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

[Guest]

It is fascinating that, despite all hand wringing, whinging and dire expectations, that projects that have adopted these inclusivity codes have yet to blow up in a cloud of SJW infighting.

maybe, just maybe... they work

Do you remember ayo.js? Shitstorms happen, and there is tangible evidence of that.

I can go on with people who push this stuff onto people, for instance user named antifa attacking ZeroNet recently…

[Guest]

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.

Going by the 'our standards' section, they would need to make the following statements:

• I do not want to use welcoming and inclusive language.
• I do not want to be respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences.
• I do not want to gracefully accept constructive criticism.
• I do not want to focus on what's best for the community.
• I do not want to show empathy for other community members.

and:

• I want to use sexualised language or images, and engage in unwanted sexual attention or advances.
• I want to troll, make insulting/derogatory comments, and engage in personal or political attacks.
• I want to harass community members publicly or privately.
• I want to publish others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission.
• I want to behave in a way that would reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting.

How many people look at the above statements and think "those behaviours would make a community better". What project would be improved by allowing the behaviour described above?

Personally, I don't see anything excluded by the contributor covenant that I'd want to keep.

I am the kind of person that likes toxic communities, and it's the reason why I even bother posting here. If people aren't elitist, there's not much appeal for me in a community.

[onicsis]

And what will happen? Number of contributors will explode?

[Ilphrin]

I am the kind of person that likes toxic communities, and it's the reason why I even bother posting here. If people aren't elitist, there's not much appeal for me in a community.

You may be misunderstanding something, 'toxic' does not mean a community that includes only 'elit' (whatever sense you give to that), it means a community with a bad behavior focused on someone's nationality, gender, color, or anything personal. Saying that you likes toxic communities is like telling everyone that you like to behave like a racist or a sexist person. But having an 'elitist' community just means that you want the best in their work. And whether you want an elitist community or not, no one should judge someone else on his/her origin or gender instead of focusing on his/her work, and that is the purpose of the contributor covenant.

Your project won't shine magically with that, but people that will work with you will be happier, and a new contributor may come more easily knowing that.
It is saying: Don't be a jerk, do you job and help other do theirs.

[Britoid]

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.

[skeevy420]

I am the kind of person that likes toxic communities, and it's the reason why I even bother posting here. If people aren't elitist, there's not much appeal for me in a community.

You don't need that comma after communities, dumbass. Now piss off you illiterate tosser.

[Redfoxmoon]

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.

Well it's never been about being a decent human, it's about being aligned with a certain political ideology :')

[slalomsk8er]

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.

Going by the 'our standards' section, they would need to make the following statements:

• I do not want to use welcoming and inclusive language.
• I do not want to be respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences.
• I do not want to gracefully accept constructive criticism.
• I do not want to focus on what's best for the community.
• I do not want to show empathy for other community members.

and:

• I want to use sexualised language or images, and engage in unwanted sexual attention or advances.
• I want to troll, make insulting/derogatory comments, and engage in personal or political attacks.
• I want to harass community members publicly or privately.
• I want to publish others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission.
• I want to behave in a way that would reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting.

How many people look at the above statements and think "those behaviours would make a community better". What project would be improved by allowing the behaviour described above?

Personally, I don't see anything excluded by the contributor covenant that I'd want to keep.

20 years ago you could credibly accuse me of half on this list - hell even now a quarter if I'm drunk or in company of only male friends!

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.

[randomizer]

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.

Bring together a group of people for any length of time and you'll get politics. That doesn't mean every group will end up "toxic", but some degree of conflict is basically guaranteed (and often useful as long as it is kept under control).

You shouldn't need a rule book to know how to be a decent human being.

What constitutes a decent human being varies between individuals, and particularly across cultural boundaries. Distributed projects like this involve interactions between people with very different backgrounds so creating a document like this establishes a baseline set of expectations of all contributors. That will obviously bother people who don't agree with those expectations.

[juno]

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.

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.