[commitpizza]

I can't wait until the silent majority stops being silent and throws out CoC and their people from projects. It is seriously a toxic thing that creates debates over stuff where there is no need for it to be a debate to begin with.

[LtWorf]

But if you speak up you're a pedo… I wrote on a debian mailing list a while ago, when they wanted to sign against rms.

I didn't address all the accuses against him, just the one about being ableist, and how as a disabled person I don't think non-disabled people should decide just to push their agenda.

Anyway, I got some thanks in private, for speaking up, but nobody publicly replied.

the mail in question, if you care to read it: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2021/03/msg00142.html

[arp242]

Also, Stallman is clearly a neurodivergent individual, so shouldn't we at least try to be accepting and inclusive of that, too (within limits, of course) instead of jumping on every awkwardly worded remark and interpreting that in the most negative possible way? "Assume good faith" etc.

I wrote a "Stallman is not a good leader, but he's not a transphobic ableist monster" article and I got more feedback over email and Twitter PM than everything else I've written combined.

On HN it was flagged after a brief discussion shrug. I think it upset both the pro- and anti-Stallman people because I do think we're better off without Stallman, but not for the reasons in that ridiculous letter. For all his failings, I do think he's a good person.

[DangitBobby]

Most people do not assume good faith, especially online. Depending on the person, they will often go directly for the least charitable interpretation possible. The goal isn't to be humans together, it's to win.

[mbStavola]

How do you know the silent majority aren't in favor of CoCs?

[hospitalJail]

Yep, people act like they want to treat everyone's work independent until some personal event comes up.

I had to get attacked for a joke I put on social media before I realized how insane CoCs on voluntary work are.

[ozr]

I don't mean to pick on you personally, but this is another time on this very same post where I've seen this expressed:

> I was indifferent/supportive of CoCs until it was used against me over some trivial thing

How can we avoid needing to get to that point?

[omeid2]

You simply can't. CoC's are charter for enforcing moral ideals in a context that none of it should matter.

The whole CoC is a project of an ideology that is categorically against merit and competence and in favour of identity politics.

To see these CoC's in terms of specific rules is missing the forest for the trees.

[asylteltine]

Because you can gauge it by how many people complain vs how few people push it through. It’s a tiny minority of people who are zealots about a CoC which is why I intentionally exclude them from my project especially the absolute disaster covenant code of conduct made by a poser on a power trip

[LexiMax]

They don’t.

I have been away from hacker news for about 2 to 3 years and quite frankly I am shocked that this place is still having this same tired argument whereas outside it seems to be an accepted fact of life that having rules surrounding the conduct of project participants is in fact a good thing.

[rgoulter]

> outside it seems to be an accepted fact of life that having rules surrounding the conduct of project participants is in fact a good thing.

I think this talks past concerns.

"Just kick out the rude people" is probably a good thing. "Just kick out the people the admins don't like" is probably a bad thing (or at least isn't as impartial as the former).

With sections like "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a person's ability to participate within them" it really seems the intention of the rules goes above/beyond "rules for the space where project participants communicate in".

[LexiMax]

> I think this talks past concerns.

That is intentional, as I believe that these discussions attract rules lawyers who I feel are missing the point.

If the people running the project enforce rules in bad faith, a CoC like the Contributors Code of Conduct is not materially different from an informal list of bullet-point rules, or even an tacit "Don't be a jerk."

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I don't know anything about your social circles, but my experience suggests that people learned to mostly ignore it until it happens to touch them. Until that point they just indicate their real thoughts in private groups. The argument repeats itself here, because the forum is pseudo-anonymous and lends itself to a 'private group' image despite not really being one.

<< conduct of project participants is in fact a good thing.

Is it though?

[krona]

> it seems to be an accepted fact of life

Isn't that the problem? Accept it. Don't ask questions, or else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance

[LexiMax]

> Isn't that the problem?

The problem is that the specific phrase "Code of Conduct" has been dragged into a culture war. And if the problem is the parlance, the solution is to just call it something different, like "Conduct Policy", "Rules", or something similar.

It might seem trite, but in my experience using a different name seems to shut off the part of some folks brain who automatically assume said rules will be enforced in bad faith.

[hajile]

Your assertion here that a code of conduct could get dragged into a culture war directly contradicts your previous assertion that there is no war outside of HN.

Rules getting enforced in bad faith as people coalesce power in their sphere is a story as old as human history. Why would you argue that we have an exception in this case?

[LexiMax]

> Your assertion here that a code of conduct could get dragged into a culture war directly contradicts your previous assertion that there is no war outside of HN.

Whoops, ya got me! :)

In all seriousness, there's no contradiction. The phrase "Code of Conduct" was part of a culture war, but in my experience the conversation outside of places like Hacker News has shifted significantly in recent years. Reading this thread was like stepping into a time machine, and not in a pleasant or nostalgic way.

[thrw_aus]

The silent majority is too busy working to worry about issues that HR used to push down salaries 10 years ago.

[commitpizza]

Well to be honest I don't. But I am guessing because it's stupid and meaningless and usually that won't prevail in the end. People may be tricked into it for a while but when they see the true power play that are in place they will quickly come to hate it.

[asylteltine]

Me too. I wish big projects just told those people to shut up

[Cthulhu_]

Which people?

[asylteltine]

People who demand CoCs

[TimedToasts]

Still too dangerous to speak out. I wouldn't advise anyone to do so if they are currently employed or would like to be employed in the future.

[commitpizza]

I don't know, I live in one of the most woke countries on earth most likely so I have some experience in speaking out. I have only ever lost like one job over it and I always speak my mind about matters like this.

I think people are afraid when there is no reason to be. If you lose your job, just get a new one it's not like it's hard in the tech sector anyway.

[Cthulhu_]

It seems you know a lot about what the silent majority wants, given they're apparently silent.

What would you replace it with? And what is the stuff being debated? I thought a code of conduct (or any form of "rules") was to prevent debates, avoid ambiguity, and clearly outline what is and isn't allowed in a community. (or outside one, which I do have a problem with. One of the rules of my forums, alongside an all-encompassing "don't be a dick", is a rule saying you shouldn't take drama from other sites to ours.)

[jdiff]

> a rule saying you shouldn't take drama from other sites to ours

The inverse is also a problem, and it's the one addressed by that type of rule. Taking drama from this site to other sites. If someone has pre-existing beef with someone else in your community, it's not ok if they bring that to your site, sure. But if Joe gets on Sally's nerves on-site, it's fine if she sends him a direct email filled with all sorts of flavorful harassment over it? And it's fine cause she stepped one inch over the border before doing it? Nah, they're both problems.