All FreeDesktop.org Projects Now Appear To Have A Contributor Covenant

[phoronix]

Phoronix: All FreeDesktop.org Projects Now Appear To Have A Contributor Covenant

X.Org, GStreamer, Wayland, LibreOffice, Mesa, VA-API, Harfbuzz, and SPICE are among the many projects hosted by FreeDesktop.org that now appear to be on a contributor covenant / code of conduct...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=FDo-Contributor-Covenant

[L_A_G]

I genuinely hope that they're using a neutered version of the Contributor Covenant. This is because the versions written by the original author includes language that requires the project maintainers to take action when contributors claim that another contributor has made statements that make them feel "uncomfortable" even when those statements have been made completely outside of any context with the project. Because of this some of the organisations who have taken on this code of conduct have done so using their own versions with this 1984-esque language removed.

So far I've seen one case where a somebody got into hot water because they made a number of blog posts, well outside of the project, discussing the flaws and limitations of representational democracy and another where another contributor because they made a blog post discussing the concept of gender, also well outside of the scope of the project.

The long and the short of it is that the Contributor Covenant is essentially Thought Police disguised as common decency. I won't blame people for supporting this if they don't know about it, but if they do or chose to ignore it, then they're clearly not acting in good faith.

[FishPls]

Fuck you, white males. You've done nothing in this society, we need people of color and women!

"Diversity" = handing out jobs / opportunities for less skilled people simply because of their gender or color of skin. That is as far away from equality as you can get.

FreeDesktop is SJW paradise.

[SpyroRyder]

While i am not so hot on it being forced i do support this. If you as a dev cant keep discussion civil, or at least not use words that can be extremely offensive to certain groups, then maybe you need to stop and come back to it later. There is alnost never a need to say anything harsher than "this code sucks", and certainly never a need to bring gender/race/sexuality/disability into the discussion.

[davykrocket]

Here come the Thought Police! I find it funny that these free and open software would take a stance against free and open speech. I'm not saying people should be rude, but sticks and stones may break my blah blah blah. Oh well its hard to find FOSS coders so they should look to diversify instead of judging people by their character and skill we can just create a group of skittles so we all feel better.

[Serafean]

So where do I report microagressions?

There is almost never a need to say anything harsher than "this code sucks", and certainly never a need to bring gender/race/sexuality/disability into the discussion.

This, I agree with. But putting it in writing? Is that really necessary?

[SpyroRyder]

So where do I report microagressions?

Most "microagressions" just look plain racist/sexist/etc when in writing, so it's fairly easy for a project maintainer to separate the bullshit claims out.

This, I agree with. But putting it in writing? Is that really necessary?

I would like to assume most people would be smart enough to realise what language isn't great, or might be keeping people certain groups from contributing, but these forums always remind me that there are some people genuinely aren't. These include people that say women (all women) shouldn't contribute because they're to emotional to hold out against being ranted at by a guy who thinks he could write better code. With that in mind I would say it is necessary so that a project maintainer can point to it when dealing with someone who has said something offensive or out of line.

[JPFSanders]

One can not serve two masters, either X.org serves the project or it serves the SJW. If one of the purposes of X.org becomes acting as thought police eventually it will slide down into a politically correct ground where certain elements will seize control of the project for their own goals (usually being able to project force/authority over those who do the work).

If in 2017 you're such a delicate person that can't stand shitposting or heavy criticism (of whatever nature) you should not be online, period. There is no in between, there is no right for anybody to treat you right, you want to belong to the club, you deal with it. PERIOD. Anything else you are a weakling and psychologically no better than a 5 year old calling his mummy because the other children called him names.

[icewater]

> those contributing should use welcoming and inclusive language, be respectful to others, showing empathy towards others, avoid insulting comments, and avoid inappropriate conduct. For the most part, it's basically common sense.

No. No, it's not common sense to require "empathy" and the use of "welcoming and inclusive" language on a software project. This is materially different from prohibiting abusive language.

> But free, libre, and open source projects suffer from a startling lack of diversity, with dramatically low representation by women, people of color, and other marginalized populations.
[...]
> Part of this problem lies with the very structure of some projects: the use of insensitive language, thoughtless use of pronouns, assumptions of gender, and even sexualized or culturally insensitive names.

Yeah, no, I don't that has anything to do with it.

This corporate rule-setting mindset is a cancer in software development.

[Serafean]

These include people that say women (all women) shouldn't contribute because they're to emotional to hold out against being ranted at by a guy who thinks he could write better code.

Making this claim as an axiom is wrong, I agree with that. On the other hand, if someone is too emotional to accept very blunt/harsh criticism, why should they be protected more than the person to whom it comes naturally, who on the other hand handles badly empathy and such?

There is no in between, there is no right for anybody to treat you right

There is no in between, there is no right for anybody to be treated right.
Fixed that
Also a line has to be drawn somewhere, the bill of rights does exist, and it is a pretty nifty thing to have.