Quoting: GuestBut look at the Opal project case: They were attacked by the aforementioned activists who tried to coerce them in firing a developer because she had said something they didn't like. It failed but they succeeded in making the Opal people to adopt their infamous CoC.

Then, the famous CoC was "improved" in order to get at said developer. And it failed again and the Opal people simply got rid of the CoC and established rules of their own.

Now, i read comments suggesting Google and Facebook are behind this and that hell will break loose but i have no reliable information about that so i do not know. Wait and see. :)

I find it a bit repulsive that said activists can put "Linux" on their headcount webpage but right now i do not see much more.

A link would be usefull here;

https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

I mean a lot of people here seems to naively think that the coc will not be abused to target people over their personal non-project related views.

An here it's nicely documented - people who have no affiliation with the project come to attack a contributor over comments on that persons twitter feed. As far as I know his views were never expressed in a project content, I was unaware of this particular case but it's by no means unique nor is it confined to coding/opensource.

In case you were wondering the one filing the bug to have the contributor removed is the same spear heading the coc change.

And just to be clear; if this person had made such remarks in a project context (code/docs/issues/inter-project communications/on behalf of the project) I fully support them being chastised and removed if they are unwilling to accept that there needs to be separation between "professional" and personal. I don't believe they should be removed outright (unless unwilling to keep that separation) - you don't achieve change by isolating those who do not agree with you.

Yes, people had a big fight over this issue at a small Javascript project. A fight that happened before they had a CoC.

Here's an exercise you might find interesting: Check out how many of the tens of thousands of projects that actually adopted a CoC, even one derived from the same template, did not have these problems.

Such an overreaction.

Quoting: Guppyyou don't achieve change by isolating those who do not agree with you.

I think that is a very good and very important point. This has always led to more group-think and hate in the history of humankind. We shouldn't fall into this trap again.

Quoting: Doc Angelo

Quoting: Guppyyou don't achieve change by isolating those who do not agree with you.

I think that is a very good and very important point. This has always led to more group-think and hate in the history of humankind. We shouldn't fall into this trap again.

If you call someone out for public hate speech, in effect you're trying to isolate someone for trying to isolate a whole group of people. Suddenly it's not so clear cut anymore, is it?

I do agree with you though, as long as you apply this equally to everyone, regardless of the subject. You have to accept different views on gender and sexuality as well or your seemingly high-minded ideals turn out to be nothing more than self-serving hypocrisy.

Quoting: tuubiIf you call someone out for public hate speech, in effect you're trying to isolate someone for trying to isolate a whole group of people.

Telling someone that I think that he is being hateful isn't the same as isolating him. It's different when I do some kind of Twitter shitstorm in order to denounce this person and invite/instigate other people to do the same, and then proceed to demand a ban, then it would be isolating someone who isolates someone.

But I would never do that. If you use the same weapons or methods, there is no difference between you and the other people. I don't use sticks to hit people who use sticks to hit other people.

Quoting: tuubiSuddenly it's not so clear cut anymore, is it?

Not at all. It's the old "An eye for an eye" thing. It gets only worse if you do that.

Quoting: tuubiI do agree with you though, as long as you apply this equally to everyone, regardless of the subject. You have to accept different views on gender and sexuality as well or your seemingly high-minded ideals turn out to be nothing more than self-serving hypocrisy.

That is pretty much where I stand. The last sentence of yours is very well put. If you don't tolerate that others are using pronouns for themselves, you are being intolerant. If you don't tolerate that others are not using these pronouns, you are being intolerant just the same.

From the Contributor Covenant on which the new Linux CoC is based on:

Quotethe use of insensitive language, thoughtless use of pronouns, assumptions of gender, and even sexualized or culturally insensitive names.

Here's what I think: If you decide to learn new pronouns and remember who of your peers prefers which one, and you make an effort to include that in your language, then this is indeed a rather nice thing to do, and I would agree to call this thoughtful.

But I strongly disagree on calling not doing that "thoughtless" or "bad" (as in opposite of nice). That's not how this works. That is logically not sound. Doing something nice is of course nice. Not doing something nice isn't per default "bad". I hope I get this across properly.

If you do not tolerate people who are not using the same words as you do, you are not tolerating people who don't have the same views on gender identities as you.

Quoting: Doc AngeloFrom the Contributor Covenant on which the new Linux CoC is based on:

Quotethe use of insensitive language, thoughtless use of pronouns, assumptions of gender, and even sexualized or culturally insensitive names.

So, in a discussion about the Linux kernel, you once again point to a document that has nothing to do with it. That part of the template was not included in the Linux kernel Code of Conduct. Indeed there's no mention of pronouns at all in it.


If you don't know the proper pronoun for someone, it's easy to avoid using any gendered pronoun at all on a technical board. Use their name or "they" for example. Easy.

And if you do know, deliberately using the wrong pronoun is not cool. I'm sure you can agree on that. If I tell you I'm male and you still insist on referring to me as "she", it would be a deliberate discourtesy and deserves to be treated as such. Not that I'd care much personally, but some people do care and it's their right to care.

Quoting: tuubiSo, in a discussion about the Linux kernel, you once again point to a document that has nothing to do with it. That part of the template was not included in the Linux kernel Code of Conduct. Indeed there's no mention of pronouns at all in it.

I disagree on your assessment that this has nothing to do with the situation.

(The part I quoted isn't in their template either. It's part of the explanation of the ideology behind all that.)

Quoting: tuubiIf you don't know the proper pronoun for someone, it's easy to avoid using any gendered pronoun at all on a technical board. Use their name or "they" for example. Easy.

And if you do know, deliberately using the wrong pronoun is not cool. I'm sure you can agree on that. If I tell you I'm male and you still insist on referring to me as "she", it would be a deliberate discourtesy and deserves to be treated as such. Not that I'd care much personally, but some people do care and it's their right to care.

As I said above, not using these terms is not the same as deliberately insulting someone. I walked this earth for 40 years now and there always was the same pattern for me: Looks like a girl? I call the person "she". Looks like a boy? I call the person "he". That's "built-in" into my language usage. It comes out without even thinking about it. It's learned behavior. I can't "easily" stop doing that. That's not how brains work. I can do that, and as I said, I can choose to put effort into doing that. I also recognize that putting that effort into my language will eventually change it and it will become natural after some time. But all this doesn't mean that not doing it becomes "bad".

I strongly disagree with the view that not doing that is "treating someone bad" or "discriminating someone". It's absolutely not like that. As soon as you pretty much force others to use that language, you are being intolerant. That's all I can say about that.

And in the context of all this it's important to note: We don't have to agree on that. We should be able to coexist in a community while not sharing the same view on this particular topic.

Quoting: Doc Angelo

Quoting: tuubiSo, in a discussion about the Linux kernel, you once again point to a document that has nothing to do with it. That part of the template was not included in the Linux kernel Code of Conduct. Indeed there's no mention of pronouns at all in it.

I disagree on your assessment that this has nothing to do with the situation.

Why?

Quoting: Doc Angelo(The part I quoted isn't in their template either. It's part of the explanation of the ideology behind all that.)

First of all, you seem to be discussing the ideology (and personal details) of the author of the template document, which might or might not coincide with that of the people who wrote the Linux kernel CoC. And secondly, the ideology only matters when it negatively affects reality. Good things can be done for the (subjectively) wrong reasons.

Quoting: Doc AngeloI walked this earth for 40 years now and there always was the same pattern for me: Looks like a girl? I call the person "she". Looks like a boy? I call the person "he". That's "built-in" into my language usage. It comes out without even thinking about it. It's learned behavior. I can't "easily" stop doing that. That's not how brains work.

I guess you're just unusually inflexible. I've mistaken someone's gender. Usually a child's. I've had no trouble adjusting when it has been pointed out to me. And I have even less trouble when the discussion happens over the internet, where all I see are words on the screen and maybe a tiny avatar image that might or might not represent the person. We're the same age by the way if you think that matters.

Also, why are we still discussing pronouns?

Quoting: Doc AngeloAnd in the context of all this it's important to note: We don't have to agree on that. We should be able to coexist in a community while not sharing the same view on this particular topic.

Sure we can. I hope my blunt style of communication (and occasional frustration) doesn't seem hostile. That's not my intention. Just chalk it up to me being a Finn or something.

Quoting: tuubiI've mistaken someone's gender. Usually a child's. I've had no trouble adjusting when it has been pointed out to me.

That's absolutely not what I meant. Sorry, but not even remotely. I think I'll leave it at that. Communication between the both of us doesn't seem to work out well enough for such a topic.

Quoting: tuubiSure we can. I hope my blunt style of communication (and occasional frustration) doesn't seem hostile. That's not my intention. Just chalk it up to me being a Finn or something.

No sweat. I didn't get the notion that you are being hostile to me. We just seem to work quite differently at these things. That shouldn't be a problem. :)