Godot Engine continues advancing Vulkan support, adopts new Code of Conduct

The lead developer himself clarified some things - which all sound fine to me.
I asked if they should maybe add a tl;dr of that to the statement itself, which he said "might be a good idea".

Juan is awesome and is the reason I Patreon Godot as well as GOL. As Mirv points out, it's a shame that all the focus on this thread is on the CoC when Godot 4.0 is just around the corner and IS GOING TO BE AWESOME! And I don't even use it. I just see guys like this developing, in Linux, on Godot and I know it's special and deserves support.

So, my advice - go support it. Incredible project, allowing other, incredible projects to exist. $5 a month to help make that happen? Hell yes.


Last edited by scaine on 5 Nov 2019 at 4:01 pm UTC

But whatever happens that is not (either publicly or privately) between workers/team members but between a worker and other, unrelated people (or no people at all, just someone voicing opinions), should have no consequences beyond affecting inter-personal relations at work if it becomes known.

If a member of a community has, for example, publicly voiced homophobic opinions, that will reflect poorly on the entire community. Also, LGBT members of the community would find it hard, if not impossible, to work with him afterwards.

But whatever happens that is not (either publicly or privately) between workers/team members but between a worker and other, unrelated people (or no people at all, just someone voicing opinions), should have no consequences beyond affecting inter-personal relations at work if it becomes known.

If a member of a community has, for example, publicly voiced homophobic opinions, that will reflect poorly on the entire community.

Yes, and that is nonsensical collective punishment that I do not support.
"Someone of you did something I do not agree with, unrelated to the project, so now I hate all of you, and the project, especially if that person's head doesn't roll".
If that screeching is the best people can do, I can't wait for the next meteorite...

Plus, it is very much "guilty until proven innocent".
To begin with, what is or isn't homophobic is very much subjective. I can remember a pretty harmless soap bottle causing quite a stir...
And even if it was something really serious: Maybe that person was drunk, or maybe just in a really bad space, or, or, or... Those are not excuses, but there are a lot of reasons to give second chances and not just pre-emptively exclude everyone who might disagree on something.

Also, LGBT members of the community would find it hard, if not impossible, to work with him afterwards.

Maybe, and that would be a reason to talk about it and see what can be done - and if nothing can be done, then termination (of the contract! geez...) might be the result. If that member is set in their ways, that will be for the best.

But you don't see people calling out for "Okay, that's not alright, let's talk about it". You instead see the screeching "Off with their heads!" Twitter mob - and even if heads do roll, that project will forever be tainted in the eyes of those, never to be forgiven.

I remember the case of a guy who was working on a game on KS. It became known that that guy was following some groups on Deviantart (or sth like that, doesn't matter). Among those a group producing some Nazi memorabilia art (anything from iron crosses to big boobed nazi anime to tanks) - and a foot fetish group, which I find way more disturbing -, he also engaged in some forum RPs playing a nazi.
You know how this story ends, right? I don't even need to finish it.

You can support that exclusive mindset - or try to be more reasonable, which thankfully the Godot devs have chosen to be, it seems.

Would I want to have a misogynist in a project I am leading? Absolutely NOT!!! Not even if their code was the best thing since sliced bread. I haul their sorry butt out of the door, period. And I find this the most natural thing on Earth, really.

If that misogynist in your project behaves just fine towards everyone in the project and the users and does a good job - what does it matter what views he holds privately?

Wait, what does that have to do with anything? Weren't you arguing that the point was that they should be able to exercise free speech while working in the project and so, in this example, act like a misogynist? If they're restraining themselves, that's back to the code of conduct you don't like.

it is behaviour like that which drives more and more people to the extreme sides of the spectrum while not changing anyone's mind - quite the opposite, actually, it only reinforces their views and theories.

Mmm, no, I don't think that's the case--or rather, it may be the case for individual examples, but not overall. That is, sure, individual misogynists or whatever who get "policed" are likely to resent it and perhaps even become more misogynist, or more racist or whatever. At least for a while.
But in the broader picture, people get socialized by the way they see people act. So for instance, if kids in high school see their peers bullying people for being "fucking faggots", they will assume that's what you do and vaguely assume there must be some reason for it. Social environments set norms, which people (except for a few nonconformists) tend to follow. And once those norms are followed, they are for better or worse internalized by many as how things should be. So if you set up explicit norms, sure, people who were used to a different, more hostile or racist or sexist or whatever norm will for a while at least be annoyed. But all the people who were just going along, acting like assholes because that's what you do, will go along with the new norm too, and new people coming in will just absorb the new norm naturally. So for better or worse, such things are fairly effective.

They are not completely effective, mind you. I really don't think anyone's going to end racism by setting up some codes of conduct. Racism persists because oligarchy persists, and racism is useful to oligarchs, and they take measures to encourage it and give people a stake in it.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 5 Nov 2019 at 5:13 pm UTC

But whatever happens that is not (either publicly or privately) between workers/team members but between a worker and other, unrelated people (or no people at all, just someone voicing opinions), should have no consequences beyond affecting inter-personal relations at work if it becomes known.

If a member of a community has, for example, publicly voiced homophobic opinions, that will reflect poorly on the entire community.

Yes, and that is nonsensical collective punishment that I do not support.
"Someone of you did something I do not agree with, unrelated to the project, so now I hate all of you, and the project, especially if that person's head doesn't roll".
If that screeching is the best people can do, I can't wait for the next meteorite...

I don't know who made the original comment but as a part of the Godot CoC team I can assure you that this is not policy for regular project members. Someone who expresses, for instance, homophobic beliefs in public will however not be selected for any (semi) official Godot positions. Think of part of any Github teams, GSoC mentors etc.

It is however not in any way a policy that someone who expresses themselves would face consequences just for that. Of course, expressing such a belief inside a Godot channel would still be considered a violation of our CoC.

Weren't you arguing that the point was that they should be able to exercise free speech while working in the project and so, in this example, act like a misogynist?

I never said that anyone should be able to freely take the piss on other team members or users, that would be pretty damn stupid.

But as long as they keep their misogynist acting outside of the project and interactions with its users, and as long as it doesn't become extreme with calls to violence or stuff like that, there is no problem.

If they're restraining themselves, that's back to the code of conduct you don't like.

The code is fine, for the most part. Just too much room for abuse, especially the "in private" part, which is by now confirmed to mean "in private among the community" as I suspected all along.

Wow, still arguing semantics, everyone? As long as you're now all happy, positve Patreons of this awesome project, carry on. If not, move on. :D

Weren't you arguing that the point was that they should be able to exercise free speech while working in the project and so, in this example, act like a misogynist?

I never said that anyone should be able to freely take the piss on other team members or users, that would be pretty damn stupid.

But as long as they keep their misogynist acting outside of the project and interactions with its users, and as long as it doesn't become extreme with calls to violence or stuff like that, there is no problem.

If they're restraining themselves, that's back to the code of conduct you don't like.

The code is fine, for the most part. Just too much room for abuse, especially the "in private" part, which is by now confirmed to mean "in private among the community" as I suspected all along.

Ah, I see. It's actually amazing how little, if anything, we're arguing about then.

Yes, and that is nonsensical collective punishment that I do not support.
"Someone of you did something I do not agree with, unrelated to the project, so now I hate all of you, and the project, especially if that person's head doesn't roll".

I don't know who made the original comment but as a part of the Godot CoC team I can assure you that this is not policy for regular project members.

You say that now, and I do hope it is so. But we will see about that if/when the first real shitstorm hits and the
mob comes knocking, torches lighted.
It is very easy to give in to peer pressure, hoping it will make the problem go away.

Someone who expresses, for instance, homophobic beliefs in public will however not be selected for any (semi) official Godot positions. Think of part of any Github teams, GSoC mentors etc.

That's your decision to make. It is your project.
Roles that include representing the project or team (say, a community manager) obviously couldn't be staffed with someone who expressed views many won't agree with.
But you will have to live with people not understanding how a persons views on unrelated topics affect their ability to be a GSoC mentor, for example.

It is however not in any way a policy that someone who expresses themselves would face consequences just for that.

I am not sure how this statement fits with the last one.

Never understood the whole issue with public/private to be honest. If I start a project, take regular contributions from three people, then discovered one of them was an unapologetic racist on an unrelated forum... you think I'm gonna want to work with that asshole?

Nah. And if I do, I'll likely lose (or at least risk losing) my other two contributors.

Ditch them. And note that I don't make that decision based on a CoC. I might have one, but my decision is based on my feelings as an inclusive, supportive, tolerant person. I just don't tolerate racists, say. The CoC only serves two purposes. First, it sets out my stall. It says, this is who I am and what I believe. And second, it helps reinforce the decisions I've already made as a not-scumbag-human.

Juan's already said all this, as TheSHEEEP linked to earlier though.

Now go support this insanely awesome project!

It is however not in any way a policy that someone who expresses themselves would face consequences just for that.

I am not sure how this statement fits with the last one.

You are right, that was poor wording on my part. What I intended to say was that merely expressing an opinion will not normally result in any action being taken against someone. I guess there are consequences if that person were to later try to become a GSoC mentor.

If that misogynist in your project behaves just fine towards everyone in the project and the users and does a good job - what does it matter what views he holds privately?

I have never met a misogynist who was able to hide their crappy personality for long when there was a female around, but even IF they somehow could hold back in my project, I -still- don't want to work with a person who I know beyond reasonable doubt, is a douchebag. It's my right to chose who I work with. Again, you're more or less saying that voicing douchebag opinions is fine, but not wanting to be exposed to douchebags, is not. It's hypocrisy, because by doing that, you implicitly rank one side's freedom higher than the other.

There have been some truly wonderful comments in this thread.

I'm glad it hasn't devolved into a flame fest.

The GoL community is diverse, civil, and mostly tolerant. <3

And we need to speak out about those who on our side of the argument step out of line.

@Scaine and Kimryelle, you have both taken some effort to explain us you would exclude people for what they are regardless of what they do. Or do not in that specific case.

(Not that i think you are not free to do so) :D

Well sure! The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. If I know someone is being a douche, acting in ways I despise, but I continue to work with that person, I've set the standard for that community.

That's all a CoC really is. A reflection of the type of person you want in your community.

And sure, cancel culture can make some of this stuff quite murky, but a CoC isn't going to change that happening.


Last edited by scaine on 5 Nov 2019 at 6:43 pm UTC

@Scaine and Kimryelle, you have both taken some effort to explain us you would exclude people for what they are regardless of what they do.

Yep. I fully support them being able to express these opinions about how they'd like the systems to work.

It also helps me know that I should avoid contributing to projects where they have positions of power.

@Scaine and Kimryelle, you have both taken some effort to explain us you would exclude people for what they are regardless of what they do.

Yep. I fully support them being able to express these opinions about how they'd like the systems to work.

It also helps me know that I should avoid contributing to projects where they have positions of power.

So you'll avoid Godot? Because if I had a position of power in any project, I'd support using their CoC.

So you'll avoid Godot? Because if I had a position of power in any project, I'd support using their CoC.

I should avoid contributing to projects where they have positions of power.

If you are in a position of power in the Godot community, yes, I'd avoid contributing to Godot.

I can take the CoC at face value, but when it is coupled with activism from folks in positions of power within the community it can take a very sinister turn.

I wouldn't avoid using the engine, or playing games that are created with it.

But I prefer to put my energies into communities that are welcoming of civil dissent and diversity of opinion.

I'm in support of communities having codes of conduct that accurately and publicly reflect the types of folks they want in their communities. It helps make an informed decision to avoid the community if necessary.

It is a win/win.

But, this is just a hypothetical, since I don't think you're in a position of power in Godot. If you are, please let me know so that I can steer clear, for your benefit and my own.

Thankfully, those who have commented who seem to be in positions of power within Godot seem to be expressing an ideology that is more tolerant of folks like myself than some other communities are.

<3

But I prefer to put my energies into communities that are welcoming of civil dissent and diversity of opinion

I am not sure what part of the CoC made you think that civil dissent and diversity of opinion isn't welcome. I didn't find any of that in there. And neither scaine nor myself have said anything to that extent, either. But yes, I do really not think that racism, misogyny, sexism, homophobia and bigotry qualify as "civil dissent" by any stretch of imagination, and neither are any of these things an "opinion". Being a pathetic moron isn't an "opinion". I guess that's really the thing where we don't agree on.

But yes, I do really not think that racism, misogyny, sexism, homophobia and bigotry qualify as "civil dissent" by any stretch of imagination, and neither are any of these things an "opinion". Being a pathetic moron isn't an "opinion". I guess that's really the thing where we don't agree on.

Please share with us objective definitions of "racism", "misogyny", "sexism", and "bigotry".

Too often these terms are defined in a subjective manner.

Please note that it is quite possible to be racist against (or for) any race, including white.

Please note that it is quite possible to be sexist against (or for) any gender, including male.

If using the term "misogyny" in a document, please include "misandry" as well or the document has a gender bias.

When the terms regarding bigotry are used without a clear, public, and *objective* definition, they can (and do) create an environment where it is acceptable to discriminate against folks for their biology.

I'm in full support of denouncing bigotry in all forms.

I'm in full support of having clear codes of conduct that use objective language to describe the folks they want as part of their community.

I'm completely *against* using the terms for bigotry that focus solely on bigotry against certain genders, certain races and certain ideologies.

Bigotry is not a trait that is only held by folks who hate a specific demographic. Bigotry exists against all demographics, even the ones that are seen as the oppressors.

(Edit: It seems like you're coming awfully close to calling me a "pathetic moron". That is quite acceptable. However, in the spirit of having a productive conversation I'd like to request that we refrain from trying to insult anyone. Even if they're hypothetical.)


Last edited by psymin on 5 Nov 2019 at 9:27 pm UTC

Please share with us objective definitions of "racism", "misogyny", "sexism", and "bigotry".

Too often these terms are defined in a subjective manner.

Please note that it is quite possible to be racist against (or for) any race, including white.

Please note that it is quite possible to be sexist against (or for) any gender, including male.

Please share with us an objective definition of "definition".
Language is somewhat fuzzy, yes. And indeed, all terms are ultimately defined in a (somewhat) subjective manner. Linguistic meaning is determined by usage. But I've noticed that generally nobody has that hard a time getting what they mean across and nobody worries that much about this stuff unless either
1) They have an English Literature paper due and their prof is into postmodernism, or
2) They want to evade the common meanings of something for political reasons. So suddenly if we talk about sexism or racism we get all these postmodernist, deconstructionist right wingers wanting to quibble about linguistic indeterminacy and, not generally having a background in English Literature, not doing it terribly well.

Now, the whole "well, you can be racist and sexist against white males, too, you know" thing which I hear ad nauseam. Speaking as a straight white male, I've got it made. There's all kinds of shit I don't take because of it. It takes a special kind of whiny to complain that other races and genders and orientations and whatnot getting a fair shake now and then is some kind of reverse discrimination. Still, there probably are a fair number of blacks who are resentful of white folks and have skewed views of them, et cetera et cetera. But it doesn't matter. For two basic reasons: One, the fact that people worry more about one kind of discrimination than another does not affect the typical remedy proposed--so for instance, in no code of conduct anywhere does it says "You can't say bad things about any group except white males"--rather, the approach is always to apply some general principle of equality and/or civility, which will happen to protect the poor oppressed white males even though there was no particular intent to do so. Second, because prejudice is a problem largely because it is used by those with more power to step on those with less. If those with less power get upset about that, it has little impact on those with more power doing the stepping, so there's not much reason to fear it.

Some white males like to pretend that pendulums have shifted so far, people are worrying so much about (various other groups) that now we're somehow the oppressed group, but it's the most utter patent bullshit. White guys still have the money and the power and better interest rates and less chance of getting whacked by cops and on and on and on. The utterly wimpy fear I often see displayed, of the prospect of having to operate on a level playing field with everyone else, shames me.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 5 Nov 2019 at 10:41 pm UTC