[downerending]

I think it's a reference to one of the people pushing very hard on spreading CoCs everywhere. Can't recall the name. (Corin?) Reading some of that person's tweets, though, left me with a very bad impression.

Anyway, search and form your own opinion.

[larrywright]

I know exactly who you are talking about. I’ve had some heated exchanges with them on Twitter. What started out as me just trying to understand the viewpoint of someone who is different than me, quickly turned into them turning their followers into an angry mob that flooded me with personal attacks.

This one incident turned me off of not only that person but the entire cancel culture movement.

[joshuamorton]

> This one incident turned me off of not only that person but the entire cancel culture movement.

Are you perchance saying that you "cancelled" the cancel culture movement based on a single interaction you didn't enjoy?

[larrywright]

Between that interaction (which wasn’t solely me, there were other people that were treated similarly), and other things I have witnessed from people in that movement, I’m confident that it’s not healthy and not something I want any part of.

They have noble goals, but the approach is wrong in a lot of cases. Many of the people have the same toxic personalities that they rail against so loudly.

[lmm]

There is no problem with an individuals choosing not to engage based on their own experience. The problem with cancel culture is that we are encouraged to treat people as "cancelled" based on hearsay.

[joshuamorton]

You're under no obligation to do anything. Individuals are simply exercising their own right not to engage based on their own experience.

From other comments, you seem to be drawing a distinction between "social pressure" and "individual choices". Can you explain when one becomes the other?

[lmm]

I don't think there's a clear bright line, any more than there's a clear bright line between being avoiding individuals you dislike and discrimination. That doesn't mean the distinction doesn't exist.

If one shopkeeper won't serve you, they're exercising their own rights and you can take your business elsewhere. But if every shopkeeper won't serve you, you're probably being discriminated against. I don't presume to draw the line precisely, but we recognise the difference.

[downerending]

I think we all know a mob when we see one.

[jshevek]

If the mob is acting to achieve an ends I perceive as immoral, I am very quick to see a mob.

If the mob is acting to achieve an ends I perceive as righteous, I might never see the mob for what they really are.

I've found many people do even less well than I do, at this.

[joshuamorton]

Clearly not, you'll need to be a bit more convincing than "I know it when I see it."

[sam_lowry_]

Any idea who that may be?

[jshevek]

I glanced at the OSI page. I found someone who overtly stated opposition to core FLOSS principals:

>"Giving everyone freedom means giving evil people freedom, too." (OSD FAQ) It doesn't have to be like this.

It's time to stop bad actors from using our work in unethical ways. It's time to give open source developers around the world the tools they need to exercise their ethical responsibilities as engineers and members of human society. It's time for us to stop shirking our ethical obligations, and take responsibility for the use of our work.

From:

https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Main/OSI+Board+of+Directors/...

Also:

https://mobile.twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/12294568573176...

(Edited to include her position in her own words)

[zozbot234]

Yup, that's C. A. Ehmke. I'm not sure why she's so opposed to core FLOSS principles, even going as far as calling them evil and unethical; I feel like we're all circling back somehow to the bad old "Linux is cancer" attitudes from the 1990s.

[thu2111]

She thinks she's a warrior fighting on the side of the angels, it's what gives her life meaning and structure. To be a warrior-for-good requires there to be evil people to fight. If there are evil people then they must be denied access to anything good. If open source is good, then evil people must be denied access to it, which can only be done via the licenses, which would make them not open source anymore, which open source projects will obviously reject. The only remaining solution is to try and manipulate people by manipulating the definition of open source.

The problem for people like Ehmke is there aren't really many evil people in society, and those who do exist tend to get handled by the justice system. So she just ends up picking fights with random people. She's bad news and anywhere she shows up is best recommended to evict her post-haste.

[fourthark]

FWIW this looks like her current summary of the situation:

https://where.coraline.codes/blog/ethical-source-osi-electio...

[tropo]

Looks like this one: "Ehmke, Coraline Ada"

She has done more than anybody else to cause destructive internal strife in Open Source software projects. Her being on the OSI board is simply appalling. OSI needs to be defunded and ignored if she can not be removed.

[cgh]

https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Main/OSI+Board+of+Directors/...

He is referring to one of the people running for the board of directors whose major goal is to introduce Codes of Conduct into open source projects.

[josteink]

So someone who wants to destroy open source then, at the core of its foundations.

I can’t wait until this identity politics pendulum starts swinging back. Some people are going to be really embarrassed about the legacy they left for themselves while it was still around.

[larrywright]

I’m not going to post it here, but if you email me I will share it. My email is my HN username at gmail.