Changing the world with better documentation

Posted Jan 31, 2019 3:44 UTC (Thu) by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604)
In reply to: Changing the world with better documentation by rgmoore
Parent article: Changing the world with better documentation

> 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.

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.

Changing the world with better documentation

Posted Jan 31, 2019 22:00 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (6 responses)

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's odd but many people on the pro front of exhaustive/extreme CoC look to me childish and sheltered.

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.

Changing the world with better documentation

Posted Jan 31, 2019 23:26 UTC (Thu) by codeofdrama (guest, #127444) [Link] (2 responses)

> 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.

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?

Changing the world with better documentation

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.

Changing the world with better documentation

Posted Feb 2, 2019 15:49 UTC (Sat) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link]

This is why I disagree with nilsmeyer's preference that people actually involved in the dispute should be left to speak up for themselves and that other people getting involved is rude or infantilizing.

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.

Changing the world with better documentation

Posted Feb 1, 2019 3:57 UTC (Fri) by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604) [Link] (2 responses)

> I think you're missing out on an important group: people who are concerned for others.

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.

Changing the world with better documentation

Posted Feb 1, 2019 4:03 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (1 responses)

> 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

> 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.

Changing the world with better documentation

Posted Feb 1, 2019 11:14 UTC (Fri) by nilsmeyer (guest, #122604) [Link]

You are right of coure, I guess I'm a victim of my own bias here. I think the most recent article in the mainstream media was pretty negative.

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.