1. 15

  2. 21

    First, the new code of conduct makes clear that people who participate in any kind of harassment or inappropriate behavior, even outside our project spaces, are not welcome in our project spaces. This means that the Code of Conduct applies outside the project spaces when there is a reasonable belief that an individual’s behavior may have a negative impact on the project or its community.

    I am very disappointed. Go CoC’s restricted scope was a very good decision and protection against witch hunting.

    1. 18

      What constitutes “harassment” and “inappropriate behavior” is profoundly political. This is an attempt by the Go project to regulate the political speech of contributors. This is worth forking Go over.

      1. 10

        That is exactly what it is. The 0th and the 1st iterations were the same thing; but they lost a battle going from 0 to 1, and now they are fighting the war.

        A fork is unviable at this point. It will always be a niche project at best, like gccgo is. There isn’t enough Go technical talent outside Google with enough social and political capital to spare to make this work.

    2. 16

      I love how they took all the bad parts from the first CoC iteration (that they removed after enough people complained) and shoved them right back in! I guess they figured out people can’t keep fighting forever, but Google sure can; they can just hire someone else to do the job (like they have just done)!

      Of course the lack of any democratic process or input from non-Google is typical behavior around Go parts.

      1. 6

        They are introducing new CoC by fiat. I assert that this will never fly in, for example, Rust. Go is Google project. Rust is community project.

      2. 12

        I’m updating my “Days Since Last Code of Conduct Story” sign from zero to zero. If someone would like to write the Standard Code of Conduct Epitome, I would take it as a kindness.

        And I’m being a little silly, but the other story’s conversation stayed pretty good and had people explaining their positions and sharing new thoughts without starting a flame war, so I hope that continues.

        1. 1

          Once it’s been beaten to death it would be nice if at some point these are considered off topic. Not saying that moment is now, but there will be a point where people get fatigued from the wound being continually reopened by people who mostly want to stir the pot.

          1. 10

            Banning discussions about CoCs is only dumping more fuel into the fire while proving that the concerns of people who are against CoCs are valid.

            At least this site makes it really easy to hide content one is not interested in, either via tags, or by using the hide button (which a few have used on this very story already).

            I would not mind a “coc” tag, which would be more suitable than the “culture” tag used here.

            1. 4

              Given that I can’t really tell one COC thread from another, I would be quite happy if there was a COC tag so I could filter on it.

              1. 4

                There’s a ‘hide’ link under every headline. It will also remove comments from /newest, /replies, etc. (and anywhere they’re missed is a bug). You can review your hidden stories at /hidden.

                1. 2

                  I’m aware. I like tags and being able to filter on them as its a one time thing and I don’t have to hide similar stories each time.

                  1. 3

                    There are only so many discussions to be had about positions on CoCs. It becomes draining to participate, and it’s hard to stay open to new ideas when the same points are rehashed. The ability to filter on a coc tag would definitely be helpful for my emotional being.

              2. 2

                It’s not uncommon for a forums to bar discussion after a subject becomes hotly debated for basically forever. It’s not about validating or unvalidating fears it’s about preventing a single issue from keeping a community in constant conflict. A CoC tag would probably just accelerate the problem since users who feel obligated to speak up on either side will simply search for the tag.

          2. 8

            Good. If you’re a vocal asshole outside of the project, I don’t trust you to be able to magically turn it off and hide your prejudices inside the project either.

            And people act like this is some bizarre new thing. If I engaged in harassment or inappropriate behavior on Saturday, so much so that people knew about it…I’d likely be fired from my day job too. Nobody wants that kind of association with their project/business. Plenty of employment contracts and employee handbooks have “good conduct” clauses, and have for decades.

            Those of you concerned about this, serious question: what is an example of some behavior that you honestly think would be problematic under this new policy?

            1. 17

              Those of you concerned about this, serious question: what is an example of some behavior that you honestly think would be problematic under this new policy?

              Mainly people digging Twitter to oust someone. One case immediately comes to mind, Rod Vagg and Node.js:

              Most recently Rod tweeted in support of an inflammatory anti-Code-of-Conduct article. As a perceived leader in the project, it can be difficult for outsiders to separate Rod’s opinions from that of the project.

              The article mentioned is The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech, which I agree with. I really don’t want to be excluded from Go project by tweeting this reasonable article I agree with. This actually happened, and I fear it will happen after this revision of Go CoC.

              1. 6

                I don’t know enough about his situation to judge, but a quick reading shows that there were sufficient complaints from contributors and other Steering Committee members to bring his resignation to a vote, and 40% of the vote was for him to resign. Generally speaking I’m opposed to the concept of “where there’s smoke there’s fire” but if a lot of people are saying they don’t want to work with you…maybe the problem is you and not them.

                (And they have in that article lists of explicit violations of the project’s policies, like discussing private moderation publicly, etc. That he wasn’t allowed a forum to answer to these charges is a flaw in the process to be sure, but he doesn’t deny they happened.)

                And the problem, from what I gather, wasn’t that he tweeted about an article, but that he tweeted screenshots of rude responses about it. He’s a leader of the project, and as such needs to think about his position.

                If thw CEO of Pepsi tweeted something on his “private” Twitter that the Pepsi Corporation felt brought them into disrepute…you don’t think PepsiCo would do something? Because they absolutely would. Like it or not, he was in a leadership position and discussed things relevant to the project’s governance in a (supposedly) flippant way.

                …but like I said above, I’m not familiar with this issue, and am just providing my opinion based on the linked article (and the things it linked to).

                EDIT: And I went back and read “The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech”, which in my opinion is framing the argument very poorly. They seem to imply that there are people with atypical neurologies who are incapable of refraining from sexist, homophobic, and anti-Islamic speech. It’s basically saying “I can be an asshole and if it makes you uncomfortable…I have a condition!” It’s removing all agency from atypical neurologies or implying that prejudice and bigotry is an inherent part of atypical neurologirs, neither of which is true.

                It also echos the old Kuro5hin “we’re just smarter than you and if you can’t handle it, too bad” argument, which was tiresome then too.

                It goes on to say that Isaac Newton would run afoul of these sorts of things today. Well, sure. He owned shares in a slavetrading enterprise. He’s not gonna be in trouble for thinking he can transmute lead into gold, he’s going to get in trouble for talking about owning other humans. It’s a sttawman.

                There’s a difference between the kind of behavior exhibited by, say persons with Aspberger’s Syndrome and people who are just assholes. If someone with Aspberger’s truly believes he should tell women he wants to touch their boobs and “just can’t help it”…that’s unfortunate, but it’s not appropriate behavior regardless. Nobody’s banning an Aspie because they forgot to say “please” or said that some piece of code is “garbage”. Aspies can be not-homophobes too, just like neurotypical people.

                The article is seeming to say that people shouldn’t be held to any expected form of social behavior when working on a social project. It also falls into the “you have to know 100% every time without asking if someone else would be offended by what you say” which is logically falicious and not in line with what these Codes of Conduct actually say.

                In other words, this “reasonable” article seems, to me, to be attempting to throw around some absurd examples and mischaracterized strawmen, and then claim that anyone should be free to act however they please socially with no repercussions.

                That’s not how it works, or has ever worked, in any field of human endeavor.

                1. 19

                  No one should be obliged to refrain from anti-Islamic speech in order to participate in an open-source software project, especially if they do so outside of the confines of the project (I’ll grant that it’s reasonable for a project to make any discussion of religion off-topic within the confines of the project). When I said that these changes to the code of conduct were a way of controlling participants’ political speech, this is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Islam is a system of religious thought like any other and deserves no special protection from criticism, other than that which is granted equally to all religions in a religiously-pluralistic society. If the Go project can define anti-Islamic speech outside of the project as a banning offense, then they are acting as enforcers of a specific political ideology that privileges Islam as a sacred idea. This has no place in an open-source software project.

                  1. 4

                    Well said.

                    I am more concerned about how, say, virulent your speech is. If you’re so anti-Islam or anti-Christian or anti-Atheist that it becomes obvious that you might have problems working with people of those philosophies then I would be concerned as to how well you’d function in a project that explicitly welcomes people of all (or no) faith.

                    I am more concerned about consistent “women are just inherently worse at programming, it’s science!”-style posts. If that’s what fills your Twitter, I wonder how you’ll be when you review a woman’s PR, y’know?

                    But you raise an excellent point.

                    1. 3

                      If (this is hypothetical) women are, in fact, inherently worse at programming, and one thinks programming is important and should be for everybody, this means women need additional support for programming. In fact, this is the exact position I hold: I think men are inherently worse at language (reading) as evidenced by standardized test score statistics, and reading is important, and boys need special support so that they can get equal score at reading.

                      I don’t hold such position wrt women and programming, but if I were, I would review a woman’s PR with more care and time so that it is more helpful.

                  2. 7

                    You asked for an honest concern for the new Go CoC. If my concern, to be specific, tweeting a link to The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech and being allowed continued participation to Go project, sounds honest and reasonable, please confirm.


                    1. 2

                      I edited my comment above. From what I gather, the problem was twofold: he didn’t just tweet the article, but supposedly offensive screenshots of comments about the article; and he did it while in a leadership position of the project.

                      And there were apparently many other complaints and violations of the project’s policies, so it wouldn’t appear to be as simple as “tweet a link, get banned.”

                      But again, I first heard of this like 15 minutes ago.

                      1. 10

                        so it wouldn’t appear to be as simple as “tweet a link, get banned.”

                        With Go, it would appear to be simpler than that. Post something totally innocuous that they don’t agree with, and get banned.

                        They banned some guy on reddit because he was just expressing his opinion.

                        (In case my own post gets deleted, here is a screenshot.)

                        1. 1

                          Reddit isn’t Go, though. We have to wait and see.

                          (And he wasn’t “expressing his opinion”, he was accusing them of witch hunts before the thing was even promulgated. He wasn’t banned for his opinion, he was banned for being an asshole. Go into any volunteer organization and combatively accuse them of witch hunts and bigotry and see how long they welcome your effort…

                          If he had said “I worry that the vague language and lack of public investigation to lead to abuse of those with minority political opinions,” he’d be fine. Instead he came in accusatorily with guns ablazin and then gets taken aback when people don’t like being talked to that way.)

                          1. 9

                            Note that /r/golang does use Go CoC, so it is fully relevant here.

                            1. 9

                              he was accusing them of witch hunts

                              No, he wasn’t. He was responding to this post, essentially answering the question “what is wrong with CoCs in general?”. /u/zevdg had his own opinion, and /u/gildedlink had answered punctually to his objection.

                              It looks like he was perfectly correct though.

                              1. 1

                                He accused the CoC of being used by “bigoted people…to exclude others based on superficial ideological labels…[and] to bully targets.”

                                I shortened it to “witch hunt” but the idea’s the same.

                                Again, if he had said “I fear the language is too vague and might be liable to abuse by people who wish to exclude minority viewpoints” he would’ve been fine. I you act like a jerk when expressing your opinion, people’s reactions might be based on your jerkiness and not the expressed opinions.

                                EDIT: removed some of my own jerkiness. There was no reason for it, sorry.

                                1. 9

                                  Your restatement is bad because I (and I think gildedlink) am against outside clause in its entirety, and my primary objection is not vague language. In fact, you seem okay with my “Mainly people digging Twitter to oust someone… Rod Vagg and Node.js”, but I don’t see much difference.

                                  Or do you think I should be banned from Go project for saying the above?

                                  1. 4

                                    He said “frameworks like this”, he was talking about other CoCs just like this one and how they were used by other people. He wasn’t accusing these people (the Go people) of anything (although, now, I am, in case anyone is keeping score).

                                    Again, if he had said “I fear the language is too vague […]”

                                    He was saying what a CoC can do (and what it did do in other communities). He didn’t get a change to expands on his thoughts, or explain in depth how this particular CoC enables that phenomenon because he was banned.

                                    As a related point, I am sure you realize that some of use are against the very idea of a CoC. While I have specific problems with this particular CoC (which have all been discussed here before by other people, so I won’t repeat them), my main ideological problem is with the existence of a CoC itself in any shape of form.

                                2. 1

                                  For the record, I appear to have been shadow banned from /r/golang as well. Not just regular ban, but shadow ban.

                                  1. 1

                                    Any idea why?

                                    1. 4

                                      Actually after some more investigation, I wasn’t banned, but they enabled global censoring. Every post now has to be approved by a moderator before it becomes visible to other people. In my opinion, this is a far worse outcome then if they had just banned me…

                          2. 5

                            Replying to edit:

                            They seem to imply that there are people with atypical neurologies who are incapable of refraining from sexist, homophobic, and anti-Islamic speech.

                            There is no such implication. It’s not about being incapable, it’s about being more difficult. Large text accessibility theme is not about being incapable of using small text.

                            That’s not how it works, or has ever worked, in any field of human endeavor.

                            Since humanity never made it fair for Aspies in its long history, humanity shall continue to make it unfair for Aspies forevermore. Got it. If your criteria for social change is “that’s not how it has ever worked”, there would be no women’s suffrage.

                            1. 4

                              How does being an Aspie make it more difficult to not be a homophobe? Homophobia is not a symptom of Aspberger’s Syndrome.

                              1. 4

                                It makes it more difficult to know what the implicit prevailing social norm is.

                                But really, that’s not what I think is the core of disagreement. You find The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech objectionable. Got it. Do you find it objectionable enough that tweeting a link to it should constitute a cause for ban for open source projects?

                                1. 1

                                  Not at all. But if that’s provided as supporting evidence that I lack impartiality to do my job according to the project’s rules and had been the subject of multiple complaints on top of documented violations of procedures and policies….well…

                                  Now, do you think that treating gay people with common respect is purely a social norm that we should ignore if we feel like it?

                                  1. 3

                                    Yeah it’s also important to remember that a condition may be an explanation but it isn’t an excuse. I have ADHD and I do lack impulse control. That lack of impulse control is not an excuse to act out on others. I still need to apologize for my behavior and describe what steps I might take to avoid it in the future. It does not count as be an asshole free card. I still need to put a good faith effort into having good behavior and if I repeatedly am hostile to others then I may not be able to be involved in a group project.

                                    1. 3

                                      This is why I am in favor of Rust CoC. “Moderators will first respond to such remarks with a warning.” Rust CoC is explicitly against instaban.

                                      Go CoC is not, and above /r/golang case seems Go CoC in fact can instaban. (It is possible that there was private warning, but short time frame makes it unlikely.)

                                    2. 1

                                      No, I don’t think so.

                                    3. 1

                                      It doesn’t, however, make it difficult to know what one’s values are, or to act accordingly. I don’t know what social norms have to do with it, and I find this argument insulting.

                                2. 3

                                  And the problem, from what I gather, wasn’t that he tweeted about an article, but that he tweeted screenshots of rude responses about it. He’s a leader of the project, and as such needs to think about his position.

                                  I have an honest question which I hope you to reciprocate by answering. Do you seriously believe it would have been different if just link was tweeted and “Dude, What’s wrong with your head?” screenshot was not tweeted? I really have hard time believing this. “Yes” or “No” would be sufficient. Thanks!

                                  1. 1

                                    Well, before we go too far down this rabbit hole, we should remember that Node.js and Go are two separate projects and we should judge Go’s policy separately.

                                    As for your question:

                                    I don’t know. Maybe yes, maybe no. I think if the person in question has other complaints lodged against them, the scales might tip.

                                    I personally wouldn’t care, but I’m not the Node.js TSC with their insider knowledge of his past behavior.

                            2. 7

                              These articles always attract people who think that being rude and hurtful to others is a political issue and most others stay away because they know that the comment threads in these are a tire fire. If you can’t work with people with differing views without royally pissing them off despite the fact that they didn’t even do anything to you then maybe you shouldn’t work in a diverse project. Go is naturally going to be a diverse project, and many of these people with differing views from you are going to be very talented. If it’s between the person who’s willing to work with others and the person who insists on making everything a political message then the person who makes calling someone “them” a big deal is going to lose every time because open source in the end is about getting things done.

                              Basically when someone asks you to call them a man or a woman and you refuse and call them something else you are the person creating a needless conflict. Don’t be surprised if you are asked to leave if you do. Many dudes who are offended at their inability to misgender people would be furious if they were called a woman. It’s called treating people with respect. It doesn’t really matter if you think or don’t think they are who they say they are, you treat people as they would like to be treated or you leave them alone. Don’t expect to be antagonistic and develop a good working relationship.

                              1. 7

                                I don’t think that’s what it’s about for most people (that participate in an honest discussion here).

                                Personally the clause that allows the Go team to police how I act outside the project makes me afraid of contributing. Someone might fake a twitter screenshot or discord message with my name on it. What if it happens while I sleep and I have no time to reply by the time the outrage train is going full speed?

                                I do not want to hurt people or be rude, I know a lot of people from all walks of life, transsexual, gay, jewish, etc. I’m never rude to them because that’s counterproductive. But I also know people who are right wing and I work together with them just fine too in a professional setting. I have a huge collection of bookmarks with both left and rightwing articles, I read newspapers from both sides. I feel afraid that because of this collection, someone will inevitable post the issue “Why is this person allowed to contribute when they bookmarked this?”

                                I feel like CoC’s like these push a certain kind of diversity, which favors certain groups over others, favoring US politics over what people from other nations might think, instead of having a true diversity by also inviting people from any group as long as they can behave professionally. I don’t see why a devout christian can’t work with someone who is homosexual, in fact, I am currently part of a university project where this is the case. That is what I consider true tolerance. Tolerance not of things that you don’t mind already but tolerance of things you don’t like or even hate.

                                On another note, the CoC that has been employed is way to broad and “soft”. I would favor a much more stronger approach with stricter and clearer rules with no wiggle room for either side of the political divide and allows no political ideology to permeate the projects execution.

                                1. 2

                                  In the defense of the CoC it would also protect a christian who is being attacked. Libel is still possible and would still cause you a lot of problems without a CoC. In the end however the CoC isn’t acted on automatically, it is worked through with discussion. It however is correct to protect groups that are at risk of being attacked, for example if Christians were a targeted minority then it would be right and correct to stand up for them despite whatever “Political bias” that might appear to have.

                              2. 5

                                This is great news and a much needed improvement. We’ve lost too many women, recently even, from the Go community because of the prior versions.

                                1. 15

                                  I am interested in specific cases. Thanks.