Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD's New Code of Conduct (freebsd.org)
FreeBSD has a new code of conduct, which is making several people angry. From the blog post: This code of conduct applies to all spaces used by the FreeBSD Project, including our mailing lists, IRC channels, and social media, both online and off. Anyone who is found to violate this code of conduct may be sanctioned or expelled from FreeBSD Project controlled spaces at the discretion of the FreeBSD Code of Conduct Committee. Participants are responsible for knowing and abiding by these rules. Harassment includes but is not limited to: Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion. Unwelcome comments regarding a person's lifestyle choices and practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and employment. Deliberate misgendering. Deliberate use of "dead" or rejected names. Gratuitous or off-topic sexual images or behaviour in spaces where they're not appropriate.
Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "hug" or "backrub") without consent or after a request to stop. Threats of violence. Incitement of violence towards any individual, including encouraging a person to commit suicide or to engage in self-harm. Deliberate intimidation. Stalking or following. Harassing photography or recording, including logging online activity for harassment purposes. Sustained disruption of discussion. Unwelcome sexual attention. Pattern of inappropriate social contact, such as requesting/assuming inappropriate levels of intimacy with others. Continued one-on-one communication after requests to cease. Deliberate "outing" of any private aspect of a person's identity without their consent except as necessary to protect vulnerable people from intentional abuse. Publication of non-harassing private communication without consent. Publication of non-harassing private communication with consent but in a way that intentionally misrepresents the communication (e.g., removes context that changes the meaning). Knowingly making harmful false claims about a person.
Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "hug" or "backrub") without consent or after a request to stop. Threats of violence. Incitement of violence towards any individual, including encouraging a person to commit suicide or to engage in self-harm. Deliberate intimidation. Stalking or following. Harassing photography or recording, including logging online activity for harassment purposes. Sustained disruption of discussion. Unwelcome sexual attention. Pattern of inappropriate social contact, such as requesting/assuming inappropriate levels of intimacy with others. Continued one-on-one communication after requests to cease. Deliberate "outing" of any private aspect of a person's identity without their consent except as necessary to protect vulnerable people from intentional abuse. Publication of non-harassing private communication without consent. Publication of non-harassing private communication with consent but in a way that intentionally misrepresents the communication (e.g., removes context that changes the meaning). Knowingly making harmful false claims about a person.
Someone at FreeBSD needs a hug.
On the Linux mailing list, "deliberate intimidation" is graded like a gymnastic routine, 1-10 points. Linus has the most points so far.
One of the most successful online communities I was ever part of had one single code of conduct: Don't be a dick.
The community enforced that. And if there wasn't consensus, the founder decided.
It wasn't perfect, but what it did was drive discussion on whether conduct someone was engaging in was dickish, or if the complainer was being a whiny dick. It forced discussion on where people's boundaries on "being a dick" were, and it helped people identify when their boundaries were way out of the norm compared to the rest of the community.
In this it was a brilliantly simple code of conduct. Instead of rules-lawyering a laundry list of dos and don'ts, the discussion centered solely on the conduct of an individual and the interpretation of that conduct by those complaining about it. I find it far superior to these expansive codes of conduct, because these are essentially checklists of ways to harass someone you don't like, even if the context of their conversation with others was pleasant for all involved. If you're forced to consider every statement for intent, and determine if it rises to the level of a community defined understanding of "being a dick", it significantly limits the ability to complain about all but the most egregious conduct.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
codes of conduct are known for being extremely toxic. if you're someone reading this who doesn't understand that, look at the keywords: is there *anything* positive in them? just look at the word type, and substitute "positive" or "negative" instead of the actual word. then count the two types up, and ask yourself the question, "what kind of person do you think this would attract?"
it would attract two types of people wouldn't it: one that is absolutely terrified of making mistakes - of being the kind of person that the document ACCUSES people of being. and the other type would be precisely the kinds of people MOST LIKELY to ignore such proscriptions and do them anyway.
so what, *exactly*, do you think these kinds of documents achieve? they describe - and attract - the very things that people fear will happen, and at the very best poison (toxify) the working environment for absolutely everyone involved with the project.
a much better approach would be to use something like the bill of ethics (titanians.org). it's effectively a "forth normalised form" document, that "unpacks on demand". it defines what an "ethical act" is, and encourages and invites its upholders to act ethically. that *requires* that the participants think through incidents very carefully but WITHOUT having incredibly dangerous "toxic proscriptive lists"... which are never complete anyway.
You think texting someone with "Hugs! :)" is generally construed as unacceptable behavior? Your social circle sounds horrible.
Just for a sec, you’ve no doubt heard “Bros” having a conversation where every benign statement is turned into a sexual innuendo. I’ve stumbled into those conversations at various points in my life and have quickly discovered just how easily my words can be twisted to have meanings that are completely contrary to what I intended. It’s a frustrating, demeaning experience. We rightly condemn that sort of immature, offensive culture.
Well, this is the exact same problem, but on the other end of the spectrum.
Instead of twisting everything into a sexual innuendo, this “hair trigger” culture twists every benign statement into an offense. They deny through their actions that the listener shares a responsibility to not seek out offense. They reject having the patience and tolerance necessary to push past what was said so that they can understand what was intended to be said, ensuring that communication WILL break down. They exclude people dissimilar to themselves, ensuring they will never understand those others. They insist on legislating speech so that anyone who wants to communicate with them must do so on their terms, which they then use as an excuse to blame everyone else for the misunderstandings that inevitably occur. They’re like children who invented their own language and then insist that you speak to them in it.
Having conversations with these people is just as frustrating and just as demeaning as having a conversation with the Bros, and while their motivations may be less degrading, their twisting of words is just as worthy of condemnation.
Even when you have two “good” people talking, there are numerous opportunities for each to be offended. Whether they will or won’t be isn’t something you can legislate; it’s just part of being an adult. Moreover, any attempt to legislate acceptable speech will inevitably fail because the target is constantly moving. That’s why sane policies are based on principles, not rules.
You should watch the video of her saying that. There were massive cheers from the crowd, that wasn't an isolated case its something that resonated with many people she was speaking to. Keep in mind that Ellison(no 2) is on record supporting a black ethnostate within the US(that by progressive values makes him a nazi by the way). But you don't seem to understand why Trump ascended to the top of their party, I'll give you a hint. It didn't have anything to do with Low Energy Jeb "please clap" Bush.
Om, nomnomnom...
Stalin would have lined scumbags like you up against the nearest wall.
Keep that in mind as you pray for the establishment of neo-stalinism in America.
And the Republicans were unable to stop Trump from ascending to the top of their party.
They should have rigged their primary like the Democrats did. They didn't; democracy won and the establishment GOP had an apoplectic fit afterwards.
The organization that fervently opposes checking ID to vote in elections did just that during its election for party chairman. "We have to make sure that we can not just count the ballots but verify every name and signature," Brazile said as party members began applauding. Voter ID suppresses minority turnout and is racist on its face.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I can see it already. The next place this will be popping up is in Terms Of Service. If you use our products, you agree to abide by our code of social conduct, including but not limited to: not offending any group we deem worthy of protection, questioning climate change theory, or voting Republican.
Because it is an OS, not a dating site dumbfuck.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun