Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Announces GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Richard Stallman Announces GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

    Phoronix: Richard Stallman Announces GNU Kind Communication Guidelines

    Richard Stallman has announced the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines. The GNU founder hopes these guidelines will encourage women to get involved in free software development and be more kind in project discussions...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...-Communication

  • Kramer215
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • yogi_berra
    replied
    Originally posted by r_a_trip View Post
    I 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.
    Keep in mind that Richard Milhous Stallman does not follow these guidelines himself. He is arguing in bad faith to save face with a certain demographic as even a shallow perusal of his site shows that he doesn't care about using divisive language.

    Leave a comment:


  • dstaubsauger
    replied
    Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
    The 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.
    Believe it or not, FreeBSD Code of Conduct agrees with you on that
    We want the FreeBSD Project to be a venue where people of all backgrounds can work together to make the best operating system,
    (it then goes on to list all the things that are considered harassment and therefore have no place in the discussion)

    Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
    You'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.
    Yes they do. From your perspective, they came up with the introduction of CoCs. For some other people, they've come up all their lives, when they were being told like "girls cant do math", being called fags or whatever. They invented CoCs because they were sick of it.

    Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
    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".
    Ok last part is actually rude.

    Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
    The world's becoming full of snow-flakes & thin-skinned lefties...
    What do you want the world to be full of?

    Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
    i must have just violated a myriad of cocs just then.
    I was about to say that since we are on the phoronix forums, you haven't because we don't have a CoC here, but then i looked it up and actually we sort of do have one
    https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...59-forum-rules
    (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 Post
    The fact things get easily confused in emails/text and people can misinterpret anything, even more so if they wish to maliciously.
    It's true that emails/text has greater potential for misunderstanding. I argue that, especially since we know that, we should attempt try to write in a way that we assume is less likely to offend the person we are talking to, unless of course we actually do want to offend them.

    Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
    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.
    While there are probably people who grew unhealthily attached to that role, there *are* people who are victims out there, and i can't blame them for recognizing harrassment. If we really have to write down the rules in order for everyone to behave, so be it. Also, i don't believe the fun we're all having with free software is going to be less because we're not being rude.

    Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
    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.
    I wasn't aware of that, can you give examples of constructive criticism being banned?

    Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
    and yes cocs do forbid things if some random individual is offended, that's one of the main points of these dictates.
    It takes an actual violation of a written rule and confirmation by a committee for sanctions to be imposed on somebody. It's not like the discussion goes "oh hey, so that other person offends me by existing, pls ban them kthx" - "ok *ban*".

    Leave a comment:


  • Bsdisbetter
    replied
    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.
    The 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. You'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.

    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 Post
    ​​​​​​what is the word "that" referring to here?)
    The fact things get easily confused in emails/text and people can misinterpret anything, even more so if they wish to maliciously.

    Originally posted by dstaubsauger View Post
    es, 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?
    Jeez that's tame compared to the freebsd one.

    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.
    Last edited by Bsdisbetter; 10-26-2018, 04:32 AM. Reason: auto correct tablet crap.

    Leave a comment:


  • brrrrttttt
    replied
    Originally posted by dstaubsauger View Post

    CoCs don't forbid things just because a random single person was offended by at some point.
    The point is that offence is taken far far more often than it is given.

    Leave a comment:


  • dstaubsauger
    replied
    Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
    Your common case existed before these ridiculous cocs and was resolved as you state.
    One could argue that sucking it up is not a satisfactory resolution for all parties involved, in the long term.

    Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
    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.
    Well, then let's not let the stupid people decide how "promoting inclusiveness" should work then. The whole point of inclusiveness is to not scare potential contributors away, and i think we do agree that that is good thing.

    Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
    Elaborate? I thought I'd already covered it in a post to you where you drew a weird conclusion from what I wrote.
    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.

    Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
    How uncommon is that.... no seriously?
    (what is the word "that" referring to here?)

    Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
    The fact is these rules & decrees are designed ultimately to stifle speech, especially speech that someone takes affront to;
    Yes, 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.

    Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
    and people can take affront to anything as I mockingly stated in my reply to you previously.
    CoCs don't forbid things just because a random single person was offended by at some point.

    Originally posted by Bsdisbetter View Post
    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.
    I did read the linux one and the freebsd one. You mean that the lists of "bad things" sometimes seem arbitrary?
    [oh, there is a footnote feature?]

    Leave a comment:


  • microcode
    replied
    Glad to see RMS understands the value of displacing hysterical SJ Codes of Conduct with fairly reasonable (though still probably unnecessary, all-told) alternatives.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bsdisbetter
    replied
    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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bsdisbetter
    replied
    Originally posted by dstaubsauger View Post
    I 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.
    Last edited by Bsdisbetter; 10-25-2018, 03:41 AM. Reason: Can't type on a damn tablet

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X