1. 33
    How i choose software devops philosophy nero.github.io
  1.  

  2. 15

    world-open QA-less package ecosystems (NPM, go get)

    This is one I’m increasingly grumpy about. I wish more ecosystems would establish a gold set of packages that have complete test coverage, complete API documentation, and proper semantic versioning.

    1. 4

      world-open QA-less package ecosystems (NPM, go get)

      i’d argue that go get is no package ecosystem. it’s just a (historic) convenience tool, which was good enough for the initial use (inside a organization). furthermore, i like the approach better than the centralized language package systems. nobody checks all the packages in pypi or rubygems. using a known good git repo isn’t worse, maybe it’s even better as there is not another link in the chain which could break, as the original repository is used instead of a somehow packaged copy.

      I wish more ecosystems would establish a gold set of packages that have complete test coverage, complete API documentation, and proper semantic versioning.

      python has the batteries included since ages, gos standard library isn’t bad either. both are well-tested and have good documentation. in my opinion the problem is that often another 3rd pary depencendy gets quickly pulled in, instead of giving a second thought to if it is really required or can be done by oneself which may spare one trouble in the future (e.g. left-pad).

      in some cases there is even a bit of quality control for non standard packages: some database drivers for go are externally tested: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/SQLDrivers

      1. 2

        Then you get the curation (and censorship) of Google Play or Apple’s Store.

        Maybe you want more of the Linux package repo model where you have the official repo (Debian, RedHat, Gentoo Portage), some optional non-oss or slightly less official repos (Fedora EPEL) and then always having the option to add 3rd party vendor repos with their own signing keys (PPA, opensuse build service, Gentoo Portage overlays).

        I really wish Google Play had the option of adding other package trees. I feel like Apple and Google took a great concept and totally fucked it up. Ubuntu Snap is going in the same (wrong) direction.

        1. 2

          On Android it’s certainly possible to install F-Droid, and get access to an alternate package management ecosystem. I think I had to sideload the F-Droid APK to get it to work though, which not every user would know how to do easily (I just checked, it doesn’t seem to be available in the play store).

      2. 27

        Agreed wholeheartedly with everything on this list (esp. Docker and Nix) except for the Code of Conduct line. Sadly, we’re living in a time where assholes need to be explicitly uninvited.

        1. 15

          I don’t share the concept of gender with the FreeBSD CoC. When growing up, i observed the world with my own eyes, and found that its an rather arbitrary abstraction not providing value. Should others be allowed to force me to use that concept against my conscience? I’m not rude or disrespectful towards peers (inc. actual transgender persons) because of that.

          Does that make me an asshole that needs to be explicitly uninvited?

          1. 20

            If you do the things that the FreeBSD CoC says you shouldn’t do (calling people by names they’ve explicitly said shouldn’t be used especially) then yes. Otherwise I don’t really see how it affects you?

            1. 10

              Having control over the abstractions people use also limits what those people can express. Achilles and the Tortoise is a good illustration of that.

              Forcing these abstractions over people is what violates their autonomy, which is why the FreeBSD CoC was so controversial in the first place. Its that the proponents argue that you have nothing to fear if you are “a good person”, equating lawfulness with being a good person. Which is fundamentally wrong. Yes, Edward Snowden violated laws, but i doubt he is a bad person because of that.

              1. 11

                Can you be more practical, less philosophical, and provide an example of something you’d say, that the CoC would consider wrong? (No bad intentions or hidden agenda in this question, just generally wondering how a real life example of the issue looks like for you).

                1. 12

                  “/me hugs nullp0tr

                  “You shouldn’t beat your children tho”

                  “I dislike that you program killer robots for the CIA”

                  1. 6

                    Thanks for the examples. I understand your frustration with it a bit more now. How would you deal with someone who’s constantly hugging or backrubbing someone else after being asked to stop? and how does your view on gender affect your empathy towards people with a different view and who get offended by someone who’s constantly using the wrong pronoun?

                    1. 11

                      Constantly harassing another user will get you warned, kicked or even banned with our without a CoC. Worst case (if the channel moderation doesn’t care) is that you need to block/set them on your ignore list.

                      I don’t have an generic attitude on that, and i didn’t have IRL conflicts on pronouns yet. The transgender persons i interacted with were respectable persons and individually got me to use their preferred pronoun without force.

                      Conflict is a component of daily life. Persons who handle conflict by getting offended and expecting others to change their mind are akin to the kid in the mall throwing a tantrum because mom wont buy the gummy bears. That’s just shitty diplomacy and wont get you anywhere. Embodying such an attitude into an community law will make your community a toxic place.

                      1. 6

                        I don’t have an generic attitude on that, and i didn’t have IRL conflicts on pronouns yet. The transgender persons i interacted with were respectable persons and individually got me to use their preferred pronoun without force.

                        So is it okay in your opinion to intentionally use the wrong pronoun if the persons in question were not respectable?

                        Constantly harassing another user will get you warned, kicked or even banned with our without a CoC. Worst case (if the channel moderation doesn’t care) is that you need to block/set them on your ignore list.

                        What’s the difference between having a written rule about what would get you banned and not having one?

                        Conflict is a component of daily life. Persons who handle conflict by getting offended and expecting others to change their mind are akin to the kid in the mall throwing a tantrum because mom wont buy the gummy bears. That’s just shitty diplomacy and wont get you anywhere. Embodying such an attitude into an community law will make your community a toxic place.

                        How would you handle conflicts created by racism, sexism, etc in a non toxic way?

                        1. 9

                          So is it okay in your opinion to intentionally use the wrong pronoun if the persons in question were not respectable?

                          If people start interacting with me by insulting me, then i definitely wont let them tell me how to call them.

                          What’s the difference between having a written rule about what would get you banned and not having one?

                          Power. Rulemakers wield extraordinary power because they are the ones who interpret a situation as lawful or unlawful. Not getting in trouble with the law is, to an extent, doing good diplomacy with the rulemakers.

                          How would you handle conflicts created by racism, sexism, etc in a non toxic way? Ideally:

                          • Tell that i did not find it appropriate, explain why
                          • Optional discussion, quite often its just an misunderstanding
                          • Avoid being antagonistic, not calling them sexist or insults (burns bridges instantly)

                          Best case is that i can base my standpoint upon their values. Using authoritative power to deploy sanctions should always be the last resort.

                          1. 3

                            If people start interacting with me by insulting me

                            What are the ways you get insulted? What if someone does it by accident?

                            If people start interacting with me by insulting me, then i definitely wont let them tell me how to call them.

                            Didn’t you just say being diplomatic is key?

                            Persons who handle conflict by getting offended…

                            I’m confused why you would revert to being a kid in the mall by not calling someone by their preferred pronoun if they insulted you. I agree with your overall idea of being diplomatic.

                            1. 2

                              Thanks for taking the time to clarify your stand.

                              It seems you’d rather have an environment of mutual respect and no single/few figures that can decide on what constitutes as wrong doing selectively, and you’d rather solve the issues the FreeBSD CoC tries to address through diplomacy and listening to all parties?

                              How would you go about implementing your ideal conflict resolution approach in real communities? (alternatively, do you have an example of a community that already does that or something similar?)

                              1. 4

                                My preference aren’t as exotic at it seems on the first view.

                                I dont need to implement it on my own, its already live in such an community, an local instance of the Chaos Computer Club in germany. Hacker culture tends to be decentral and skeptical of authorities in general, probably because hackers tend to be persons that value personal autonomy high. Socially adjacent communities (alot of artists here!) and companies share alot of the mindset.

                                Edit: These communities are also the ones where most positive feedback about my CoC-critical stuff comes from. I think i hit a nerve there that already bothered quite some people

                    2. 7

                      “I think that the memo that James Damore wrote about gender diversity efforts at Google was by and large correct and that Google was wrong to fire him. He should be considered welcome to contribute in good standing to this open-source software project if he so chooses.”

                      Any code of conduct that allowed me to say that sentence is (probably) fine; any code of conduct that treated me saying that sentence as a violation is not fine.

                      1. 5

                        That is a surprisingly good litmus test. Regardless of your actual view on the Damore memo or subsequent furore, a CoC that can penalize you for expressing your view about a person or situation like that is probably overstepping the mark.

                        It’s not whether someone would agree with you that he should be welcome to contribute to a project, it’s whether you are allowed to say it. In that regard I really like it as an overreach test.

                        1. 4

                          I’ve read the whole memo. I think he gets some things wrong and disagree with him here and there, but I’m glad I read it. Overall he does have a lot of good points, and it does show a big problem with the “leftness” of silicon valley tech culture.

                          Instead of trying to get more women in STEM/tech, how about we make it more socially acceptable for everyone, both men and women, to go after things they actually like to do. How many people do you know in tech, both men and women, hate their cubeville life. So many people I know, no matter how enthusiastic they might seem at times, deep down, do not like their jobs. We’ve got Dilbert, Office Space, We the Robots and so many other things in entertainment that show how awful these jobs can be. People want to escape.

                          I feel like there is a lot of pressure on men (and I guess now more on women) to earn enough to provide for a family. We mock people with English or Philosophy degrees with their steamy piles of debt; debt the previous generation would not have had because they could pay for school by working at a grocery store. The cost of education is too high and it’s being turned into a pipeline to the industry that is in demand. The debt locks people in.

                          Want to solve income inequality? Make everyone’s income public. Every employee knows what every other employee makes and that should be a Federal mandate. Why the fuck is there a taboo over income anyway. If you know what people are worth, you know what you should be wroth. I have a hypothesis that if you could somehow measure confidence, people’s incomes would directly correlate with their confidence level and not their genders.

                          I think people are locked into a certain political ideology and the false left/right paradigm that they fail to see the real issues are not the issues they’re addressing. Those are symptoms of a much deeper cause.

                          1. 4

                            I honestly haven’t read the memo. Is it something specific in the memo that you wanna be able to express your agreement with? or do you want to be able to express any opinion regardless of what it entails?

                            1. 1

                              I’m still overall confused by James Damore’s memo. It was mostly an incoherent mess when I read it. What part was he right about in regards to Google’s gender diversity efforts?

                          2. 3

                            Ok. What do you do that violates the CoC that isn’t bad? So far all I’ve heard is weird analogies that don’t really make sense. Can you articulate your concrete concerns?

                            1. 9

                              Not fighting for moral autonomy because you agree with it is analogous to not fighting for free speech because you agree with what the state says.

                              I do enjoy my moral autonomy, i exercise it, and i expect other people to let me do it. And the FreeBSD CoC says, “not here”. So i avoid FreeBSD.

                              Like free speech, moral autonomy is an essential part of democratic society (Lawrence Kohlberg: “Moral Development”), even if not everyone needs it.

                              1. 7

                                Not fighting for moral autonomy because you agree with it is analogous to not fighting for free speech because you agree with what the state says.

                                This is entirely disingenuous. FreeBSD is not the state, and requiring that contributors to an open source project not express violent prejudice against other contributors in order to be allowed to contribute is not at all similar to state censorship.

                                I do enjoy my moral autonomy, i exercise it, and i expect other people to let me do it.

                                Thanks for clarifying. You should realize that this is literally the purpose of CoCs like this one. You value your ability to do whatever you like over the productivity and comfort of others, and that’s not the attitude FreeBSD, Rust etc want in their community, because it tends to decrease productivity and cause burnout, not to mention just being a pain in the ass to work with.

                                So, yes, I agree with the others in this thread. Please continue to avoid FreeBSD, and if possible, me as well.

                                1. 3

                                  FreeBSD is not the state, and requiring that contributors to an open source project not express violent prejudice against other contributors in order to be allowed to contribute is not at all similar to state censorship.

                                  Would you not avoid a project that required you to limit your freedom of speech simply on principle? Or, if you would not, do you at least understand why someone else might on principle?

                                  The only difference in this example is that you at least have a reasonable choice of simply not using/contributing to FreeBSD if you disagree.

                                  1. 5

                                    Would you not avoid a project that required you to limit your freedom of speech simply on principle?

                                    Assuming you don’t mean “freedom of speech” (as in, freedom from state censorship) and actually mean “freedom to say whatever you want, whenever you want, in whatever forum you want”, this question is so broad as to be meaningless. If you DO mean “freedom of speech”, then it is so narrow as to be irrelevant, since the policies of open source projects don’t affect your legal freedom of speech. In either case, you miss the point.

                                    Community standards exist in order to prevent, in specific spaces, behavior that will adversely affect the community that creates them. All communities have standards. Codes of Conduct formalize and write down those standards, and allow people to examine them. If a community with standards by which one did not wish to abide existed and was otherwise appealing, one might join it and be unpleasantly surprised. On the other hand, a CoC allows one to see, up front, the norms and standards of a community. This is good.

                                    Therefore, it seems like @liwakura doesn’t disagree so much with the existence of a CoC as with the community standards many of them encode - in particular, those of the Node.js and FreeBSD communities. Now comes the critical point:

                                    Rather than engage with specific problems in the CoC (e.g., “[specific rule] is open to serious abuse and provides little protection for the accused”, et cetera), liwakura focused on the “restriction of autonomy”. Yes, community standards restrict autonomy. That is the point. They prevent behavior such as the purposeful, spiteful misgendering liwakura described as a likely outcome with a negative interaction with a trans person, or purposeful ignorance (as in, the noun form of “to ignore”, not as in lack of knowledge) of social structure of gender- and sex-based oppression. By preventing those behaviors from being displayed by liwakura in FreeBSD spaces, the CoC has succeeded.

                                    In other words, the CoC says “If you’re going to be a jerk, such as in these specific ways, stay out”, and liwakura’s response was “How dare you tell me that you don’t want me to be a jerk in these specific ways! I’m going to do what you say and not participate in your community, but also whine about it on the Internet.”

                                    1. 2

                                      Community standards exist in order to prevent, in specific spaces, behavior that will adversely affect the community that creates them.

                                      From what I’ve seen, the CoC being enforced in these specific spaces does not usually happen - they are enforced outside of those spaces as well. If I say some homophobic stuff on IRC, and it gets screencapped and posted on Twitter, do I get kicked out as a member of Project XYZ that uses a CoC which specifically prohibits that sort of language? Obviously I’ve said it, and there is public record of it - but I wasn’t saying it in context of the project, or to any member of the project, and in a (relatively) private setting. If I’m punished for something like that, then I’ve lost moral autonomy outside of the project.

                                      1. 1

                                        I would consider that to be a very arguable case. Is it possible that one’s external behavior will negatively impact the project and its community? Yes. Is your objection about moral autonomy outside the project valid? Also yes.

                            2. 0

                              Ok. What do you do that violates the CoC that isn’t bad? So far all I’ve heard is weird analogies that don’t really make sense. Can you articulate your concrete concerns?

                        2. 2

                          To be fair, I fall between the OP and the parent. Aside from one pre-COC level FreeNAS, I don’t use FreeBSD (which is the example) because of the shitty CoC. I’m not opposed to a well-structured one, but FreeBSD doesn’t appear to have one. Using a product means you condone the producer’s practices. I don’t use Facebook. I’m slowly degoogling my life, and I’m getting rid of Linux. Amazon Prime will be a hard plaster to pull off, but I’m working up to that. I see FreeBSD the same way - I don’t support their CoC implementation, ergo I won’t support the product by using it.

                          The very fact that any online discussion quickly devolves into poisonous ad-hominem is reason enough for me to be put off by the presence of one, but they can serve a purpose when well implemented (if GNU had a well-designed CoC then the recent Glibc abort() debacle could’ve been handled through it for example). When they’re poorly implemented like with FreeBSD, it’s not properly serving it’s existing community.

                          1. 2

                            Why are you getting rid of linux?

                            1. 5

                              It’s a combination of factors, some of which are due to shitshows like systemd, issues with breaking compatibility (e.g. ifconfig) and the realisation after moving to docker that for the most part, I have absolutely no idea what code is running on these systems.

                              I wrote about this in another comment here: https://lobste.rs/s/yxswhm/what_are_you_self_hosting#c_8reclz

                              To be fair, a lot of this is a result of my own poor personal choices, but I now feel like I’m fighting Linux to make it do what I want predictably, and not do things I didn’t tell it to do. It’s very reminiscent of MacOS’s shift a few years back.

                              I’m going to spend some time with Alpine simply because that’s what a lot of my docker containers for public systems run on, but I’m not building new systems to run docker, no longer buying raspberry pis (thanks, binary blobs) and instead of migrating to Linux, I’m migrating a lot of systems to Open and NetBSD. I would’ve chosen FreeBSD, but the CoC debacles mean I’m less comfortable supporting it. My next NAS build may well run Illumos instead.

                        3. 6

                          focuses to solve a single (possibly complex) problem (mosh)

                          But mosh solves two generally unrelated problems: “input prediction” and “automatic reconnection”. It just so happens that a lot of people are using high-latency, low-reliability connections (3G) and find both features useful at the same time, but there definitely exist high-latency, high-reliability connections (like connecting to a data-centre on another continent) and low-latency, low-reliability connections (like connecting from my laptop to my desktop). Sometimes I really wish somebody would split mosh apart so I can use the pieces individually.

                          1. 11

                            overreaching Code of Conducts.

                            The author realizes that you don’t have to follow the code of conduct to use the software? Also 80% of the items on the freebsd code of conduct are illegal. the four that stick out to me that aren’t are these.

                            Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion.

                            Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and employment.

                            Deliberate misgendering.

                            Deliberate use of “dead” or rejected names.

                            Author basically feels that if the developers can’t get intimately involved with another developer’s personal life without consent then the author does not want to use the software. Frankly it seems like you could just create a code of conduct with the line “Thinking code of conducts are bad” and you’d filter out everyone who apparently wants to get in your grill.

                            The other rules are okayish but would rule out basically everything if applied strictly.

                            1. 11

                              Also 80% of the items on the freebsd code of conduct are illegal.

                              Code’s of conduct don’t have anything to do with law, though. An organization can block your participation in it for any reason they see fit. There are restrictions for businesses and employers, but they don’t apply to open source projects.

                              1. 17

                                Right and if you don’t agree with those reasons you don’t have to contribute or you can create your own organization. I was saying 80% of them are illegal to do as an individual. Sexual harassment? Stalking? Threatening? A lot of the CoC is basically just “We won’t enable your criminal behavior and allow you to use the organization as a way to find targets”. The 4 here are basically, “Don’t purposely be an asshole to other members, here are four ways of being an asshole that are explicitly not allowed.”. If you think Open Source means “I get to be a dick to other people and get away with it because it’s not a job” then you’re honestly doing more harm than good and should do something else with your life.

                                1. 6

                                  Oh sorry, I misunderstood what you mean by illegal. I thought you were saying much of the CoC was illegal.

                                  1. 14

                                    The 4 here are basically, “Don’t purposely be an asshole to other members, here are four ways of being an asshole that are explicitly not allowed.”.

                                    That kind of playing with definitions is one of reasons I fight broad Codes of Conduct. It’s not how they play out. Instead, those promoting or enforcing will be specific groups of people having specific, political views on everything from words to identity to societal structures, expecting the entire world to comply with those views, and punishing anyone in their immediate setting who doesn’t using whatever methods are available. Those methods range from shaming to exclusion to removing their ability to pay bills.

                                    To me, that sounds like being assholes that shove their politics down others’ throats telling them to get lost if they don’t like it. Even more so when I see plenty of people be civil without going that far in mischaracterizing or banning other groups’ means of expressing themselves. Then, a person supporting such politics shows up saying it’s just about not being an asshole. People reading that get a different impression than “no political disagreement or differences are allowed in this list of categories whose reach increases whenever we say.” I don’t expect more honesty from most promoters about the goals since subterfuge and “end justifies the means” is the norm in that group.

                                    1. 12

                                      What about it shoves politics? I would think all the points I mentioned are basically apolitical. There’s no rule against “political disagreement” within the CoC. You can be super hard line conservative and still follow these rules. I’m specifically talking about the FreeBSD CoC.

                                      1. 7

                                        It’s not really based on “politics”, but on basic respect. If you’re a conservative who is respectful of people’s preferred names and doesn’t shit all over people because of their lifestyles, you won’t have a problem. If you’re a liberal or Leftist who is super racist, anti-Semitic (hello, tankies) or constantly judges poor people overly harshly (of which there are many), you will have one.

                                        That said, if you feel that trans people asserting that we should be called by the names we choose for ourselves is somehow a political act, then yes, the purpose of the CoC is to “shove politics down your throat”.

                                        1. 1

                                          if you feel that trans people asserting that we should be called by the names we choose for ourselves is somehow a political act

                                          Isn’t it? I have no problem with calling you as you like, really.

                                          And I’d like it would be the common ground of our international culture.

                                          But it is Politics. I’d argue that it’s the best expression of politics at all, as it establish a kind environment where we can confront on.

                                          On the other hand, “keep the discourse on topic or you will be banned” should be a pretty good CoC, everywhere.

                                          Now, if we can go off-topic, and you tell on a public space (say IRC or a mailing list) you do something I consider bad, you are engadging a discourse. You can’t say “I like eating people, cannibalism improve my health” and than invoke the CoC if anyone object.

                                          People should understanding that speaking in public implies a will to listen.
                                          More exactly, speaking implies a will to challenge own opinions, putting them at stake in the conversation.

                                          If you don’t want to listen any objection, if you don’t want to change your mind, why speak in the first place?
                                          Are you doing propaganda? Marketing? If so, you are the problem, not who engage with you.

                                          Also, if we can go off-topic, and you tell you like to hurt your children, I’ll comment on that, whatever the CoC. After the denounce obviously, with all the reference I can get to find you (including your email, ip, os, whatever I can get through my technical knowledge and tools).

                                          So in general, the CoC is a political tool. It could be used for good or evil.

                                          But it doesn’t fix the lack of a democratic culture of dialoge in a community.

                                        2. 1

                                          Without a CoC you are at the mercy of the hidden political views of the project owners. Their decisions to ban start looking arbitrary. Either way, you deal with political views. Wouldn’t you prefer to know what they are before engaging? Worst would be spending a lot of your time on a project only to find out you get banned because you said something that was in disagreement with the owners of the project.

                                    2. 14

                                      They are too broad (e.g. large swaths of the population would violate it by with their daily interactions), which puts selective enforcement at charge. If its selective enforcement, then its just an power instrument with the rule makers at the power end, even if the contents of the CoC are all well-meaned and good in their intentions.

                                      Its not directly about the contents of the CoC, its about taking peoples moral autonomy.

                                      1. 12

                                        I think it’s reasonable to treat open source work within an organization with the same level of respect and dignity that you would expect from a job. You could get fired at a job for nearly every one of these. Using dead names even, if an employee asks you to stop and you don’t and they file a complaint against HR, HR might decide that you’re creating a hostile work environment for basically no reason. Most people don’t get fired for misconduct, so I’m going to actually say that you can’t possibly be right about that claim.

                                        Keep in mind that the responses are

                                        A private reprimand from the working group to the individual(s) involved.

                                        A public reprimand.

                                        An imposed vacation from FreeBSD Project controlled spaces (e.g. asking someone to “take a week off” from a mailing list or IRC).

                                        A permanent or temporary ban from some or all FreeBSD Project controlled spaces (events, meetings, mailing lists, IRC, etc.)

                                        A request for a public or private apology.

                                        A request to engage in mediation and/or an accountability plan.

                                        These aren’t that extreme. Sure you can be banned but that can happen in any OSS project where they can say “We won’t accept pull requests from dirt bags like you.”. In this case the things you can do wrong are at least actually laid out so that you know what behaviors to avoid and which ones to follow.

                                        1. 16

                                          Still, the CoC assumes moral authority over me, which is an no-go for freedom lovers and hackers like me. That people like you don’t exercise their own moral autonomy and fail to understand that others do (with different results) is the reason why CoC create unnecessary controversy and drama.

                                          And yes, the FreeBSD CoC makes me feel violated in my moral autonomy, and yes, the FreeBSD CoC embodies political views i do not share.

                                          1. 9

                                            A CoC has no moral authority and frankly morality isn’t even a real thing. It’s merely a set of rules that people who work together have agreed to follow while working together. You don’t have to work with them and you don’t have to use their software, but since you wanted to be on record disagreeing, I wanted to be on record agreeing with CoC and why I feel the way I do.

                                            1. 4

                                              Again, this is a strong pro-CoC statement. If they are successful in excluding people like you, they are working as intended.

                                              1. 10

                                                I was hoping to keep things civil. Perhaps there’s a more generous way you could phrase this?

                                                1. 5

                                                  Not really, given that the author has emphatically stated their disagreement with either the values motivating the rules, or the rules themselves. Regardless, such a person is a real risk to the health of the community, and it’s nice that there’s such an effective repellent.

                                                  1. 18

                                                    I’m honest about not being a feminist. I consider the concept of gender harmful (from an philosophical standpoint), but people like you seem seem convinced that not sharing your point on that makes me an bad person.

                                                    But thanks for determining i’m a hazard to community, it surely helped me to recognize the superiority of your standpoint.

                                                    1. 7

                                                      By “considering the concept of gender harmful” you are willfully ignorant to the way that society works and by effect you are a part of the problem creating inequality and fostering an environment where harassment and hate crimes can thrive.

                                                      You don’t get to invent your own reality and pretend this one doesn’t exist.

                                                      1. 16

                                                        Yeah also you can consider gender harmful without refusing to respect how other people would like to be referred to. For example I will now out of respect for your disdain for the concept of gender refer to you strictly in non-gendered nouns. Notice how I disagreed with your viewpoint but didn’t invalidate your identity.

                                                      2. 1

                                                        I don’t care about your honesty. I don’t care to have you recognize the superiority of my viewpoint; I know nothing I can say will sway you. I care to prevent you from contaminating the spaces I care about.

                                                        1. 22

                                                          You’ve and @liwakura have both explained well how you differ fundamentally, and I appreciate that. This comment is pulling that discussion into a dark place, please don’t continue on this theme casting someone as an unredeemable danger who must be eradicated. Lobsters is not good at being “Tinder, but for finding a nemesis”.

                                                        2. 2

                                                          You don’t fight the concept of gender by standing on the sidelines watching those that do have the concept of gender dominate half the population. Just because you believe there isn’t gender, doesn’t mean people who consider themselves women aren’t getting the short end of the stick in our society.

                                                        3. 3

                                                          thanks, that’s much clearer. :)

                                                  2. 6

                                                    You could get fired at a job for nearly every one of these.

                                                    Depends on the job. Many employers won’t punish people who have political differences. Especially in Mid-South where we’re quite a diverse bunch of liberals, conservatives, white, black, latino, etc. The rule is that we either avoid those topics entirely to keep things civil or you better be able to take the kind of discussion you were dishing out. Essentially, we recognize those claiming disagreement is “offensive” to just be silencing their opposition. They’re trying to attack and control the other person. People still try that but don’t get far.

                                                    So, in such a truly, inclusive environment, people will be saying things that bother others since there’s conflict on a deep level. My relatives and I have worked in many such places. They’ll have heated arguments sometimes. It almost always ends up “agree to disagree” with them making up for it being nice to each other later. Sometimes people figure out who each other are underneath, permanently dislike each other, work together just enough to get the job done, and avoid one another otherwise.

                                                    People almost never quit over this sort of thing. It’s also not what most gripe about. Those griping or quitting over assholes bring up people who folks in every group agree are assholes. We wouldn’t need a CoC to deal with them. Just decent managers or owners that respond to employee complaints. If managers or owners aren’t decent, then no policies or CoC’s are going to make the work environment better.

                                                    1. 13

                                                      I really don’t understand how you got this from the CoC mentioned. There is no rule in the CoC that you must conform politically. I would be very shocked to hear that the entire FreeBSD team is not conservative. The rule is merely that you treat other people with dignity. I live in the south and every single one of my workplaces would fit this CoC save for maybe the rules around transgendered folks. Frankly even when I was a deeply religious and hardline conservative I would have no trouble following these rules. I never treated anyone less than human because they had different views than me. Furthermore that “rule” you gave is a kind of CoC and CoC’s matter once the size of the organization grows. Its very easy to fall into a tyranny of structurelessness as an organization gets larger. This is because nobody can agree on what is right or wrong or what the response should be to a problem. By having a CoC you can agree as an org what actions are against the group and what a good response looks like. If you don’t have any response strategy mob mentality kicks in and things can escalate to threats and violence. After all if someone is a huge asshole and nobody is doing anything about it it would seem natural to find a way to make them stop.

                                                      Frankly there’s nothing in this CoC that has any bias against conservatives whatsoever. Nothing in the CoC says you have to be a liberal, and it specifically protects people from false claims. Your micro-CoC actually fails to protect individuals from false claims.

                                                      Publication of non-harassing private communication without consent.

                                                      Publication of non-harassing private communication with consent but in a way that intentionally misrepresents the communication (e.g., removes context that changes the meaning).

                                                      Knowingly making harmful false claims about a person.

                                                      1. 11

                                                        Depends on the job. Many employers won’t punish people who have political differences.

                                                        This is such a disingenuous frame shift of the issue that it invalidates everything else about your argument. Being respectful is not political. Enforcing consent in interactions is not political. Being gay or tolerant of same is not political. Asserting that any effort to shift culture away from the status quo is an out-of-bounds “political” act is a cowardly way to attempt to silence those that you disagree with. You are personally guilty, to an incredibly advanced degree, of every evil thing you claim to be against.

                                                        “Politics” is the process by which humans come to consensus for shared interests. Shitting on the less powerful and providing moral or intellectual cover for those that seek to do the same is not politics; it’s craven thuggery disguised as keeping things peaceful.

                                                        1. 0

                                                          Politics is whatever action affects the polis, and by extension any group of humans.

                                                          Thus being respectful is political.
                                                          Enforcing consent in interactions is political.
                                                          Being tolerant of anything is political.

                                                          In Italy we have the same kind of differences that @nickpsecurity describes, and we are used to joke about our differences a lot. And we debate harshly about many things, but usually these debates grow our relations.

                                                          As an example, I had a girlfriend that was a deeply religious Catholic when I was atheist (and rather angry at Church). And we talked a lot about religion and politics back then, without that affecting negatively the relation.

                                                          One of the best engineer I worked with voted for the worst political party we had in Italy for decades. I had the opposite view. We debated a lot. We debated so much about politics that when we had to design a framework together to under a huge pressure, we keep debating with the same style. And after 10 years in production, the framework still rocks the customers are satisfied and we can’t find anything remotely on par with it around.
                                                          Why? Because we were used to listen deeply and respectfully the other’s opinion.

                                                          1. 2

                                                            I grant that being tolerant is political, and so it follows that everything is political. Which means that my point is still relevant: it’s disingenuous to dismiss concerns about behavior as “political”, as though that made it irrelevant.

                                                            In Italy, you are allowed to have those debates because the stakes are much lower: you’re less likely to die from poverty, your livelihood is less contingent upon social approval, etc.

                                                            In the United States, it’s not like that. If you lose your job, you could die. If you are systematically excluded from high-paying industries, like digital technology, your quality of life massively suffers in comparison to those who are welcomed by that industry. All policies must be considered in the context of an entrenched and reactionary old guard that dominates all other effects. Any overt attempt to improve the lives of the marginalized is treated as a threat to the old order, and rightfully so. The stakes are literally life and death.

                                                            Mr. P. Security doesn’t work in the the industry, and largely speaks from a position of willful ignorance about these issues.

                                                            1. 0

                                                              In Italy, you are allowed to have those debates because the stakes are much lower

                                                              I do not know United States enough for a comparison, but sadly we have poverty here too. Our livelihood is not based on social approval, but it’s often strongly based on social relationships.

                                                              We just know we are all on the same boat.

                                                              So I don’t know if we are free to talk because we have lower stakes, or we have lower stakes because we are free to talk.

                                                              In any case, an international project should not be ruled according to the issues of a single country.

                                                              1. 1

                                                                In any case, an international project should not be ruled according to the issues of a single country.

                                                                I don’t understand what this is in reference to, or what it could possibly mean in terms of what kind of governance structure or details. I was pointing out that there are cultural differences that make it easier or harder for people who are forced together to have disagreements about their values, or be able to set aside those differences in order to do something together.

                                                        2. 10

                                                          The CoC is about civility, not politics. And I can’t believe you don’t know that. So what is your purpose? Are you standing up for the right to humiliate people or be rude to them? That’s a principle for you?

                                                          1. 0

                                                            Just decent managers or owners that respond to employee complaints…

                                                            Poor employees, at the mercy of their benevolent dictators.

                                                        3. 3

                                                          Wait, you believe without a CoC, owners of a project have less power? An owner of a project already has views of what kind of behavior they think is good and what they think is bad. If they don’t write it down in CoC, you are still at their mercy, but now you have to guess what the hell they are thinking.

                                                          I’m not sure how a CoC increases any power they already have. You still don’t have moral agency because we live in a society where there are owners and non-owners. There is still a power differential. If you want democratic rule, then you need to fight against ownership by paper.

                                                          1. 2

                                                            Even without a CoC the project owners selectively enforce hidden rules. I’m not sure how making the rules hidden is better than making them explicit.

                                                        4. 5

                                                          unable to be built from sources

                                                          This is mostly up to person who compiles. I hate seeing issues similar to “I can’t compile”.

                                                          If you were to wrote >not properly documented compilation process<, I could understand your struggles.

                                                          1. 5

                                                            That is correct, i adjusted the article.

                                                          2. 4

                                                            This reminds me to strive to find efficient (and hopefully simple) designs that solve the problem instead of doing the extra work that covers the 30% more use case.

                                                            Once you have found a simple design and documented it well, other developers will be able to do it again without too much effort.

                                                            Regardless if you like daemontools or hate it, you might be able to do a supervision suite in this style, like other people did.

                                                            1. 2

                                                              high cost by abstraction layers (like Nix)

                                                              This is the first time I read a criticism to Nix.

                                                              Can you elaborate what you mean?

                                                              1. 5

                                                                Nix achieves declarative definition of a system, by forcing you to do everything via the nix programming language. It abstracts the underlying package managing in an functional way.

                                                                With “high cost”, i mean that certain things then become significantly more difficult. Like runtime-generated configs or system secrets. I heard people complain about that config files now need to be generated from nix options, but afaik thats easy to fix.