I can't wait until the silent majority stops being silent and throws out CoC and their people from projects. It is seriously a toxic thing that creates debates over stuff where there is no need for it to be a debate to begin with.
I didn't address all the accuses against him, just the one about being ableist, and how as a disabled person I don't think non-disabled people should decide just to push their agenda.
Anyway, I got some thanks in private, for speaking up, but nobody publicly replied.
the mail in question, if you care to read it: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/03/msg00142.html
I wrote a "Stallman is not a good leader, but he's not a transphobic ableist monster" article and I got more feedback over email and Twitter PM than everything else I've written combined.
On HN it was flagged after a brief discussion shrug. I think it upset both the pro- and anti-Stallman people because I do think we're better off without Stallman, but not for the reasons in that ridiculous letter. For all his failings, I do think he's a good person.
I have been away from hacker news for about 2 to 3 years and quite frankly I am shocked that this place is still having this same tired argument whereas outside it seems to be an accepted fact of life that having rules surrounding the conduct of project participants is in fact a good thing.
Isn't that the problem? Accept it. Don't ask questions, or else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance
The problem is that the specific phrase "Code of Conduct" has been dragged into a culture war. And if the problem is the parlance, the solution is to just call it something different, like "Conduct Policy", "Rules", or something similar.
It might seem trite, but in my experience using a different name seems to shut off the part of some folks brain who automatically assume said rules will be enforced in bad faith.
Rules getting enforced in bad faith as people coalesce power in their sphere is a story as old as human history. Why would you argue that we have an exception in this case?
Whoops, ya got me! :)
In all seriousness, there's no contradiction. The phrase "Code of Conduct" was part of a culture war, but in my experience the conversation outside of places like Hacker News has shifted significantly in recent years. Reading this thread was like stepping into a time machine, and not in a pleasant or nostalgic way.
<< conduct of project participants is in fact a good thing.
Is it though?
I think this talks past concerns.
"Just kick out the rude people" is probably a good thing. "Just kick out the people the admins don't like" is probably a bad thing (or at least isn't as impartial as the former).
With sections like "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a person's ability to participate within them" it really seems the intention of the rules goes above/beyond "rules for the space where project participants communicate in".
That is intentional, as I believe that these discussions attract rules lawyers who I feel are missing the point.
If the people running the project enforce rules in bad faith, a CoC like the Contributors Code of Conduct is not materially different from an informal list of bullet-point rules, or even an tacit "Don't be a jerk."
I had to get attacked for a joke I put on social media before I realized how insane CoCs on voluntary work are.
> I was indifferent/supportive of CoCs until it was used against me over some trivial thing
How can we avoid needing to get to that point?
The whole CoC is a project of an ideology that is categorically against merit and competence and in favour of identity politics.
To see these CoC's in terms of specific rules is missing the forest for the trees.
I think people are afraid when there is no reason to be. If you lose your job, just get a new one it's not like it's hard in the tech sector anyway.
What would you replace it with? And what is the stuff being debated? I thought a code of conduct (or any form of "rules") was to prevent debates, avoid ambiguity, and clearly outline what is and isn't allowed in a community. (or outside one, which I do have a problem with. One of the rules of my forums, alongside an all-encompassing "don't be a dick", is a rule saying you shouldn't take drama from other sites to ours.)
The inverse is also a problem, and it's the one addressed by that type of rule. Taking drama from this site to other sites. If someone has pre-existing beef with someone else in your community, it's not ok if they bring that to your site, sure. But if Joe gets on Sally's nerves on-site, it's fine if she sends him a direct email filled with all sorts of flavorful harassment over it? And it's fine cause she stepped one inch over the border before doing it? Nah, they're both problems.