"Beating a dead horse" is an idiom that means a particular request or line of conversation is already foreclosed or otherwise resolved, and any attempt to continue it is futile.
Did you read the article? As nonrecursive and rufo point out in this thread, Martin Fowler makes several new and insightful comments with regards to community.
There's been a shift away from talking about the presentation specifically, towards talking about communities and long-term goals to further them. That seems like a worthwhile discussion to continue, particularly here where community development is an ongoing topic.
I did think twice before submitting this article. Honestly, even i am tired of all the repeated talk on the issue, but this probably had the most balanced and sensible view on the issue, that i have come across so far. I specifically found the section "Some thoughts on common statements" quite good.
If one has a few minutes, reading this might not be a waste of time (as it initially appears from the name and the topic referenced in it), and could give some good food for thought on the social aspect of collaborating with people who are different from oneself.
I think that business has to stay a bit neutral, because it's a place where people are thrust into. That's what etiquette is - it's a way of ensuring that different people follow a similar set of rules so that there is no friction.
If a person wishes to publish such a presentation on his blog, that's fine, but not at a conference. Imagine the presentation were about aborigines in a similar manner. It would be regarded as discriminatory, and similar rules should be used to judge sexism.
It's not sexism or any other -ism when it's funny.
Edit: why is everyone so easily offended nowadays? You have the right to offend and the right be offended! That's part of society. You can't stop this by making up political correctness rules.
"You have the right to offend and the right be offended!"
It's not question of rights, it's a question of what the technology industry believes is reasonable behaviour. My belief is that this presentation and the Rails leadership's response to it was way out of line. Martin Fowler's SmutOnRails post shows that he has similar thoughts.
Did you read the article? Martin Fowler addresses your comment. I'd like to see what you have to say in response to his thoughts on how such an attitude would lead to a community's decline.
I don't understand the whole community leadership thinks so and so thing. So what? If you don't like them or think they'll doing something bad with community, create your own community! Or assign another person to be your "community leader". Why follow someone you think has a different view? Who cares what kind of person is the language/framework creator? Why can't there be two or three Ruby/Rails communities: one that likes porn, another one that hates porn, etc? What's the problem? Stop fighting with someone's views.
I know this has been submitted several times and killed because people are sick of this topic - but seriously, I think Fowler's take is insightful and well worth a read for anyone who manages or is interested in fostering a community. Please give it a read before you flag it.
I've read 5 or 6 of these articles on the GoGaRuCo "pr0n" presentation and this is by definitely the best. Martin Fowler clearly defines the issues at stake as well as possible cultural (generational, geographical) that could affect how people perceive the slides and the community's reaction. Martin also gives thoughtful responses to common statements made regarding this issue.
The two most helpful insights in the article are "The crucial point is: do we want to create an environment where 'thin-skinned' people aren't welcome?" and "I can't choose whether someone is offended by my actions. I can choose whether I care."
So far I haven't seen those ideas related elsewhere, and I would like to know y'all's thoughts on them.
People could have just noted that they think the presentation was in bad taste, and moved on with their lives.
If the presentation was representative of the mindset of the whole Ruby community, well then, maybe you should reconsider being part of the Ruby community - there's another one with magical ponies and stuff!
If not, then all is well. People are different.
Remember that awesome presentation by Wil Shipley, with pictures of the women in Galactica, accompanied by talk about being a "slut"?
Where was the Righteous Nerd Sect Of The Women's Rights Brigade then?
What I just realised is that the term porn star is genderless. It could be a reference to a male star just as well as to a female star. The fact that people are interpreting it as female and getting offended highlights a social bias they should avoid.
26 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 125 ms ] threadI think anyone who was offended has no sense of humor.
America really need to cool down when it comes to nudity. It really won't hurt the children.
Did you read the article? As nonrecursive and rufo point out in this thread, Martin Fowler makes several new and insightful comments with regards to community.
There's been a shift away from talking about the presentation specifically, towards talking about communities and long-term goals to further them. That seems like a worthwhile discussion to continue, particularly here where community development is an ongoing topic.
Like why people are going on and on about it...
If one has a few minutes, reading this might not be a waste of time (as it initially appears from the name and the topic referenced in it), and could give some good food for thought on the social aspect of collaborating with people who are different from oneself.
If a person wishes to publish such a presentation on his blog, that's fine, but not at a conference. Imagine the presentation were about aborigines in a similar manner. It would be regarded as discriminatory, and similar rules should be used to judge sexism.
Edit: why is everyone so easily offended nowadays? You have the right to offend and the right be offended! That's part of society. You can't stop this by making up political correctness rules.
It's not question of rights, it's a question of what the technology industry believes is reasonable behaviour. My belief is that this presentation and the Rails leadership's response to it was way out of line. Martin Fowler's SmutOnRails post shows that he has similar thoughts.
The two most helpful insights in the article are "The crucial point is: do we want to create an environment where 'thin-skinned' people aren't welcome?" and "I can't choose whether someone is offended by my actions. I can choose whether I care."
So far I haven't seen those ideas related elsewhere, and I would like to know y'all's thoughts on them.
People could have just noted that they think the presentation was in bad taste, and moved on with their lives.
If the presentation was representative of the mindset of the whole Ruby community, well then, maybe you should reconsider being part of the Ruby community - there's another one with magical ponies and stuff!
If not, then all is well. People are different.
Remember that awesome presentation by Wil Shipley, with pictures of the women in Galactica, accompanied by talk about being a "slut"?
Where was the Righteous Nerd Sect Of The Women's Rights Brigade then?
Well, I'm a nerd, and I bet most of the people frequenting this forum are nerds too.
I guess this was another good example of people overreacting then.
View the slides though and then say the presenter thinks of it as genderless.