Codes of Conduct are the best mechanism known today […]
Does that mean it’ll be the best forever? Why shouldn’t we give the GNU KCG a try? Is it wrong to try a new and different approach?
The author even mentions that differences are acceptable; “[…] Governing well means working (and finding common ground) with those you disagree. […]”, yet, that means that if the GNU or FSF or RMS does something they don’t like or are politically against, they’re automatically wrong?
The entire text feels all over the place, first seemingly asserting that what the GNU/FSF is doing is wrong, then explaining that free speech is important slash that they try to find a middle ground, that disagreement is good? Yet despite disagreement being good, the FSF/GNU is wrong?
I honestly think we should observe the KCG for a year or three before we strike moral judgement on it’s effectiveness, simply saying it doesn’t work isn’t sufficiently backed by data (it’s only backed by the lack of data).
Diversity should be a goal, but it should be a diversity of ideas, not skin color or gender. It doesn’t make sense to have three people who look different but all think the same.
However I’m not sure how an organization like Gnu would benefit from something like that, given some of their stances on free software. Their organization would probably have an upper limit of dissent from their values related to that. Is that such a bad thing I wonder?
How much diversity of ideas do we currently have when the majority of the white males in tech think affirmative action to conterbalance social injustices is literally the same as racism?
Racism is the belief in a race to be superior to others. Discrimination by itself it neither good nor bad. For instance, people with disabilities are discriminated (positively) against when they get dedicated parking spaces and special care, yet no one is decrying it as hatred against able-bodied people, because it serves a social good.
Can anyone who flagged this as off topic or spam provide some context? This post touches on some points that are actively impacting my decisions around which OSS projects I support via contribution and I would love to get a broader view around how treatment of individuals affects our shared online workflows.
Does that mean it’ll be the best forever? Why shouldn’t we give the GNU KCG a try? Is it wrong to try a new and different approach?
The author even mentions that differences are acceptable; “[…] Governing well means working (and finding common ground) with those you disagree. […]”, yet, that means that if the GNU or FSF or RMS does something they don’t like or are politically against, they’re automatically wrong?
The entire text feels all over the place, first seemingly asserting that what the GNU/FSF is doing is wrong, then explaining that free speech is important slash that they try to find a middle ground, that disagreement is good? Yet despite disagreement being good, the FSF/GNU is wrong?
I honestly think we should observe the KCG for a year or three before we strike moral judgement on it’s effectiveness, simply saying it doesn’t work isn’t sufficiently backed by data (it’s only backed by the lack of data).
Diversity should be a goal, but it should be a diversity of ideas, not skin color or gender. It doesn’t make sense to have three people who look different but all think the same.
However I’m not sure how an organization like Gnu would benefit from something like that, given some of their stances on free software. Their organization would probably have an upper limit of dissent from their values related to that. Is that such a bad thing I wonder?
How much diversity of ideas do we currently have when the majority of the white males in tech think affirmative action to conterbalance social injustices is literally the same as racism?
If you’re descriminating between individuals on the basis of race, you’re a racist. “Positive discrimination” is still “discrimination”.
Racism is the belief in a race to be superior to others. Discrimination by itself it neither good nor bad. For instance, people with disabilities are discriminated (positively) against when they get dedicated parking spaces and special care, yet no one is decrying it as hatred against able-bodied people, because it serves a social good.
Can anyone who flagged this as off topic or spam provide some context? This post touches on some points that are actively impacting my decisions around which OSS projects I support via contribution and I would love to get a broader view around how treatment of individuals affects our shared online workflows.
There’s an ongoing debate on this site whether discussions not directly concerned with computing/tech/science are on-topic.
Plus, a lot of people are wary of the risk of discussions around CoC’s blowing up in acrimony.