Changing the world with better documentation
A few years after his garden went to seed, Aronson was taking an organic agriculture class when he stumbled across a piece of advanced industrial agricultural equipment. It was a tractor attachment that contained an array of cameras, one for each of a dozen or so rows of plants. The device can distinguish lettuce plants from weeds; it uses that information to automatically till the weeds under the soil. It can also selectively spray materials as needed. This was, he thought, a piece of cool technology, but he found himself wondering why there was no version of it for his backyard.
As he thought about the problem, he realized that the necessary components
to create such a machine exist, it's just a matter of putting them
together. With the help of tools like 3D printers and CNC milling
machines, he could make a device that would plant seeds, spray water on
![[Rory Aronson]](https://static.lwn.net/images/conf/2019/lca/RoryAronson-sm.jpg "Rory Aronson")
them, take care of weeds, and more. After graduating in 2013, he started
working on the project in earnest, producing a white paper describing what
was to become FarmBot — a sort of 3D printer for growing a garden. He
designed the device to a high level of detail and posted the result,
asking if there
was anybody out there who wanted to help make this machine real.
As an aside, he noted that the companies making farming equipment are not much enamored of open-source software or ideas; as a result, farmers have been at the forefront of the "right to repair" movement. His own values, he said, differ from those held by farming companies; he values impact on lives far more than money made. Distributed ownership, individual control, and the right to repair matter more than revenue. So it felt right to him to share the idea widely; after all, everybody eats.
The posting of the white paper inspired others to join the project; some co-founders came in early on to help write the firmware and the web app. He received a Shuttleworth Foundation grant that helped with the building of prototype machines; after consuming the results, they concluded that they could make a real product out of the FarmBot. So the project's crowdfunding video was created, and far more money than expected rolled in; now they had to find a way to ship real devices to customers. The first of them, Aronson said, went to his mother; others have been shipped all over the world. Even NASA bought one to investigate ideas around growing food in space.
But, he said, that wasn't what he came to Christchurch to talk about; instead, he was there to discuss documentation. If you go to a web site for a typical software project, you'll be greeted by a README.md file that, in theory, gives all the information you need to get started with that project. It is a tried-and-true documentation model, but it only goes so far, and not everything in the world is software. FarmBot is a hardware and software project, but also a user community; it has its own needs for documentation that require going beyond the README.md file.
FarmBot is an open-source hardware project, which brings its own requirements, including version management. On the FarmBot site, one can find the hardware designs for all 14 (so far) versions of the device, and see what has changed between each one. The CAD models are there, built with Onshape, which provides a GitHub-like system for hardware. Bills of materials are there, along with instructional videos and more. There's also an area for modifications and add-ons.
A key part of building a community, Aronson said, is to do this kind of documentation well; when that happens, people will start playing with the design.
One other aspect of the FarmBot community has, he thought, lessons to offer for open source in general. He pointed to the linux.conf.au code of conduct as a good example of a necessary component; he advised the audience to avoid joining any project that lacks a code of conduct. Releasing a code of conduct is creating an open-source building block for a community as a whole.
That said, there are some places where the conference (and many projects) could improve. How, he asked, can a project build a safety team? There should be a documented process for that. Some events and projects document the incidents they have had to deal with, which provide a useful guide to how specific problems should be handled. All of this naturally has to be done in a way that protects both the privacy of the people involved and the safety of the conduct team.
Another thing that FarmBot has been doing is open-sourcing many of the components of building the business itself and making it work. If you have a real business, he said, you will have competitors, but there is a lot of value to be had in seeing them more like collaborators. Toward that end, the company has launched a document hub for its business information. Therein, one can find helpful information on topics like how to handle sales tax or do order fulfillment. The compensation formulas for its employees are there. To the extent possible, the company has open-sourced the plans for building the company itself.
What all of this comes down to, he concluded, is giving other people power. With that power, they can create software, hardware, communities, and businesses. With FarmBot, it all started with a white paper; effective documentation can bring about real change.
A video of this talk is available on YouTube.
[Thanks to linux.conf.au and the Linux Foundation for supporting my travel
to the event.]
| Index entries for this article | |
|---|---|
| Conference | linux.conf.au/2019 |
Posted Jan 25, 2019 8:37 UTC (Fri)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (73 responses)
Is this really such a big problem at conferences? The examples are very vague and use ambiguous language (inappropriate, unwelcome, offensive), while some things are downright illegal (stalking for example).
> How, he asked, can a project build a safety team?
I think you probably shouldn't. Hire some private security, involve the police where a crime has been committed, otherwise trust people to be able to resolve their conflicts among each other instead of treating them like children. People who volunteer to adjudicate these conflicts, who want to be the arbiter of what is appropriate or offensive are often the last people you want to be in that role.
Some may remember the incident at PyCon some time ago involving a crude joke, which completely spiraled out of control and everyone ended up looking poorly. Let that be a warning.
Posted Jan 25, 2019 11:28 UTC (Fri)
by danielthompson (subscriber, #97243)
[Link] (13 responses)
Introducing a CoC to a mature community certainly does tend to result in heavy discussion (some portions of which often can turn quite contentious).
However projects with a CoC is now pretty commonplace. Thus I doubt that introducing a CoC, based on one of the commonly used templates, to a project in its early growth would attract much discussion at all (and especially not contentious discussion).
Posted Jan 25, 2019 12:31 UTC (Fri)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (12 responses)
I think it will be interesting to look back at these discussions after some time and see what the actual impact was. I feel like it's more often a source of conflict than harmony but that's not really based on data.
> However projects with a CoC is now pretty commonplace. Thus I doubt that introducing a CoC, based on one of the commonly used templates, to a project in its early growth would attract much discussion at all (and especially not contentious discussion).
It's kinda like picking a license in that way.
Posted Jan 27, 2019 20:27 UTC (Sun)
by KaiRo (subscriber, #1987)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Jan 28, 2019 12:49 UTC (Mon)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link] (7 responses)
I think the GNU project's "Kind Communication Guidelines" are the right approach. They "suggest specific ways" to make all contributors feel welcome. They're less concerned with laying down prescriptive rules or establishing a bureaucracy to enforce them.
Posted Jan 28, 2019 17:05 UTC (Mon)
by KaiRo (subscriber, #1987)
[Link] (6 responses)
That said, I also strongly believe that guidelines without some way to enforce them and report violations in a safe manner (i.e. without fear of being attacked or threatened for reporting those) are as good as not having any guidelines at all.
Also, the larger and more diverse a community, the more important it is to have a good CoC or set of guidelines. I feel that Mozilla's https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/p... is a good one, though it's second half is very direct on unwanted behavior and not all communities may want this in that detail.
Posted Jan 28, 2019 18:09 UTC (Mon)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link]
Posted Jan 31, 2019 19:51 UTC (Thu)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link] (4 responses)
With licences, too, we may need legal enforcement as a last resort, but I think RMS is generally right that the spirit of a licence is more important than its exact legal meaning.
Posted Jan 31, 2019 19:54 UTC (Thu)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jan 31, 2019 22:08 UTC (Thu)
by halla (subscriber, #14185)
[Link] (2 responses)
Signs that say "forbidden" are always a reaction, not a cause.
Posted Jan 31, 2019 22:13 UTC (Thu)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link]
Having been a teenager, I submit that frequently, they are both.
Posted Feb 1, 2019 8:29 UTC (Fri)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link]
Posted Jan 28, 2019 18:29 UTC (Mon)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jan 31, 2019 20:03 UTC (Thu)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Feb 1, 2019 3:45 UTC (Fri)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link]
Posted Jan 25, 2019 17:20 UTC (Fri)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link] (17 responses)
I agree that much of the material in many Codes of Conduct looks like stuff that people should have picked up in kindergarten, but projects are adopting them for a reason. There are apparently enough people who didn't learn that stuff in kindergarten- or any time since- to be disruptive.
Posted Jan 28, 2019 17:50 UTC (Mon)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (16 responses)
Posted Jan 28, 2019 20:29 UTC (Mon)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link] (15 responses)
People will only ignore a CoC if the community is unwilling to enforce it. If the community values the CoC and backs that up with serious enforcement, people who try to ignore the CoC will discover they aren't part of the community anymore.
Posted Jan 30, 2019 15:38 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (14 responses)
(btw, anyone who feels like saying that this only affects members of some group (like, say, women) that there aren't seen to be enough of in the free software community to be worth imposing CoCs on everyone else: that's not true. Some of these predators can and will attack people of any gender who seem vulnerable enough. I speak from experience, though thankfully experience of running faster than ever before in my life and never going back *there* again rather than anything worse. It affects whoever in the conference/community/whatever is seen as easiest prey, and there will always be *someone*.)
Posted Jan 30, 2019 23:23 UTC (Wed)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (13 responses)
On the other hand, if someone asked me to agree to not sexually assault people I feel that's very insulting. Basically that's impugning my morals.
> I speak from experience, though thankfully experience of running faster than ever before in my life and never going back *there* again rather than anything worse.
I'm sorry you had to experience something like that and I'm glad you're okay.
Posted Jan 30, 2019 23:48 UTC (Wed)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (3 responses)
And yet, a common defence when people behave inappropriately in community settings is that there weren't any rules written down and so it's unclear that they did anything wrong. The sort of people that *do* know that what they're doing is wrong are the same people who will take advantage of every avenue of defence to ensure that they're able to continue doing it.
Posted Jan 31, 2019 3:13 UTC (Thu)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link]
Posted Jan 31, 2019 4:02 UTC (Thu)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (1 responses)
When has that defence ever worked?
Posted Jan 31, 2019 11:26 UTC (Thu)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
In the real world, depressingly often -- and usually by folks relatively high in the food chain.
Posted Jan 31, 2019 1:55 UTC (Thu)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link] (8 responses)
Bad people exist outside of Free Software, but our society doesn't just throw up its hands and say there's nothing to be done. It writes down rules saying not to lie, cheat, steal, rape, and murder, but we don't expect just writing the rules will be enough. First, we teach our children to follow the rules from the time they're babies, but we know that isn't enough, either. For people who won't learn that way, we have police, courts, and prisons.
Similarly, a Code of Conduct can't be expected to stand by itself. It needs support from the community. New members of the community need to be introduced to the Code of Conduct just as much as they need to be introduced to the source code. But we know that won't be enough. There have to be real enforcement mechanisms to back up the Code of Conduct so nobody is allowed to violate it without consequences. A community that's willing and able to back up the Code of Conduct with real consequences will find it is effective at offering protection.
Posted Jan 31, 2019 3:44 UTC (Thu)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (7 responses)
In my experience the amount of toxic people in Free Software is pretty low, compared to corporate settings or societies at large - though things are often more visible and permanent due to the way people in free software communicate and often a fair amount of cultural difference inherent in diverse communities. Free Software doesn't exist in a vacuum.
> It writes down rules saying not to lie, cheat, steal, rape, and murder, but we don't expect just writing the rules will be enough.
Except for rape, none of these behaviors are mentioned in most CoC. Also the laws are a codification of the moral values of (parts of) society, a safeguard for the human rights and dignity many of us agree we should all have. It's a way to deal with violations and destructive behavior in large scale (larger than a small tribe) societies. It's very much a matter of culture.
> There have to be real enforcement mechanisms to back up the Code of Conduct so nobody is allowed to violate it without consequences. A community that's willing and able to back up the Code of Conduct with real consequences will find it is effective at offering protection.
That's a very good point, if you let bad behavior fester you'll get more of it. You can get rid of toxic people without a CoC or other form of contract, there is no legal (or moral for that matter) right to participate in someone else's project. On the other hand you're also not required to participate in a project that is bad for you, which seems to be more of a problem.
However I would say that people shouldn't rely on a CoC and enforcement to protect themselves. I wouldn't wait for someone else to cut a toxic person out of my life, I just do it. It's odd but many people on the pro front of exhaustive/extreme CoC look to me childish and sheltered. I grew up with one physically and one emotionally abusive parent, lived in rough neighborhoods etc., someone feeling hurt by "simulated physical contact" seems extremely ridiculous, and to me seems an indication of an underlying issue that should be fixed instead of something a community should have to shoulder and enforce.
Posted Jan 31, 2019 22:00 UTC (Thu)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link] (6 responses)
This is true, but a good CoC may be helpful in avoiding problems from toxic people. Having clearly written rules makes rule breaking easier to identify and deal with. It also makes sure that people know whether their behavior is acceptable or not. One of the goals of a good CoC should be to define bad behavior objectively and specifically. For example, it's much better to say "no personal insults" than "don't make people feel uncomfortable" because feeling uncomfortable is so subjective. I'm much more likely to be able to identify correctly whether a statement is insulting than whether it will make somebody else uncomfortable.
For you as an individual, refusing to participate in a project that is bad for you is a reasonable solution. For the project, having contributors quit because the environment is bad for them is a serious problem. If one contributor says they're quitting because the environment is too unpleasant, how many have quit without saying that's the reason? How many simply refused to join because what they saw scared them away? The project leaders need to consider those things.
I think you're missing out on an important group: people who are concerned for others. For example, I don't believe Linus Torvalds decided Linux needed a CoC because he was personally offended by the discussions on LKML. He did it because he was worried that the environment there was too unpleasant for other people.
Posted Jan 31, 2019 23:26 UTC (Thu)
by codeofdrama (guest, #127444)
[Link] (2 responses)
That seems reasonable to me.
Relating it to a concrete example:
Do you find nothing derogatory, nothing insulting, no personal attacks, and nothing which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting in Stone's message to hch?
Posted Feb 2, 2019 8:23 UTC (Sat)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link] (1 responses)
I think Stone's reply was as much a violation of the CoC as the post he was responding to. They both contained personal attacks, which are against the CoC. It makes me wonder if there's going to be some equivalent to Muphry's Law for CoC violations: you're never more likely to violate the CoC than when pointing out another person's violation.
I honestly think this kind of thing is an example of why the CoC is important. Once someone in a conversation starts to use personal insults, there's a serious risk of an escalating flame war that will wind up overwhelming all productive discussion. It doesn't happen every time- this particular case seems to have fizzled out rather than escalated- but the risk is real.
Posted Feb 2, 2019 15:49 UTC (Sat)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link]
I think it's much more likely (although it didn't happen perfectly in this situation) that people who are not directly involved in the back and forth will be able to step in and provide a calm and unbiased refereeing without personal attacks. Also, for people who are watching but not participating it's reassuring to see mores being upheld by influential people in the community even if they're not directly involved in the discussion.
Of course, like anything else intervention is a skill that has to be obtained and hopefully we all will get better at pushing back against rudeness without ourselves being rude about it.
Posted Feb 1, 2019 3:57 UTC (Fri)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (2 responses)
That I believe is just a human trait and part of being a decent person. Participating in Free Software already shows considerable altruism.
> For example, I don't believe Linus Torvalds decided Linux needed a CoC because he was personally offended by the discussions on LKML. He did it because he was worried that the environment there was too unpleasant for other people.
I think that his decision is admirable, but the particular CoC is an awful choice. I hope this was of his own volition and an desire to improve, not outside pressure.
What I find fascinating about the whole affair is how every article you read on Linus Torvalds basically calls him an asshole because he swears in e-Mails. No one focuses on the hundreds of billions of wealth he created for others without asking for compensation. Meanwhile abusive people like Elon Musk are celebrated as saints in the same publications, because apparently making billions in profit is what makes your efforts admirable.
Posted Feb 1, 2019 4:03 UTC (Fri)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (1 responses)
> Meanwhile abusive people like Elon Musk are celebrated as saints in the same publications
Both of these appear to be very broad incorrect over generalizations to me. For the most part, Linus Torvalds isn't covered by the mainstream press at all and to the extend there is coverage, they are mostly positive and do not focus on his personality with one recent exception. Elon Musk is a much much higher profile person in the mainstream press and it is very often mixed. I haven't seen a single article that praises his personality as a positive one.
Posted Feb 1, 2019 11:14 UTC (Fri)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link]
https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/after-years-of...
Generally I believe all the volunteer work and the many positive contributions made by people working on free software is really underappreciated.
Posted Jan 25, 2019 20:23 UTC (Fri)
by JamesErik (subscriber, #17417)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jan 29, 2019 5:00 UTC (Tue)
by ajdlinux (subscriber, #82125)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jan 30, 2019 15:39 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Jan 29, 2019 5:20 UTC (Tue)
by ajdlinux (subscriber, #82125)
[Link] (37 responses)
The one reservation I have about Rory's view on CoCs is that communities aren't built *around* a Code of Conduct, they're built around the conduct that the code is meant to regulate. It's kind of like Torvalds' thoughts on the infosec industry - people don't buy computers so that they can be secure, they buy computers so they can do whatever stuff they want to do with a computer. That doesn't mean that users don't need security features, or that communities don't need a Code of Conduct, obviously. But in the same way that having software that is 100% secure but has zero features is useless, having a CoC doesn't mean you get a thriving community overnight, and conversely, it's entirely possible to have successful but highly insecure software, or a "thriving" but incredibly toxic community.
While Rory did go into plenty of other aspects of their documentation like the open source hardware designs etc, I would still have liked to have heard more about other ways in which FarmBot is documenting their community processes and how open source projects can do that better in that regard.
Posted Jan 29, 2019 10:01 UTC (Tue)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (36 responses)
I also worry about the strong corporate influence that is exerted here, requiring everyone to conduct themselves "professionally", moving corporate dysfunction into Open Source projects. It turns what should be fun into another form of work, with all the problems that entails. I wouldn't be surprised if this causes more people to burn out.
Posted Jan 29, 2019 15:54 UTC (Tue)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (35 responses)
I don't have that anxiety (well, any more than just making public posts already has). I don't think one needs to proactively think of all ways something might be taken as any of unprofessional, inconsiderate, or offensive. As long as you're receptive to those who say it's a problem (publicly or privately) and respond that you're sorry (at least privately, but a public reply is good as well) and understand that what you've said could have been stated better and that you learn from the experience and improve future behavior I think that you'll be fine. It's always a learning process. I don't have first hand experience for what it's like to experience things from various other views (be it racial, nationality, gender issues, etc.) and I don't have the presumption that I'd be able to figure it out on my own not being part of all groups. But, I can learn from others and from my own mistakes and improve my communication that way.
Posted Jan 29, 2019 15:57 UTC (Tue)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (30 responses)
Posted Jan 29, 2019 16:09 UTC (Tue)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (29 responses)
Posted Jan 30, 2019 14:09 UTC (Wed)
by codeofdrama (guest, #127444)
[Link] (12 responses)
Posted Jan 30, 2019 16:20 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Jan 30, 2019 19:03 UTC (Wed)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
- I have a few patches in the kernel and maybe a few in fd.o projects, but am not otherwise involved;
> To what extend do you think, that the allegation has merrit?
The thread was civil until the message by hch being called out started implying that the others were lazy rather than disagreeing on technical merits.
> What parts of the codes of conducts does the allegation refer to?
I'd classify it as ad hominem in general. As for CoC references:
Kernel CoC: "Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences". There's a technical disagreement of which I can't argue to the merits of, but calling someone lazy is at least not respecting viewpoints. Likely empathy as also slipped a little. fd.o's CoC is largely the same AFAICS.
> To what extend do you think, that the language of the allegation itself violates the codes of conduct?
I assume you're referring to this part:
> if you still can't participate in reasonable discussion like an adult
since I don't see anything remotely at issue with the rest of it. This is not on the same level as the called out behavior, but still not how I think I'd have worded it exactly. The outburst was implying that the others are being lazy for not doing some action. This is a call out to a single instance of behavior being childish (it could have been worded more precisely I think). It's the difference between "that's an asshole thing to do" vs. "you're an asshole". The former (to me; non-native speakers may have different readings) implies that improvement is there by changing one's actions whereas the second is concluding something about the person and that there isn't a(n easy) way to fix something.
I don't know of hch's prior behavior (if any), but in isolation, I probably would have called out the outburst (possibly privately), referencing the CoC, but not "threatening" with it…which is what I see done here. Acknowledgement from hch would be nice to see, but private communication would also likely suffice. I can sympathize with hch on the frustration part, but the right solution is not to imply that other developers are being lazy, but to do as Daniel suggests: take a bit of time to calm down before replying. Maybe better technical details would work, but again, there's obviously some misunderstanding on a technical level here, but it's beyond my personal experience.
> Is there proper a place, and way to challenge allegations?
For reporting behavior, the kernel CoC mentions <conduct@kernel.org> and fd.o mentions 3 email addresses as well as a list. It being private makes it hard to reply to allegations. I don't see evidence that this thread was elevated to an official report (though the callout was from a member of fd.o's conduct team), so I don't know what there is to officially challenge in this instance. But…
> Is this an opportunity to improve the Linux kernel code of conduct?
Absolutely. Every interaction with it is an opportunity to improve it. No different than computer code, law, personal relationships, among many other things in life.
Posted Jan 30, 2019 20:17 UTC (Wed)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link] (9 responses)
I think you haven't noticed what's missing from this post: a mention of reporting the comment in question as a violation of the CoC. This is an informal attempt by a peer to bring the conversation back to a more productive tack, with the CoC used as an authoritative reference for what's acceptable. This kind of community enforcement of norms is exactly the way things ought to work; when somebody goes overboard and uses language they shouldn't, the first resort should be other people telling them they're out of line. Formal enforcement should be reserved for cases where that kind of feedback is ineffective.
Posted Jan 31, 2019 5:10 UTC (Thu)
by neilbrown (subscriber, #359)
[Link] (8 responses)
It is, but I'd suggest that it is a fairly poor attempt. It comes across, to me, as somewhat heavy-handed and bossy, which isn't very far from the problem with the original.
For reference, the original from Christoph (hch) says:
> That is a bullshit attitude. Just like everyone else makes their
which is blunt, terse, crude, and insulting.
The response given by Daniel Stone starts:
> Can you not talk to people like that?
This is poorly constructed. Christoph certainly can "not talk to people like that", but he chooses otherwise. I know what Daniel means, but his meaning is different to what the words say. Ambiguity is always best avoided, most particularly when there is disagreement.
> Please don't talk to people like that.
or even
> I agree in principal, but think the message would be clearer if stated more politely.
or any number of options are that polite, unambiguous, and (ideally) helpful.
He continues:
> I have absolutely no idea how you can look at the work the AMD people have put in over many years and conclude that they're 'lazy'.
This seems to me to be a misunderstanding. Christoph is not accusing the whole team of laziness over an extended period. He is accusing a specific developer (possibly extending to an immediate team) of a single instance of laziness.
When someone has behaved poorly, accusing them of a much larger offense is a common tactic, but not a wise or helpful one. I don't know that it was deliberate on Daniel's part in this case, but it certainly weakens his case.
Daniel continues (I skip various bits):
> and if you still can't participate in reasonable discussion like an adult
Here Daniel effectively accuses Christoph of acting like a child, which seems to me to be roughly on par with Christoph accusing others of being lazy. When trying to help someone correct their behavior, it is not wise to emulate that behavior in the process.
If I were in Christoph's position, I would have little difficulty shrugging this off as an ignorant response - which is unfortunate because I think Daniel was right to respond and should be commended and encouraged.
I would recommend:
Posted Jan 31, 2019 11:51 UTC (Thu)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (7 responses)
This seems to be the only instance of Daniel participating in the thread, I think it's also poor form to step in on someone else's behalf without giving Christian time to respond.
Posted Jan 31, 2019 19:52 UTC (Thu)
by jani (subscriber, #74547)
[Link] (6 responses)
On the contrary, I think it's far better for people who are outsiders in the argument at hand but established members of the community to speak up. The graphics community and dri-devel are fairly civil, and I'd pretty much expect someone to speak up and not let it slide.
Indeed, per the freedesktop.org CoC, maintainers are on the hook for enforcing, which is the main difference to the kernel CoC. See c1d1ba844f01 ("Code of conduct: Fix wording around maintainers enforcing the code of conduct").
Posted Feb 1, 2019 4:05 UTC (Fri)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (5 responses)
I have to respectfully disagree there. It may be a cultural thing, but I find it extremely rude to take offense on someone else's behalf. It suggests that person or group can't speak up for themselves and robs them of agency. I don't know if Christian asked Daniel to defend him.
Posted Feb 1, 2019 14:46 UTC (Fri)
by jani (subscriber, #74547)
[Link]
I can sympathize with that view. However, my point is, it's not just about anyone taking offense or speaking up to defend themselves to begin with. It's also about making clear to *everyone* what's not okay, regardless of what the people involved think. I think it's a much stronger message to and about the community. It's also why I prefer public replies asking people to behave themselves. The mailing list archives will record the standard we've walked past.
Posted Feb 2, 2019 13:19 UTC (Sat)
by emorrp1 (guest, #99512)
[Link] (3 responses)
Indeed, I'm hoping one of mid-term societal outcomes of this kind of conflict is an increase in personal resilience (shrug it off as another commenter put it). However, I also saved this link to remind myself of why someone may be hesitant to stand up for themselves: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/07/msg00364.html
Posted Feb 4, 2019 10:12 UTC (Mon)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Feb 4, 2019 22:47 UTC (Mon)
by emorrp1 (guest, #99512)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Feb 7, 2019 8:14 UTC (Thu)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link]
Posted Jan 30, 2019 23:31 UTC (Wed)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (2 responses)
and how do you resolve this conflict? Let's say someone objects to the term "master" (like master branch) on the grounds of being offended by it.
Posted Jan 30, 2019 23:52 UTC (Wed)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (1 responses)
You have a reasonable conversation, attempt to understand the perspective of the other point of view, make a decision and then follow through on it. You're not necessarily going to find a solution that makes everyone happy, but that's not a reason not to try.
Posted Jan 31, 2019 3:47 UTC (Thu)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link]
reasonable is another very ambiguous term. Also, when my goal is to develop good software, how is that helped by having debates like that?
Posted Feb 1, 2019 4:10 UTC (Fri)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (12 responses)
To what extent are you required to participate in my delusion?
Posted Feb 1, 2019 5:28 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Feb 1, 2019 6:36 UTC (Fri)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Feb 1, 2019 7:55 UTC (Fri)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Feb 1, 2019 12:34 UTC (Fri)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link] (2 responses)
The binary spectrum is somewhat of a crutch but it works for the majority of people. Of course there are more sexes than male / female but as an approximation this can work. Just pick one, or none.
I don't have a problem when someone wants to be addressed with different male / female pronouns, and I can tolerate they / them, but don't call me an asshole when I don't get it right the first time. It's a matter of politeness I believe. I draw the line at Ze/Hir or some other recently made up pronouns. Trying to stay abreast of all the identities and pronouns that people came up with is almost a full time job, and basically it's asking me to agree fully with a political opinion or a philosophy (gender as a social construct). That's quite an imposition. There are even cases where someone tried to remove / discipline a developer on CoC grounds for voicing their opinion in other channels.
You can't be welcoming to everyone, very often to me it seems that CoC are designed to exclude the conservative and perhaps people on the autism spectrum. I think of course you are allowed to do that if you want to. If that's the goal, I would like it to be stated in the open instead of clouded in language of inclusiveness. Many times though it seems these things are backdoored into projects.
Apparently there are even people who identify as a different species, a fictional species or an object. It's impossible to tell if I'm being trolled. Very often this seems more like a lifestyle choice, to make yourself look more interesting, which I believe belittles the struggle of people with actual gender identity problems. Of course whether someone identifies as an Apache Helicopter doesn't really factor in to communication.
I had a classmate who later had gender reassignment surgery. What impressed me very much about her was the fortitude she displayed when dealing with abuse from others, which was sadly extremely frequent in that part of town (many conservative Muslims).
As a matter of practicality, does this extreme inclusiveness actually cause an influx of talent?
Posted Feb 1, 2019 13:21 UTC (Fri)
by james (subscriber, #1325)
[Link] (1 responses)
There is a certain amount of help that tooling can bring: I used to configure mutt to display emails from certain senders in a different colour, with one key to add someone to the list.
I used it to identify people who had their own viewpoints which were best respected from a distance, shall we say, but it would be easy to set up another list of people who needed extra care.
Posted Feb 2, 2019 20:15 UTC (Sat)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link]
Your technological solutions is an interesting idea.
Posted Feb 1, 2019 11:19 UTC (Fri)
by lkundrak (subscriber, #43452)
[Link] (5 responses)
More seriously though, can the question of anyone's internal honesty on these matters be reliably answered? Does it even matter at all?
I man, if there's no cost associated with following whichever rules the other party finds respectful, why not just follow them? I guess we'll all be better off that way, including people that are distressed by being addressed with a different pronoun than they prefer, those who don't care, as well as Their Majesty.
Posted Feb 2, 2019 13:35 UTC (Sat)
by emorrp1 (guest, #99512)
[Link] (3 responses)
It used to be "professional" in documentation, journalism style guides etc. to refer to a person of unknown (but binary) gender as "he". I consider it right that this is hopefully now replaced with a more neutral "they", especially with an anonymous internet - but even making that habitual change is difficult for many.
So I'd say expecting others to use even more specific, unfamiliar pronouns, on a per-individual basis is going too far. Probably best experienced by interacting with kids just learning to talk "look, man with beard" is not easily replaced with "look, person with beard" - assuming the interesting thing about them from kids' point of view was an unfamiliar beard.
Posted Feb 2, 2019 16:58 UTC (Sat)
by jani (subscriber, #74547)
[Link]
Getting the gender pronouns and grammatical gender right in foreign languages can be incredibly hard. It's a fairly common mistake for Finns to get them wrong. I can relate to the difficulty of learning new pronouns. From experience, I think gender neutral pronouns are superior.
Posted Feb 4, 2019 3:30 UTC (Mon)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Feb 4, 2019 15:59 UTC (Mon)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link]
Alice and Bob (and so forth) are often used as examples in documentation.
Posted Feb 2, 2019 20:10 UTC (Sat)
by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
[Link]
There is a cost associated I believe. First of all you now have to remember how to refer to a certain person, there’s a need to educate new people so as not to upset anyone and inevitably not everyone will accept it, causing further conflict. It’s a question of whether you want to include people who make communication extremely difficult and what their potential contributions are.
Posted Jan 30, 2019 15:50 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (3 responses)
I operate by the rule of simply trying to treat people decently: I'm not going to try to waste time figuring out what level of legal paranoia the sort of people who use the word 'unprofessional' happen to mean this week.
Posted Jan 30, 2019 19:43 UTC (Wed)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (1 responses)
Yeah…I'd have personally started looking elsewhere for employment. I don't see that being any different of a situation than having irreconcilable differences in a personal relationship and cutting it off. Granted, alternative employment opportunities generally being more necessary than having an SO of some kind may make it hard to have a gap.
> the other boss wanted me to never discuss bugs at all unless they were already fixed
Other companies go even farther and don't discuss unless a fix has been released. Again, not somewhere I'd want to work. Luckily, I get to work on FOSS even at my employer where the issue tracker is public.
> I operate by the rule of simply trying to treat people decently: I'm not going to try to waste time figuring out what level of legal paranoia the sort of people who use the word 'unprofessional' happen to mean this week.
I agree with this. However, when informed of some behavior stepping over a line, it is best to take that into account for future interactions.
Posted Jan 30, 2019 21:37 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
I did! Eventually. I had this feeling that doing free software hacking for pay would take all the fun out of it, y'see... (in a twist unsurprising to anyone here, it didn't. Having really clued co-workers is a big part of that.)
Posted Jan 31, 2019 20:07 UTC (Thu)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link]
Posted Jan 30, 2019 12:47 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
> of conduct (at least that's the impression I got from the article),
> discussions of which often turn quite contentious.
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
To me many CoC look extremely patronizing, like something you would need to teach small children
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Bad people exist and it's not a matter of educating them. They often know full well what they're doing is against the rules, illegal, or even wrong. It seems incredibly naive to me that writing down a rule like "don't (sexually) assault people" offers any protection from those predators.
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
You can get rid of toxic people without a CoC or other form of contract, there is no legal (or moral for that matter) right to participate in someone else's project.
On the other hand you're also not required to participate in a project that is bad for you, which seems to be more of a problem.
It's odd but many people on the pro front of exhaustive/extreme CoC look to me childish and sheltered.
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Here's a recent example of an allegation of a violation of no less than two different codes of conduct: Re: [PATCH] lib/scatterlist: Provide a DMA page iterator.
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
- I'm not familiar with the people in the linked thread personally (though I've seen those names and handles on here on occasion);
- I don't know of other behavior that might be related, so I'm looking at this thread in isolation (e.g., does hch have a habit of such reactions or is Daniel Stone trigger happy on invoking the CoC); and
- I'm not familiar with the code in the discussion, so I can't tell if anyone is being purposefully difficult or ignorant as to technical points being made.
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
> drivers work you should not be lazy.
(It is also correct - the attitude which Christoph is responding to isn't the sort of attitude we try to encourage in the kernel)
The crudity and insult are certainly unnecessary and best avoided. The bluntness isn't particularly helpful, but that isn't actually a crime.
I would suggest something like:
The driver (according to Christoph) should be written to work on architectures which don't support coherent dma mapping in general - it shouldn't fail to load if the require mapping semantics aren't available.
- be emphatically polite - show that it can be done, and show how.
- be specific. Make sure you understand what is said, focus on the specific problem, explain how that comes across poorly, and point the the specific section of any CoC that you feel has been violated (if you want to bring the CoC up at all).
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
> I think it's also poor form to step in on someone else's behalf without
> giving Christian time to respond.
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
> rude to take offense on someone else's behalf. It suggests that person or group can't
> speak up for themselves and robs them of agency.
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
If this is causing someone severe distress that's a sign of a deeper issue (trauma for example).
Possibly. I'd hope most people would want to respect that distress, and not expect sufferers to shun human contact until the underlying issues were addressed.
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
Changing the world with better documentation
How, he asked, can a project build a safety team? There should be a documented process for that.
If a project needs a safety team, it probably also has interactions with regulators (and/or the law in other ways) to think about: many of these are likely to be very unclear about open source anything, even now. Having a safety team seems like the absolute minimum to do to avoid terrifying such people :)