Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ticklee | Hacker News Reader

In my eyes someone is allowed to be as hateful as they want as long as they contribute good code.

I'm genuinely curious: why should contributors have to endure someone's toxicity if something can be done about it? In professional settings, I've seen colleagues get fired over bad behavior, and not for the lack of competence - and I can safely say the team's morale and productivity went right up each time. I fail to see how this couldn't be applicable to open source projects that wish to do it as well, as you'll typically have to get involved quite a bit with these individuals if you're going to contribute.

And not even just contributors. Users of your project might not want to interact with your team. If I encounter a bug and want to create an issue, but I either see racism within communication, or just overall negativity in comments from members, why would I continue with your project? I could just as easily be subjected to it.

> why would I continue with your project

Because I have important stuff in my life that depends on it; business, workflows at work, IT infrastructure, ...

If it's that important to you, it's likely in a professional setting, isn't it? I'd say most CoCs are perfectly reasonable, and you usually have to go out of your way to cross them in a professional software development environment.

> it's likely in a professional setting, isn't it?

Not necessarily!

> usually have to go out of your way to cross them in a professional software development environment

I believe this subthread is about the situation of some example hypothetical person being a user of a project in which there are "bad" things going on (whether or not there is a CoC in place that is being violated).

This user is not the one perpetrating abuse.

Say that user reports some problem and is treated abusively or whatever. Or just learns about that kind of thing going on in the project, and disagrees with it.

So question is, why would that user continue to use such a project.

Well, there is the answer: people depend on stuff in ways that they just can't drop it because of someone's behavior.

> In my eyes someone is allowed to be as hateful as they want as long as they contribute good code.

I would argue that you don't literally mean that - or rather there are situations you could find yourself in that would result in your changing your mind on this.

Although it's possible you're being slightly disingenuous and what you really mean is more "The thing I currently suspect is happening in the Rust team isn't something I would regard as serious". I suspect that's behind at least some of the responses on this thread.

What if the hate convinces 10 other people to stop contributing? You can still make a net-negative contribution even if you contribute something.

Really disingenuous. Even if you yourself don’t value civility and just being a good human being, a toxic team member may easily cause a net loss of good code, no matter what sort of 10x engineer they are themselves, due to the opportunity costs they incur.

Sounds like a great way to end up with your team consisting of only one person. Not very effective. Do you expect everyone else to just endure that behavior?

Yes, and this is the policy of many long-running and successful FOSS projects (e.g. kernel developers).

Rust however wanted something different and attracted a lot of "snowflakes" because of it.

Can you explain to me what your definition of snowflake is?

Is it anyone who doesn't agree with the ethos "In my eyes someone is allowed to be as hateful as they want as long as they contribute good code."?

Genuinely asking, as it seems to appear several times throughout this topic and the only thing I can settle on is that it's used as a derogatory term for anyone who cares more about X or Y than the person calling them a snowflake. (Does asking make me a snowflake?)

"Someone who chooses to get offended about what others write or say" would be my working definition. I don't think being offended is a reasonable thing to be, generally.

Is getting offended about someone insulting you or who starts discussions which make people angry unreasonable?

I'm genuinely curious, maybe I misunderstand what it means to be offended.

Yes. People make themselves angry, people choose to take offense. The reasonable thing to do is not allow yourself to be provoked to upset or anger by someone else's communication. People you disagree with are easy to ignore, even if you find their opinions loathsome.

"Just ignore people seeking to harm you specifically and severally" has historically been poor practice.

And it's almost always advocated by people who have the upper hand in their own exchanges. Which is fascinating, isn't it?

We have a system of law and justice that is designed to prevent people actually visiting harm on eachother. We should draw the (very clear and very sharp) line at doing harmful things, and allow people to say whatever they want.

The alternative we're seeing is an ever-expanding, ever-blurring definition of what is policed as "offensive", stifling innovation and fostering division.

I cannot remember the last time I got offended by an insult. A little bit of stoicism goes a long way. It is up to you whether or not you get offended by an insult. I typically choose self-deprecating humor as a response to insults instead of wasting my energy getting angry.

Quite the opposite. Offense is taken usually by people that want power.

As someone said, reasonably, that we have a system of law and order. If someone threatens you with violence, call the police.

I can understand this reasoning when it comes to personal insults. I understand it less when it comes to tolerating baiting, which takes time and attention from the original reason (work, fun, etc.) of the social space. Why is being offended by not being able to communicate unreasonable?

I'm also interested in your take in the kind of communication that's intended to falsely undermine your reputation. I guess it's similar to the above example, but it's more personal and threatens group coherence. What's your take on being offended by that?

re: baiting, if you take the bait, it's on you. If you don't think someone is being genuine, you're free to disengage. No one is forcing anyone into a conversation, especially online.

> communication that's intended to falsely undermine your reputation

If a claim is false, that's the most damning thing that can be said about it. Whether it's "offensive" (or whether you're offended) or not is irrelevant.

I see where we differ now: I've experienced that when you are being barraged with mud, some will usually stick, with the exception of maybe groups of close friends.

As such, I don't mean that you are the one who takes the bait, but other members of the group. Bikeshedding is so popular it even has a special name, and it affects the performance of the group relative to the original goal even if you're not the one who took the bait.

So while I agree that baiting/insulting it's not something to be offended about, I think the response should be effectively the same as if it was.

> intended to falsely undermine your reputation

I did not know that insults are capable of doing that. If the insult is based on something accurate, then what is wrong with it? Just realize it is based on reality and improve. If it is not accurate, then why give a damn?

In general, people don't want to work with assholes. Doubly so if they aren't getting paid for it.

The Kernel also has a code of conduct: https://www.kernel.org/code-of-conduct.html.

This was added within the last 3 or so years as the result of an intentional social struggle to put a CoC on the kernel. It remains to be seen what the net effect of this on kernel development will be.

seems like a bad take

Reply on news.ycombinator.com