Slashdot Mirror
Richard Stallman Announces GNU Kind Communication Guidelines (gnu.org)
AmiMoJo writes: Richard Stallman has announced the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines, an effort "to start guiding people towards kinder communication." The Guidelines differ from a Code of Conduct in that it's trying to be proactive about kindness around free software development over being rules with possible actions when breaking them.
These new GNU communication guidelines can be found at GNU.org along with Stallman's commentary. From the guidelines: A code of conduct states rules, with punishments for anyone that violates them. It is the heavy-handed way of teaching people to behave differently, and since it only comes into action when people do something against the rules, it doesn't try to teach people to do better than what the rules require. To be sure, the appointed maintainer(s) of a GNU package can, if necessary, tell a contributor to go away; but we do not want to need to have recourse to that. The idea of the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines is to start guiding people towards kinder communication at a point well before one would even think of saying, "You are breaking the rules." The way we do this, rather than ordering people to be kind or else, is try to help people learn to make their communication more kind. I hope that kind communication guidelines will provide a kinder and less strict way of leading a project's discussions to be calmer, more welcoming to all participants of good will, and more effective.
These new GNU communication guidelines can be found at GNU.org along with Stallman's commentary. From the guidelines: A code of conduct states rules, with punishments for anyone that violates them. It is the heavy-handed way of teaching people to behave differently, and since it only comes into action when people do something against the rules, it doesn't try to teach people to do better than what the rules require. To be sure, the appointed maintainer(s) of a GNU package can, if necessary, tell a contributor to go away; but we do not want to need to have recourse to that. The idea of the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines is to start guiding people towards kinder communication at a point well before one would even think of saying, "You are breaking the rules." The way we do this, rather than ordering people to be kind or else, is try to help people learn to make their communication more kind. I hope that kind communication guidelines will provide a kinder and less strict way of leading a project's discussions to be calmer, more welcoming to all participants of good will, and more effective.
It's interesting that a bunch of ideas seem to be floating around the same time now about improving communities - that article yesterday on the monastic code of conduct for SQLLite, this ideal from GNU, and also an article I read recently on Weaponized Empathy - the kinds of behaviors you want to lock out of communities as soon as you see them to keep them healthy.
It seems like between the three ideas you could build up pretty solid community and moderation guidelines that would really make for a lasting peace and a great place to hang out on the internet.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
2. I disagree with making "diversity" a goal. If the developers in a
specific free software project do not include demographic D, I don't
think that the lack of them as a problem that requires action; there
is no need to scramble desperately to recruit some Ds. Rather, the
problem is that if we make demographic D feel unwelcome, we lose out
on possible contributors. And very likely also others that are not in
demographic D.
Except you automatically lose out just by having a limited perspective... we all have that, it's just part of life. eg Text and UI controls requiring young levels of eyesight and motor control because nobody making the UI is old or disabled, Camera film being not very good at capturing black skin because it was calibrated by white people for white people, etc
Diversity is a net gain because it gives us perspectives that we can't hold ourselves, and we'll be able to build for everyone not just people who are similar to us. We just shouldn't go so far as to discourage anyone, but nobody is actually suggesting that apart from in the mad fantasies of the strawmen builders.
That's happening too.
However, there have been numerous studies showing that if you take the *exact* same resume, changing only the name to sound white, black, or female, the one that sounds like a white man is substantially more likely to lead to an interview. And you can't really blame that on anything but bias in the hiring institution, a factor that's probably amplified by an existing lack of diversity.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The camera example is from the past and not really valid any more, but well documented, and the reasons are still valid.
In an ideal world having good feedback from users would fix this, but we never have that in real life. How many times have we heard that innovation is made by people scratching their own itch? Developers have a massive influence on the product because of all the tiny decisions that they make to make their own lives better, improvements that don't go through the bureaucracy of making a change request, justifying it, etc. How many little improvements do you make for *you* vs what someone's told you to do. And how well would you understand it even then?
Political correctness is a silencing tactic
No. That's how it is being used but it is far from what it means (or perhaps what it used to mean if we're truly that far gone). Likewise, guns are really handy tools, but a few asshats tend to fuck it up for everyone else by killing folks with them.
By designating something political correctness you are saying that it's trivial and unimportant
No, politically correct means a message that doesn't attempt to alienate either side of a debate, allowing an argument to be put forward that can be used to either further one side or the other, but all in how it is spun. However, some have taken that to be that the message has to be ultra-safe, which isn't true. Example of a politically correct statement, "The constant migrations of foreigners to the US is a clear demonstration that past and current foreign policy with Central and South America has failed." No one is being called an illegal, no one is indicating any particular President at fault, and so on. This statement can be spun in either direction depending on present company and at face value is equally palatable by whichever side you want to pick.
The idea is to belittle people's concerns and requests to be treated better by implying that they are so inconsequential that the argument/request is ether absurd or not made in good faith
Which actually gets into the "how's it's being used." Politics has become massively polarized at the moment and I'm pretty sure it'll ultimately swing back to something resembling sanity. However, you have those who'd argue for over-reaching PC because they see the other side's argument (as you say) trivial. You have those who'd argue that PS is a cancer and see the other side's argument as hand-waving. Either way, both sides are simply dismissing the other's because they don't want to actually reach some middle ground, instead they rather have the polarity. Polarized voters are easier to predict voters, polarized voters make stronger safe districts for political parties, and once upon time folks kind of realized that polarized politics meant less actual power in the voter's hands.
It really got going in the 80s when people...(rest of your comment)
No, this has always been a tactic in politics. It's centrist versus polarity, but PC is just the new name for it. And the polarity folks on either side use it as a tool for their narrative. In US politics I always like to apply the accelerator/brake metaphor for the polarity ends. The far left tend to be the accelerator "You're message isn't forceful enough, it needs to explicitly say what CAN and CANNOT be done or else it is just garbage." The far right tend to be the brake "Your group's mission will inevitably lead to everyone being lawsuited to death!" The far right need to allow progress to happen and get over their insecurities. The far left need to just chill the fuck out and stop telling people what they can't do.
Your comment isn't wrong, but it's assuming that PC is strictly defined as how it is being used and that's pretty depressing because it almost foregoes the fact that once upon a time it actually meant holding a centrist view and attempting to be affable to everyone. Maybe I'm naive in holding onto an archaic way of thinking.
There is just no reason for anyone contributing to an online collaboration needs to make their gender public. The normal English pronouns for a person whose gender is unimportant or unknown work fine: "he, him, his".
Fun fact, English used to have a distinct word for male adult: "were". It survives only in werewolf and wereguild. The gender-indeterminate "man" has replaced "were", because men are unimportant. We have words to highlight when a person is important or valuable, like "king" or "woman", but there was just no need for a word for "male adult" distinct from "adult".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.