GCC Steering Committee Announces a Code of Conduct (gnu.org) 202
GCC is the GNU project's free and open-source cross-platform compiler collection. Now an anonymous reader shared this announcement from the mailing list for GCC:
The GCC Steering Committee has decided to adopt a Code of Conduct for interactions in GCC project spaces, including mailing lists, bugzilla, and IRC.
The vast majority of the time, the GCC community is a very civil, cooperative space. On the rare occasions that it isn't, it's helpful to have something to point to to remind people of our expectations. It's also good for newcomers to have something to refer to, for both how they are expected to conduct themselves and how they can expect to be treated...
At this time the CoC is preliminary: the code itself should be considered active, but the CoC committee (and so the reporting and response procedures) are not yet in place.
There's also an official FAQ, and GCC's Code of Conduct begins with this introduction. "Like the free software community as a whole, the GCC community is made up of a mixture of professionals and volunteers from all over the world, working on every aspect of the project — including mentorship, teaching, and connecting people."
Where this leads to issues and unhappiness, "we have a few ground rules that we ask people to adhere to... [T]ake it in the spirit in which it's intended — a guide to make it easier to enrich all of us, the project, and the broader communities in which we participate."
The vast majority of the time, the GCC community is a very civil, cooperative space. On the rare occasions that it isn't, it's helpful to have something to point to to remind people of our expectations. It's also good for newcomers to have something to refer to, for both how they are expected to conduct themselves and how they can expect to be treated...
At this time the CoC is preliminary: the code itself should be considered active, but the CoC committee (and so the reporting and response procedures) are not yet in place.
There's also an official FAQ, and GCC's Code of Conduct begins with this introduction. "Like the free software community as a whole, the GCC community is made up of a mixture of professionals and volunteers from all over the world, working on every aspect of the project — including mentorship, teaching, and connecting people."
Where this leads to issues and unhappiness, "we have a few ground rules that we ask people to adhere to... [T]ake it in the spirit in which it's intended — a guide to make it easier to enrich all of us, the project, and the broader communities in which we participate."
code of conduct (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
GCC is the GNU project's free and open-source cross-platform compiler collection.
And you need a "code of conduct" for this .... why exactly?
Re: code of conduct (Score:2)
Because people do not know how - or choose not to - communicate in a civil manner and treat other people with respect, at least over the internet.
Funny thing, I was watching an old Computer Chronicles episode about modems and BBSs. The issue was exactly the same then. They discussed people âoehiding behind keyboardsâ. I recall those days, although I wasnâ(TM)t connecting to BBSâ(TM)s until a few years after. It wasnâ(TM)t great then, and not only has it gotten worse but it has now s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately it isn't about "respect" anymore and these clowns want submission to their ideologies. Calling someone by the birth gender or using the term master/slave are triggering events for this crop of woke snowflakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a person's ability to participate within them.
I know it doesn't intend to, but it sounds like I'm gonna get my pull request rejected for rating the Dave Chapelle comedy special 5 stars.
Re: (Score:3)
This is highly likely, not solely bc of having some ground rules -- but due to also introducing a Committee culture, and enforcement regime that involves a group assigned to police others' conduct.
I guarantee that once the overall group is large enough - you will have some people who would like to initiate action, stir up some drama, "Because they can", or because they are bored.
The CoC committee meetings will also be boring for their members if they don't also constantly have some issue to discuss, or s
Re:code of conduct (Score:5, Insightful)
And you need a "code of conduct" for this .... why exactly?
gcc needs to constantly attract new contributors who will participate in their free time, even if free time sometimes means on the job (they need people to wilfully submit patches upstream, whether these patches were developed at home or during job hours), and they will only find people to send patches upstream if it's not a headache to lead with local bully, even if it's only condescending comments.
Internet community forums frequently have a code of conduct, which is what moderators enforce. For example when you joined Ubuntu forums a while ago you were suggested to pledge to a code of conduct and hence became an "Ubuntero". Big serious projects like gcc just did not think they needed to have one explicitly, because people who join such projects usually are highly educated, highly qualified, experienced professionals (also often boring greybeards), and there is expectation that these behave well without the need to tell them. If there is a risk that not all the community members follow the same rules, and some of them ruin it for everyone else, then you need to makes the rules explicit such that people know what to follow, or as last resort there is some due process to turn away the irredeemable. I can't tell if gcc was in this situation, but better safe than sorry. It should cost zero for most contributors.
Re:code of conduct (Score:5, Insightful)
And you need a "code of conduct" for this .... why exactly?
gcc needs to constantly attract new contributors who will participate in their free time, even if free time sometimes means on the job (they need people to wilfully submit patches upstream, whether these patches were developed at home or during job hours), and they will only find people to send patches upstream if it's not a headache to lead with local bully, even if it's only condescending comments.
There is never an acceptable reason for actual bullying.
But in 3 many years I have been in the workforce, I have had the experience of trying to work with people who consider any criticism, even the tiniest meekest sort as a egregious and unforgivable offense. Interestingly, these people have all been substandard performers.
We called it "not taking telling", and the result was that the the only goal ended up being to not offend them.
As noted before, real bullying is not acceptable.
I had a co-worker who tried to pull that stunt on me. I was designing a new process and system that was going to be used in her department. S I would regularly meet with her and another person from their department to work out the details, and performed the design.
She wen't to my boss and claimed I was cutting her out of the loop, and not respecting her. My boss pointed to a several inch stack of memos, meeting minutes, and designs and processed I had implemented, and noted that every one was cc'd to her, and the other employee. He knew she was full of BS, but checked with the other employee who noted I was very polite, respectful and listened and went over everything with both of them.
Now I had suspected there might be something like her action, which had me really go deep into the documentation process. It was also why I had another witness. A form of walking on eggshells
And if I hadn't? Perhaps
It would be naive to believe that there would never be cases where someone used actual constructive criticism and tried to turn it into bullying, and a great reason to get rid of anyone who dared to criticize the easily offended.
So what is your fix? I can tell you that while she was the worst performer in her department, and I was definitely the highest performer in mine. If a volunteer effort, I wouldnot put up with the accusation, so I'd leave, and the person that was incompetent and easily offended, and turning job one into not offending the sensitive one, just perhaps is not going to make the group better, but worse and very likely would get a lot of others to leave.
But acceptable conduct being job one - competence is much less important.
Re: (Score:2)
I have had the experience of trying to work with people who consider any criticism, even the tiniest meekest sort as a egregious and unforgivable offense. Interestingly, these people have all been substandard performers.
We called it "not taking telling", and the result was that the the only goal ended up being to not offend them.
Why are you not seeing the described behavior as bullying? Causing drama when good-faith and honest feedback is given is not a reasonable workplace behavior. Yes, unwelcome feedback exists, yes Dunning-Kruger advice is annoying to revive, but the reasonable way to conduct yourself is to politely listen and ignore it (or if you are extra motivated, try to explain your decisions, but that rarely tends to work well).
Re:code of conduct (Score:4, Interesting)
I have had the experience of trying to work with people who consider any criticism, even the tiniest meekest sort as a egregious and unforgivable offense. Interestingly, these people have all been substandard performers.
We called it "not taking telling", and the result was that the the only goal ended up being to not offend them.
Why are you not seeing the described behavior as bullying?
Yes, it is a form of bullying - the term we used for that was a person being a "crybully". This is when a person establishes taking offense as a way to enforce their will. Most people do not want to offend others. The crybully starts off with small transgressions upon their sensibilities, and people comply. Eventually they establish themselves as a de-facto leader, the person who essentially takes over the place, and changes the group purpose from whatever it used to be to not offending them.
And despite AC's comments, there is no particular sex or gender of the crybully.
Causing drama when good-faith and honest feedback is given is not a reasonable workplace behavior.
So true. Where the crybully plies their trade is when any feedback at all is given to them. And sometimes they can become really offended for other people. I had one guy who for some reason would freak out if I gave any feedback at all. I even tried the sandwich method, as well as allowing him to think that some problems were my fault. Didn't matter, he refused to take any criticism at all. Pity was his work was reasonably competent. But if the workplace gets a temper tantrum when pointing out simple things like a typo
No one should be treated poorly for their sex or gender. But the crybully often conflates any criticism as a personal attack, and attaches their favorite reason for that. See the crybully coward's reply where they try to turn me into both a misogynist because the example I used stated the sex as a female, and a right winger as an added thing to whine about. Bloody hell, I have dealt with males, and females as the perpetually offended. AC crybully just tipped their hand in their reply. And the right wingers in here think I'm left wing. Sorry folks, I'm central in today's US politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, this bullshit story again.
It's always "the worst person in the department" who spends her (the villain is always a woman in this story) days looking for reasons to be offended, never produces anything of value, causes endless conflict, yet is somehow still employed.
My goodness, your decision to drop to anonymous Coward level was the only intelligent part of your posting.
Cool conclusions to jump to. Sorry to burst your assumption about her, but she was terminated not long afterwards.
As for the villain always being a woman - well, you done went and got triggered dint ya homie? I just used her case as an example because it was easiest to use.
In the 30 + years I was working at that place, there were easily offended people of both sexes. Would you have less booboo
Re: (Score:3)
gcc needs to constantly attract new contributors who will participate in their free time, even if free time sometimes means on the job (they need people to wilfully submit patches upstream, whether these patches were developed at home or during job hours), and they will only find people to send patches upstream if it's not a headache to lead with local bully, even if it's only condescending comments.
This goes both ways: you can attract new developers if starting contributing is easy, as just send a patch, no need to read rules and regulations, no need to watch every single word you say, no threats to be banned from project. COCs create bureaucracy and bureaucrats and turn a cooperative project into a corporation.
Re: (Score:3)
Get real. You could always be banned from anywhere. Lack of formal rules never stopped anyone in power from kicking you out.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but lack of formal rules reduces mental load and barriers to entry. If you're not a dog you know that being an asshole can get you kicked out. But if there's a "read our COC and confirm" page, you think that there's a bunch of rules you need to follow and if you just wanted to quickly submit a two-line patch, it's likely that at this point you'd go "ah, fuck it" and go away. Because it's not worth the effort.
Re: (Score:2)
For example when you joined Ubuntu forums a while ago you were suggested to pledge to a code of conduct and hence became an "Ubuntero".
And if you wanted to have a PPA, it was required.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I used "he" in the classic English standard sense as a generic, genderless pronoun for a person whose gender is unknown.
I've been using the singular 'they' for decades. The word 'they' has been used this way for hundreds of years. 'He' is not and has never been a genderless pronoun. That the default was to assume the person male was, and is, problematic. The solution is trivial, costs nothing, and has been around for more than 700 years. Refusing to do so at this point is inexcusable.
I'm not sure that I could, in good conscience and with a straight face, call anyone by whatever he or she happened to want to be called, as the CoC appears to require, if such term or name was in obvious conflict with objective reality.
If that's too much for you to handle, you're the one with the problem. This isn't difficult.
For example, if some developer who thought he knew everything about the Linux kernel wanted to be called Linus Torvalds,
Now you're being dishonest. You know that t
Re: code of conduct (Score:3)
>I've been using the singular 'they' for decades. The word 'they' has been used this way for hundreds of years. 'He' is not and has never been a genderless pronoun.
Good for you! I use 'they'. That said, it's incorrect to claim that 'he' has never been a non-gendered pronoun. It clearly has which we know from comments from grammarians and from its usage. Similar deal with 'man', clearly accepted as both masculine and neuter. Clearly we can see law referencing 'he' and 'man' also applied to women.
I
Re: (Score:2)
It clearly has which we know from comments from grammarians and from its usage.
No, it's been used when the person's gender is unknown. That isn't the same as it being used as a genderless pronoun.
Re: code of conduct (Score:2)
It was effectively the gender neutral option, alongside 'they' which gained greater popularity in more recent times. It's clear from context 'he' could be used in a gender-neutral context. Are you suggested all historical uses were intended to specify only males?
Re: (Score:2)
William Safire also said "Iraqis, cheering their liberators, will lead the Arab world toward democracy." while pushing for the USA to go to war with Iraq. Didn't really turn out like that, did it?
And that wasn't the only wrong thing he said. It turns out he churned out a lot of lies to support agendas that he wanted to see move forward.
So, maybe let's not go with an agenda-bound pundit's opinion on the use of "they" as a singular ungendered pronoun. Let's turn to something that actually provides historica
Re: (Score:2)
2. You cannot comprehend the difference between "he", which my comment concerned, and "they" which it did not.
Stupid and woke. But I repeat myself.
Re: (Score:2)
I did see something in there about using people's preferred names, which is, I guess, a sign of the times, and why I'm glad I'm not a member of their little club.
You are probably confused with something else. You cannot have read about "people's preferred names", none of these words are even present in the text.
When discussing features and performance of compilers, what's the use of pronouns? The trivial solution, which has always been the nominal good practice, is to not refer to people using pronouns at all, because that's bad taste. Most likely it is possible to quote a message with the USENET > or you give their name; "What Unscanned says is that this gcc fea
Re: (Score:3)
There were recently a few very abrasive "outsiders" who started what were basically flame wars on the main GCC (development) mailing list. These were people who don't contribute code but had very strong, idiosyncratic, ideas about how GCC should behave as a compiler. I would guess that this code of conduct was put in place to make it clearer about how the list's stewards can deal with counterproductive people like that.
The threads I characterized as flame wars had nothing to do with general politics or id
Re: (Score:2)
Not woke (Score:3, Insightful)
I looked through it, and it looks like reasonable stuff. I expected another authoritarian, woke screed, but it's pretty tame.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It really depends on how you interpret them, people can get offended by pretty much anything.
Statements like:
Be kind to others
Are vague, and meaningless. Kindness cannot be mandated, true kindness has to come from the heart and be freely given. Its just fake kindness otherwise.
Just like forcing your child to say sorry, to their sibling, everybody knows its fake and meaningless you are just going through the motions.
I for one think that the world is far to full of fake people, being fake polite.
https://twitter.com/introverts [twitter.com]
Vague makes me nervous. (Score:2)
Re:Not woke (Score:5, Insightful)
It really depends on how you interpret them, people can get offended by pretty much anything.
For sure - just look at all the people here who got offended by gcc adopting a code of conduct!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I didn't say I was offended, I don't know if you are referring to me or someone else.
Written language is hard to interpret the emotion behind the statement or the tone, and non verbal queue are missing, do I disagree with this, or am i outraged, or offended its almost impossible to tell.
I personally don't like the social niceties, they kind of bother me, maybe its because I am a nerd and am not good at picking up subtle queues. Maybe its because I am pathologically honest (I do lie, but not as often as I sh
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to read a pamphlet on autism if you’re having trouble understanding the meaning of “be kind”.
Re:Not woke (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like forcing your child to say sorry, to their sibling, everybody knows its fake and meaningless you are just going through the motions.
Agree with most you write, except this.
Sometimes, going through the motions has value. It clarifies to everyone what the expected behavior is, it clarifies that whatever happened was not ok, and it restores the peace, even if both parties are not entirely satisfied (one because they were forced, one because they saw it wasn't from the heart).
It's lake the dance in international diplomacy. You sent some of my diplomats home, I send some of your diplomats home. Everyone knows it's all bullshit, but we still do it because the actual message is on a different level.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people would read "be kind" as simply assuming good intentions in others and trying to explain issues in a way that doesn't demean them.
It's actually a very important skill for engineers. If people are afraid to come forward with issues because they think they will be insulted, belittled, or blamed, they often just don't come forward. At best the project is delayed as they struggle by themselves on a problem, at worst it doesn't get discovered until it causes a major problem.
I always operate on a "no b
Re:Not woke (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll tell you mine: bigotry in the name of equality.
You're not very bright, are you?
To be woke is to be informed, educated, and conscious of social injustice and racial inequality. It's hardly the nefarious conspiracy you believe it to be.
I've found the the people complaining are usually bigots who are upset that they can't act like bigoted assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
The only hate I see is from the idiots who use 'woke' as a pejorative.
The reason is obvious: you want to continue to be a bigoted asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
"To be woke is to be informed, educated, and conscious of social injustice and racial inequality" ... as you personally see it
Also how Rick DeSantis and his legal team see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what, precisely, do you think my point is?
You're clearly a colossal fuckwit so this ought to be good!
Re: (Score:2)
you hateful woke cunt
*chef's kiss*
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Get your head out of you ass.
You just don't like that people aren't giving you bigoted assholes a pass any longer.
Hehehe, Hey Beavis (Score:2)
Left-Brain Poisoning (Score:2)
Try being civil and occasionally making tough decisions.
Every project that spells out a list of manners and demands legal signatures is beyond misguided.
Substitutes for human interactions always fail.
CoCs in Five Years (Score:2)
The way I see it, one of two things will happen with the adoptions of codes of conduct in a few years:
- Only one or two will survive, with the exact same wording. Similar to "is it GPL or MIT?" and then you know the main points you need to know. This is kind of the case now, most share a common base.
- and/or the same people pushing them will be pushing to tear them down, replacing them with a "be excellent to each other" because ultimately, they will provide a burden or entry for the marginalized people who
Oh good! (Score:2)
Now we'll have a codified, programmatic enforcement guide to all human interaction!
Never again will we have to consider events on a case-by-case basis, we will have a Code of Conduct by which to assign blame, guilt, and redress!
It has worked so well in the past!!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it has. Manners, etiquette, and other rules for acceptable social conduct are essential to a functioning society.
You can act like an asshole if you want, just don't expect anyone to put up with your bullshit. You will be shown the door.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
No rezal alternative (Score:2)
This is of course very unfortunate. Most likely, it will now be less than a decade before the project gets run into th ground by power hungry moderators (make no mistake, once any steering committee goes down the path of censoring their community, this result enshitification is unavoidable). Hopefully, by that time, there will be a good alternative to gcc.
The Simple, Reasonable Code Of Conduct. (Score:3)
There. Wasn't so hard, was it?
Re:The Simple, Reasonable Code Of Conduct. (Score:4, Insightful)
How about instead of filling the channel with bigotry that other people have to ignore, you instead don't write anything that's not relevant to the technical discussion.
There. Wasn't so hard, was it?
It is just lit up pixels on a monitor or ink on paper and cannot harm you.
So is the code of conduct and you're pig-biting mad about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because bigots from the extreme left and extreme right do not agree what constitutes bigotry and it turns into a "You're a moran" battle of the hateful woke and the hateful right.
So, again, ignore anything people write that is not relevant to technical discussion.
"So is the code of conduct and you're pig-biting mad about it."
The Code of Co
Re: (Score:3)
The Code of Conduct has [blah de blah de blah]
Sorry I can't hear you over the sound of your whining over a few pixels on the screen. You said writing is just inconsequential pixels on a screen. Why are you so emotional about it?
You can't have it both ways dude.
Re: (Score:3)
[quote]So is the code of conduct and you're pig-biting mad about it.[/quote]
I fail to see what exactly is 'pig-biting mad' about suggesting to keep a technical discussion about technical arguments. I also fail to see why your comment was rated 'Insightful' instead of 'Gaslighting'. Especially your follow-up comment down below. It is nothing but a personal stab under the table and adds nothing to the discussion. It is exactly the sort of posts a technical discussion can do without. In that regard, the OP sho
Re: (Score:3)
I fail to see what exactly is 'pig-biting mad'
Like... read his comments. He's clearly pissed off as hell.
about suggesting to keep a technical discussion about technical arguments.
That's not what he was suggesting. Actually read what he wrote. He's suggesting everyone should IGNORE anything that's not technical.
It is exactly the sort of posts a technical discussion can do without
Why are you defending someone who said you should ignore non techincal discussions by, er, doing the opposite of what he said and
the chores list (Score:2)
While I do understand the motivation, whenever some project decides it needs explicit rules, I think of a story I heard a long time ago:
Some people were living in a shared apartment. They shared not just rent but also household chores, the later without any explicit assignments. Until someone new joined and proposed to make a list so that everyone always knew what they should do. You know, "Monday: Peter vaccuums. Tuesday: Joe takes out the trash." etc.
Soon, things started to fall apart. Things weren't done
Re: (Score:2)
I think of a story I heard a long time ago
I don't think that illustrates the point you want as well as you think.
The main point it illustrates is that it's hard to scale. When it was just 3 people or whatever it was fine. Small group, simple interactions. That doesn't scale, and refusing to set rules because they're hard is not better:
Some things are better made NOT explicit. Netiquette used to be a thing, and - at least in my experience - it worked best in the communities where it was understood to apply b
Re: (Score:2)
When it was just 3 people or whatever it was fine. Small group, simple interactions.
That's not the point of the story at all, and I'm not sure the group size changed or a person moved out and another in.
I've seen the same effect in startups and growing companies. When everything is everyone's job, everyone just does everything. Once jobs are defined and something clearly is NOT your job, you stop doing it.
In other words, they tried your way. It was called "netiquette" and that failed. Now something a bit more formal is needed.
Seen that approach fail a couple times.
Pandering to everyone is the mistake. If you kick out both the assholes and the sissies, ordinary people can go about their lives.
We've come from th
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the point of the story at all, and I'm not sure the group size changed or a person moved out and another in.
I missed the person moving out somehow.
I've seen the same effect in startups and growing companies. When everything is everyone's job, everyone just does everything. Once jobs are defined and something clearly is NOT your job, you stop doing it.
You can't organise a small group of people who know each other like a larger group/people who don't know each other. A large company where no one's
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I've been on the Internet since one year after that document. In all that time, you are the 2nd person I've met who actually knows that it exists.
FIDOnet (where I was prior to Internet) also had explicit rules - but 99% of its users didn't know them except by word-of-mouth.
Useful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How so? Can he sue me if I ban him and there is not a specific rule to cite as the reason? Or maybe if there is such a piece of text I can sue him if he keeps sending hateful patches for GCC even though I told him to go away?
Contradictory (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Can ChatGPT turn every cancelable post you write into Woke language that will win you friends and influence ppl?
Re: GCC hands control to the Cult of Woke (Score:2)
Re: GCC hands control to the Cult of Woke (Score:2)
This includes, but is not limited to, members of any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, color, immigration status, social and economic class, educational level, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size, family status, political belief, religion, and mental or physical ability.
Not bad. At least they're honest enough to recognize that there are so many possible groups and categorizations of people that the right level of identity is at the individual level, and not the group.
Size? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Size" refers to size. That could mean overweight, short, tall, etc. Anything that could be described 'size'.
You know this already.
Re: GCC hands control to the Cult of Woke (Score:2)
At this point it might just be easier to provide a list of groups you ARE allowed to discriminate against.
How far do you want to go with this, l mean:
Nazis, Mafia and Yakuza are cultural organizations and pedophilia could be considered a sexual preference. Green is a color but if someone was actually green it would be difficult not to be judgmental. Mental disability is protected but are stupid people with no physical issues also a "class" whose beliefs can't be challenged (I mean other than religion)? Can
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing we cannot tolerate is intolerance. This isn't difficult.
Re: GCC hands control to the Cult of Woke (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy. Nasty people keep out good contributors. The kind of person you want working on a project like GCC, smart and well-educated, generally don't have the interest in dealing with a bunch of assholes when they're volunteering their valuable time.
Let me ask you this: How does acting like a asshole make GCC a better compiler?
Re: GCC hands control to the Cult of Woke (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
OceanGate seemed to be all about the whole "move fast and break things" method of modern entrepreneurship. Apparently, though, physics doesn't give a fuck about your disruptive business model when it's crushing a sub-standard pressure container at the bottom of the ocean.
Re: GCC hands control to the Cult of Woke (Score:2)
Re: GCC hands control to the Cult of Woke (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Generally, yeah. But if you read the CoC, it's quite tame. They're just trying to keep things civil IMO, even trying to keep the politics out.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's largely a myth pushed by right wing bigots.
The companies "going woke" (that is, acknowledging there are prejudices in society) aren't doing it out of the kindness of their heart, they're doing it because it's more profitable to include everyone, even if a few bigots get turned off. Disney for example is still as popular as ever and their subscriber numbers have only been growing (aside from losing some cricket fans last quarter) so it's pretty clear they're not going to change.
Open source projects c
Re: (Score:2)
Hit a little close to home I guess
Re: (Score:2)
They’re coming for you? Who is “they” and what do you think they want with you? Fox news is rotting your brain.
Re: (Score:3)
When people complain about completely irrelevant bullshit, then problems aren't raised and problems aren't fixed, time is wasted and the real jobs don't get done.
See I can make a completely unsupported logical inference too.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously I didnt RTFA. Does it mention things like "inclusive", " safe", "diverse", "right to not be offended"?
No. The code of conduct is short and simple [gnu.org], and not written in that "woke" language you refer to. Nothing to worry about.
I don't blame you for asking (except for not RTFA), given the politics that has happened in some other parts of the tech world.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Obviously I didnt RTFA. Does it mention things like "inclusive", " safe", "diverse", "right to not be offended"?"
Diversity, yes. But mostly in the context of trying to say that people communicate and think differently and to try and keep that in mind when interacting and communicating. And also in the context of diversity of *thought* as an asset. And that I can get behind. Worrying about diversity of anything else, I would oppose as irrelevant.
They are pushing it a bit on "We strive to be a commun
Re: (Score:2)
like using the plural "they" to refer to a single person
You're ignorance is showing.
The singular 'they' has been in common use for more than 700 years.
Re: (Score:2)
>"The singular 'they' has been in common use for more than 700 years."
When gender is not known, talking generically, perhaps. And even that has more proper substitutions.
"Ain't" is pretty old, also. But I am not using that, either. Then we could discuss ze, xe, ve, per, fa, vis, ad nauseam...
Re: (Score:2)
>"What's you're objection to it? Do you have a reason other than you're a bigoted asshole?"
Wow. Looks like you are one of the people that need to read and heed that GCC CCC.
Re:Prove you arenâ(TM)t a bigot, swallow the (Score:4, Interesting)
At least this doesnâ(TM)t seem to apply to outside communications
You sure about that? From the CoC:
In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a person's ability to participate within them.
That makes it sound like it'll apply everywhere.
The biggest issue I have with this and all other CoC is that they neuter criticism, even if it's constructive, or if it's needed. Under the CoC, any criticism can be construed a violation, even if it does not personally insult under any of the myriad of categories they listed in the CoC. My kids wouldn't be who they are today had it not been for my criticism. Criticism is needed for one to grow. True, that sometimes the person doing the criticizing comes across as a complete douche, but when criticism is out of place (wrong, or for the wrong reason) in a public forum, others are actually quick to jump on it and call it out.
Re: Prove you arenâ(TM)t a bigot, swallow the (Score:5, Insightful)
As Linus himself noted, as it was a lesson he needed to learn, it is okay to criticize the work, but you need not criticize the person. A code of conduct is a good way to put that expectation up front. Software is collaborative, and if you're LUCKY, you will have people that can teach you by pointing out your mistakes. But the moment someone starts attacking your intelligence or character, it becomes very hard to work with them.
Hopefully if everyone starts with those assumptions, it will lead to an easier time collaborating.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like with your job, if you harass your co-workers outside the office, it can affect your employment.
All of these concerns require an assumption that the people enforcing the CoC will behave unreasonably. If we look at examples like the LKML, that assumption doesn't appear to be valid.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest issue I have with this and all other CoC is that they neuter criticism, even if it's constructive, or if it's needed.
This.
We need the Theo de Raadt type of people in this world. We need the Linus Torvalds being able to call a piece of crap a piece of crap. Because tip-toeing around the easily offended is a waste of their precious time.
Most of the time, the people who are blunt to the point of offensive can also take fire.
There's a megaton of assholes out there. Most of them don't do tricky compiler stuff, because if they were smart enough for that, they wouldn't do the shit they do.
I don't much care, not a part of the gcc
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and the same licence also mandates that the language implementers should wear pink on Mondays
Re: (Score:3)
Telling how many anti-woke morons have mod points since this is currently on "insightful".
Mod it funny if you think it's a joke, but "insightful" it is demonstrably not because it is flat out untrue.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the code of conduct itself you will find:
When we disagree, try to understand why. Disagreements, both social and technical, happen all the time and the GCC community is no exception. It is important that we resolve disagreements and differing views constructively. A strength of free software is the varied community, people from a wide range of backgrounds. Different people have different perspectives on issues. Being unable to understand why someone holds a viewpoint doesn't mean that they're wrong. Don't forget that it is human to err and blaming each other doesn't get us anywhere. Instead, focus on helping to resolve issues and learning from mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm taking it to the extreme: I disagree with Putin, I guess I should try to understand why and be kind, respectful and considerate.
Re: (Score:2)
Vladimir Putin is sending patches to gcc now? Truly a multi-talented guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really reasonable to expect me to read, understand, keep in mind and comply with all these CoCs in all these places?
It's not that hard. Don't act like an asshole and you'll be fine.
I think I'm well-behaved and I don't get banned very often
If you're getting banned with any frequency then you're not well-behaved.
Re: (Score:2)
Are codes of conduct really reasonable, anyway? I used to be in about 50 IRC channels, and many had different rules and codes of conduct. Is it really reasonable to expect me to read, understand, keep in mind and comply with all these CoCs in all these places?
In a word: yes.
Every physical location has a different implied code of conduct that you stick to because they all have different norms of behaviour.
Besides, some of the best places I am in on the internet have no rules, just people get banned if they'r