Did their survey indicate how many people were opposed to this nonsense, and thought it was a complete waste of time?
So maybe this time people feels like the CoC is just fine and stops being a distraction. Some will still think it's nonsense but at least it doesn't try to push BS on them, and some others will think it's not enough but eventually will grow up and stop caring.
This has nothing to do with "the anglosphere" -- take a good hard look at what's happening in France, or Scandinavia, or huge chunks of the Latin American world.
Really the only places where you don't see this are those places where there is active backsliding to dictatorship, e.g. Hungary, Russia, or China.
I know it because I'm spanish, and speak also french and portuguese. Witnessed all the transformation.
Some academic theories breed in french universities were imported in the US around late 70s early 80s, got spinned a bit, got communication theory slapped on, and just got transformed into narratives for the average activist.
That's how I see it. And it clearly gained traction circa 2010 with social media. Nowadays you can clearly see how the US internal affairs frame goes hand with hand with this narratives, matching most of the times weirdly with local issues, like this George Floyd thing.
I'm 32yo so basically lived through the transition.
> - 89% believe FreeBSD should be welcoming to people of all backgrounds; 2% disagreed
> - 73% say toxic people should be removed from the Project regardless of their technical contribution; 9% disagreed
If you want to avoid nonsense you can simply stick to technical discussion on project media and nobody gives a crap what you say anywhere else unless you're famous. These rulesets exist because people can't do that.
I think it's apparent from all participants, including myself, that we don't have a great depth of knowledge about party etiquette.
All attendees: Don't talk about politics at a party, or religion. If at all possible do not bring up old beefs even if conversation gets heated. Avoid people who you can't behave yourself around. Enlist other people to help you maintain that boundary, if necessary.
Host/Hostess guidelines: If you throw a party, put in more than a half-assed effort at being a host. "You didn't have to come to the party" is tautological. It is in no way a defense or excuse for being an exceedingly poor host. It is a sad, weak deflection that most people see through. Especially if there was another party elsewhere at the same time. I didn't have to come to your party, you didn't have to throw one. Do it right, find someone who can, or don't do it at all.
I saw a lot of this in the early MMO days, where people would justify any behavior that wasn't explicitly disallowed. Don't see it as much in group dynamics, but it's definitely there.
Well if you don't want me to do that then you shouldn't let me. So much entitlement.
Discussing politics and religion - or any other subject that can get heated - is a great way for friendships to move out of fake niceness and into a deeper place. The movement out of fake niceness often requires going through a place of brutal honesty, but in the long run we all gain from that movement. Expressed as a value, I want to be seen for who I am, warts and all. Not for how effectively or ineffectively I can “make nice”.
As for your host / hostess guidelines - this all seems to be coming from a place of judgement and repression. “If you can’t put on the mask, don’t spend time with loved ones!”. Instead I like the way I was taught in improv class. Show up as you are. If your mum just died and you have a show, don’t hide that. Instead mourn her on stage. Make your performance an expression of who you are in this moment. Hosting a dinner party but you’re depressed and cooking is too hard? Accept that. Accept it out loud so your friends know to bring food. But accept it and have the party anyway. Be honest and people will get it. When they support you in that moment, they’re supporting the real you.
I don't disagree with this. But the context matters. Discussing difficult topics face to face is profoundly different than discussing it with an audience. It's often at the top of my list for why open offices are a bad idea (one of my better professional qualities is allowing people space to share fears and doubts. I'm pretty well blocked in an open office, and restaurants and coffee shops are not always a suitable replacement)
For the second paragraph, I agree with your conclusion but not quite on how you got there.
> Be honest and people will get it.
Can we agree that there's a problem with people not being upfront (transparent), and then deflecting/blaming everybody else?
I accepted this about myself a long time ago. Helping to get the ball rolling? Still a work in progress, but something I'd like to get better at.
Those people are pissed off because of things that happened in the past and they didn't like the speakers that were at conferences he ran. They never let it go.