
GitHub's Code of Conduct - wwilson
http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=2030
======
zxcvcxz
I don't even understand the point of this part:

>Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over
privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding:

> ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and
> ‘cisphobia’

> Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,”
> or “I’m not discussing this with you”

> Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts

> Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial

> Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or
> assumptions

It's one of the only CoC I've ever read that specifically condones some forms
of harassment. No harassment should be acceptable. I've already switched to
gitlab and I'm about to go through the list of projects that use this CoC and
make sure I don't use their products anymore.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Short version for the first of those items: quite a lot of people (trolls,
particularly) are adept at spewing hate and then attempting to invoke a code
of conduct when called on it, because somehow _they 're_ being oppressed when
told that their behavior is unacceptable. (The same way lots of bullies are
adept at choosing the exact moment where someone finally chooses to respond to
suddenly appeal to authority and look innocent, in the hopes that at the very
least someone in authority will say something monumentally _stupid_ like "I
don't care who started it" and punish everyone.)

That doesn't mean a project should tolerate any form of hate. It's simply a
statement that a code of conduct is not to be subverted and used as another
weapon rather than as a form of protection. Also notice that it talks about
the "safety" of one group versus the "comfort" of another, not the "safety" of
one group versus the "safety" of another. The latter would be quite different.

If you like, look at it as a statement about Bayesian priors: "what situation
is _far_ more likely, and should be the default assumption?"

~~~
Karunamon
> _That doesn 't mean a project should tolerate any form of hate._

Here's a better replacement that addresses all concerns:

 _Attacking someone based on their real life identity is not allowed,
regardless of what that identity is and furthermore is off topic as this is a
technical project, not a sociological one._

It has the same effect of banning all -isms by default, is clear enough and
unambiguous enough for even a troll to understand and not being able to rules
lawyer their way out of (people's identities are _off limit_ , end of
discussion), and keeps off topic nonsense out of tech projects.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> Here's a better replacement that addresses all concerns:

Because a few moments of thought to compose a reply will produce a better
result than people who have been working on codes of conduct for years and
have _seen_ the stunts people try to pull?

Among many other problems, not all forms of unwelcoming behavior have to do
with "attacking someone based on their real-life identity". A statement like
that might be a _start_.

And in the process, you've also managed to dismiss any and all discussions of
how to _positively_ improve a project to better address social issues, or how
to fix existing problems. Congratulations, your code of conduct _itself_ makes
people unwelcome.

~~~
13thLetter
>Because a few moments of thought to compose a reply will produce a better
result than people who have been working on codes of conduct for years and
have seen the stunts people try to pull?

Simple amount of effort doesn't guarantee a good result. I'm sure we can all
name software projects that added feature after feature as years slipped by
and ended up as a bloated, counterproductive mess, much like the CoC we're
debating.

>And in the process, you've also managed to dismiss any and all discussions of
how to positively improve a project to better address social issues, or how to
fix existing problems. Congratulations, your code of conduct itself makes
people unwelcome.

Actually, since you mentioned it: why is it the obligation of every random
hobbyist open source project to "better address social issues"?

~~~
JoshTriplett
> Actually, since you mentioned it: why is it the obligation of every random
> hobbyist open source project to "better address social issues"?

For the most part I'm talking about issues _those projects already have_ ,
such as being hostile to new users or contributors, and especially to various
specific groups. As for "why": much like "Free Software" versus "Open Source",
there are ideological reasons and practical reasons. A sample of practical
("Open Source"-style) reasons: because you want more users and contributors,
because you want contributors who don't all think like you do, because less
energy spent dealing with awful people is more energy spent hacking, and
because communities that people have more fun in are communities that grow
much faster. Additional ideological ("Free Software"-style) reasons, which
apply whether the rest do or not: because being decent to everyone is not too
much to ask, and shouldn't have to be asked for in the first place.

~~~
13thLetter
"Additional ideological ("Free Software"-style) reasons, which apply whether
the rest do or not: because being decent to everyone is not too much to ask,
and shouldn't have to be asked for in the first place."

Those are admirable goals, but a) they have nothing to do with free software
and b) it is not established that these codes of conduct, especially when they
enshrine fringe political viewpoints and explicitly racist and discriminatory
behavior as this one does, will achieve those goals.

------
Karunamon
I'm more a fan of the No Code of Conduct (not to be confused with the awful
action movie of the same name):

[https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC](https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC)

..at least when it comes to the hacker ethos, which is something, IMO, we
should all strive for. Think of it as the WTFPL of the "thou shalt not" world.

More to the point, I really fail to understand why documents like the one
Github is working on are necessary. Most FOSS projects I'm aware of are quite
adept at dismissing dickery in all its forms, rather than adopting a futile
(and controversial, and agenda-driven) approach to defining it.

(Huh, someone already did something that's a lot more like the WTFPL.
Predictably, it's rather acerbic:
[https://github.com/ciafwywcoc/ciafwywcoc/blob/master/CODE_OF...](https://github.com/ciafwywcoc/ciafwywcoc/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT))

~~~
JoshTriplett
> Most FOSS projects I'm aware of are quite adept at dismissing dickery in all
> its forms

Depends on the projects you work with. Some are good at maintaining a great
community (Rust, for instance), and some are quite awful at it, or actively
cultivate a hostile community (by welcoming awful people into it with open
arms).

There are enough awful people who know how to code that it's worth stating up
front that "this project doesn't accept awful, hateful people, no matter how
interesting their technical contributions". Because otherwise you end up with
projects where "well, we'd kick them out, but nobody else knows how to do what
they're doing, so...".

See also [http://www.slideshare.net/dberkholz/assholes-are-killing-
you...](http://www.slideshare.net/dberkholz/assholes-are-killing-your-project)
.

~~~
Karunamon
And then you've entered the quagmire of defining "awful, hateful people". This
is _not_ a winnable battle. Some people find being told "no" to be oppressive
and horrible.

Here's my personal litmus test: Would you accept Linus Torvalds on your
project? He's known for his technical ability, but also known for taking
little to no crap and calling out said crap with extreme prejudice.

If the answer is yes: You clearly value technical ability and Getting Shit
Done® over all else.

If the answer is no: You clearly value social communication over Getting Shit
Done®.

Neither of these options are completely right or completely wrong, but again,
I lean towards the hacker mindset. Getting stuff done should be more important
than not offending people, IMAO :)

~~~
JoshTriplett
> And then you've entered the quagmire of defining "awful, hateful people".

Which is exactly why codes of conduct do so at length, rather than assuming
everyone will agree on a "simple" definition.

> This is not a winnable battle. Some people find being told "no" to be
> oppressive and horrible.

They'll get over it or go somewhere else. That's not what codes of conduct are
there for, and that's exactly why this issue came up in the first place: some
people use a code of conduct as a weapon when they're told that their actions
are not acceptable.

> Would you accept Linus Torvalds on your project? He's known for his
> technical ability, but also known for taking little to no crap and calling
> out said crap with extreme prejudice.

Sure, anyone is welcome, right up until the point where they make themselves
unwelcome, at which point they don't get a free pass for it for _any_ reason.
Even the kernel community seems to be getting _somewhat_ better in that
regard, though sadly not nearly fast enough.

Note also that criticizing code is not criticizing people. See
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2zgNfvsh0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2zgNfvsh0)
for a great presentation on the various levels of awfulness that often appear
in a project.

> If the answer is no: You clearly value social communication over Getting
> Shit Done®.

[http://www.slideshare.net/dberkholz/assholes-are-killing-
you...](http://www.slideshare.net/dberkholz/assholes-are-killing-your-project)

One person can drive off many potential contributors, and a steady flow of
contributors is often more critical to a project than any one person.

~~~
Karunamon
_They 'll get over it or go somewhere else._

I could say the same thing of people who don't like the atmosphere on a given
project. There are plenty of projects with plenty of different kinds of
communities.

 _Sure, anyone is welcome, right up until the point where they make themselves
unwelcome_

Please answer the question as asked and in the spirit it was intended in.

 _One person can drive off many potential contributors_

And one bad CoC that legitimizes certain kinds of bad behavior can do the
same. The backlash speaks to the truth of that.

You keep linking that slideshow - not one of the claims made there are sourced
or backed up. Considering one slide goes on about the importance of providing
numbers, this is especially galling.

More of a general question: Is anyone aware of a FOSS project which was killed
due to a lack of contributors brought on by the perceived negative atmosphere
of the community?

~~~
JoshTriplett
> I could say the same thing of people who don't like the atmosphere on a
> given project.

And doing so means you're perpetuating the problem.

> There are plenty of projects with plenty of different kinds of communities.

And codes of conduct help create more projects with welcoming communities.

> Please answer the question as asked and in the spirit it was intended in.

I did. Contributions welcome; hateful behavior not. Doesn't matter _who_ the
contributor is, they'd be told their behavior was unwelcome, and removed if
persistent.

> And one bad CoC that legitimizes certain kinds of bad behavior can do the
> same. The backlash speaks to the truth of that.

Every time I look at this supposed "backlash", I see piles of people I don't
want anywhere _near_ any project I care about. So it sounds like the CoC is
doing its job.

> You keep linking that slideshow - not one of the claims made there are
> sourced or backed up.

There are myriad sources and firsthand accounts available if you look, and the
numbers from that particular presentation are (to the best of my knowledge)
based on a direct study.

> Is anyone aware of a FOSS project which was killed due to a lack of
> contributors brought on by the perceived negative atmosphere of the
> community?

Off the top of my head, glibc was forked to create eglibc largely because of
the (now former) maintainer of glibc, and many distributions switched over to
eglibc as their primary upstream. Shortly after that person was replaced as
the maintainer of glibc, eglibc got merged back in and distros switched back
to glibc as upstream. Many more cases where that came from.

~~~
Karunamon
> _And doing so means you 're perpetuating the problem._

What problem?

Why the double standard? Why is your CoC fine and dandy and mine is not? What
of the people who don't want to waste time litigating sociology and who want
to code? Why can they just "go away" as you say and people who want to muddy
coding with other non-coding interests not?

My _entire_ point was that there are plenty of communities that don't need
this, and so far, you've not shown that the problem it sets out to solve
actually exists outside of a few well-publicized outliers.

> _I did. Contributions welcome; hateful behavior not._

So is Linus' behavior hateful or not, by your definition?

> _There are myriad sources and firsthand accounts available if you look, and
> the numbers from that particular presentation are (to the best of my
> knowledge) based on a direct study._

Which study? There are many, many studies that detail the behavior in online
communities (and given my recent courseload, I'm familiar with more of them
than I'd like ^^). Which one were those numbers pulled from? Nobody knows,
because the author _didn 't bother to include that data._. This is why cites
are important.

~~~
JoshTriplett
You're making the assumption that if everyone just stopped caring about
anything but code, problems would just evaporate. If there weren't a problem
to begin with, sure, that might work. When there are pre-existing problems,
shutting down discussion of them makes them worse.

Random example, if you want one likely to apply to an issue tracker:
[http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-
programmers-b...](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-
believe-about-names/) Reporting a bug about fixing such an assumption will
almost certainly involve some discussion about identity. And if you tell
people to shut up because their concerns aren't technical, the bug won't get
fixed, and the next bug like it won't even get reported because you've made it
clear that you don't care.

Another example: submitting a patch to change "master/slave" terminology into
"primary/replica".

Another example: submitting a patch to avoid assuming male pronouns in
documentation, in an effort to not make the default assumption that the reader
is male.

> So is Linus' behavior hateful or not

When he's creatively explaining how a piece of _code_ is broken, there's
nothing wrong with that. When he's telling _people_ that they should have been
"retroactively aborted", yes, that's hateful. As mentioned, I've seen a lot
less of that lately.

> Which one were those numbers pulled from?

Life isn't Wikipedia; direct primary research is perfectly acceptable.

------
typomatic
This is a bad faith (and/or woefully ignorant) argument about this code of
conduct. Remarking that "reverse racism" is not harassment does not preclude
minorities from being harassers. It does mean that having (for example) a
group dedicated to black people's concerns and telling white people that they
are not welcome (or that their opinions are lesser) is not harassment.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Exactly. Likewise for safe spaces, outreach programs, and other such efforts.

Perhaps someday, if all these various efforts are successful, it won't be
necessary to have such things. But it'll be a lot easier to _get_ to that
point if every attempt didn't have to put up with this kind of "but my free
speech!!1!" backlash.

I'm part of just about every privileged group possible. I don't need a safe
space; the world is my safe space. I don't need an outreach program; I have
many opportunities others do not. I don't need a group dedicated to my
concerns about inclusiveness and being welcoming; I'm already included and
welcome by default. The very _least_ I can do is not complain when others try
to deal with that, and to recognize that _some of the advantages I have will
go away_ in the process, and that's a good thing. Better yet, I can actually
_help_ with that whenever I can.

~~~
exstudent2
Have you thought that your own privilege might be blinding you to the plight
of some people who may have problems with the things you list?

There are many white males on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder that
are effectively silenced in this discussion. I suspect a lot of the pushback
you hear comes from them.

There are also minorities that have succeeded in the current system by working
hard and being smart that are being told their experience is abnormal/non-
existent.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> Have you thought that your own privilege might be blinding you to the plight
> of some people who may have problems with the things you list?

I'm quite certain it is, which is exactly why I make a point of listening to
people who have more of a stake in this than I do. I notice somewhat more than
I used to before I educated myself on these issues, but still nowhere _near_
as much as people who live through them personally.

> There are many white males on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder
> that are effectively silenced in this discussion. I suspect a lot of the
> pushback you hear comes from them.

I suspect you suspect wrong, and most of the "pushback" comes from people
indignant that their "concerns" are not at the forefront the way they are
_everywhere else_ , as well as people who see yet another opportunity to be
disruptive. In any case, socioeconomic status is one of many relevant, and
it's closely correlated with many other forms of privilege.

> There are also minorities that have succeeded in the current system by
> working hard and being smart that are being told their experience is
> abnormal/non-existent.

Read
[http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Clawed_my_way_up](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Clawed_my_way_up)
, which _directly_ responds to the argument you're making. Such experiences
are not "non-existent", but they're also not a sign that there's no problem
and everyone else can be safely ignored. There are a lot of other smart,
hardworking people who have not had the opportunity to succeed.

~~~
exstudent2
I don't see how you can say that you make of point of listening to people who
have more of a stake than you, then in the next breath dismiss a group that
you know exists (underprivileged white males).

Geekfeminism wiki is a political organization, they're not a source I would
trust.

~~~
JoshTriplett
I'm not dismissing that group; I'm dismissing a class of arguments against
codes of conduct. See also "intersectionality": one group discriminated
against doesn't get to step on another to advance themselves.

> Geekfeminism wiki is a political organization, they're not a source I would
> trust.

And with that ad-hominem dismissal of one of the most concentrated sources of
useful information and references, my interest in continuing this discussion
with you comes to an abrupt end.

~~~
13thLetter
>I'm not dismissing that group; I'm dismissing a class of arguments against
codes of conduct.

If you want to actually convince other people, you're going to have to engage
with their arguments, not just find ever more elaborate ways of ruling them
out of bounds. There is no royal road to victory in a debate, there's just the
long, hard slog of talking to a whole bunch of people who disagree with you.

>And with that ad-hominem dismissal of one of the most concentrated sources of
useful information and references, my interest in continuing this discussion
with you comes to an abrupt end.

While we're at it, "go to the website run by your political opponents and
believe everything they say" also isn't going to get you very far. We're
discussing a CoC that was largely written by Geekfeminism and/or its allies;
it's highly likely that someone who doesn't like the CoC isn't going to be
especially trusting of the people who wrote it, either.

~~~
JoshTriplett
[https://xkcd.com/386/](https://xkcd.com/386/) \- there's a limit to how far
I'm going to argue with people who disagree on fundamental premises and are
not willing to question those premises. Leaf-level arguments depending on
those premises are not interesting if there's a disagreement on the premises
themselves. And anyone who is a "political opponent" of the geekfeminism folks
is really not someone I care to have a detailed discussion with.

Also, on top of that, this entire discussion is nicely demonstrating why the
proposed Code of Conduct included "We will not act on complaints regarding:
[...] Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts". This kind of
thing takes a large amount of time and energy.

~~~
13thLetter
That is, of course, your right. I'm just telling you that if you genuinely
want to _convince_ an entire community full of people who disagree -- as
opposed to forcing them into a temporary, resentful silence via top-down
policymaking -- you are going to have to have those detailed discussions,
whether you want to or not.

~~~
exstudent2
You are of course correct. As soon as he linked to Geekfeminism I knew we
weren't going to be getting anywhere.

That my point of view must be silenced at all costs is one of the main reasons
why I would never support the Geekfeminism people. Contrary to what the parent
comment states, he is most definitely not willing to question his own base
assumptions and political goals.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> That my point of view must be silenced at all costs is one of the main
> reasons why I would never support the Geekfeminism people.

There's a difference between silencing a point of view and refusing to
repeatedly have the same argument. New arguments need new information, and the
vast majority of arguments in that area have been had already. That's some of
the primary value provided by their wiki: a repository of past arguments and
refutations, to avoid having to revisit them every time.

Project mailing lists and other communication channels, for instance, are the
wrong place for repeated introductory conversations demanding justifications
for a code of conduct. And that's a very common problem.

Considering I didn't start with the set of base assumptions I have now, and
had to learn them over time, I'm always willing to question them. That I don't
personally find any of your arguments even remotely compelling towards that
end doesn't make those assumptions immutable.

To explicitly state some of the assumptions that I suspect we disagree on: 1)
If you refuse to exclude anyone from a project, then you're by default
excluding people who are not willing to put up with a hostile environment. 2)
Since you can't avoid excluding people, better to exclude people who make the
project less welcoming. 3) Don't let the people you want to exclude write the
policy. 4) Don't let the people who would fare just fine in a project without
a code of conduct drive the requirements; get the requirements from people who
_wouldn 't_.

Apart from that, the other reason I don't particularly care about having this
argument here is that it's unlikely to have as much effect as having it
elsewhere.

~~~
13thLetter
> There's a difference between silencing a point of view and refusing to
> repeatedly have the same argument.

If you're attempting to bring people around to your point of view, you're
going to repeatedly have the same argument, because you're constantly going to
be encountering new people who need to be convinced. If you don't want to do
that, perhaps political activism isn't for you.

> the vast majority of arguments in that area have been had already. That's
> some of the primary value provided by their wiki: a repository of past
> arguments and refutations, to avoid having to revisit them every time.

To be more accurate, it's a repository of refutations that GeekFeminism
_asserts_ answer the argument. The Discovery Institute also has a repository
of what it asserts are refutations of evolution, but (assuming you're not a
creationist) I doubt you'd rush out and read them all just on my say-so. Same
deal here.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> If you're attempting to bring people around to your point of view, you're
> going to repeatedly have the same argument, because you're constantly going
> to be encountering new people who need to be convinced. If you don't want to
> do that, perhaps political activism isn't for you.

Granted. I've certainly spent a pile of time commenting in this thread, and
none of it was new. But just as it's reasonable to link to a FAQ rather than
answer the same question for the Nth time, it's also not unreasonable to link
to a detailed response to an argument rather than reiterating it for the Nth
time, especially when it's far better supported and researched than something
off-the-cuff.

> To be more accurate, it's a repository of refutations that GeekFeminism
> asserts answer the argument.

Sure. And if someone really wanted to try to argue against those points, by
all means do so (in an appropriate forum and context, not on a project mailing
list for instance). But _ignoring_ those arguments because of the site they're
on or the people who made them is a perfectly sensible reason to end the
discussion, just as if someone said "I'm ignoring everything you just said, my
arguments still hold, so there".

I'm disinclined to read a pile of arguments in favor of creationism for
exactly the same reasons I'm disinclined to directly get into an argument with
a creationist: there's no possible way it's worth my time to do so. If I've
found myself making some set of poor life choices that led me to become
involved in such a debate, then of course I'd read and respond to arguments
made in it, as with any other discussion. I'd also be inclined to consider
whether I'm primarily trying to convince that person, or primarily convince
the set of as-yet uncommitted bystanders while writing off that person as
likely a hopeless cause.

------
ineol1
Given his support of GamerGate
([http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?cat=64](http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?cat=64))
I don't really think his opinion on this matter are very fair and balanced...

~~~
13thLetter
You should probably engage with the argument rather than wave a hate totem
around and expect everyone to fall in line. How do you disagree with his
opinion?

