[florkbork]

Yeah, nah.

Watch how an open discussion here: https://github.com/nixos/rfcs/pull/98

... devolves into a massive outcry because a bunch of folks not behaving in good faith didn't like "we don't support fascism or bigotry".

It reached the level of

* Vile sock puppet attacks on a trans individual, who merely kept saying "Fascism, no thanks in this community" * "Denounce the Marxists!" As a rallying cry becomes a talking point

If you reflect on the behaviours seen there and ask why is this so heated for proposing consequences for bad behaviour; you may come to the realisation that the advocates of bad behaviour... don't want to be accountable.

This post is translated, perhaps some of the nuance is lost. But it hand waves away dhh's behaviour as "controversial figures in the community"

If that's genuinely what is believed, I'd like a replacement on this Overton window, thanks! It has been fractured.

The article does not consider the consequences or implications of malicious acts, and the harm on others adequately.

A clear CoC or similar outlines expected norms, and does not have to be copypasta/is infact better if it is derived from a consensus. It's a statement of what the people with power will hold themselves to, and if that turns out to be a lie - a performative document that is not actually used - newcomers can view the behaviour they observe against that standard; and leave or demand justice if they are wronged.

By not publishing an ethical or moral standard you abide by, even if it's a text file with "get bent" in it; you invite people to interact with you with expectations. If you are part of the 1-4% of the population who are sociopaths, you are advocating to hurt people without consequence. If they are part of the 1-4% you are permitting behaviour without recourse.

Could you imagine a post advocating for "don't fix security holes because 92-98% of people don't know about exploiting them?" Would that be acceptable?

Why would you not state a policy?

[yakshaving_jgt]

> If you reflect on the behaviours seen there and ask why is this so heated for proposing consequences for bad behaviour; you may come to the realisation that the advocates of bad behaviour... don't want to be accountable.

It seems the problem is that what amounts to "bad behaviour" is poorly defined, and that the detractors of "bad behaviour" can also be guilty of bad behaviour.

[kelnos]

I don't think your rebuttal is all that convincing, though. What belief do we have that a CoC would have prevented the behavior you note in that pull request? That sock puppet account was either 1) a random drive-by person who isn't associated with NixOS at all, and is just a hateful troll, or 2) is an actual NixOS community member who created a throwaway account to spew garbage.

How does a a CoC fix either of those problems? I'll answer that myself: it doesn't. Random hateful trolling is going to happen everywhere, and all you can do is stamp it out as quickly as possible by deleting comments and banning accounts.

The second possibility is more insidious: that there's a member of the NixOS community with these hateful views, and has otherwise managed to keep those views to themselves in their interactions with the community. Or they sorta maybe kinda keep it under wraps most of the time, and people sorta maybe kinda know about it, but look the other way for whatever reason. If project leadership knows about something like that and doesn't take action, a CoC isn't going to fix that, either.