undefined | Better HN

0 pointscrispyambulance7y ago0 comments

There will always be some people looking to take advantage of "the rules".

For some, that means finding bizarre loopholes far outside any reasonable intention of the rules. For others, it means attempting to enforce the rules with such rigidity that almost anything can be seen as a violation.

I think a healthy community will realize that it is not their rules that makes them resilient, but rather their ability to use sound judgement and be flexible about problems and solutions. Linux will not be destroyed by a CoC that tries to be more inclusive even if there are attempts at abusing that CoC.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

VonGallifrey7y ago· 2 in thread

Why have a CoC then at all? If you know that it is not the rules that make them resilient then why make them at all. All they serve to do is giving ways to exclude people based on Loopholes and overly strict interpretation of said rules.

If the leadership interpreting those rules are reasonable then they wouldn't need these rules in the first place, if they are not reasonable then the rules are useless.

Especially since CoC are most often applied in a very Hypocritical way. The CoC states "Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences" which is however only true if you have one of the approved viewpoints. Which we are seeing right now with the Linux CoC. Of course no one does anything about all the slanderous accusations that get made to oust someone with the CoC even though those accusations themselves are violating the CoC.

It is also especially worrisome that these pushes for CoC or language policing come mostly from the outside and try to dictate the rules you need to follow and the rules that you need to make people in your project follow.

crispyambulanceOP7y ago

The thing is Linus HIMSELF has admitted that there is a problem and that he was a part of the problem. He has not only signed off on the CoC, but has also stepped down for a while. Like I said, the CoC is an effort to address things that have been going wrong in certain communities-- like Linux, Stackoverflow, and some conferences. If everything were A-OK, there would be no need for them.

VonGallifrey7y ago

With the risk of sounding like a tinfoil conspiracy theorist here: I don't believe that this came from him. This came from outside pressure. Not just the fact that parts of his statements where clearly written by someone else, but also the fact that this comes after years of pressure for him to step down.

What exactly do you believe that this CoC addresses by the way? I am generally unconvinced that a CoC does anything positive at all, but what is it that you believe that it does?

2 more replies

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC7y ago

None of that is an argument for or against the CoC, though, is it? Just because something can be survived doesn't make it a good idea, does it?

> Linux will not be destroyed by a CoC that tries to be more inclusive even if there are attempts at abusing that CoC.

Also, apart from the fact that this isn't an argument in favor: How do you know that?

Also, how does it try to be more inclusive by declaring more behavior off limits? I mean, it's a set of rules that mostly specifies what you can be banned for. Now, you might also dislike those things that are declared unacceptable ... but that doesn't really make it more inclusive, does it?

And mind you I am not saying that being more exclusive is necessarily a bad thing, but I very much dislike this kind of newspeak because it seems manipulative to me.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse