Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Git 2.24 Released With Commit Graphs By Default, Adoption Of Contributor Covenant

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by archkde View Post
    Just focus on the code and not the person who wrote it, and you will be fine.
    You're wrong. The exact opposite is the case. People are hunted down for their mistakes in completely unrelated situations and get excluded from projects. That's Contributor Covenant in practice.

    If you were right, it would be just that: "Focus on the code." But it's an elaborate rule set instead, making contributors vulnerable, creating a tool to get rid of them.


    I don't think anyone with common sense has an issue with the basic idea of the Contributor Covenant. It's the highly toxic and extremist community around it that some people have a problem with. It's ironic.


    Now that's my personal experience: I haven't seen the CC solving any issue, but I've seen it creating new issues.
    Has there been an actual dev looking at a project, then saying "oh, they've adopted the CC, I'm going to contribute". And at the same time having a valid reason for why they wouldn't have been able to contribute to the project if the CC wan't adopted by it? I'm curious to see examples, and I'm serious about it.

    Because I've seen people forcibly being removed or voluntarily leaving projects because they just wanted to code and didn't want to take a side. And I'd be glad to extend my personal experience.

    Originally posted by archibald View Post
    When people complain about the contributor covenant I often see them rail against the politics, but very rarely do I see them list the specific behaviours they want to engage in that would be prohibited by it.
    Nonsense. Not signing something is NOT equal to signing the exact opposite. That's simple logic.
    Last edited by juno; 07 November 2019, 06:54 AM.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by slalomsk8er View Post
      My problem is with the SJW power hungry types that will dig up dirt that has nothing to do with the project and/or from a younger stupider version of the accused.
      They will use this to get the accused demoted or removed from the project.
      In my opinion all of the covenants need a statement that limits the covenant explicitly to the behavior in the project maybe even stuff that happened in the last 5 years!

      Hell it's a wonder they didn't kick out Linus for his past sins against political correctness after adding the code of conduct.
      I think most people regret a number of things they say when they were younger or less sober.

      FWIW, projects are typically adopting this covenant rather than creating their own: https://www.contributor-covenant.org. It contains a section defining the scope, copied below, which seems to address your concern:
      This Code of Conduct applies within all project spaces, and it also applies when an individual is representing the project or its community in public spaces. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
      The contributor covenant also isn't retroactive, and so doesn't encourage or allow for taking actions against individuals before its adoption.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by juno View Post
        Nonsense. Not signing something is NOT equal to signing the exact opposite. That's simple logic.
        Fair enough.

        That would mean they don't want to stop those behaviours, but don't want to engage in them personally. So they should be able to state what behaviour they want other people to be able to engage in, that the contributor covenant disallows.

        Comment


        • #24
          Like the political philosophy that spawned these silly agreements, a CoC is full of platitudes that don't achieve anything they claim to. They are a smokescreen. Is anyone dumb enough to believe that project leadership lacked the tools to deal with or even banish disruptive community members? No the only clause that has any real meaning is the last paragraph, which gives politically motivated "community members" tools to harass, abuse, or even oust project leadership. That's right, it does the opposite of what it claims to do. We've already seen this happen several times.

          War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by d4ddi0 View Post
            Is anyone dumb enough to believe that project leadership lacked the tools to deal with or even banish disruptive community members?
            It's not about providing tools to deal with disruptive community members, it's about setting expectations for standards of behaviour.

            Originally posted by d4ddi0 View Post
            No the only clause that has any real meaning is the last paragraph, which gives politically motivated "community members" tools to harass, abuse, or even oust project leadership. That's right, it does the opposite of what it claims to do. We've already seen this happen several times.
            It says:
            Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project’s leadership.
            Which doesn't seem unreasonable - a requirement to do something "in good faith" is used in a lot of contracts and laws. Note also that it's the project leadership that decides whether somebody is acting in good faith, not the community members. Also, harassment and abuse would fall foul of the CC, so community members trying to harass or abuse project leaders could be dealt with by that same CC.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Britoid View Post
              My problem is these agreements is that sometimes they pull politics into environments that never had it before or imply it's going to cause all these new people to start to contribute that wouldn't of contributed before without any evidence to support that.

              You shouldn't need a rule book to know how to be a decent human being.
              Excellent point. If you need a code of conduct to constrain your behaviour, then the problem isn't people like me who try to be as polite and accomodating as possible, but who will still chafe at being nannied by activist politics.

              Promoters of this code of conduct have engaged in harassment and attempts at intimidation trying to make someone adopt this code of conduct, and then when the maintainer of a little side project on GitHub politely pointed that out, they made threatening inferences, and then just went after his job.

              Sure, not everyone promoting this code of conduct would do that, but clean house before you try tell others what they can do in theirs...

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by gk981 View Post

                Excellent point. If you need a code of conduct to constrain your behaviour, then the problem isn't people like me who try to be as polite and accomodating as possible, but who will still chafe at being nannied by activist politics.

                Promoters of this code of conduct have engaged in harassment and attempts at intimidation trying to make someone adopt this code of conduct, and then when the maintainer of a little side project on GitHub politely pointed that out, they made threatening inferences, and then just went after his job.

                Sure, not everyone promoting this code of conduct would do that, but clean house before you try tell others what they can do in theirs...
                Well, there's an overlap of people that push these codes of conducts with people who go through everything someone has said since they were born, find something they don't like and the person probably doesn't believe anymore, then force them to apologize and stand down for saying that thing.

                So people aren't even allowed to have changed their minds anymore. It's witch hunting and it's wrong, but unfortunately those who speak out against it are called an ism or ist.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by archibald View Post
                  Also, harassment and abuse would fall foul of the CC, so community members trying to harass or abuse project leaders could be dealt with by that same CC.
                  But that's NOT what has happened. Toxic and abusive people use their politically advantaged "minority" status to insulate them from proper consequences of their behavior while simultaneously making life miserable for project leadership.

                  Additionally, legal enforcement attempts, whether bogus or legitimate, are some of the most severe and scary harassment possible, but they can't be banned in the CoC or enforcement becomes a nullity. Its a catch 22. People claiming to advocate for victims have often been the actual aggressors in the CoC enforcement attempts.

                  It is important to acknowledge the difference between the desired outcome of a mechanism or policy, and the actual effect.

                  Its free software, so people who like the software but not the community always had the ability to fork. The only difference now, is that politically savvy trolls can take over the brand and trademark, forcing the legitimate community to either splinter or hard fork.

                  I hope nothing bad comes of it, but as long as it remains, it is a Trojan Horse, full of Greek soldiers, swords ready to shed the blood of the unwary.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by boxie View Post

                    I have gone and read the CoC, it seems pretty standard - the tl;dr is "be nice to people" - how is it a bad thing?
                    It opens avenues to attack other people CoCs are dangerous slippery slopes.

                    If you do not feel welcomed on a group, leave, no one has any obligation to make you feel good, welcomed, appreciated or anything.

                    Respect is earned, not deserved.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by JPFSanders View Post

                      It opens avenues to attack other people CoCs are dangerous slippery slopes.

                      If you do not feel welcomed on a group, leave, no one has any obligation to make you feel good, welcomed, appreciated or anything.

                      Respect is earned, not deserved.
                      Conversely though, would you want to contribute to a project if every other post in their forums was by their white supremacist programmers discussing final solutions?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X