Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Richard Stallman Announces GNU Kind Communication Guidelines
Collapse
X
-
In the latest development, he has announced “GNU Kind Communications Guidelines.” The initial version of the guidelines is available online and Stallman has requested the GNU contributors to follow them tutuapp.
-
Originally posted by r_a_trip View PostI like Stallman's approach. Sensible, non-authoritarian and appealing to people's better selves. A simple, yet very elegant document. No need for punitive committees. No divisive language. I hope this spreads far and wide.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View PostThe point was, very succinctly, that the introduction of their orientation of sex, gender or anything OTHER than sticking to the project's objectives or the subject under discussion are TOTALLY AND UTTERLY unwarranted.
We want the FreeBSD Project to be a venue where people of all backgrounds can work together to make the best operating system,
Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View PostYou're predominantly dealing with people over email, internal communication like irc so why is there even a mention of these things? They are totally irrelevant and don't belong in a software project. And yet they come up.
Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View PostFor example, a while back on a software project, person states "i have a child i can't do X this week, in future consider that before requesting X".
Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View PostThe world's becoming full of snow-flakes & thin-skinned lefties...
Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Posti must have just violated a myriad of cocs just then.
(Just to be clear, i don't think you have broken any of those rules either, and since we're not working on a concrete project here or anything, i think it's a good thing to have this discussion as openly as it is right now.)
Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View PostThe fact things get easily confused in emails/text and people can misinterpret anything, even more so if they wish to maliciously.
Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Posti suspect the fun is fast going out of open source where every word you write will be scrutinized by those who want to be a victim.
Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Postwhen freebsd was requesting comments on their proposal people were gagged and/or banned from the discussion - and not because they were being obnoxious - but moreover because it was a faite-accompli and the 'discussion' was for show.
Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Postand yes cocs do forbid things if some random individual is offended, that's one of the main points of these dictates.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by dstaubsauger View Post
I went back to my original post and your first reply. You said that you can accept and respect trans people and address them as male/female like they want to be addressed. I believe you that you meant that. What i'm trying to point out is that sarcastic comments like "or is their name fluid as well" may unnecessarily hit a hurtful point for the same people.
For example, a while back on a software project, person states "i have a child i can't do X this week, in future consider that before requesting X". Why? Just state you're busy. I don't give a damn about your nuclear family. I don't even give a damn if you're male/female/whatever, just do your assigned role - can't do it, hand it off to someone else.
Don't introduce such information. The world's becoming full of snow-flakes & thin-skinned lefties... i must have just violated a myriad of cocs just then.
Originally posted by dstaubsauger View Postwhat is the word "that" referring to here?)
Originally posted by dstaubsauger View Postes, they do. However, i do believe that it is legitimate and efficient for a discussion forum to have rules (and if it's only to keep the discussion on-topic). This is not some country's government telling everyone what to say and believe. If i look at the list of things that the contributor covenant (which seems to be the most controversial of the CoCs) explicitly forbids, i can't imagine of anything on that list being desirable in a discussion of open source software anyway.
CoCs don't forbid things just because a random single person was offended by at some point.
I did read the linux one and the freebsd one. You mean that the lists of "bad things" sometimes seem arbitrary?
i suspect the fun is fast going out of open source where every word you write will be scrutinized by those who want to be a victim. It might just end up either being ignored totally (a good thing) or ending some projects.
when freebsd was requesting comments on their proposal people were gagged and/or banned from the discussion - and not because they were being obnoxious - but moreover because it was a faite-accompli and the 'discussion' was for show.
and yes cocs do forbid things if some random individual is offended, that's one of the main points of these dictates.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by dstaubsauger View Post
CoCs don't forbid things just because a random single person was offended by at some point.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View PostYour common case existed before these ridiculous cocs and was resolved as you state.
Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View PostLikewise, promoting inclusiveness, is think-speech for letting all the stupid people run the project. Yes, an over-statement for sure but none the less apt.
Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View PostElaborate? I thought I'd already covered it in a post to you where you drew a weird conclusion from what I wrote.
Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View PostHow uncommon is that.... no seriously?
Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View PostThe fact is these rules & decrees are designed ultimately to stifle speech, especially speech that someone takes affront to;
Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Postand people can take affront to anything as I mockingly stated in my reply to you previously.
Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View PostRead the CoC of bsd or linux to see what I mean. Stahlman's version reeks of a late comer not wanting to be left out of the discussion. Why he even found it a requirement to write such drivel I will never know.
Leave a comment:
-
Glad to see RMS understands the value of displacing hysterical SJ Codes of Conduct with fairly reasonable (though still probably unnecessary, all-told) alternatives.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by audir8 View Post
Did you read the email/guidelines and footnotes? Make an attempt to understand the debate? I did use the words "encouraging diversity. "
"1. I read that the fraction of women in the free software community overall is around 3%, whereas in the software field overall it is over 10%."
A CoC can be changed by the community or the governing board, I don't think this qualifies as authoritarian. I checked the dictionary. You're free to try and change the structure of a community, or leave.
Do try to reply without saying PC.
PC.
PC.
I sense a lot of rage, which doesn't assist in making me feel included in the discussion. Perhaps I'm female and you should accept my point and move on for the sake of 'encouraging diversity'...
However:
While a coc may be able to be changed in my experience they're like taxes, they never disappear once they're introduced. When introduced projects will inevitably be stacked by people who support it (why else introduce it) making it impossible for change.
Diversity is code for letting the dumb people in, about lowering standards to whatever extent it takes. If women are in the minority in computer science then that's not my project's fault? Are we to include a dumb white man on the all black software project just for 'diversity'. Nope, it's code for mediocrity. If you want to participate in a project, shut up about your sex, gender or religon and just participate. Stop looking for causes to get outraged about.
As to free to change it, well I can assure you it's not even remotely easy and if you've invested years in such a project, why should you then LEAVE. Do as I say or go, hey? If the license was bsd, hell yeah i would.
And as I said earlier, perhaps not to you, the Stahlman version is an attempt to not be left out of the group.
- Likes 4
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by dstaubsauger View PostI think that there's an inbetween step here that is easy to miss if we just look at shitty discussions on twitter: It is possible to be offended by something, and it is possible to launch the kind of shitstorm you're describing. The second _does_ sometimes follow the first, but i think there are more situations where people just think "ugh that was mean" (← they are offended) and move on (without attempting to ruin somebody's life). I am convinced this is the more common case.
Please elaborate on that (really!). Do you see me or what i said an example of "dangerous trash"? If yes, why?
Your common case existed before these ridiculous cocs and was resolved as you state. Likewise, promoting inclusiveness, is think-speech for letting all the stupid people run the project. Yes, an over-statement for sure but none the less apt.
Elaborate? I thought I'd already covered it in a post to you where you drew a weird conclusion from what I wrote. How uncommon is that.... no seriously? The fact is these rules & decrees are designed ultimately to stifle speech, especially speech that someone takes affront to; and people can take affront to anything as I mockingly stated in my reply to you previously. Read the CoC of bsd or linux to see what I mean. Stahlman's version reeks of a late comer not wanting to be left out of the discussion. Why he even found it a requirement to write such drivel I will never know.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Here, you dumbasses, read this and realize what these pedophiles are doing. Google this shit here "the overhauling of straight america: waging peace". Read that diarrhea trail and fight the hell back, Western faggots.
Last edited by Sheshbazzar; 24 October 2018, 09:30 PM.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: