐑯 𐑞𐑺 𐑲-𐑤𐑲𐑯, 𐑩𐑟 𐑕𐑳𐑥𐑢𐑳𐑯 𐑢𐑦𐑔 𐑒𐑮𐑧𐑛𐑦𐑚𐑦𐑤𐑦𐑑𐑰 𐑯 𐑝𐑷𐑤𐑘𐑵𐑥, 𐑦𐑟 𐑒𐑮𐑦𐑑𐑦𐑒𐑩𐑤 𐑑 𐑒𐑰𐑐𐑦𐑙 𐑞𐑰𐑟 𐑐𐑰𐑐𐑳𐑤 𐑷𐑓-𐑚𐑨𐑤𐑩𐑯𐑕. ;)
What you mean by pushback? Demands for you to be removed from a project because you are not cis? Organized boycotts of the projects you participate in because you're a member? Could you give an example of the pushback like that?
> Being a minority component of society is no fun, huh? Believe me, I know.
I believe you. But if you believe that gives you justification to do to the other people the injustices that have been done to you - you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Your suffering is real, but it's no excuse to create more suffering for others.
> I actually did that once.
You should not be proud about it.
> the top post here is about a group of conservatives adopting the very strategy you're decrying
Nobody actually adopted this strategy yet, but even if anybody did, they are talking about CoC in their project, dealing with the code they personally implemented, not throwing people out for off-project disagreement.
People call my workplace asking if they're aware they have a "pervert", "unregistered sex offender", "deranged faggot" and others. They've contacted senior management at various employers. They've registered spurious conduct complaints against me. When I owned a company, I narrowly avoided several disasters I don't even want to talk about involving physical security. I've been doxxed, threatened, and had threatening physical mail left in my mailbox. In this very HN page people have told me I'm mentally ill and therefore okay to disregard as a human.
I'm genderfluid, but spend most of my experience feeling asexual. No one has ever seen me present as female in public. I can only imagine how much more insane it is for folks actually presenting across their assigned gender line. And I live in San Francisco.
So you sit here and write to me about how sad you are that you might need to behave yourself in the context of a software project. I hear you. It sounds rough, and I wish you luck. But I've been driven to the brink of suicide by harassers, my partner has only fared a bit better. I'm offering to switch positions if you'd like. Or maybe you could police your communities the way I'm obligated to police mine.
> But if you believe that gives you justification to do to the other people the injustices that have been done to you - you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Your suffering is real, but it's no excuse to create more suffering for others.
I think transparency and equal exposure IS a form of justice. I'd love to live my life in public without fear. It's all these folks asymmetrically leveraging my exposure and their anonymity. So I'm afraid your complaint has fallen on ideologically deaf ears, you think something is axiomatically bad and I think it's axiomatically good. If they don't want the judgement of their peers, then they shouldn't live that life. Just like folks tell me. It's surely a choice to act that way.
> You should not be proud about it.
You should not be proud of defending reprehensible and dehumanizing opinions simply on the pretense of economically valuable contributions, which is the fundamental thesis of nearly everyone's complaint in open source conduct standards these days.
> , they are talking about CoC in their project
But this is a lie right here, isn't it? It isn't "their" project. It's community owned and they could fork it, couldn't they? This would not even be possible if it were not accepted by the majority and the leadership.
Let's not pretend that this is some minority forcing its will on the majority. Quite the contrary, the proposal of a "kill switch" is exactly the tactic adopted by a minority hoping to hold what they see as a point of leverage. They simply wouldn't need this tactic if their opinion was a majority.
This is terrible, and I hope your employer is sane enough to ignore those cooks.
> In this very HN page people have told me I'm mentally ill and therefore okay to disregard as a human.
I got that too (not on HN), even though it didn't have anything to do with sex. It is terrible that some people can't engage others without trying to dismiss the opposing point of view as product of some kind of flaw in other's mind, which is not worth discussing on merits but only considered how to eliminate it.
> So you sit here and write to me about how sad you are that you might need to behave yourself in the context of a software project.
No, I never wrote anything of the sort to you. You seem to be a person capable of controlling your thoughts and basic reasoning, I would really appreciate if you did not attribute to me something that I demonstrably never said. That would make the discussion much saner.
I never said it is "sad" that I might need "to behave myself". I know to behave myself and I do so without any PC police around. I have done so for years before some of the PC police members were even born, let alone learned to log in to Twitter. The sad part is not "behaving", the sad part is conflating "behaving" with not veering even to a iota from the ever growing demands of the dominant orthodoxy, or a lynch mob is going to get you. If that what you mean by "behaving" then this would not happen. And I would expect yourself, as somebody who has been attacked exactly as somebody doing things in your life not in an orthodox way, may appreciate why it is sad.
> It's all these folks asymmetrically leveraging my exposure and their anonymity.
There's nothing wrong with anonymity. You may prefer not being anonymous, but some other people might prefer otherwise. People harassing you is terrible. So is harassing other people, including because of things they disagree with you. I am not talking about making threats and harassment - if somebody attacks other person, exposing them is a good thing. But if somebody gets into a debate with you about something you care deeply about, and takes an opposing view - no, doxxing them, or trying to get them removed from their job, or trying to cause them other financial or physical harm is not the right answer. Even if you feel really deeply about them being wrong.
The folks that are getting hurt by the lynch mob are predominantly not the anonymous trolls that mar yours and mine lives online. They are people with names, jobs and livelihoods, that get destroyed because they made a joke once or disagreed with somebody on a hot political topic, or have some interests that are not mainstream enough.
> You should not be proud of defending reprehensible and dehumanizing opinions simply on the pretense of economically valuable contributions,
I am not proud about it, because I have never defended such opinions. Not a single one. I did defend the right of people to hold variety of opinions, even those that you oppose. I hope you can distinguish between supporting the right to have an opinion and agreeing with each opinion that I think people have the right to hold.
> It isn't "their" project.
It's their project as much as others. They are part of the community, and have a voice just as any other member of the community would.
> they could fork it, couldn't they?
They could, but that's not the point. The people who felt unwelcome before CoC could fork it too, couldn't they? But you wouldn't accept that as a solution, would you?
> They simply wouldn't need this tactic if their opinion was a majority.
You seem to be under impression that majority equals being right, and if you have the majority the minority can shut up and their concerns do not matter. Didn't you just describe yourself as being a part of a minority? I would think that as somebody who has been in a minority and had suffered from people that thought being in majority means being right, and you can dismiss concerns of people in the minority and silence their voices and disregard their wishes, you would appreciate how this point of view is incorrect and can cause harm?
Which slurs do people use when they call your employer and neighbors? What strategies did you employ when someone threatened to swat your workplace describing you as the gunman?
> I would really appreciate if you did not attribute to me something that I demonstrably never said. That would make the discussion much saner.
I attribute to you the behavior you're exhibiting AND the behavior you're willing to stand up for and defend. You've taken the position of owning both here.
Why do I do this? Let me quote an example of what you invoke without any actual ties to the CoC or the discussion at hand:
> I know to behave myself and I do so without any PC police around. I have done so for years before some of the PC police members were even born, let alone learned to log in to Twitter. The sad part is not "behaving", the sad part is conflating "behaving" with not veering even to a iota from the ever growing demands of the dominant orthodoxy,
Really. Even an "iota" of veering from "the dominant orthodoxy." See: you can't have this both ways. You can't restrict the conversation when it's suitable but continue to throw these little zingers in there. If you know how to "behave yourself" then this CoC is meaningless to you. A codification of rules you find reasonable. But you consistently invoke the specter of being penalized as a serial harasser, so you're offering to defend that position even if you don't exhibit those behaviors here.
> There's nothing wrong with anonymity.
Not when used responsibly. I believe this argument is used with guns as well? And we're told to blame people, not the tools? And part of that blame and penalization mechanism is a revocation of privileges for bad and abusive actors.
So what are you actually complaining about?
> But if somebody gets into a debate with you about something you care deeply about, and takes an opposing view - no, doxxing them, or trying to get them removed from their job, or trying to cause them other financial or physical harm is not the right answer. Even if you feel really deeply about them being wrong.
Ahh yes. "I'm very sorry these people are doing awful things to you that I say are wrong, but that has nothing to do with me. And I don't believe you when you say it happens because these people you accused deserve the benefit of the doubt even in an anonymous fashion, so I won't condemn them even as I condemn you for being too mean."
Sure, they suffer minor inconveniences and immediately forgiven career setbacks and I suffer threats to my life, physical intimidation and property damage but isn't it all the same in the end?
> They are people with names, jobs and livelihoods, that get destroyed because they made a joke once or disagreed with somebody on a hot political topic, or have some interests that are not mainstream enough.
Which is a overwhelmingly a polite euphamism for, "A joke casually dehumanizing someone, implying they're not entitles to the full rights of citizens, or invoking a dark history of oppression and genocide." You know, things you're invested in laughing about.
> It's their project as much as others. They are part of the community, and have a voice just as any other member of the community would.
And it has been rejected as a cruel minority who's contributions do not outweigh their harassment. We all know this. They voted, they lost. Fork Linux.
> The people who felt unwelcome before CoC could fork it too, couldn't they? But you wouldn't accept that as a solution, would you?
Actually, "go work on another project" has been the solution for women, LGBT people and introverts interested in that project. This is simply a shift in the window of acceptable behavior. This is how Linux governance is DESIGNED to work, and in the absence of finite property rules as per land consumption, it's literally the game theoretic optimal.
What you're actually defending is harassers having control of the resources and attention of the Linux project, of course. I get that.
> You seem to be under impression that majority equals being right, Didn't you just describe yourself as being a part of a minority?
The way I know you're not arguing in good faith is that you compose these smallworld arguments in the isolation of a paragraph or two, often losing the larger plot. I'm an non-binary individual who likes Bayesian statistics and Haskell. I'm acutely aware that a being in a minority group can hold a valid but rejected opinion. Obviously.
But it's rhetorically convenient to suggest that I'm allied with some oppressive, uncaring majority that has historically oppressed your people. And it's nonsense in the context of the Linux CoC, because it is an ideal democracy. You can always win the vote by forking the community and the primary incentive of aligning with the majority is to pool resources.
The truth is that more resources (in both humans and dollars) will go to the project with these changes, and that more people will be happier there. And that's why it's going to work. And that's why folks like ESR are trying to use threats and violence and galting to stop it.
KirinDave: I think this mentality is somewhat destructive. Your feelings on the matter are justified given your situation but to some degree you're just being the same kind of asshole you're mad about too.
> Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences.
Yea, so? Those consequences aren't free from criticism. Whether they're disproportionate is perfectly topical. Public mob retaliation is notoriously so.
I'm not strictly disagreeing with you: calling someone to task for something they said publicly might be plenty reasonable but "We will hunt you down and make you own your opinions publicly." Might be inappropriate too.
This entire thread and article is not about the terms of the CoC. The article has no real complaints about its specific clauses or content. People here do not claim content greivances either, they claim it's part of "identity politics" (as opposed to non-identical-based politics which totally are white men's politics) down their throats, and talk about the final consequences and slippery slopes they vaguely threaten to invoke.
This article and this discussion are about cutural control. The Linux leadership has made a decision and specific people who promote bias-white and bias-male identity politics are looking to threaten a challenge for that control.
> I'm not strictly disagreeing with you: calling someone to task for something they said publicly might be plenty reasonable but "We will hunt you down and make you own your opinions publicly." Might be inappropriate too
I don't think this is about being an asshole, or civility. For many people this about the right to live, or the right for essential human rights, or the right for redress for centuries-long policies of inequality and destruction.
The fact that folks want to paint the simple act of being open about political contributions (which used to be required) as a bias in and of itself is telling.
Let's have this debate in public. With our real names and faces, and even stakes for everyone.
God you are delusional.
Forget the word "gender". There is only sex (male and female, no more) and nothing more.
Either the argument is, "Gender isn't real, all cultural norms stem directly from biology." Obviously and trivially false. Or the argument is, "Gender should be destroyed as it holds people back," which is just a semantics game to penalize some LGBT+ people choosing taxonomies to describe their experience that other people don't like the visibility of."
It's also, in this context, a personal attack. If you do personal attack on HN again we will ban you.
No one gives a shit.
Can you write good code? Yes, cool awesome welcome to the project. Do you write bad code? Then piss off.
We don't need a useless CoC because of non-relevant issues you face in your personal life.
See how that works?
Then go cry in the corner, instead of being an asshole on the internet.
Pretty gutsy.
If the Eich ordeal is instructive of anything, it's that culturally, we are no longer mature enough to handle any discontent and that meaningful political activity must go back underground.
Not once on any national television publication (or major news paper) that I've found have we seen, "Ask a Communist or Anarchist how they feel about all this."
And most major publications refuse to acknowledge (or only periodically acknowledge) the global and constant destruction of LGBT people that's that going on across half the world, except to occasionally use it as a rhetorical club to promote their racially motivated dislike of folks with dark skin by cloaking it in the veil of islamophobia.
> If the Eich ordeal is instructive of anything, it's that culturally, we are no longer mature enough to handle any discontent and that meaningful political activity must go back underground.
Yeah, boy, it must have been rough for him. Forced to publicly own and defend his political decisions that created a second class of lesser citizens based on his religious preferences, using company political contributions that his employees overwhelmingly decried.
If you think it's fine for him to spend money making gay people into second class citizens, then you cannot deny other citizens the right to try and make other classes of citizens second class. This is the "meaningful" political activity you just cited. It's your reaction not equally immature?
And here we go. Now voting for a presidential candidate who is the actual president of the US is something that one should be, if things were fair, "penalized" for but unfairly is not.
> "Ask a Communist or Anarchist how they feel about all this."
NYT just published a big article about DSA (of which many rank members readily admit they're actually communists but avoid the word for tactical reasons). DSA candidates and members are regularly interviewed. Here's CNN talking about antifa, with quotes: https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.... A very sympathetic profile, with the only opponent CNN chose to present being an actual Nazi (they couldn't apparently find anybody else willing to say "physically assaulting people of another ideology may be bad").
> the global and constant destruction of LGBT people that's that going on across half the world
Indeed, there are widespread violations of human rights - including and in particularly egregious forms concerning LGBT people - in many countries. And the fact that the mainstream Western press ignores that is a travesty. However, I suspect the reason it is ignoring it is not what you seem to be implying - that they are closet conservatives who ignore these for reasons of their bigotry - but because the press does not want to appear non-PC by criticizing non-western countries and thus opening themselves to (baseless, but still effective) accusations of racism, imperialism and colonialism.
> except to occasionally use it as a rhetorical club to promote their racially motivated dislike of folks with dark skin by cloaking it in the veil of islamophobia
And here you go. How you can reasonably discuss human rights in country X if when you try to do it you're told "yeah, you're just criticizing them because you hate people with dark skin!"? That derails the discussion immediately and you spend you time slot arguing (unsuccessfully) that you're not a racist. Who needs the trouble?
> Yeah, boy, it must have been rough for him
And here we go again - we are all for basic civility and inclusion, and hearing everybody. Except for those who disagree with us - you seem to feel free to completely dismiss and devalue their experience, and there's no problem with silencing and excluding them, with being condescending and dismissive over their experience.
> Forced to publicly own and defend his political decisions
Eich wasn't "forced to defend" his decisions - he never got a chance to defend anything, he was just silenced and hounded out. There was no any defense, there was an attack and then Eich was out. That's how it works - accusation is a sentence (and it's always "guilty and unpersoned"), and that's the whole due process you get.
> using company political contributions
Eich used his own money, didn't he?
> then you cannot deny other citizens the right to try and make other classes of citizens second class.
Yes you can. This is what "basic civility" is all about. If you say "I am ready to be civil, but only if nobody ever disagrees with me and rubs me the wrong way", it's useless - anybody could sign under that, the worst criminal in the world would be nice and genial and civil if everything goes exactly as he likes. It's the conflict is where you can see if you mean it. And if you think a particular political point is too important to be civil - ok, fine, I get it - but then please stop preaching civility at the same time. Just tell us "if you agree with us, you'd be fine and if not, we'll mess you up like you won't believe it". And then don't be surprised when people on the other side find somebody who does the same - e.g. Trump - and elect him the president.
And here you go, suggesting US voters have nothing to do with the policies of those they voted for. It's not like, "Draconian literal-definition-of-genocide-camps" wast no on the guy's agenda.
> NYT just published a big article about DSA (of which many rank members readily admit they're actually communists but avoid the word for tactical reasons).
I'm sorry, but are we doing a thing where we asymmetrically pick hypotheticals in a political party that would be considered "centrist" via their policy positions in any other developed nation in the world outside of Russia? Okay, well then the Republican party is strictly fascist because there are fascists there, that's why they brought a nazi?
Not very fair, is it? But nice try.
> that they are closet conservatives who ignore these for reasons of their bigotry - but because the press does not want to appear non-PC by criticizing non-western countries and thus opening themselves to (baseless, but still effective) accusations of racism, imperialism and colonialism.
Most of the press is reporting these human rights abuses. "Oh how colonial of you," is a hyper-conservative caricature meant to quash discourse.
But what American conservatives refuse to own is the human rights abuses that occur in their own country. That it is legal to traffick and marry children if you fill out a specific religious declaration form for them in many states, for example. Or if you do, they simply deny affiliation while continuing to defend those rights under the first amendment axioms.
> Except for those who disagree with us - you seem to feel free to completely dismiss and devalue their experience, and there's no problem with silencing and excluding them, with being condescending and dismissive over their experience.
Unlike you, sms42, I've actually had an extensive conversation with Eich on this website about this very topic. It's ridiculous for you to accuse me of not hearing him. My conversation here with him is a matter of public record.
> Eich wasn't "forced to defend" his decisions - he never got a chance to defend anything, he was just silenced and hounded out.
He did actually get plenty of chances to talk. He declined to do so. He was not silenced. Quite the contrary, he did an admirable thing shutting up and resigning, and fulfilled his fiduciary duty as the CEO with grace. In this, I tip my hat to him. The CEO has one job before all others: don't be a PR titanic. He recognized he had failed at this job and left with grace.
His subsequent statements on why he supported Prop 8 suggest he hasn't really changed his opinion and he still believes LGBT+ people aren't really people, because his religious views override their rights.
> If you say "I am ready to be civil, but only if nobody ever disagrees with me and rubs me the wrong way", it's useless
Ah yes, that facile and tired metaphor: "Treating you as less than human is just your feels, snowflake. Why you gotta be so angry (about my systematic removal and denial of your rights)."
> It's the conflict is where you can see if you mean it. And if you think a particular political point is too important to be civil - ok, fine, I get it - but then please stop preaching civility at the same time.
Quite the contrary, I'm not saying anyone should be civil. I think they should leave the project. They're clearly not wanted as they are.
> And then don't be surprised when people on the other side find somebody who does the same - e.g. Trump - and elect him the president.
There's a world of difference you will never acknowledge between, "Now you have to answer to your peers for your decision, and it may cost you slightly if you won't at least apologize" and "Now I am going to set the resources of the most powerful nation in human history against you, dehumanizing you and systematically terrorizing you."
The fact that you can't see the magnitudes of difference says one of two things to me. Option 1, You truly believe this, and simply don't (or can't) have any conception of how bad the current administration is for some people. Option 2, you do know and this entire thread about civility is performative. Feel free to answer the implied question, or not. 𐑲 𐑢𐑴𐑯𐑑 𐑳𐑯𐑛𐑻𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑯𐑛 𐑿 𐑨𐑯𐑰𐑥𐑹 𐑞𐑩𐑯 𐑿𐑤 𐑳𐑯𐑛𐑻𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑯𐑛 𐑞𐑦𐑟.
Again, I suggested nothing of the sort. Kinda pattern, don't you think - you claim that your opponents say or do something that they demonstrably never said or did. I wonder how many other things that you think other people said or did actually never happened? Maybe if you paid more attention to what people actually say or do instead of inventing it for them, it might turn out that there are much less evil people out to get you and much more people who you just didn't bother to understand.
> It's not like, "Draconian literal-definition-of-genocide-camps" wast no on the guy's agenda.
No it wasn't and voila - there are no genocide camps. Promise kept.
> I'm sorry, but are we doing a thing where we asymmetrically pick hypotheticals in a political party that would be considered "centrist" via their policy positions in any other developed nation in the world outside of Russia? Okay, well then the Republican party is strictly fascist because there are fascists there, that's why they brought a nazi?
Sorry, I couldn't understand anything from the above. DSA positions are certainly not "centrist" in any serious meaning of the word, unless you think the center begins on the left of the Democratic party. And DSA is being embraced by the most mainstream press outlet we have here in the US. And some of its rank members openly brag about being communists (btw I never heard about a Republican openly bragging about being fascist...).
> Most of the press is reporting these human rights abuses. "Oh how colonial of you," is a hyper-conservative caricature meant to quash discourse.
No, it is not - not nearly enough compared to the seriousness of the problem. When we have countries that are still unsure if it's OK for a woman to leave home without a male relative following and completely sure any woman showing her face in public should be jailed (or worse), and that anybody gay should be just put to death, then mentioning it once a month in the "curiosities of the world" section of the paper, next to gardening tips, is not reporting. At least not if you want to make an impression you take the matter seriously. Nobody is quashing this reporting but the fear that serious discussion would be called cultural imperialism, racism, islamophobia, etc, - which is exactly what happens.
> Unlike you, sms42, I've actually had an extensive conversation with Eich on this website about this very topic. It's ridiculous for you to accuse me of not hearing him. My conversation here with him is a matter of public record.
Whether you personally discussed anything with him is immaterial for the point unless you had any key role in hounding him out of Mozilla. There was no discussion leading to that event, there was an attack and Mozilla folded and Eich was out. The fact that you privately discussed anything with him doesn't matter as that discussion did not have any weight in the events that followed.
> His subsequent statements on why he supported Prop 8 suggest he hasn't really changed his opinion and he still believes LGBT+ people aren't really people, because his religious views override their rights.
Given your track record so far, I am pretty sure he never said LGBT people are not really people and never believed it. Looks like you extensive conversations with him were just a waste of time, at least for you, as you didn't really hear him. I hope I will fare better, though maybe not.
> Ah yes, that facile and tired metaphor: "Treating you as less than human is just your feels, snowflake. Why you gotta be so angry (about my systematic removal and denial of your rights)."
Again, given the above, I am pretty sure "treating you as less than human" is wildly inaccurate description of what is actually happening. More accurate description is probably "they disagree with me, and that offends me a lot, so I would claim they dehumanize me, because this shifts the focus from the matter of disagreement to them being bad".
> Quite the contrary, I'm not saying anyone should be civil. I think they should leave the project. They're clearly not wanted as they are.
That sounds as you are saying CoC is not needed for the purposes of preserving "basic civility", inclusiveness and so on, and "you just need to behave" is not a real purpose and a real meaning of it. The real purpose is gaining power to oust the people that disagree with you (or the group that will hold the power) from the project. Which is exactly confirming the original complaint. I guess we got some kind of the consensus here? Or did you mean something else and if so, what?
> There's a world of difference you will never acknowledge between, "Now you have to answer to your peers for your decision, and it may cost you slightly if you won't at least apologize" and "Now I am going to set the resources of the most powerful nation in human history against you, dehumanizing you and systematically terrorizing you."
I am not sure how exactly the US nation's government is systematically terrorizing you. US government does a lot of terminally idiotic things, hundred times more plain stupid things, and more things that are outright evil that I would care naming here, to not make this unbearably long comment twice as large. And I mean any goverment, none excluded (of course Trump's too). I think you exaggerate a bit (actually, a lot). But, I don't see how it systematically terrorizes you - could you explain what you mean by that?
> You truly believe this, and simply don't (or can't) have any conception of how bad the current administration is for some people.
I do not. I know some people vehemently disagree with the government and its policies, and that's normal and OK. I disagree with it too all the time and on many issues. However, I don't see anything it is doing - excepting some classes of people that can legitimately claim being a target of systematic government persecution, such as illegal immigrants, criminals, terrorists, drug users, and some other classes like that - that warrants descriptions that you are using. If you mean any of these classes, please point out which one, otherwise it's very hard to understand your complaint.
P.S. please stop with the Shavian thing. It's annoying. Part of the decent behavior is not making it intentionally hard for the parties to conversation to understand you.
Ah, we're at this stage of discourse.
> Now voting for a presidential candidate who is the actual president of the US is something that one should be, if things were fair, "penalized" for but unfairly is not.
Not only did I not say that (but because of the persistent persecution complex of conservative speech, I chose to ignore that lie), but you're clearly implying that you think there are policy grievances that fall to voters and you're trying to suggest that the act of voting is a right, therefore it cannot be used to hold people responsible. You're acutely aware of the complaint and even use it in the construction of your post, but then suggest you never implied or even imagined it?
Yeah. Okay Sure.
It's also worth noting you're at the phase of tactical retreat where it's important to start casting mental credibility into play. This will make it easier for you (either in a personal sense, or within the flow of the dialogue) to disengage with the proclamation, "I have determined that you lie, so therefore everything you have said must not only be untrue, and probably the exact opposite is true!"
Observe:
> Given your track record so far, I am pretty sure he never said LGBT people are not really people and never believed it. Looks like you extensive conversations with him were just a waste of time, at least for you, as you didn't really hear him. I hope I will fare better, though maybe not.
Of course, it's a matter of public record and if you simply googled for it you'd find an extensive thread on the subject[0]. But that's not something you will do because the goal here isn't discussion or conversation, it's discrediting the Linux CoC and pushing conservative ideology as if the two are linked.
They aren't, actually. What is linked is the CoC denial and the worst sort of behavior that festers in the US conservative communities. It's not unique to the US, even. But what's remarkable is that throughout this you've gamely accepted a tacit link between all three of these concepts, never even really stopping to question this.
This is the part where I apologize for being slightly disingenuous with you. I didn't do this accidentally. I was curious if at some point you would push back on this and at any point ask, "What does this have to do with the Linux CoC?" If you had, I would have looked pretty bad, but having read a bunch of your material before engaging, I figured you'd simply accept this. The result is a conversation about written standards of professional conduct leading to statements like,
> No it wasn't and voila - there are no genocide camps. Promise kept.
False [1][2]. But cool, bro. Glad we're here.
But at least you get back to the core of your argument, "The true purpose of a written standard of professional conduct is a culture war against conservative men, who have been violating these while insisting they haven't for decades."
> [that] is not a real purpose and a real meaning of it. The real purpose is gaining power to oust the people that disagree with you (or the group that will hold the power) from the project.
The Linux CoC does indeed take away the power to be abusive and unprofessional. If you were not doing those things (out of, I dunno, some kind of higher moral principle), then you've lost nothing. Indeed, it'd be "another hollow SJW victory" as SoA says.
To you, this is about power and control. I agree, but that power has always rested in the majority of the linux contributors, as proposed by their leadership. Now that their leadership has decided on this minimal course change. That you perceive the written standards of conduct as a power loss reinforces the need for it.
I'll repeat it, for emphasis: You view a policy that condemns public abuse in a professional context as a power loss. This argument is only consistent if you felt the need to violate the CoC. No spurious arguments from final consequence, no slippery slope, no absurd category errors or examples of rules being abused can shake this single, simple fact.
> I am not sure how exactly the US nation's government is systematically terrorizing you.
I didn't say they were terrorizing me. I'm fortunate that I'm not on the top of the list. But my trans friends, they certainly are in the middle of a systematic campaign to remove hard-won rights to simply exist. We see similar reduction in legal protection of gay and lesbian people.
> P.S. please stop with the Shavian thing. It's annoying. Part of the decent behavior is not making it intentionally hard for the parties to conversation to understand.
Please stop misrepresenting your actual intent, it's annoying and part of etc etc. Please stop using your refusal to fact-check nearly anything as a basis for discrediting me, it's annoying and goes against the spirit of a fair debate. Please stop advocating for against a policy that penalizes you for being abusive and exclusionary in the workplace, it's annoying and the stakes are much higher than this conversation... in many cases it's a violation of workplace law. But congratulations on independently discovering 𐑥𐑲𐑒𐑮𐑴-𐑨𐑜𐑮𐑧𐑠𐑳𐑯𐑟, that's a good start.
Please be aware, I'm not going to reply anymore. I suspect the mods will lock this thread soon, so I'll not invite any further trouble on their doorstep.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15958365 - I quote him, "I come from an older generation of allies who supported Mark Leno et al. when they labored over, passed, and amended to full positive-rights equivalence with marriage, CA’s Domestic Partner Law", a position soundly refuted in basis of history and fact via "dragonwriter" here. I confess I was so taken aback by the audacity of the claim I did a poor job responding to it.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/americas/us-un-migr...
[2]: http://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analy... and I quote, "Forcible transfer of children, imposed by direct force or through fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion;" Nevermind that under Article 6 of the constitution and our participation in the UN Genocide Convention (counting as an international treaty) the president is in direct violation of a constitutional law that supercedes his authority in all cases its been examined.
We've been on this stage from the very beginning. From they very start you accused me (and, I have no doubt, others) in saying things that I demonstrably did not say, and imputed to me beliefs that I never expressed or held.
> Not only did I not say that
You did say: "In fact, if anything they're uniquely not penalized. The media will still interview people who voted for Trump and listen to them." You say that people who voted for Trump are "uniquely not penalized" - from which immediately follows that if things were normal, not "unique" for them, they would be. But maybe you meant something else by this, if so, please explain - if you didn't mean Trump voters should be penalized, what did you mean and why did you spend so much time proving to me how bad Trump voters are and what atrocities they have inflicted on you and the country? What was the purpose of this if not to illustrate why you think they should be penalized? Rhetorical questions, of course, I know there's no answer for this.
> because of the persistent persecution complex of conservative speech, I chose to ignore that lie
I know, but I would like to remind you that the fact that you ignore something does not mean it's a lie. There are numerous examples of conservative speech being persecuted and suppressed, from Antifa riots to Eich case you are so richly familiar with.
> and you're trying to suggest that the act of voting is a right, therefore it cannot be used to hold people responsible
Responsible for what? For having an opinion? I don't see what is there to be "responsible" for - unless, as I just said before, you think having some opinions is a crime in itself (I propose to call it "thoughtcrime") and its holders should be penalized. Which is especially weird hearing from a person that apparently - from your own words - has some opinions that has been very recently and probably still are very unpopular among many, and suffered from it, and thinks this suffering was completely unjust (which btw, to remove all doubt, I agree). And yet you are so ready to inflict the suffering on others for holding opinions you don't like.
> But my trans friends, they certainly are in the middle of a systematic campaign to remove hard-won rights to simply exist
There is no campaign to remove their rights to simply exist. There is no government policy to systematically exterminate trans people, there is no policy to harm them in any targeted way. On the contrary, discriminating against them is forbidden by the law (yes, I know laws are imperfect and not always followed), and in some places - like academia - you can be fired and professionally destroyed for merely using a wrong word in a conversation with or about a person.
Moreover, I've seen many cases where merely arguing about political issues - with regard to trans policies or otherwise - can make you a target for personal destruction campaign in a tech world, in your professional capacity.
I think you are overstating your case a bit. I am willing to admit there are people who do not accept trans people the way they would like to be accepted - and there is some actual discrimination, including recent order to not accept trans people into US Army service - but this is very, very far from "remove hard-won rights to simply exist". Nobody needs to join the US Army to "simply exist". And while you can - and should - argue that such policy is unjust, doing it this way just makes you sound profoundly unserious.
> False [1][2]. But cool, bro. Glad we're here.
You seem to be under impression that finding any link that has word "genocide" in it proves that Trump administration operates genocide camps. No, it doesn't, and no, there are still no genocide camps. Please remove your tinfoil hat, it does nothing except making your head sweaty.
The propaganda hystery about "family separation" (which is an old US admin policy way predating Trump) is one sore example of how modern Left has completely abandoned rationality and serious policy discourse for "hate Trump all the time, max intensity, facts be damned" - but even if their claims were 100% true (which is the exact opposite - pretty much everything that is commonly said on it is false), it would have nothing to do with "genocide". Even if the Trump administration would create a policy of abducting immigrant children (what for? I though they were supposed to hate immigrants and want them out, so why get more of them here for longer? But I guess you can't apply logic to some theories) and keeping them in prisons, because they are evil child haters - it would still not mean what "genocide" means. But since this is also false, we get a comic ladder of falsities stacked on each other.
> Of course, it's a matter of public record and if you simply googled for it you'd find an extensive thread on the subject[0].
Your link shows nothing of the sort of expression you claimed Eich said. And no, preferring "domestic partnership" to "registered marriage" is not the same as "LGBT people are not really people". If you claim Eich said the latter, you have to provide example of the latter, not the former. This confirms my suspicion that you routinely misunderstand things said to you, or at least present as if you misunderstood them, probably to make your ideological opponents look bad. This may work occasionally, but not when one can actually read what was originally said, and certainly not when it's my own words.
> But that's not something you will do because the goal here isn't discussion or conversation, it's discrediting the Linux CoC
If you gave yourself a second to think, you would realize how obviously false this claim is. Arguing here with you, I can do exactly nothing to discredit Linux CoC - I have zero weight in Linux community, I have zero power to change anything about CoC being accepted (I understand it's a done deal anyway), and the probability that anybody who has any power to change anything there would listen to me is also zero. Granted, the probability of me convincing you of anything is also pretty low, especially given the hardship you have with simply perceiving my statements undistorted, but I think providing an example of what people like me actually think - instead of relying on distorted accounts of people like you - and providing example of debate and refutaion of your claims, has some value, even if very small.
> I was curious if at some point you would push back on this and at any point ask, "What does this have to do with the Linux CoC?"
I had this temptation, but unfortunately my OCD nature got the better of me, as it proved to me a bit hard to leave a lie sitting in public unrefuted. Congratulation, you have found my weak point.
> If you had, I would have looked pretty bad,
I am glad you feel remorse for trying to derail a discussion. Recognizing the problem is the first step to fixing it.
> The true purpose of a written standard of professional conduct is a culture war against conservative men,
No, that's way too broad (and btw this has nothing to do with gender). The true purpose of these - at least for some people pushing it, not for everybody - is gaining power. Now, why those people feel they need power, can differ. Some because being part of a minority and being attacked by trolls makes them feel vulnerable and in need of strong defense, some for purely ideological reasons ("white hetero men are evil and we need to have power to keep the evil in check"), and many for the best reasons like "we are good people, so if we have all the power we could do more good", there could be tons of reasons, everybody has their own. Once the power is captured, however, the pattern of its abuse so far has been pretty consistent - productive, non-troll people get hounded out because they rubbed someone with newly acquired power a wrong way. You seem to demonstrate that you think there's nothing wrong with this - as long as people hounded out are people you dislike. This is a fundamental difference between your position and mine - I think it's wrong to hound out people for thoughtcrimes, you think it's ok as long as your side gets to determine what thoughts are to be proscribed.
Of course, some people genuine want CoCs for genuine reasons of upholding civility, etc. And they would be fairly applying it and never abusing it. But those are not the people we should be concerned with, the ones that itch to abuse it are.
> Please stop advocating for against a policy that penalizes you for being abusive and exclusionary in the workplace,
That's exactly the point - this policy, as it being applied in reality, penalizes not for being abusive and exclusionary, but for disagreeing with people in power. Which looks especially hypocritical because it comes from exactly the people that rhetorically rebel against the existing power structures that oppress them - but as soon as they get to be the part of the power structure, they behave in exactly the same exclusionary and abusive way as they just denounced!
> But congratulations on independently discovering 𐑥𐑲𐑒𐑮𐑴-𐑨𐑜𐑮𐑧𐑠𐑳𐑯𐑟, that's a good start.
Your thinly-veiled attempt to insult my intelligence by suggesting it's a major achievement for me to learn to use a search engine has been noted. It does not offend me, but adds a shame point to your long list of rhetorical faults.
> in many cases it's a violation of workplace law
Did you just threaten to mess with my employment if I keep annoying you by arguing with you? I couldn't even hope for a better illustration of everything I have said and hoped to have said but couldn't find the means to, than this. A perfect final coda.
You can do that, too.
OTOH, If you do that in a way which is offensive to the ideals of a large group, you may not like the consequences when they, to, attempt to “enact any of the conclusions that may naturally flow from” their ideals, especially if you are seeking a job with a high profile public role in an organization which survives on the political support of a group which overlaps significantly with the most offended group by your action.
Mozilla Corp isn't a relatigely apolitical business entity, it is, while itself a for-profit corporation, a subsidiary of an ideological nonprofit.
FYI the only “Mozilla” people who spoke against me while I was CEO did not work for me; they were in the Foundation.
Besides that, do you have a concrete example of how the CoC actually defines an unfair practice, rather than an argument from final consequence?
For example, I know of a black girl who was harassed using the code of conduct. Her harasser was white, and constantly complained of being made to feel unsafe—-no actual accusations mind you, just a feeling she had.
Unfortunately making someone feel unsafe is against the university code of conduct, so each incident resulted in a long tribunal before everyone concluded that nothing had happened.
It was a waste of time, and lead to the humiliiation of the black girl, whom was always innocent, but to people who didnt know her only saw that she was being accused of something.
Universiities have more, not less, infrastructure to deal with adjucating code of conducts. They get to do it in person, and have written guidelines of how to conduct enforcement. And yet situations like I described are not uncommon.
How do you think a software group will fare in comparision?
This just reminded us we need to be vigilant for folks abusing the rules, and be prepared to alert them in a public & justified way to prevent CoC Snyder by truly dedicated and despicable racists and sexist. Good moral!
The generic call for project leadership to resolve all issues will eventually become unworkable for larger projects. This process can be hastened by swamping the project leadership with a large number of reports.
It's likely that a subcommittee or enforcement team will be formed to deal with this at some point. These teams will naturally attract people interested in moderating the project and enforcing CoC. Mostly left-leaning people who are interested in achieving "social justice", I'd expect. Thus, a separate branch of leadership with mostly homogenous viewpoints and considerable power to prosecute is formed.
Unless the enforcement is done by randomized jury, this outcome is almost inevitable.
for example: https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/26/sex-and-gor-and-open-sourc...
Or the example provided in the posted article where Sage Sharp call for banning theodore ts'o based on this Coc while breaking said CoC in the process.
Calling that a "witch hunt" is ridiculous. Maybe he should have kept his personal life out of his work like ya'll say you do.
A lovely rewriting of history. There were harassment complaints that kicked the whole thing off.
What's more, he was presenting this stuff in public at Drupal events as a representative of Drupal. So double no. It wasn't some kinkshaming whim.
> You also probably know this exactly argument had been used numerous time to persecute gay and trans-gender people
Please kindly drop that horseshit down the caldera of a volcano. It's an absurd category error that even you surely see through.
Nope, what kicked the whole thing off is somebody found his profile on a thematic forum, got offended by a years-old post they misunderstood, and complained to the CWG Committee. Which found no fault. Then Klaus Purer started a personal harassment campaign against him. Which became public and when CWG declined to punish him for having a private life, was escalated to public hounding that eventually led to Dries Buytaert and others kicking him out. He never harassed anyone. If you don't believe me, here's example of press coverage:
https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/drupal-larry-garfield-gor.htm...
" although no one has made any specific allegations of abuse, and in fact many women have come forward to defend Garfield."
https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/26/sex-and-gor-and-open-sourc...
"It’s worth noting that a handful of women who worked with Larry did not report harassment or abuse from him in the workplace. We can’t know for sure if he committed offenses, but if there were allegations or even rumors of his mistreatment of women we would be having a very different conversation right now"
So, not even harassment allegations, let alone confirmed violations, and his only fault was his private life and "belief system" (which was also wildly misrepresented).
> he was presenting this stuff in public at Drupal events as a representative of Drupal.
He was not presenting anything besides tech content "as a representative of Drupal". If you have a private life, you are not allowed to be a representative of anything? Nothing in the presentations had a relationship to the private life (which was kept private). But even if something had some connection: imagine somebody were gay and wore a rainbow T-shirt to a conference and were removed from both the conference and the community because they "didn't keep their private life private"? You would be outraged. Yet you seem to support same treatment for somebody who is a member of a different minority, for the sole reason of being in that minority, and somehow it's OK for you.
> Please kindly drop that horseshit down the caldera of a volcano. It's an absurd category error that even you surely see through.
Nope, and no amount of swearing will mask complete lack of argument on your side here. In fact, if anything, it would highlight it - if you could say anything sensical about how "keep your gay to yourself or we'll fire you" is different from "keep your kink to yourself or we'll fire you", you'd say it. But there's nothing sensical that could be said about it, because there's no difference. So you resort to swearing. Swear away, I am not offended, I am delighted by this demonstration.
The best argument against CoCs is how their most fervent proponents behave as if the rules in the CoC don't apply to themselves.
A variety of pro-CoC comments from various people in this topic could easily be construed as contravening some or all of the following examples of unacceptable behavior extracted from the Linux CoC:
-Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
-Public or private harassment
-Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting
It's about making comments that could be derogatory to such in certain lights making them feel unwelcome.
Something as seemingly innocuous as "don't get your panties in a twist" could be seen as unwelcoming to women as "panties" is the traditional word for female underwear so it implies that the person you're talking to is not only a woman, but that women get frustrated over inconsequential things.
And you could have easily said "don't take it personally" and gotten the same point across. That the person is over-blowing something inconsequential.
You can apply this vague description to the very wide range of things. This "Contributor's Covenant" has a lot of potential to be abused by the ones who want to ban others. You can dig anyone's social media or public comment history and find something that matches this description.
It's a lot of common sense statements that shouldn't even be written with few very vague statements with high abuse potential.
"Every group of cooperating humans has a telos, a mutually understood purpose towards which they are working (or playing). Again, this purpose may be unwritten and is not necessarily even conscious. But one thing is always true: the ethos derives from the telos, not the other way around. The goal precedes the instrument."
"It is normal for the group ethos to evolve. It will get pulled in one direction or another as the goals of individuals and coalitions inside the group shift. In a well-functioning group the ethos tends to evolve to reward behaviors that achieve the telos more efficiently, and punish behaviors that retard progess towards it."
"What we have now is a situation in which a subgroup within the Linux kernel's subculture threatens destructive revolt because not only do they think the slider been pushed too high in a normative direction, but because they think the CoC is an attempt to change the group's telos."
[1] http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1809.2/06864.html
For example, while a CoC will ban something utterly because it is the easiest way to enforce, an actual law would throw in a caveat about malice being required, or dilineate how many chances you get before the ban hammer comes down.
Ironically, many internet forums have rules much more similar laws than these new CoCs.
Code of conducts sound like the ten commandments, they are good common sense but we need more than that to run a society... even a little one.
We need to know who will enforce something, how much lineincy can be given, and what punishments there will be.
>Using welcoming and inclusive language
I don't know what inclusive language is. Seriously, no idea.
>Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
What is being respectful? who says when I'm not being respectful? its not binary.
>Gracefully accepting constructive criticism
What the fuck is Gracefully??
You see, it's impossible to see when you are breaking the code, not all situations are black and white, and it's in the gray that there are always problems.
1. Most of Linux is written by paid contributors. They won't leave.
2. Most of those who kindle this flamewar are not Linux contributors but the alt-right. They also got involved in the Larry Garfield-Drupal affair (which was extremely poorly communicated).
3. If I may offer an explanation on why Code of Conducts are important: https://medium.com/@chx/a-note-from-an-open-source-lead-deve...
> unconditionedwitness@redchan
I'm not sure what I define redchan as, but alt-right isn't a crazy description to me.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/24/1497
"You must respect women who do NOTHING for you and even NOTHING for anyone else except exist as a USELESS physical entity (females who are not sweet young brides for men or mothers and just consume are not useful for anyone other than themselves: the purpose of females is to create more human beings and to bring happiness and pleasures to men: they are superfluous in any other capacity, as a class)... who rules over you ... or else you are punished.
You slaved away writing the code. When they feel they don't need you anymore they seek to tear you down.
You have a remedy: Recind the grant. You did NOT sign away your OWNERSHIP of the code you wrote.
The anglo-american belief system is that males are to be slaves of women and their masters. This belief system is now being imposed on even hobbies like gratis software development. They wish to give men no refuge, no place to build something outside the eye of the middle-class ("white" or english) woman. To keep men checked and obedient at all time in all things."
---
Now in hindsight, maybe the use of the term "anglo-american" should suggest that the author is not, himself, American, and so perhaps alt-right would not be the best term.
What a vile website. It's clearly alt-right and despicable.
there's an episode of you are not smart about this:
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2018/02/26/yanss-122-how-our-un...
It appears to be a right-wing outrage machine about black celebrities and feminists, targeted at young white North American men.
So, I'd say it's not inconceivable that the guy is alt-right.
What horrifies me is how utterly incompetent the media is at recognizing trolling. They simply regurgitate whatever gets presented to them by supposed members of "anonymous" or the "alt-right" etc. I'm convinced the majority of this noise is just 4chan nerds trolling the media and watching the results for the lulz.
But the media empowers it all to have actual consequences in reality.
Quality of journalism has gone completely down the tubes. And I don't mean in the "fake news" fabricated by journalists sense, I mean in their plain incompetence and being used as puppets to validate the nonsense they report on by ... reporting everything as-given.
Nothing seems to be investigated correctly prior to reporting it anymore.
Although I don't think they're the most valuable contributors. They're often motivated to contribute things that bring them value, not the community as a whole.
For example, a developer expresses a non-conformist opinion on transgenderism on Twitter. Bam, activists show up in droves on the project's issue tracker and bludgeon the developer off the project using the CoC.
I expect you're correct. However, the threat here isn't that a bunch of developers will leave. The threat is that any developers will leave and rescind the license to use their code. That would mean that code would have to be removed from the kernel, which would break backward compatibility. IANAL, but I believe an attempt to maintain compatibility would be "based on" the previous code to which the linux kernel now has no claim, and would therefore be a violation of copyright as well.
I don't really see any practical way you'd be able to remove code from the kernel in an event like this. You'd basically have to fork it.
> Most of those who kindle this flamewar are not Linux contributors but the alt-right. They also got involved in the Larry Garfield-Drupal affair (which was extremely poorly communicated).
I believe you're conflating a lot of different groups under the label "alt-right" here.
The bottom line is that there is a cultural shift happening, and there are many who oppose this sort of thing that aren't "alt-right" in the least. Mislabelling them as such serves to further inflame the divisions within our community, and allows their concerns to be dismissed out of hand. I think this is a mistake.
GPLv2 is not the only license without an explicit "no-take-backsies" clause, and pretty much all literature I've read about open source previous to this incident suggested that although you could relicense future versions of the code, you couldn't put the genie back into the bottle on old releases.
Also, to be frank, I think that if there _was_ settled law saying you could rescind old licenses, it would have far-reaching ripple effects throughout the open source world. Let's be clear, it would be a weapon that could be used by any slighted maintainer or former maintainer to damage a project, for _any_ reason. And if a single or group of maintainers could do it, a corporation with dollar signs in its eyes could do it just as easily. Be careful what you wish for.
Which I think is a mess because of how that reaches out. It may also be another point in favor of the GPL just being a bad license. If I rescind the GPL on my code, then everything that depends on it needs to rewritten and there may be things that aren't aware they're using my code that needs to be rewritten.
Then what about if someone modified my code? Then where does the copyright lie?
It's crazy.
I lacked the financial means to enforce my rights in court so I dropped it and moved away from spending 10-14h a day contributing to wikipedia.
The kernel is probably not as corrupted as wikipedia management is, so they may allow for rescinding GPL if asked but would that prevent the removed code from being added again rewritten or not? Could the original author sue for copyright violation ?
I posted my writeup on reddit and there were a number of people in the comments who crystal clear never saw an open source project in their lives OTOH they had post history on places like /r/the_donald and /r/kotakuinaction . I will not even try to separate GamerGaters from Trump supporters, the alt-right as an umbrella will do.
I have not said everyone is such but -- much more than there should be (which is zero).
It's naive to think that things like source code hide our race, gender, orientation, ect; and that we leave our biases aside when collaborating on a computer program.
The reality is that many people are this naive, and/or fear that someone with an agenda will create a political environment where one's lack of a minority identify becomes a liability. There's also a valid concern that an inclusive agenda can be used to force people into a project who really don't belong in a project.
That's why discussion of these topics with empathy for the naive is important. Calling someone "alt right" because they haven't 100% bought onto a necessary change really is an "if you're not with us, you're against us" statement. That kind of attitude goes directly against the kind of inclusivity that something like a CoC is meant to foster.
Yet how can one explain the considerable negative reaction to the CoC on Phoronix's forum and Slashdot, which are hardly bastions of either 4channers or any kind of right-wing movement? They're highly pro-Linux.
I'm a T that doesn't fit into the LGBT community, at all. Most of my beliefs run perpendicular to the community at large and in some cases I get irritated with them for trying to police how people should treat me - this policing usually results in my interactions with others being worse off. But because I don't conform to the community, I'm not a "real trans". I'm depersoned and outcast. The LGBT community has treated me worse than any other community I've ever tried being a part of.
I'd be one of the first people targeted by people through the CoC for, ironically, being "anti-trans" and disagreeing with someone in the greater LGBT community. One such example, "tranny" is a word I claim to identify myself with and screw anyone who tells me I can't use it because it is a slur. They give the word power when they cower from it. Because of this, I won't contribute to any open source project with a CoC. It's been a political tool used to wrestle control of a project or oust someone that someone more popular doesn't like more often than it's been a tool to foster a more inclusive and friendly community.
Note that the idea I'd be one of the first targeted is merely perceived - the same bias, but mirrored, causing others to be excluded for a perceived preexisting bias against them.
You cannot do it. The only way the right to distribute GPLv2 software gets revoked is for a specific party that distributes a GPLv2 licensed work in violation of the GPLv2 distribution terms.
[1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Rape_apology_on_LCA_maili...
For example, terrorists blow people up for religious reasons and states also fund them to attack their enemies.
I mean, how exactly would this theory work? Intel/Microsoft/FBI/NSA is paying or fomenting "SJW trolls" to cause havoc and slander anyone who gets in their way of implementing a potential backdoor? What'll happen when they're up against cryptography contributors who are super progressive or have a "clean record"?
To me this seems way more likely to be just typical social media outcry and hyperbole with nothing nefarious underneath it. And in this instance, it just happens to have affected someone involved with Linux cryptography.
As for whether it is actually possible, Eric Raymond has an _opinion_, but it's certainly not a legal one (he's not an attorney himself), and the issue has never been adjudicated AFAIK. (IAAL, but this is not legal advice.)
> 2. Lack of CC’s CoC sustains meritocracy, which “has consistently shown itself to mainly benefit those with privilege, to the exclusion of underrepresented people in technology“. [http://archive.is/o2OzZ]
What is this bullshit idea that the beneficiaries of open source software are those that contributed as opposed to from being able to use it? Good commits benefit everyone.
The idea that someone(s) would block a person's commit based on some non-code distinction, to the detriment of everyone who uses that software...which possibly also includes the other people contributing to it...is completely ludicrous.
I have used the Covenant Code of Conduct [1] in my git repos for some time and I don't see how this has derailed into so much drama.
[1] - https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-con...
On one hand I'm against the approach because it means that contributions that have been dependent on may just disappear. (Kind of anti-community)
On the other hand: it gives the people who contribute work to the project leverage. People who contribute shouldn't be under threat of being bullied by this.
Let's be honest, people who can just make up the rules about 'whats a violation' will abuse that power.
The problem with that interpretation is that is already the situation, except to a much greater extent.
People holding a position of power in a community inevitably have the ability to use that power and influence to affect the community, including restricting or removing participants. I struggle to see how the introduction of a set of pretty straightforward rules would make that situation worse.
Indeed, one of the major reasons for introducing that set of rules is for somebody to be able to subsequently point at it, say "(bullying|privacy violations|personal attacks|sexual imagery) are not allowed here, please stop doing it".
Interesting. I've been under impression that once you licence your code, you cannot "take it back" (for that particular version or release).
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5419923/can-gpl-be-re-li...
Hell, just reissue with GPLv3. That'll still kill it pretty well.
As an example of the difficulty: U.S. Copyright gives authors absolute termination rights.[1][2] An author can unilaterally choose to terminate a license or transfer 35 years subsequent to the grant, but no more than 40 years after. A contract, promise, or some other contrivance executed to nullify the right is void, just like you can't willingly contract yourself into slavery. Which is to say, a court won't punish you in any way, shape, or form for statutory termination; and won't hear any arguments about reliance or other arguments intended to coax a court to enjoin termination.
However, statutory termination requires notice to be given at least 2 years prior (but not more than 10 years prior) to termination. There are unresolved questions regarding notice and its effect. Many observers (including Stallman) are of the opinion that statutory termination rights are of little or no practical consequence to FOSS because of the technical requirements of notice, but arguably that's motivated thinking on their part.
The types of termination being discussed in the context of the CoC involve more context-dependent questions of law and fact. If the practical effects of the most clear-cut and categorical route to termination are still left open, you can bet that other routes to termination pose significant unresolved questions and implications.
[1] Statutory Termination: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203
[2] Copyright Office's rules for effective notice: https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-10.html
And there's a lot to be gained for a few when you take down one of the engines of progress of a society.
LKML has been relatively quiet if you consider the number of subscribers on that list.
There's basically a few ambulance chasers trying to drum up business, and pretty much everyone involved knows to ignore them.
But that won't stop folks from trying to generate views, clicks, followers, etc. by reporting on and exaggerating the practically nonexistent situation.
Also, Unrelated ESR story: In my teens my LUG saw him visit our regular meeting while he was in town for some other event, back in the 90s when linux was on a hype wave. We all went, as we normally did, to a group dinner afterwards. He and his guest straight up vanished on us before the bill came. I don't even know what he came for, he didn't tell or show us anything interesting. He behaved like a celebrity and forced a small group of broke kids to have to pay for him and his guest's meals. I don't even know how we managed to scrounge up the money, I certainly didn't have it.
ESR can go f*ck himself.
Linux would lose a LOT of corporate support. You'd see businesses migrate [back] to Windows. You'd see support for Linux being dropped left and right. It would set Linux back _a decade_ if they did this. All because they don't want to grow as a person. This is the emotional equivalent of, "I'll just take my ball and go home!"
My take on the matter is that the Linux community in the past did a pretty good job of not accepting of talk of racism, misogyny, bigotry, and that this CoC will only be used as a political bludgeon.
So on one hand a CoC seems less needed now, but there were/are a lot of people very vocally defending that style.
To begin with, I wouldn't be surprised if this is fueled by fringe right wing interests, similar to GamerGate etc. Second, I am generally in favor of CoCs and changes that aim to elevate minority groups. Thirdly, it's often hard to take "we have no problems with diversity" at face value when it comes from those favored by a lack of CoCs.
All that said - This, to me, seems like a hard call to make. An updated CoC seems great, and I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of it, and the need for it. On the other hand, I find the lack of definition and process it entails problematic. Hopefully it's a "two steps forward, one step back" situation and not the other way around.
Anyone care to point out what I said that was so offensive, or nah?
The problem with the project and license structure of Linux in 2018 is that literally any threat the relatively small number of neo-reactionary programmers can execute on can simply be paved over by various large corporations simply assigning more resources to pick up any slack. For them, ensuring continuity in Linux is both a public commitment and an business requirement.
In other words: this is another ill-considered example of burning shoes you already bought in protest. Since most of substance of their work has already been turned over to the public consciousness, it's relatively straightforward to continue with that work or to replace it if a licensing conflict comes up.
Doubly so since the actual slice of people who will put up this much of a fight over an agreement to adhere to professional standards is quite small.
(And I suppose using "old" in this way is against the CoC?)
Here is an example of ESR being misogynist: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6907
> One was: their skin color looks fecal. The other was: their bone structure doesn’t look human. And they’re just off-reference enough to be much more creepy than if they looked less like people, like bad CGI or shambling undead in a B movie. When I paid close enough attention, these were the three basic data under the revulsion; my hindbrain thought it was surrounded by alien shit zombies.
The overall piece's conclusion is "I, ESR, am so enlightened that that I managed to overcome this perception". http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5001
According to Contributor's Covenant, this line is offensive enough to expell you from the community that follows it.
Besides, aside from the "racist" and the last 4 words it's an ESR quote. So maybe I'm already in your head. And don't go saying "racist" is an insult, it's just a dictionary definition of some of his more infamous comments.
Because Newspeak and thought control and a stubborn refusal to listen to ESR talk about race and gender and how his martial arts are ready to take on any Muslim.
That's a bald-faced lie - I never defended it. But thank you for this illustration of how you and the likes operate. You know that this is false, and that everybody can see it's false - after all, my comments are just above yours for everybody to see and it's obvious I never mentioned that matter and never defended it!
But you rely on the fact that your in-group would let you lie pass because you're attacking an enemy, and your out-group would be afraid to be associated with defending a racist - and if not, you'll just accuse them in racism too. This is not a good faith discussion.
> our frantic reactionary panic about the idea of basic civility being a written policy in software development.
That's another bald-faced falsity - I never rejected idea of "basic civility". In fact, if anything, you are the one rejecting "basic civility" right now, by falsely accusing me instead of engaging in good faith and trying to impugn my motives instead of discussing the actual points raised.
Basic civility is great. But basic civility can be done in many ways, and this particular formulation of CoC is not the only one (in fact even having CoC is not the only one). Implying that anybody who opposes particular formulation of CoC and particular process of it's introduction is against "basic civility" is not telling the truth. And the events that surround it prove that the matter in question is way bigger than "basic civility" - there were numerous attempts under the guise of CoC to silence and remove from projects people that disagreed (even in outside fora having nothing to do with the project) with some views of people who often even not members of the community in question.
Hounding people out of working communities for a random comment and throwing around baseless accusations in not the way to do basic civility either. Yet somehow some people think if they say "we're for basic civility" they themselves are free from upholding basic civility. And that basic civility implies they can do anything, but their opponents better watch out.
> Because Newspeak and thought control
Yes, because speech and thought control is what it is all about. And, ultimately, power. You are not allowed to do crimethink, and if you do, you are an unperson. That's what you are trying to do here - you do not argue with ESR's article, you're trying to unperson him. And yes, stubborn refusal to listen and to actually know the position of somebody who you are supposedly criticize is the part of the deal - if you wanted to engage and refute the points, the minimum requirement would be to know what are you actually refuting. But if you want to unperson, the less you know the better.
In: Big Corporations will save us if we chase away all independent developers by calling them racists and bigots each time they disagree with us!
It is symptomatic though that PC proponents look for salvation in Big Government and Big Business, not in the community.
> fight over an agreement to adhere to professional standards is quite small.
It's like saying the American Revolution was "a fight about the address where tax forms are sent to". Formally correct, but the point is totally lost.