The previous code of conduct was not popular; it says so in TFA.
I have been one of those people disaffected by the previous code of conduct, the "virtual hugs" and "no commenting on lifestyle choices such as eating habits" rubbed me very much the wrong way.
The new one is much more prescriptive on behaviours that are encouraged, much like the hackernews guidelines.
Hearing that from somebody gives me hope. A trend I had been seeing over the past few years was the introduction of codes of conduct to communities that were basically peaceable, each just as often followed by a torrent of petty tyranny as by a continued peace.
> I have been one of those people disaffected by the previous code of conduct, the "virtual hugs" and "no commenting on lifestyle choices such as eating habits" rubbed me very much the wrong way.
Please don't be disingenuous about the old CoC. You can dislike it or disagree with it, but you're taking that example way out of context[1]:
> Harassment includes but is not limited to:
> ∗ Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "∗hug∗" or "∗backrub∗") without consent or after a request to stop.
It's a problem when people don't want you to be doing it, and you do it to them anyway. Much like it would be a problem in the real world.
> ∗ Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "∗hug∗" or "∗backrub∗") without consent or after a request to stop.
Good to know that I'm still 100% free to slap people around a bit with a large trout[0], and that this will not violate the CoC. But it seems weird and perhaps backwards that trout-whacking is OK, while a common polite remark (if perhaps not in a technical context) like ∗hugs∗ is discouraged.
People joke about death in the singular, natural disasters that kill thousands, and the extinction of the human race but this is the matter so serious humor must be absent?
When someone actually touches you it infringes on your rights in a way that reading the text hug cannot not to mention the natural concern for your physical safety.
In the mostly imaginary world of serial virtual huggers it seems reasonable that conduct would fall under say sexual harassment or be fixed by blocking people.
It's actually nothing like real world touching at all.
This is a weird hill to die on. Continuing to send "=hug=" messages to someone who has told you that doing so makes them uncomfortable is very creepy behavior. It'd be grounds for discipline most places I've worked.
I understand not wanting a CoC that spells this out, because we're all adults and shouldn't need to be told not to send creepy messages to team members. But I can't understand defending the behavior on the merits.
Presumably actually hugging someone is subject to societal, cultural, interpersonal norms. People at least try to discern in which situations and for which people its likely OK to initiate a hug.
Then you watch how people react and modify your behavior accordingly. If you mistakenly thought it was OK and instead of warmth you perceive discomfort or a deer in the headlights look you would abort.
If in doubt just don't do it or ask.
In real context this complexity is simplified by the presence of social cues, body language, facial expressions, the fact that more people are apt to share the same set of social norms. None of these things are available in text. Fortunately typing hug at someone doesn't involve actually touching their body. It provides basically none of the meaningful benefits of actually hugging someone. No real social closeness. No actual meaningful comfort. It also provides none of the risks to the persons safety or their person. This is probably why typing 'hug' is the providence of 12 year old girls and including it in a code of conduct makes projects the subject of ridicule.
I think a more charitable reading of the GP might be to assume they were talking about needing consent from everyone on the list before including a mail sig containing "--hugs, <person>". I've seen a bunch of that sort of sig on various tech lists over the years.
Still not something you'd expect to see in a workplace, but most FOSS devel lists haven't historically even attempted to replicate the kind of environment you'd expect in a workplace and I'm not sure that drawing the parallel is useful.
FWIW I'm not trying to say the GP was right whichever reading we go with (and if we assume your reading then it's definitely pretty creepy), I just wanted to point out that a more charitable reading exists.
Thank you for being reasonable. Both the post I replied to and text quoted therein
>> ∗ Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "∗hug∗" or "∗backrub∗") without consent or after a request to stop.
> Much like it would be a problem in the real world.
Operate on an nonsensical category of "simulated physical contact" and the assumption that typing hug is somehow similar in nature to hugging someone. Saying hi and saying the word hug fall into the same category. Written speech. When its transgressive we might better term it harassment or sexual harassment depending on the nature of the transgression. I don't support harassment sexual or otherwise. I shouldn't have to disclaim this because I'm making a critical statement about a code of conduct. Everyone who disagrees isn't a bigot.
Logically a code of conduct could successfully say no to harassment or sexual behavior including unwanted serial huge emoters without specifically calling out virtual hugs. In fact including language that simultaneously
- doesn't forbid any additional creepy behavior not already covered by language forbidding sexual harassment AND
- opens the community up to ridicule is a net negative.
I especially find it concerning that one can't point out how ridiculous it is to ban virtual hugs without people trying to lump you in with the creeps
> But I can't understand defending the behavior on the merits.
Where does that come from?
If you consult my statement.
> In the mostly imaginary world of serial virtual huggers it seems reasonable that conduct would fall under say sexual harassment or be fixed by blocking people.
> I especially find it concerning that one can't point out how ridiculous it is to ban virtual hugs without people trying to lump you in with the creeps
That's a strawman, the CoC does not ban virtual hugs.
It merely gives an example of behaviours that happen without consent or after a request to stop. The example is good IMO because it is the kind of little things that might look harmless to the person doing it but might be annoying to the one receiving it.
> But I can't understand defending the behavior on the merits.
That's why I never did that. You can be anti creep while also being against coc banning virtual hugs. I think we can do better than that. It seems most of the people involved with FreeBSD agree.
I read that statement with the emphasis on without consent meaning I must first gather consent before saying something.
That strikes me as asinine because you can verbally say many things which incite anxiety that aren't at all related to the examples given.
I don't think it's a bad faith interpretation, it's just an interpretation I took- and my interpretation is as valid as yours unless you say that I am somehow less valid than you are, which is hugely offensive.
If I am reading it wrong and at least 35% of others are reading it "wrong" then perhaps the issue is with the words used.
“The first survey, conducted in 2018, told us that [...]. These results indicated that there was sufficient dissatisfaction with the current code of conduct to warrant investigation.”
Not sure what exactly the dissatisfaction was about but I’m really glad they went about it with a good level headed process and came out with a solution that satisfies a good majority.
probably some last attempts at keeping this once great os alive. will fail soon if this is what they focus on instead of how to make it useful and useable.
Seems this one is less obscure and exclusive than their previous one though, maybe will lead to less petty tyranny rather than more; though I understand the trauma that can lend to a knee-jerk reaction to things titled this way.
Eh, freebsd isn't good for apps, that's all k8s on linux now, but I use it a lot for infra stuff still... If you have to build out storage instead of buying it it's currently the best choice in that space..
IIRC, their previous CoC was quite controversial when it was introduced. The new one appears to address much of the criticism that I recall, and looks like a big improvement.
I don't know about "quite controversial;" reddit skews a lot younger than the actual FreeBSD developer community and there were quite a few extremely vocal non-developers making a stink. Still:
> 35% were dissatisfied with the code of conduct adopted in 2018, 34% were neutral, and 30% were satisfied.
Even in the best light, more than 1/3 (35%) were not happy with the old CoC. So maybe a good description would be, "it was not unifying and became more of a distraction itself than a tool for avoiding harmful distractions."
> Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion.
> doesnt matter this is more important than making the os work on modern hardware
I couldn't agree more! Jordan Peterson said once: "We are not built on a hierarchy of patriarchy, but a hierarchy of competence." But I disagree! We are built on a hierarchy of oppression!
Utter bullshit. _Any_ clear eyed reading of the deep history of just about anything anywhere shows that this is false.
Even recently, for the first time in history, Australia had a woman as PM. She was extremely competent, overseeing the passing of more legislation - her actual job -than anyone in recent history, despite being PM in an unusually extreme partisan environment.
She was brought down by a right wing bully-boy who is already famous for being one of the most incompetent leaders Australia has ever had.
He ate an onion like an apple, brought back knighthoods (and then granted one to a foreign royal family who was already a knight!), was unable to pass key legislation - and was removed as PM within 2 years.
There are countless examples like this in politics and society in which demonstrable competence has been brought to heel by unchecked, dog whistling, incompetent bullies and the lame excuse that “boys will be boys”. It is foul and corrupt.
A code of conduct exists to ensure that the air is clear enough for competence itself to be rewarded. Anyone who claims to believe in a meritocracy should embrace something like this. A code of conduct is an enabler - quite literally the opposite of oppression.
Politics is not about competence but defense of group interests.
I'm never going to vote for someone competent (or smart) who goes against my interests. In fact, that would make things even worse for me the smarter they are.
I think many people, particularly on the left I would say, forget this point. Which is why they can't explain Trump, Farage, Abbott, etc.
We're not voting for the Nobel prize; we're voting for the people who define policy and set our tax levels.
My point had nothing to do with politics. This thread is about the need for a code of conduct.
The post I'm replying to said they agreed with Peterson, who apparently says that "We are not built on a hierarchy of patriarchy, but a hierarchy of competence". The implication is that a code of conduct is not necessary for open source software because it is a meritocracy.
I'm explicitly and directly refuting this position by using a recent example - out of millions of potential examples - from actual history.
An honest look at the world suggests that it is built neither on a hierarchy of competence nor a hierarchy of patriarchy, but rather, a hierarchy of privilege. It just so happens that white men - myself among them - are the most privileged.
A code of conduct is necessary and good for technical projects because it reduces the ability of one person's privilege and bigotry to be used to subvert another person's merit.
Well, then we agree to some extent, because indeed politicians are not necessarily the most competent.
FreeBSD being an international project I doubt any member really benefits from any particular kind of group majority "privilege" or benefit. From my observation, it seems to be way more meritocratic than the outside world.
> - 94% of developers believe respectful communication in the project is important; 1% disagreed
> - 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 often liken some of the misunderstandings we have in the tech community to party etiquette.
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.
Figuratively and literally, it is well accepted among my friends that a better time is had by all if I bring beverages to your party rather than try to throw my own.
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.
I see a lot of these demands for a COC are people who start harassing the hosts to demand rules. Many of these cases stem from "he/she said something I don't like." (I'm on the stance that if the host "can't do something" about someone who is so toxic, they're a bad host, CoC's don't do shit about that)
There are a lot of perpetual teenagers who want to know where the boundaries are so that they can cross them and see what happens.
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.
> 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.
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?
For a multinational company that annihilates privacy to create ads designed to alter consumer behavior -- that's pretty hard line to walk. The very nature of targeted ads, by itself, is pretty sketchy.
That is not a justification for bad behavior, just of the reality of the situation; "they don't think it be like it is, but it do".
Not sure why you think so. FreeBSD Core team is a democratically elected body, by the developers. There is an ongoing election for the next Core as we speak.
Or if you're John De Goes. He's basically had to create his own camp and projects. People will, still, try to burn everything he does down. They're dedicated and they, the same ones, keep popping up every 2 months to remind everyone.
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.
Even with rules, people who can't, won't. I find OpenBSD's CoC [1] to be most compat and useful. Says what needs to be said, and does not indulge in pointless wordsmithing (it is a CoC, even if there are no explicit banners advertising it so).
If Anything the previous CoC was activist nonsense. This one seems like a compromise because tech has been infiltrated by the so called by the anglosphere "social justice warriors", lefting a trail of toxicity and destruction in communities that were building stuff and relationships just fine since the 90s.
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 one seems like a compromise because tech has been infiltrated by the so called by the anglosphere "social justice warriors", lefting a trail of toxicity and destruction in communities that were building stuff and relationships just fine since the 90s."
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.
It's mostly american media extending its culture through social media, and local media fishing for narratives.
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.
They chose a LLVM-based code, which does a pretty good job of setting solid standards of behavior and a basis for sustained cooperation, while avoiding the pointless wordiness and off-topic asides of other widespread CoC's such as the Golang one, or even the previous code from FreeBSD itself. A solid choice in an often contentious space.
What's wrong is that the people that wrote this are trying to stir up trouble, without care for the damage done to the community.
I'm fat. Know how many times this has mattered in an Open Source project? Zero. How many times I've been discriminated against at a conference? Zero. How many times I've had a patch rejected on that account? Zero.
It's bullshit.
So yes, I agree that no one should ever discriminate in Open Source based on weight. But also, no one should ever discriminate based on eyebrow length. (Mine are a bit weird.) Shall we write that in, too? How about people who tie their shoes with granny knots? How about people with red hair? And on, and on, and on.
None of this has any place in a CoC. And all such are slow acid eating away at the foundations of good will and civil behavior. Fuck that.
Even if you don't experience discrimination based on body size, enough people do that it's become a subject and there are dedicated activists working to end discrimination based on size.
Additionally however, I don't understand how including it can be harmful? At the very worst it's a rule that never get's utilised because nobody ended up getting discriminated because of their body. There seem to be only potential upside and no potential downside.
AFAIK there doesn't exist a consistent systemic discrimination of people based on eyebrow length, but if it did, yes, why not write it in?
People in CS tend tot think you can just use universal abstractions to solve human problems the same way you can with programming (giant base class problem non-withstanding). I used to believe this too. Why call out specifics when a general description will do? But what I've learned is that we have to specifically call out any discrimination that is likely to occur. Yes, this is more complicated and certainly less elegant than a simple ”treat everybody well” statement, but the world has very clearly demonstrated that this kind of blanket statements simply don't work. People always think that group X or Y is an exception and that it's acceptable to treat them poorly, and thus you have to specifically call out all the groups that you should actually treat well.
In short, the problem is that it's divisive as well as pointless. If I tell you to follow one of the world's "golden rules" (e.g., Treat others as you would wish to be treated.), you will tend to remember that we are all walking through the world carrying our unique burdens, and will perhaps remember that when dealing with your fellow man.
If I provide a list of specific categories, you will tend to think not of the unity of humanity, but of a specific set of historic problems, and tend to rank those you're talking to in terms of those sets. As we're seeing in contemporary culture, this generally makes things worse, not better.
> How many times I've been discriminated against at a conference? Zero.
Hi. I mean the following non-offensively. As a formerly obese person, I really doubt this. People discriminate against fat people in social life, in the workplace, and yes even in a career in tech quite a bit. Educated people are good at not making it overt, or maybe they're not aware that they're doing it. But I think there have been various studies on how it affects people in the workplace (spoiler alert: it does). Also, one way I noticed this is the way people treated me before and after losing 100 lbs. It's ironic, because being treated shabbily was stressful; I would say that stress and lack of social recognition re-enforced my weight problem.
I do wonder how weight might surface in a real technical conversation though. I guess it's proper to avoid certain metaphors, like "bloated" code or the "fat binary" (where fat = multi-architecture) concept they used to have on old Macs. I'm typing this on FreeBSD and I note they have "newfs_msdos" and "mount_msdosfs" instead of "FAT".
Because a sane CoC does not allow personal insult or discrimination, period. No matter against who or in which form. It's up to the people to which it is applied to to feel if something fits the case; a rule in broad terms allows for both interpretation and a larger spectrum of application.
Very specific and ultra detailed cases are wanted by the current wave of social justice warriors who just want a way to feel offended and vindictive towards whole communities, trying to sink their members.
Notice as an example how state laws are general and encompassing. "don't murder parents of three kids" is already included in "don't commit murder".
I don't understand why you feel the Contributor Covenant[1] is ideological, or why the FreeBSD one isn't. The only major thing that distinguish them to me is that in some way the Contributor Covenant looks better structured (clear sections, etc) at the expense of looking a bit "dry" (it looks like a LICENSE file), whereas the FreeBSD is a bit more messy / informal (more like a README).
Indeed. Once of the first things I do when cloning such a project is remove it from my local copy as I do not see why I'd want to have this type of divisive rhetoric on my systems. I don't need to have the 10 commandments pasted on the wall to refrain from killing, stealing or otherwise committing crime, nor do I need a code of conduct to keep from being a jerk.
In keeping with this new spirit of inclusiveness and consideration for social justice, someone should submit a proposal to rename "CoC" to something less potentially triggering and/or misinterpretable, like perhaps a long string of randomly generated digits.
> [...] Harassment and other exclusionary behavior aren't acceptable
-- LLVM COC
Bold coming from a project that associates with Outreachy, an organization that intentionally and explicitly discriminates people based on their sex, nationality and ethnicity [0].
An important contributor left LLVM a few years ago because of that association, and I totally agree with him. [1]
I would like a clause that says: The project will not discriminate people based on their {sex, ethnicity, etc.} or spend resources in iniciatives that discriminate people based on their {sex, ethnicity, etc}.
> I would like a clause that says: The project will not discriminate people based on their {sex, ethnicity, etc.}
It's already in there[1]: "Be welcoming. We strive to be a community that welcomes and supports people of all backgrounds and identities. This includes, but is not limited to members of any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, colour, immigration status, social and economic class, educational level, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size, family status, political belief, religion or lack thereof, and mental and physical ability."
> or spend resources in iniciatives that discriminate people based on their {sex, ethnicity, etc}.
The FreeBSD project doesn't have any money or resources to spend, so this is kind of moot.
"We simply do not care about your race, gender, culture, sex, nationality, ethnicity ... So don't talk about it on our mailing list. We instead care about making great software."
Here come the downvotes. The current woke intelligentsia considers your statement to be "bigotry" in itself. For the record, I do agree with what you said, though. Downvotes notwithstanding. I view bringing up any of those topics in a professional environment as an equivalent of farting in a crowded elevator.
Counterpoint: one cannot have virtues without, at some point, signalling them. At the very least through actions that copy the virtues from your brain into the physical world.
We should be glad in this instance it was merely bits down a pipe, then. The written word has been a powerful tool for spreading adoption of new ideas since the printing press; the mere sense of prevalence of an idea throughout the world should inform the reader of something about the world they are living in, if not something fundamental about humanity.
We strive to be a community that welcomes and supports people of all backgrounds and identities. This includes, but is not limited to [...] and mental and physical ability.
The other items in that list are not at all surprising, and I agree that they belong there, but mental ability? That seems like it would be ripe for abuse...
I read that charitably as you ought to be able to contribute to the level of your ability without people calling others stupid or retarded. Also some intellectual issues wouldn't preclude useful contributions example dyslexia, autism spectrum.
I do not read it as you can't critique ideas because the person is a protected class.
If it's ripe for abuse we ought to discuss particular real or hypothetical cases.
I am getting a SSL_ERROR_BAD_MAC_READ when I try to connect with the latest LTS Firefox and ERR_SSL_PROTOCOL_ERROR when using the latest Chrome. Does anyone here have an alternate link that does work?
98 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 157 ms ] threadI have been one of those people disaffected by the previous code of conduct, the "virtual hugs" and "no commenting on lifestyle choices such as eating habits" rubbed me very much the wrong way.
The new one is much more prescriptive on behaviours that are encouraged, much like the hackernews guidelines.
Please don't be disingenuous about the old CoC. You can dislike it or disagree with it, but you're taking that example way out of context[1]:
> Harassment includes but is not limited to:
> ∗ Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "∗hug∗" or "∗backrub∗") without consent or after a request to stop.
It's a problem when people don't want you to be doing it, and you do it to them anyway. Much like it would be a problem in the real world.
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20200108075747/https://www.freeb...
Good to know that I'm still 100% free to slap people around a bit with a large trout[0], and that this will not violate the CoC. But it seems weird and perhaps backwards that trout-whacking is OK, while a common polite remark (if perhaps not in a technical context) like ∗hugs∗ is discouraged.
[0] Virtually, of course. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trout_slap
In the mostly imaginary world of serial virtual huggers it seems reasonable that conduct would fall under say sexual harassment or be fixed by blocking people.
It's actually nothing like real world touching at all.
I understand not wanting a CoC that spells this out, because we're all adults and shouldn't need to be told not to send creepy messages to team members. But I can't understand defending the behavior on the merits.
Hugging someone after they tell you to stop is obviously creepy. Is hugging someone without asking permission first bad too?
Then you watch how people react and modify your behavior accordingly. If you mistakenly thought it was OK and instead of warmth you perceive discomfort or a deer in the headlights look you would abort.
If in doubt just don't do it or ask.
In real context this complexity is simplified by the presence of social cues, body language, facial expressions, the fact that more people are apt to share the same set of social norms. None of these things are available in text. Fortunately typing hug at someone doesn't involve actually touching their body. It provides basically none of the meaningful benefits of actually hugging someone. No real social closeness. No actual meaningful comfort. It also provides none of the risks to the persons safety or their person. This is probably why typing 'hug' is the providence of 12 year old girls and including it in a code of conduct makes projects the subject of ridicule.
Still not something you'd expect to see in a workplace, but most FOSS devel lists haven't historically even attempted to replicate the kind of environment you'd expect in a workplace and I'm not sure that drawing the parallel is useful.
FWIW I'm not trying to say the GP was right whichever reading we go with (and if we assume your reading then it's definitely pretty creepy), I just wanted to point out that a more charitable reading exists.
>> ∗ Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "∗hug∗" or "∗backrub∗") without consent or after a request to stop.
> Much like it would be a problem in the real world.
Operate on an nonsensical category of "simulated physical contact" and the assumption that typing hug is somehow similar in nature to hugging someone. Saying hi and saying the word hug fall into the same category. Written speech. When its transgressive we might better term it harassment or sexual harassment depending on the nature of the transgression. I don't support harassment sexual or otherwise. I shouldn't have to disclaim this because I'm making a critical statement about a code of conduct. Everyone who disagrees isn't a bigot.
Logically a code of conduct could successfully say no to harassment or sexual behavior including unwanted serial huge emoters without specifically calling out virtual hugs. In fact including language that simultaneously
- doesn't forbid any additional creepy behavior not already covered by language forbidding sexual harassment AND - opens the community up to ridicule is a net negative.
I especially find it concerning that one can't point out how ridiculous it is to ban virtual hugs without people trying to lump you in with the creeps
> But I can't understand defending the behavior on the merits.
Where does that come from?
If you consult my statement.
> In the mostly imaginary world of serial virtual huggers it seems reasonable that conduct would fall under say sexual harassment or be fixed by blocking people.
Wherein do you find the defense of harassment?
That's a strawman, the CoC does not ban virtual hugs.
It merely gives an example of behaviours that happen without consent or after a request to stop. The example is good IMO because it is the kind of little things that might look harmless to the person doing it but might be annoying to the one receiving it.
That's why I never did that. You can be anti creep while also being against coc banning virtual hugs. I think we can do better than that. It seems most of the people involved with FreeBSD agree.
I read that statement with the emphasis on without consent meaning I must first gather consent before saying something.
That strikes me as asinine because you can verbally say many things which incite anxiety that aren't at all related to the examples given.
I don't think it's a bad faith interpretation, it's just an interpretation I took- and my interpretation is as valid as yours unless you say that I am somehow less valid than you are, which is hugely offensive.
If I am reading it wrong and at least 35% of others are reading it "wrong" then perhaps the issue is with the words used.
Not sure what exactly the dissatisfaction was about but I’m really glad they went about it with a good level headed process and came out with a solution that satisfies a good majority.
IIRC, their previous CoC was quite controversial when it was introduced. The new one appears to address much of the criticism that I recall, and looks like a big improvement.
Old discussions:
HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16406946
Reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/freebsd/comments/7xapx2/freebsds_ne...
https://old.reddit.com/r/freebsd/comments/822mri/code_of_con...
https://old.reddit.com/r/BSD/comments/7xjvcr/freebsd_has_a_n...
> 35% were dissatisfied with the code of conduct adopted in 2018, 34% were neutral, and 30% were satisfied.
Even in the best light, more than 1/3 (35%) were not happy with the old CoC. So maybe a good description would be, "it was not unifying and became more of a distraction itself than a tool for avoiding harmful distractions."
> Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion.
This sounds like a passive-aggressive remark to me, since it is attributed quite plainly in the CoC.
https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Community_anti-harassmen...
I couldn't agree more! Jordan Peterson said once: "We are not built on a hierarchy of patriarchy, but a hierarchy of competence." But I disagree! We are built on a hierarchy of oppression!
Even recently, for the first time in history, Australia had a woman as PM. She was extremely competent, overseeing the passing of more legislation - her actual job -than anyone in recent history, despite being PM in an unusually extreme partisan environment.
She was brought down by a right wing bully-boy who is already famous for being one of the most incompetent leaders Australia has ever had.
He ate an onion like an apple, brought back knighthoods (and then granted one to a foreign royal family who was already a knight!), was unable to pass key legislation - and was removed as PM within 2 years.
There are countless examples like this in politics and society in which demonstrable competence has been brought to heel by unchecked, dog whistling, incompetent bullies and the lame excuse that “boys will be boys”. It is foul and corrupt.
A code of conduct exists to ensure that the air is clear enough for competence itself to be rewarded. Anyone who claims to believe in a meritocracy should embrace something like this. A code of conduct is an enabler - quite literally the opposite of oppression.
I'm never going to vote for someone competent (or smart) who goes against my interests. In fact, that would make things even worse for me the smarter they are.
I think many people, particularly on the left I would say, forget this point. Which is why they can't explain Trump, Farage, Abbott, etc.
We're not voting for the Nobel prize; we're voting for the people who define policy and set our tax levels.
The post I'm replying to said they agreed with Peterson, who apparently says that "We are not built on a hierarchy of patriarchy, but a hierarchy of competence". The implication is that a code of conduct is not necessary for open source software because it is a meritocracy.
I'm explicitly and directly refuting this position by using a recent example - out of millions of potential examples - from actual history.
An honest look at the world suggests that it is built neither on a hierarchy of competence nor a hierarchy of patriarchy, but rather, a hierarchy of privilege. It just so happens that white men - myself among them - are the most privileged.
A code of conduct is necessary and good for technical projects because it reduces the ability of one person's privilege and bigotry to be used to subvert another person's merit.
FreeBSD being an international project I doubt any member really benefits from any particular kind of group majority "privilege" or benefit. From my observation, it seems to be way more meritocratic than the outside world.
> - 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 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.
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?
> These rulesets exist because people can't do that.
These nonsense because of virtue signaling busybodies. That's it. "Don't be evil".
...has been dropped as the company motto of Google -I wonder why?
The latter do good things silently instead of showing off about it.
Bullocks. For the average joe, perhaps.
For a multinational company that annihilates privacy to create ads designed to alter consumer behavior -- that's pretty hard line to walk. The very nature of targeted ads, by itself, is pretty sketchy.
That is not a justification for bad behavior, just of the reality of the situation; "they don't think it be like it is, but it do".
Not sure why you think so. FreeBSD Core team is a democratically elected body, by the developers. There is an ongoing election for the next Core as we speak.
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.
[1] https://www.openbsd.org/mail.html
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.
The Go one, on the other hand, is atrocious. Hint from a fat person: If your CoC mentions "body size", your CoC sucks.
I'm fat. Know how many times this has mattered in an Open Source project? Zero. How many times I've been discriminated against at a conference? Zero. How many times I've had a patch rejected on that account? Zero.
It's bullshit.
So yes, I agree that no one should ever discriminate in Open Source based on weight. But also, no one should ever discriminate based on eyebrow length. (Mine are a bit weird.) Shall we write that in, too? How about people who tie their shoes with granny knots? How about people with red hair? And on, and on, and on.
None of this has any place in a CoC. And all such are slow acid eating away at the foundations of good will and civil behavior. Fuck that.
Additionally however, I don't understand how including it can be harmful? At the very worst it's a rule that never get's utilised because nobody ended up getting discriminated because of their body. There seem to be only potential upside and no potential downside.
AFAIK there doesn't exist a consistent systemic discrimination of people based on eyebrow length, but if it did, yes, why not write it in?
People in CS tend tot think you can just use universal abstractions to solve human problems the same way you can with programming (giant base class problem non-withstanding). I used to believe this too. Why call out specifics when a general description will do? But what I've learned is that we have to specifically call out any discrimination that is likely to occur. Yes, this is more complicated and certainly less elegant than a simple ”treat everybody well” statement, but the world has very clearly demonstrated that this kind of blanket statements simply don't work. People always think that group X or Y is an exception and that it's acceptable to treat them poorly, and thus you have to specifically call out all the groups that you should actually treat well.
If I provide a list of specific categories, you will tend to think not of the unity of humanity, but of a specific set of historic problems, and tend to rank those you're talking to in terms of those sets. As we're seeing in contemporary culture, this generally makes things worse, not better.
Hi. I mean the following non-offensively. As a formerly obese person, I really doubt this. People discriminate against fat people in social life, in the workplace, and yes even in a career in tech quite a bit. Educated people are good at not making it overt, or maybe they're not aware that they're doing it. But I think there have been various studies on how it affects people in the workplace (spoiler alert: it does). Also, one way I noticed this is the way people treated me before and after losing 100 lbs. It's ironic, because being treated shabbily was stressful; I would say that stress and lack of social recognition re-enforced my weight problem.
I do wonder how weight might surface in a real technical conversation though. I guess it's proper to avoid certain metaphors, like "bloated" code or the "fat binary" (where fat = multi-architecture) concept they used to have on old Macs. I'm typing this on FreeBSD and I note they have "newfs_msdos" and "mount_msdosfs" instead of "FAT".
Very specific and ultra detailed cases are wanted by the current wave of social justice warriors who just want a way to feel offended and vindictive towards whole communities, trying to sink their members.
Notice as an example how state laws are general and encompassing. "don't murder parents of three kids" is already included in "don't commit murder".
[1] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-con...
-- LLVM COC
Bold coming from a project that associates with Outreachy, an organization that intentionally and explicitly discriminates people based on their sex, nationality and ethnicity [0].
An important contributor left LLVM a few years ago because of that association, and I totally agree with him. [1]
I would like a clause that says: The project will not discriminate people based on their {sex, ethnicity, etc.} or spend resources in iniciatives that discriminate people based on their {sex, ethnicity, etc}.
[0] https://www.outreachy.org/apply/eligibility/ [1] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/122928.ht...
It's already in there[1]: "Be welcoming. We strive to be a community that welcomes and supports people of all backgrounds and identities. This includes, but is not limited to members of any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, colour, immigration status, social and economic class, educational level, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size, family status, political belief, religion or lack thereof, and mental and physical ability."
> or spend resources in iniciatives that discriminate people based on their {sex, ethnicity, etc}.
The FreeBSD project doesn't have any money or resources to spend, so this is kind of moot.
[1]: https://github.com/freebsd/core.10-public-docs/blob/master/C...
"We simply do not care about your race, gender, culture, sex, nationality, ethnicity ... So don't talk about it on our mailing list. We instead care about making great software."
Virtue signaling is all about marketing, not about actually having virtues.
The other items in that list are not at all surprising, and I agree that they belong there, but mental ability? That seems like it would be ripe for abuse...
I do not read it as you can't critique ideas because the person is a protected class.
If it's ripe for abuse we ought to discuss particular real or hypothetical cases.
As the saying goes, "If your mind is too open, your brain will fall out."