
The GNU Kind Communication Guidelines Are Bad for Free Software - emacsen
https://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2018/10/19/gkcg-is-bad/
======
brianpgordon
> The GNU Kind Communication Guidelines takes the opposite approach and begins
> with addressing the recipient of a message, instructing them to hear what is
> said to them in good faith. Talking to the recipient first, before the
> speaker starts the conversation off wrongly,places the bulk of the emotional
> labor on the recipient of a message rather than on the sender.

 _Emotional labor_? Give me a break.

Being inclusive does not require anything more than the absence of barriers.
What does the author mean specifically when they advise that we alter our
approach to match the cultural norms of other groups? My "approach" in writing
online is to talk to a person, not specifically a male or a white person or
whatever distinction you care to name. The internet has always been great that
way. No matter who you are in real life, in IRC you're just a nick, and on
mailing lists you're just an email address. That's what drew many of us to it
in the first place. It seems bizarre to now claim that in fact the opposite is
true.

~~~
asqueella
While I feel that Serge (the OP) is being too harsh on the RMS' announcement,
which obviously was born in attempt to reconcile the differences between the
people who insist on introducing "a proper CoC" and the people who feel that
"it is the heavy-handed way of teaching people to behave differently", your
comment is going too far in the different direction.

Emotional labor is a thing. As someone who both prefers direct communication
and (thinks that he) can relate to what other people feel, I'm always facing a
choice between spending some emotional effort to be "nicer" or having my
counterparty deal with it. I tend to choose the former and it does feel like
labor.

Absence of barriers is also not the same as making one feel welcome. But I
feel the KCG are actually a step in the right direction in this regard; and
since it doesn't alienate as much of the anti-CoC crowd, it seems foolish to
battle it.

~~~
emacsen
> I feel the KCG are actually a step in the right direction in this regard;
> and since it doesn't alienate as much of the anti-CoC crowd, it seems
> foolish to battle it.

You may be right that I'm being harsh, at the same time, I don't see this the
KGC as a neutral thing. It says "Here is the line", but sets that line very
far from aspirational. If anything, it seems designed to address how people
are to interpret his comments.

We can (and need to) do better.

------
xedrac
I've got to disagree. I believe making diversity a goal is a misguided effort
and it has nothing to do with kind communication guidelines. RMS mentioned
that Code of Conducts are punitive in nature and don't inspire people to do
better than the rules require. I would add that they create a somewhat
"ominous" or "heavy" atmosphere, making for a less playful and creative
environment. People respond to requests better than demands.

~~~
emacsen
> I believe making diversity a goal is a misguided effort and it has nothing
> to do with kind communication guidelines.

If you're speaking on behalf of yourself, or one project, that's fine, but RMS
is in a very special situation of being both the father of the Free Software
movement, and the leader of the GNU project, so what he says has more
gravitas.

> I would add that they create a somewhat "ominous" or "heavy" atmosphere,
> making for a less playful and creative environment.

For _you_ , but what you may find playful may be the thing that keeps someone
feeling oppressed and keeps them away.

~~~
xedrac
> but RMS is in a very special situation of being both the father of the Free
> Software movement, and the leader of the GNU project, so what he says has
> more gravitas

All the more reason to respect his wisdom on the matter.

> For you, but what you may find playful may be the thing that keeps someone
> feeling oppressed and keeps them away.

I think we can agree we don't want to oppress anyone. To me it's the
difference between using fear of punishment to motivate, and working with
human nature to inspire. I really enjoyed the book "Nonviolent Communication"
by Marshall B. Rosenberg, Phd. It cuts to the core of this debate.

------
tunesmith
I'm having trouble following the argument in this essay. It takes pains to
establish its premises in the first few paragraphs but then it doesn't seem
like it ever really ties the knot in terms of what it is arguing. Can someone
summarize? Maybe it needed some blockquotes to highlight the problems it
identifies with the guidelines.

I understand that ceasing a poisonous practice is only the first step in
remedying the effects of that poisonous practice. But I guess I didn't take
the "kind communication" guidelines as something that would by definition
prevent further actions.

~~~
asqueella
I think the main points are:

> "The GNU Kind Communication is not wrong in its words, it's wrong in that it
> only addresses a tiny slither of the problems we have in the community"

> "In the [..] announcement, RMS explicitly states that diversity is not a
> goal of his. This is a mistake"

> "if people feel excluded, they will never join the community and thus we'll
> never see their contributions."

It ends with a call to "ignore" or "entirely rewrite the guidelines" and
"adopt more comprehensive Codes of Conduct which provide guidelines on what
behavior is acceptable, what behavior is not, and what steps the community
will do in enforcing them" without addressing the points Stallman raised, such
as "A code of conduct states rules, with punishments for anyone that violates
them. It is the heavy-handed way of teaching people to behave differently".

~~~
emacsen
The idea that there is this "heavy handedness" is a bit silly when the entire
GPL is based on the idea that we impose limits on developers.

I don't have the exact quote but he's written that the reciprocal nature of
the GPL only effect people who want to do bad things. That's how I feel about
Codes of Conduct.

~~~
thomastjeffery
The only thing the GPL imposes is to disallow developers from imposing limits
on users.

The freedom that the GPL protects is singular and explicit.

Codes of conduct are not similar in these aspects. They each define a unique
list of "user protections" that chill speech.

------
PinkMilkshake
When even RMS isn't progressive enough for you... crazy.

Something that has stood out for me in the the modern political climate is
that progressives tend to claim all of this is ultimately to protect us from
fascists. And it tends to be what you are accused of being (or at least an
enabler of) if you stand in the way of their policies. I've had long debates
with radical leftist friends and we always somehow end up at fascism. I'm a
useless center-left, fence sitting, Nazi enabler according to them.

But many of the loudest public voices (from all sides of the political
spectrum) advocating for free speech are Jewish or have Jewish heritage. Ben
Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, Eric and Bret Weinstein, RMS and probably
many more that I don't know of.

Jews are the O.G. of oppressed minorities and are often the strongest
advocates for free speech, science, democracy and so on.

Maybe we should listen?

Feel free to correct me. There may be some selection bias going on.

Side note: I really like that Person/Pers/Perse idea. It sounds little odd at
first, but it's the best gender-neutral pronoun I've heard so far and we
really do need one.

------
opwieurposiu
Nothing will ever be enough for the COC supporters. Unless you reject COC
completely and unequivocally your project will be forever concern trolled in
this manner.

~~~
rurban
Nope. I've explicitly added a firm NCoC to a big project, and no CoC trolling
so far. Just the usual culture war thingies, but this is expected when there
is no technical criticism on the project.

I like RMS' CoC but I would never use it in any of my projects. users should
not fear to be censored at all. users should be treated as adults. devs
whining about being attacked is not adult behavior.

