Hacker News Reader

Comment by shrikant | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, I wonder if the people posting about not contributing any more to Linux will also stop their open source contributions to projects associated with all the organisations on this page: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/adopters

View on HN

Yep. There’s a half dozen there I used to contribute to... and one I didn’t realize had adopted it.

If I ever need to add a feature to one of them I’ll have to fork it.

But I think that it needs a “no CoC” license.

That list, by the way, is a list of projects run by people who bowed to pressure and didn’t really think it thru or believed the lies pushed by those pushing the CoC.

I know this first hand for the projects I was involved in. It vaguely sounded good, the maintainers were leftists too and everybody opposes harassment, right?

> That list, by the way, is a list of projects run by people who bowed to pressure and didn’t really think it thru or believed the lies pushed by those pushing the CoC.

Are you implying that those who support a CoC are lying or somehow not "strong" enough to oppose it? You've stated elsewhere [0] your objection that people who oppose a CoC are implied to be bigoted. And yet here you are assuming that those who have no problem with a CoC are weak and have bowed to pressure or believing some lie. It works both ways my friend.

[0] > If you don’t understand, maybe Consider the objections, instead of ( unintentionally) writing as if the people who object are presumed abusive or bigoted.

I don’t see the contradiction. Just look at any of the commit threads onva prohect where opposition to the CoC is discussed. They fly in “developers” who claim they don’t feel included and bully the maintainer to accept it, often straight up violating their own code in the process.

But then as the original agreement says there is no racism against whites people and no sexism against men.

> But then as the original agreement says there is no racism against whites people and no sexism against men.

Where does it say that? Here is the full text of the CoC: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-con...

Thank you for posting that. I wish that link was higher up since I think people need to read the damn CoC before losing their shit.

Like, I don't really love it, but I don't really hate it either, and after reading it I find it hard to see what the LINUX IZ DED ZOMG kerfuffle is about.

Having read it, I thought there would be more to it. I don’t see enough to either agree or disagree with. That document is so vague and open to interpretation. Essentially only one part seems to be the meat:

> Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior.

That’s it. If it’s acceptable to the maintainers, it’s acceptable. If it’s unacceptable to the maintainers, it’s not.

Perhaps they don’t want to get called a “rape apologist” by the CoC pushers like that T’so guy who didn’t sign? It happened with zero repercussions to the offenders too since they’re the mob in charge. There’s your problem.

Any open source project that gains enough traction to require a proper governance model has adopted a code of conduct. (Although I'd be interested in seeing if there are any notable counter-examples).

Whether or not it is based on the Contributor Covenant is irrelevant -- the language is roughly the same broad brush strokes with which you appear to have ideological differences. Do you take issue with the "Enforcement" section?

I suppose this means you (and anyone else that has a problem with COCs, I guess) will only contribute to small-to-medium open source projects where the maintainer does it as a hobby?

> Any open source project that gains enough traction to require a proper governance model has adopted a code of conduct.

That sentence probably needs some adjustment for time dependence. There were plenty of open source projects with proper governance models in the 90s (e.g. GNU, Debian) but AFAIK CoCs are a relatively recent thing.

Well, sure.

But a governance model that relies on a couple of hundred self-policing contributors needs to evolve with scale, right?

There are not more contributors to those low level projects, just more people complaining.

> and one I didn’t realize had adopted it.

You can see how you not noticing it is incompatible with your comments about CoCs being the end of the fucking world, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com