Hacker News Reader

Comment by amaccuish | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com