[flagged]
Personally, what makes me discount a source as unreliable is when they don't state clearly what their problems are but instead make it known through vague insinuations or by a litany of tangential complaints. When someone says "I'm uncomfortable with X" I respect their candor, regardless of how I feel about X.
But someone who isn't mature enough to separate their irrelevant personal views from the task at hand when communicating with an audience, not so much. It calls into question their ability to be objective.
Note that I apply this equally, even to those who interject pet topics that I strongly support.
Both are often the source of petty disagreements.
Physician, heal thyself.
While I didn't raise a comment over it (since I felt it likely that it might sour the discussion) I too found myself wondering about the motivations behind that remark when I came across it. As it happens I had the exact same thought that GP had - to wonder if there was an ulterior motive at play. However based on the rest of the content I came to the conclusion that the site didn't seem to be particularly biased. Highly technically opinionated, a bit colorful, but not a malicious hit piece.
And for what it's worth I thought the HoA analogy you're responding to here was on point. Those also tend to be incredibly polarizing to a bewildering degree. Apparently a large portion of Americans get remarkably bent out of shape if you try to regulate their behavior, while a different set is similarly incensed by attempts to prevent said regulation.
The HOA analogy would be appropriate if HOAs were about conduct among colleagues. It's pretty obvious why you need to set ground rules when you have a huge number of people collaborating - you get incidents of people behaving inappropriately, and if that behavior proliferates, you will create a hostile environment where it's difficult for work to be done. (See this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43147705)
HOAs are a problem because there is very little shared interest in regulating the size of hedges or the color you may paint your house or whatever. It's a scheme to keep property values elevated.
There is no connection between these phenomena. One of them addresses pragmatic and real problems, however flawed the implementation may be. The author is a scheme to manipulate property markets. There is no shared cause between them.
> The HOA analogy would be appropriate if HOAs were about conduct among colleagues.
There was nothing inappropriate about the analogy. If they both involved colleagues then the analogy would be pointless because they would be the same thing. The entire point of an analogy is the abstract similarities between things that are different.
The necessity of CoCs does not follow from the necessity of ground rules. That is a conclusion that you silently slipped in without justification. Social norms have not historically been codified as CoCs. Moreover, I would dispute that codifying social norms is the actual intended purpose of CoCs despite being the stated one.
"Very little shared interest" and "scheme to keep property values elevated" appear contradictory to me. Property values are a very strong shared interest for most people. Avoidance of noisy or otherwise disruptive neighbors are another strong shared interest. Folks just don't always agree on all the details.
> One of them addresses pragmatic and real problems, however flawed the implementation may be.
That would be HoAs, of course, which prevent my neighbor from unilaterally tanking my outrageously expensive (relative to my income) investment. CoCs in contrast are a recent trend and thus obviously unnecessary for productive collaboration.
My supposition about the necessity of ground rules is precisely as supported as the alternatives offered in this discussion. Poorly supported by the standards of rigorous debate, I agree, but supported enough for casual discussion. No one has offered any evidence CoCs are caused by busybodies. ("Silently" seems unnecessary, it wasn't silent, I stated it aloud and described why I thought it was so. I can't help but point out again, you go on to dispute it, but not with any evidence. I think that's fine for casual discussion, but it's not meeting the bar you're setting.)
"Scheme to elevate property values" is a shared interest if all of the homeowners primarily view their homes as financial instruments. People get bent out of shape with HOAs because they want their home for other things. Some people would rather put up radio towers or paint their house a garish color or park a truck on their lawn than maximize their property value.
CoCs are as old as dirt. I signed one every single year in elementary school, decades ago. They've been a norm in workplaces for a long time. They're more recent in open source projects, and they started because of problems projects were having - people being creepy at conferences, people starting drama on mailing lists, etc.
What's recent is the politicization of CoCs.
If it helps, I would agree that busybodies might abuse both of these mechanisms to impose themselves on their neighbors and colleagues. I disagree that that is the root of why they exist, on the basis that they can be explained by incentives and pragmatic considerations. On an Occam's razor basis, if I don't need to assume busybodies are the motivating force to explain the existence of these things, then I won't, until such a time I receive evidence I can't explain without them. Were we colleagues, and I were involved in drafting a CoC, "I don't want a CoC because I'm worried it will be abused by busybodies" is a concern I'd take seriously.
I felt that the analogy was both of those.
> "Silently" seems unnecessary, it wasn't silent
You wrote "it's pretty obvious why you need to set ground rules" in regards to CoCs, which implies that CoCs are the primary or preferred or standard means for doing that. It's an unstated premise, and one that I disagree with.
> you go on to dispute it, but not with any evidence.
You implied a rather sweeping claim (the necessity of CoCs to enforce ground rules) which I believe puts the burden of evidence squarely on you.
While not obligated by social convention, I believe my point that social norms have not historically been codified as CoCs qualifies as a veritable mountain of evidence disputing your implication. People have been successfully collaborating (and enforcing social ground rules) for approximately all of human history; CoCs in comparison are a quite recent development.
> "Scheme to elevate property values" is a shared interest if all of the homeowners primarily view their homes as financial instruments.
You could as well claim that noise ordinances aren't a shared interest because some people like to party in their yard into the wee hours. The observation would be correct but it would not support the claim. Note that even if the group collectively chooses not to prioritize something it still remains a shared interest inasmuch as the definition of "interest" is something which has a negative or positive impact on the individual.
> they started because of problems projects were having - people being creepy at conferences, people starting drama on mailing lists, etc.
Agreed that those are certainly the sorts of things that the people in favor of them claimed as justification. That those things were happening at a problematic rate, that a CoC would meaningfully reduce that rate, that the benefits of this reduction would outweigh any negative impacts a CoC might have, and that this was their motivation in pursuing their adoption. I was never convinced, particularly on that last point.
As far as drama on mailing lists goes, I believe the results in the years since speak for themselves. Any self respecting troll would be envious of the amount of drama CoCs have been used to kick up. In that sense they truly are exactly like an HoA.
> What's recent is the politicization of CoCs.
I believe that politicization you refer to is what drove the recent widespread adoption in open source projects that you speak of. As but one example, consider the route that sqlite took and how controversially that was received. Surely if the reasoning driving the adoption was as you suggest then very few people would have been bothered by the document that project adopted.
> On an Occam's razor basis, if I don't need to assume busybodies are the motivating force
For the record, you are the one who brought busybodies into this. My previous claim was merely that CoCs are "unnecessary for productive collaboration". If you had asked I would have answered that I think politics are the motivating force. Regardless, you merely assumed a different motivating force and I am unconvinced by it. From my perspective, if I don't need to assume the sudden and mysterious breakdown in the ability of people to constructively collaborate in the absence of CoCs then I won't.
That's only if you take CoC enjoyers at their word. It makes perfect sense when you realize it's not about advancing project or community, but rather controlfreak ideology.
This idea they were surprised a project succeeded without having a CoC is an artefact of this particular discussion, not something the author ever said or implied. It was in the same category as de Raadt swearing at people over email - they didn't anticipate a productive exchange if they reached out. That's it.
If someone declares they reserve the right to treat people however they please, and then you observe them treating people in a way you don't want to be treated, and your conclusion is, "I don't think emailing this person is a good use of my time, I'm just going to host this website myself" - I find it hard to understand how anyone would find that objectionable, that seems simple, common sense, and largely neutral.
b.) Whenever you have a large group of people collaborating for an extended period of time, you have incidents. There's drama. There's inappropriate behavior. It's just how it goes. It's a Murphy's Law thing.
Eventually people sit down and say, "we've gotta set some ground rules." You probably signed a code of conduct at every school you attended and every job you've accepted. I know I have.
You can disagree with that without viewing it as a conspiracy. It's a predictable result of being in a large community, and about as ideological as traffic lights.
> If the author doesn't want to dive into the mailing list then good for them. Leave it at that.
They did leave it at that.
And no, the author whined about how he doesn’t like the icky openbsd community very much arguably out of place. (There are multiple people who have mentioned they think it’s out of place, at least.) That’s not leaving it at that. Leaving it at that implies no further action.
If you had said, "oh, that was a mistake, I didn't mean to imply they had extrapolated from a single instance," then I would've believed you then, too.
They made a side note in an "about" page. You're making a mountain out of a pebble. The author made a minor note about their thought process, you have been complaining about it and have now crossed into personal attacks on them. "Whining" is not a stone you ought to be throwing.
Same to you, have a good one.