The Dread Slender Gnome on Nostr: So Bryan Lunduke talks a lot about something called "contributor code of conduct", ...
So Bryan Lunduke talks a lot about something called "contributor code of conduct", which according to him is used to eradicate wrong-think in the open source programming world.
I got curious and wanted to see the notorious code for myself.
Now I have no reason to doubt the claims, from Lunduke and others (e.g. Taylan (Male Feminist Arc) (nprofile…xnqn) ), that people expressing wrongthink are being banned left right and centre. Well, maybe not left (ba-dum-TSSSSS).
But I can't see any smoking gun in the code itself, IF I FOUND THE CORRECT ONE (if someone who sees this knows this isn't the right one, please let me know!!).
The relevant parts are:
We as members, contributors, and leaders pledge to make participation in our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation. We pledge to act and interact in ways that contribute to an open, welcoming, diverse, inclusive, and healthy community.
Examples of behavior that contributes to a positive environment for our community include:
Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people
Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences
Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback
Accepting responsibility and apologizing to those affected by our mistakes, and learning from the experience
Focusing on what is best not just for us as individuals, but for the overall community
Examples of unacceptable behavior include:
The use of sexualized language or imagery, and sexual attention or advances of any kind
Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
Public or private harassment
Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or email address, without their explicit permission
Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting
Now, to me this seems on its face, innocuous. There doesn't appear to be anything there about banning wrong opinions, or mandating political views. However, that's clearly because it is fundamentally vague. Notably it bans "harassment", but nowhere does it define what counts as harassment. Therefore it can easily be made to function the same way as vague hate speech laws, in that anyone wanting to use this code of conduct to shut people up, can easily do so as long as they redefine any or all terms included.
So if (!) this is the code of conduct Lunduke is speaking about, it's clearly fundamentally flawed. That is, it will only work in an environment that already operates in good faith. It can not be used to rescue an environment where people operate in bad faith, because the bad faith actors can use the code itself as a weapon.
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/1/code_of_conduct/
I got curious and wanted to see the notorious code for myself.
Now I have no reason to doubt the claims, from Lunduke and others (e.g. Taylan (Male Feminist Arc) (nprofile…xnqn) ), that people expressing wrongthink are being banned left right and centre. Well, maybe not left (ba-dum-TSSSSS).
But I can't see any smoking gun in the code itself, IF I FOUND THE CORRECT ONE (if someone who sees this knows this isn't the right one, please let me know!!).
The relevant parts are:
We as members, contributors, and leaders pledge to make participation in our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation. We pledge to act and interact in ways that contribute to an open, welcoming, diverse, inclusive, and healthy community.
Examples of behavior that contributes to a positive environment for our community include:
Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people
Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences
Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback
Accepting responsibility and apologizing to those affected by our mistakes, and learning from the experience
Focusing on what is best not just for us as individuals, but for the overall community
Examples of unacceptable behavior include:
The use of sexualized language or imagery, and sexual attention or advances of any kind
Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
Public or private harassment
Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or email address, without their explicit permission
Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting
Now, to me this seems on its face, innocuous. There doesn't appear to be anything there about banning wrong opinions, or mandating political views. However, that's clearly because it is fundamentally vague. Notably it bans "harassment", but nowhere does it define what counts as harassment. Therefore it can easily be made to function the same way as vague hate speech laws, in that anyone wanting to use this code of conduct to shut people up, can easily do so as long as they redefine any or all terms included.
So if (!) this is the code of conduct Lunduke is speaking about, it's clearly fundamentally flawed. That is, it will only work in an environment that already operates in good faith. It can not be used to rescue an environment where people operate in bad faith, because the bad faith actors can use the code itself as a weapon.
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/1/code_of_conduct/