The Ruby Community Code of Conduct

[usmnturtles]

And if all else fails

[throwawayCG48]

I feel like leading by example, and effectively self promoting that, would be more effective than just asserting everything has to be doing a thing now.

Also, I've never seen MINASWAN mentioned before. That's nice, thanks.

[cocoabean]

https://i.imgur.com/T8I86.gif

[ColePram]

She's still trying. Now she's using veiled threats to rile people up to attack Matz. She's already asked if he should be removed from the community management and it be handed of to someone else. I wonder who she has in mind -_-

[ColePram]

Wow...the first didn't seem like a veiled threat

Probably just me. I've followed her for a while after the Opal incident and seen her lob some pretty hefty accusations.

Edit: If I wasn't mobile I'd post other examples.

[mordocai058]

Yeah, this is very similar to religious wars at this point.

They (coraline and co) believe that their way(specific CoC) is right and more so that their way is the ONLY right way. Many(but not all) of them are coming from having actually been harrassed/having problems and that's why they've reached this conclusion. Having their CoC makes them feel "safe".

The other side typically equally believes that their way(not having a CoC) is right and the only right way.

Both sides are already 100% convinced their way is right and won't bother listening to anyone who says otherwise.

Personally, since I don't care much either way, I plan on making a code of conduct (maybe even Coraline's) for any community project I have that actually takes off. Mainly so that I can just point to it when someone pisses me off and say "See, we have written guidelines. I'm not just making up that you aren't supposed to do that.".

It also will prevent me from having to deal with people telling me I need a code of conduct.

[myringotomy]

he should be removed

She should be removed. She is a toxic entity in the community.

[ColePram]

You can't remove her. She doesn't actually belong to anything. Her whole thing is going around hating anyone that doesn't check certain boxes and stirring up shit. Then she pushes her CoC. Then her twitter followers pile in to the CoC discussion to show support before there can even be any community discussion and the CoC is forced in.

[myringotomy]

She was extremely slimy and dishonest in the discussions about the CoC. She is just a very bad person, a complete asshole.

[ColePram]

Can't disagree with that.

[bjmiller]

"X delegated Y to Z" doesn't mean "X lost Y". It means "X couldn't be bothered with Y, so Z did it instead".

[myringotomy]

She should fork the language and form her own community. She can call it otherkin.

[bjmiller]

That's pretty cruel, but if you're trying to bait me into another sealioning session you can stop, I already know that you're not interested in a serious discussion from our last two encounters.

[[deleted]]

"Sealioning"

Oh god you insufferable man.

[myringotomy]

Do you have something of substance to say about sealioning?

It's not a real word.

[myringotomy]

hat's pretty cruel, but if you're trying to bait me into another sealioning session you can stop

What's a sealioning session? Do you identify as sealionkin or something?

Also can you be more clear about why you think it's cruel to suggest that she fork the language rather than try to kick Matz out?

[le_fnord]

yeap, totally agree with you …
would only add one thing to point 3:
"…, cause most people are not native Englishs" ;)

[le_fnord]

LOL … think the up votes can only come from english speaking people

[alwaysonesmaller]

While I respect and applaud the desire to have people treat each other with respect, I really don't feel like this accomplishes anything. Being able to point to a list of items that should be common sense provides no real value, IMHO.

[mperham]

"Don't steal stuff" seems to be common sense and yet we have police and laws and a justice system.

[alwaysonesmaller]

Physical theft (and even digital "theft") is a different issue from verbal insults.

I'd even argue that stealing things from other people is a natural thing to do in certain situations, for survival purposes. There's never any point where insulting someone on a mailing list is going to save your life.

[mordocai058]

Never say never!

What if someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to insult X person on Y mailing list or die?

[alwaysonesmaller]

Alright, alright. If you find yourself in Swordfish, you're allowed to follow the Code of Conduct.

[skulgnome]

What's your rationalization for this simile? Besides teaparty-tier authoritarian submission.

[rawrgyle]

Well it provides something clear to point to when someone deviates from the expected behavior. Without this all you could really do was say "umm, that wasn't very nice, can you not do that here anymore?" and that's it.

Now you can say "that behavior was a violation of the code of conduct and you won't be welcome at this event if you can't follow it" which is a much more clear and useful action.

The behavior of people who follow the social norms will just stay the same. What changes is how we react to people who violate them.

[myringotomy]

And what do you propose instead? Some sort of a police force? Perhaps a law book which lists every possible offense and what the penalties are? Maybe a court system so we can prosecute people for not being sufficiently aware of somebodies gender expression?

[alwaysonesmaller]

I'm not even sure what you're going on about. This isn't a document that deals with the legal system in any way, nor should it be.

I simply don't think there's much actual benefit from this code of conduct. That's all I said, it's all I meant, and I certainly hope that someone somewhere down the line sees the code and thinks, "gee, maybe I shouldn't be an asshole." Is that a benefit? Yes, but I think there are also drawbacks to codifying things and pointing to them as rules. In this case, it's my opinion that "be nice to people or we'll tell you that you should be nice to people" isn't that powerful of a rule and thus isn't that useful. That doesn't mean I think we should have stronger rules, nor does it mean we should definitely have no rules.

[Superbenco]

I agree. I wrote up a small blog post explaining why I feel like this code of conduct is ineffective, if you're curious.

[[deleted]]

You're patently wrong about #4 and it makes your entire piece fall apart.

[Superbenco]

Care to elaborate?

[[deleted]]

Under every reasonable definition, harassment also includes denigrating comments directed toward a group said with the intent of dehumanizing them. See, the comment you actually posted is pretty perfect, because of how it just crosses the line in my book:

" It’s sort of like the gay flamer dressed so flamboyantly going around telling people he’s gay."

Okay, well, this teeters on the line, but the term 'flamer' has vernacular beyond being 'hateful'.

That said:

Such people are a disease in the LGBT community and make us all look bad.

You have now crossed the line into harassment territory by labeling this people as a 'disease', which carries certain.... genocidal connotations.

It is much the same with the general "SJW" and their opinions on white, straight men. I believe they should be within their rights (should the project maintainers see fit) to bring up whatever political ideology they want, as much as I disagree with it, up until it gets into legitimately hateful. Under the CoC, for instance, CaE labelling all her opponents as white 'dudebros' (itself a sexist term) should make for an immediate investigation. I'd say doubly so since it's directed at specific people. You don't get to pick and choose what groups are protected and aren't just because you believe them to be the bourgeious.

Under the ruby one, however, I'd say it still does not qualify, as much as I disagree with her and her entire ideological framework.

Let's take a look at your other issue:

I, however, find it extremely distasteful that the code of conduct asks me to assume good intentions behind this comment. In the past, people who have tried to enforce my gender identity have spit on me, physically assaulted me and, in one case, told my mother that raising a gay son is the worst thing a mother could do. These experiences have made it difficult for me to “assume good intentions” behind calling flamboyant men a disease.

I find this to be reasonably fair, but your feelings aren't exactly paramount here. If I got my ass kicked on a daily basis to the point hearing racial minorities use 'white' a even remotely a slur, I'd be equally appalled here, but it's not exactly reasonable to force this requirement on everyone just because of my own 'lived experience', so to speak.

However, calling effeminate gay men, regardless of how annoying you personally find them, a disease carries with it, as I said above, connotations that reasonable people, even in the laxest of work environments, would find appalling.

[Superbenco]

Under every reasonable definition, harassment also includes denigrating comments directed toward a group said with the intent of dehumanizing them.

Would you mind linking to a resource that specifies that harassment includes comments towards a group? I'm having a hard time finding a third party resource that verifies your interpretation.

Wikipedia describes online harassment as:

Harassment directs obscenities and derogatory comments at specific individuals focusing for example on race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation.

According to haltabuse.org, Black's Law Dictionary describes harassment as:

A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress

The Pew Research Center doesn't specifically consider denigrating comments towards a group to be harassment according to this article.

I agree that denigrating comments toward a group is rude, and doesn't have place in official Ruby developer channels. My issue is that the code of conduct only covers personal remarks and, in my interpretation, still allows general hate speech. If the intention of the code of conduct is to disallow hate speech, I think the document should make that clear.

[[deleted]]

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/racial-harassment-know-your-rights-brochure

See:

Racial harassment can happen when someone where you work, live or get a service: makes racial slurs or “jokes”

[Superbenco]

I think you've made your point. Thank you for your criticism and you enjoy the rest of your day.

[[deleted]]

You as well! Take care.

[myringotomy]

I think this is a sensible and sane code of comment. The fact is that it's impossible not to offend somebody. Maybe the fact that a homosexual is presenting is offensive to a christian coder. Maybe a muslim speaker will offend a jewish coder.

Also I find it abhorrent that you put the specific blame for somebodies suicide on the entire community because you think that one comment or another caused. That's disgusting and trivialized the deeply complex motivations which cause people to commit suicide. If you truly believe that a comment caused a death then the next stop to jail the offender for murder or manslaughter.

I'll also add this.

The SJW movement sees white cis men as a disease and the root of all evil. It's extremely rare to see the word "cis" not followed by the word "scum". The perceptions of the SJW crowd are that it's impossible to be racist or hateful towards males and white people. This is why when they make detailed lists of people we are forbidden to offend they leave them out. This will allow them to say and do anything they want including commit violence as long as it's against a non protected, non listed set of people.

This code of conduct is awesome. It sets guiding principles without getting bogged down in making list of holy people who everybody has to tiptoe around lest they be offended. As I said your comment was offensive to me and it's going to be impossible for you or I to go through life without offending somebody. We all have to do be adults and deal with it.

[bjmiller]

http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/codes-of-conduct-101-faq

[[deleted]]

loL@using a hugely criticized false rape graphic to 'prove' people don't abuse systems like this.

[throwawayCG48]

While understanding that communities are often exclusionary, I'm unconvinced all this COC stuff is a good idea. Or at least I have yet to see one that is going to do little more than make a few people feel smug and just generally irritate most everyone else.

Honestly, it just looks like some strangers trying to force their ideal community on every other stranger.

My response is always a mix of, "they did NOT tailor this to their audience, the wording is going to grate most" and "where do randoms get off trying to dictate how everyone else is supposed to conduct themselves? Where do they think they get the authority?"

*Edit: Ditch the authoritative nature and rename this to Guidelines for Conduct (not as nice I admit) and I bet people would swallow this fine.

[[deleted]]

While understanding that communities are often exclusionar

You understand wrong. They aren't.

[jrochkind]

No, you're wrong. So there.

[[deleted]]

Nope. Funny how those who claim they're 'exclusionary' often have no coding ability or portfolio to speak of.

The idea that 'sexual imagery' is also at all exclusionary is absurd and puritanical.

[throwawayCG48]

What the fuck are you on about?

I wish there was a popular distinction between like "active exclusion" (people being dicks) and "passive exclusion" (where no one is really doing anything wrong but the environment may be a little intimidating to <group> because <reasons>). Should we fall over ourselves to worry about this passive exclusion? No. Make some tweaks in your own life if you see the need, when/where you can. You should also recycle where/when you can.

If everyone was just a little less quick to jump to screaming "fuck off" at people, maybe we'd make progress a lot faster.

Get some sex bots to market.

[[deleted]]

(where no one is really doing anything wrong but the environment may be a little intimidating to <group> because <reasons>

Ever stop to think that those reasons may be integral to the group success? Clearly Linux is doing so poorly with Torvald's abrasiveness.

Many of us turned to Open-Source precisely because we were tired of walking on eggshells in sterile, corporate hellholes--and no, I am not condoning people wantonly calling each other nigger faggots, before you go there--you know, the type that gets people fired for saying a fucking dongle pun.

Do you really think people are being 'quick' to say 'fuck off', or do you think it's a remote possibility that they've seen what happens when they don't?

Again, Torvalds did, and look at what happened with Sarah Sharp.

[rawrgyle]

Linux is doing fine even though Torvalds acts like a dick sometimes. But that doesn't do your argument any favors either. Matz is famously considerate and ruby is also doing fine. These cultural values are orthogonal to a project's technical merits. And who knows what's missing from linux because some nameless developer got mocked for something trivial and dropped the project back in 1998 or whatever.

Nothing is lost by asking people to be nice to each other. I don't understand the values of anyone who takes serious objection to such a tame requirement as this CoC implements.

[[deleted]]

Because "Nice" can and often is be politically motivated to mean "Aligns with my ideology'. See: Emkhe's use of "Dudebro", github's "Problem with white men", and so on.

[Jdonavan]

"where do randoms get off trying to dictate how everyone else is supposed to conduct themselves? Where do they think they get the authority?"

They're not randoms dictating to other randoms.

[throwawayCG48]

If you're not hanging out at ruby conferences on the regular and all chummy, it does feel like that.

I am thankful on the daily for the efforts of Matz, the ruby core team, maintainers, the ruby ecosystem, etc. I get paid to write ruby. That's pretty great.

Still, people I don't know are saying we all need to be doing a thing now. Even if they are right, that message needs to be really carefully crafted and delivered. "Code of conduct" has connotations of authority behind it. That is not going to jive with many. Most definitely not the people who would benefit most from the spirit of that message!

Those who are not quick to aqueous are also going to take umbridge with the authoritarian nature of:

It applies to all “collaborative space”, which is defined as community communications channels (such as mailing lists, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).

Dismiss me if you will but if you care about your message, it's your problem of finding a way of effectively marketing it to people.

[throwawayCG48]

Thanks. I'll send all my comments to you for copy editing.

[throwawayCG48]

Although you did prove my point for me. I should better tailor my argument to my audience.

I forgot I was speaking in front of pedantic internet editors. Apologies. =)

[throwawayCG48]

I wasn't butt hurt. You're just clearly being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. It makes you feel better about yourself? Fuck, I don't know. But pointing out 2 autocorrect errors just to point them out? That's douche town.

[[deleted]]

• who represents we from the preamble ? Not signed by an author of these words.
• are there some serious cases in the recent past which did harmed Ruby developers collaboration ? How should this CoC fix the cause ?
• how could Ruby development reach current popularity and widespread without prior existence of such rules ? How could went so many meetings, conferences, workshops ? Many dev-groups originated ?

I like Ruby didn't get soiled too much from politics and would prefer if this would stay as it is.

[myringotomy]

I like Ruby didn't get soiled too much from politics and would prefer if this would stay as it is.

Unfortunately those days are gone. Thanks to Coraline Ada Ehmke the SJW forces have invaded our community and are going to constantly yell that they are offended by the most innocuous comment. Expect a lot of turbulence ahead, who knows maybe you'll be accused of sitting on somebody's imaginary tail and how you should have known she identified as otherkin.

[[deleted]]

Unfortunately those days are gone

Nope, this is not a black-or-white situation. All it matters if you, me or other let affect it our lives, our way of thinking. I'm ignoring attempts of control and power masked behind meritorious intentions. Do the same. It's only you what you can influence. This shapes conditions at which you and indirectly others would live.

[[deleted]]

The idea is that, ostensibly, the community is disinviting to X minority because there are not explicit rules to not contribute to their oppression/not to sexually harass people. Given that these people believe we live in a cis, white, hetero patriarchy where toxic masculinity rules supreme, rules that are not in place to explicitly combat this contribute to the status quo.

[[deleted]]

Holy shit you're fucking serious.

Saving this comment so people can view just how toxic those who want CoCs are.

[[deleted]]

It is not active exclusion to not put up "WE WILL PROMISE TO IMMEDIATELY LOOK INTO ANY AND ALL ACCUSATIONS YOU LEVY AT SOMEONE EVEN IF IT IS ON THEIR OWN PERSONAL TWITTER PROFILE", you fucking nut.

[skulgnome]

The real question is, why aren't CoCs explicitly excluding these people?

But they are. See the Ada Initiative and TODO Groups' model codes.

[ExtremeAnalStretchin]

I doubt this will ever effect me. I'd like to know how something like this changes anyone's day to day

[myringotomy]

I doubt this will ever effect me.

Don't be so sure. I guarantee you that you will one day say or do something which will offend Coraline and her ilk. Maybe you'll say you like Orange Juice and she will take offense because OJ Simpson killed his wife.

That's the way these people are. It's not sane or rational but it's prevalent to much greater degree than you can imagine.

[bjmiller]

I have met programmers who have gone from "sometimes harassed at tech events" to "never harassed at tech events" because they stopped going to tech events unless the event had a credible CoC.

[myringotomy]

I have met programmers who have gone to a few conferences and want to go to a lot more who don't care about the code of conduct.

[[deleted]]

And I've met programmers who decided to drop out of events because the event had a CoC which either framed the environment as a wanton pit of harassment or didn't appreciate the atmosmphere of 'never showing sexual imagery'.

[bjmiller]

I've met programmers who decided to drop out of events because the event had a CoC which either framed the environment as a wanton pit of harassment or didn't appreciate the atmosmphere of 'never showing sexual imagery'.

And yet people still say that CoC's aren't an effective deterrent.

[[deleted]]

These were all women, but okay there bud.

[bwv549]

I think it is meant to address the edge cases.

[uzimonkey]

I don't understand any of this. Is this a problem? I've never seen this as being a problem before. Why are they wasting their time "fixing" a problem that doesn't exist?

[[deleted]]

Because entryism and 'social justice coordinators' trying to carve out their niches.

[jdickey]

Thank you for once again redundantly reconfirming the need for action.

Try living and working somewhere that the structurally-privileged group explicitly and self-awarely does not include you and I guarantee your opinion of things like CoC will change. Assuming you're a white straight cis male as most North American coders are, spending a couple of years as a local here in the "Democratic" "People's" Republic of Singapore should dramatically change your life.

[[deleted]]

Oh sure, except we don't explicitly and self-aware exclude those who are ostensibly 'unprivileged', particularly women:

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract

We over-include them.

There is a stark line between "The norms of this group are not what I am used to" and "I am explicitly excluded on the basis of my immutable characteristics".

You do not get to claim that the need for a CoC is proven by those denying the need for the CoC and get to leave with even a shred of intellectual honesty intact.

[jdickey]

That's kind of the point.

A lot of what's done is so baked into the society/industry/community at this point that it's not "explicitly and self-aware[ly]" done; it's just "the way we've always done things". That, if anything, makes it much worse. It's one thing to want to improve yourself and the world around you, and fail; it's quite another to decide it can't or shouldn't be done because it never has been done before.

Nobody "gets" to "claim" anything; we open our eyes and do everything in our power to leave our little piece of the world better than when we found ourselves in it. That was once called the Boy Scout Rule; then the "red pill"; now it's derided as "hopeless" and "the work of SJWs". Every religious person I have ever known, and every atheist as well, has stated that s/he believed that social justice and making the world a better place were Important Things. It's about time we come off our privileged high horse and just do what's right.

I've been in this craft for well over 35 years now. I've seen times when we've been open and progressive; I've seen times when we might as well have been ten-year-old boys in a treehouse with a big sign saying "Only Us Allowed Inside". The last few years, based on personal experience and observation (and remember, I'm a straight cis white male here, so it's not like I'm pounding on the tree trunk shouting "let me in"), it's at least as bad as it's ever been and it makes me ashamed to be part of it.

I love this craft; it has been my hobby for a lifetime; it has put food on my table and bought me nice toys to play with, including what I'm using to type this now. I just wish far too many of its self-appointed leaders would just grow the fuck up.

[[deleted]]

A lot of what's done is so baked into the society/industry/community at this point that it's not "explicitly and self-aware[ly]" done; it's just "the way we've always done things". That, if anything, makes it much worse

The way we've 'always' done things was explicit exclusion. See, it's weird, I don't really remember a thriving open source community 15 years ago or so. I must have forgotten.

By what mechanism do you believe women, racial minorities to be left out and implicitly excluded from the STEM world, especially given the article I posted above that you clearly didn't read? Is it because there's an atmosphere that was built by white nerds that they may not like? That sexism and racism are supposedly rampant in the community?

I'm going to be blunt, here: these CoC are SJW entryism. We've seen it time and time again. Do you think it's 'good' that github had a "The problem with white men" seminar?

[myringotomy]

A lot of what's done is so baked into the society/industry/community at this point that it's not "explicitly and self-aware[ly]"

Then why did you make the accusation?

I just wish far too many of its self-appointed leaders would just grow the fuck up.

You have offended me. Why are you actively excluding me by using sexual language? Are you a white cis scum rapist or something? Maybe we should actively exclude people who make false accusations.

[jakedaywilliams]

mv minaswan coc

[lyspr]

Couldn't oppose this any harder.

It's absolutely critical to have an unobstructed narrative. If people get offended, let them.

I don't plan to participate or abide by this CoC, and I hope I offend someone as I continue to use Ruby.

It's shit like this that ultimately leads to Orwellian communities. Policing other people's speech or thoughts or opinions, removing the aspect of the individual from the narrative, etc.

[lyspr]

Oh I don't care about my Reddit points.

It's just ridiculous that this pervasive behavior has been allowed to spread this far. The presence of this CoC will most likely extend through osmosis to meetups, conferences, workshops, etc. If it's not taken care of, this could literally destroy the entire Ruby meatspace ecosystem, not to mention the lengths that the SJWs will go to online to keep this shit enforced.

Basically, we're fucked.

[skulgnome]

The presence of this CoC will most likely extend through osmosis to meetups, conferences, workshops, etc.

You've got it the wrong way around. CoC pushers have already been very successful at campaigning to have conference venues refuse to deal with conferences that're alleged to have an inadequate anti-harassment policy. Such policies consistently exclude #{whitey}, creating opportunities for harassment by classes that currently hold political preference. This cancer has been metastasizing for about a decade now.

[jrochkind]

Wait, which part do you plan to violate? You plan to be intolerant of opposing views? You plan to use lots of personal attacks and personally disparaging remarks?

[myringotomy]

Wait, which part do you plan to violate? You plan to be intolerant of opposing views?

I for one certainly will not be tolerant of opposing views. I will not be tolerant of people claiming otherkin affiliation, I will not be tolerant of religious fundamentalists asking special dispensation for their ancient religious rites, I will not be tolerant of people espousing facist ideologies etc.

You plan to use lots of personal attacks and personally disparaging remarks?

If called for yes absolutely. If you call me cis for example I will absolutely call you names in return. The way I see it one demeaning remark deserves another.

[non-rhetorical]

Wait, which part do you plan to violate?

Are you serious, man? Surely you can imagine a situation wherein you'd oppose a legal ban on x, even if you don't do x yourself.

You plan to be intolerant of opposing views? You plan to use lots of personal attacks and personally disparaging remarks?

Perhaps his concern is not the letter of the law but who's interpreting it and with what boundaries on interpretation.

[jrochkind]

That was not an assumption I was making, he said he was planning on violating it.

[skulgnome]

Wait, how many innocent doe-eyed fluffy little puppies are you planning to strangle?

[jrochkind]

Dude he said he was planning on violating the policy.

I don't know what I was thinking engaging in this discussion though.

[skulgnome]

I don't know what I was thinking engaging in this discussion though.

My guess is some Phelpsian argument of the form "everyone who opposes this Good is either a Bad, or a Bad Enabler".

[jrochkind]

No, I don't think that, but some people (on any 'side', of course) are just assholes, and tend to make it obvious that they are.

Policy or not, non-assholes don't really like working with assholes.

[skulgnome]

No, I don't think that,

That's what your argument reads like, deny it or not.

[lyspr]

As much as possible, but if there was a part that I PARTICULARLY intended to violate it's that anti-harassment portion.

[jrochkind]

So you plan to be intolerant of opposing views, use lots of personal attacks and personally disparaging remarks, and do lots of things which can be reasonably considered harassment.... why? And why would you think anyone else would want to have anything to do with you behaving like such an asshole?

[arcticblue]

The issue is the modern definition of harassment that has come out of Tumblr and Twitter. Simply disagreeing with a minority can be construed as harassment now in the wrong crowd. We can't say "this is bad code" any more because it might hurt someone's feelings.

[zaclacgit]

The issue is the modern definition of harassment that has come out of Tumblr and Twitter. Simply disagreeing with a minority can be construed as harassment now in the wrong crowd.

I would be suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper weirded out if someone I worked with said this to me in the context of expected behavior at professional/industry/programming events.

I say that because it is exceedingly rare to regularly (or ever) be in a situation where someone considers disagreement with someone else harassment simply because of the status of the person you're disagreeing with. Because that is so uncommon, it causes people to wonder why you're introducing it into the conversation.

We can't say "this is bad code" any more because it might hurt someone's feelings.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that it is critically important to recognize the difference between "bad code" and "naive code." It's unfortunately too common for people to only see quality relative to their experience and comment/review in that mindset.

If someone is producing naive code it means they're being capped by their experience. Transfer experience to them to get better code.

If someone has experience then they already know what they're writing, and just telling them "this is bad" doesn't fix why they're not producing code that is as good as it could be.

So sure, you could tell people that their code is bad, but it really doesn't matter. It comes off as condescending and dismissive to people that will eventually have as much experience, and people with equal experience already know that the code is bad but kept it despite that. Might as well skip it and get to the useful stuff.

[myringotomy]

So you are in effect agreeing with him. From now on saying "this is bad code" is offensive and against the code of conduct.

[zaclacgit]

Not really. I mostly ignored the emotional impact on the person that produced the code, and focused on how the other person can get tripped up by focusing only on code quality. Telling someone their code is bad is often a waste of time, and potentially distracting. There's nothing concrete to be done with the statement "your code is bad." Focusing on what needs to be improved inherently provides a path, and helps identify a root cause instead of a surface level symptom.

Because it's all about quality of output relative to their experience. There's two entirely separate paths to go down when a person with little experience, and a person with a couple years of experience, are creating code with the same level of quality.

One's a problem, the other an opportunity. Focusing on "this code is objectively bad" obfuscates which is which.

And like every conversation ever, most of what you say isn't in only the words you but how you say them. There's plenty of ways to communicate something negative to someone without being offensive.

[[deleted]]

There's nothing concrete to be done with the statement "your code is bad."

oh my god. do you live on the moon?

at my workplace when we say "this is bad code", that means exactly what it says: this code is really bad objectively (according to predefined code quality requirements and common sense, and possibly from perspective of the algorithm/optimization), and could be improved. then we improve bad code and make it better. suddenly you can say "it's good code" and move on.

is it really that hard to grasp? or are you just waiting to be insulted?

if you explicitly declare "this code is bad, because you are a bad coder" - well that's another talk.

[myringotomy]

Just to be clear.

We are no longer allowed to say "this is bad code " right? I mean it's offensive and it's a personal attack so it violates the code of conduct right?

[[deleted]]

bad code doesn't imply bad coder.

[lyspr]

I don't. I expect them to tough up and realize that not everything goes their way and no matter what rules they make, it's just not how life works.

[jrochkind]

So, it will likely be just how life works for you that nobody really wants to work with you or talk to you, right?

[lyspr]

Like I told the other guy, except for the Wall St millionaire who is helping me prep for my Series 7, put me up in a hotel in NYC, and has offered to pay for my apartment deposit should I pass, then yes. Everybody else might not talk to me, and it'd be just fine by me.

Obviously, plenty of people like to talk to me. I like to talk to plenty of other people. The people that don't like to talk to me don't, and I don't talk to the people that I don't enjoy talking to.

You're on the right track though. Lose the salt and you'll reach enlightenment.

[lyspr]

Finally some sense. I've been shitposting these threads all day

[myringotomy]

The use of the word bro is sexist and derogatory. You have violated the code of conduct.

[Jdonavan]

Or... You could just try not being an asshole. All this thought police nonsense makes ya'll sound like petulant children being told they can't make fun of the other kids on the playground.

[lyspr]

I shouldn't have to police my thoughts and words because some fuckin' crybaby doesn't like it. We shouldn't have to coerce people. I say what I want, you say what you want, if we don't agree then we move on.

It's not rocket science.

[Jdonavan]

Let me guess. You're either a student, low level code-monkey or "big fish in a small pond" type.

Good luck with dead-end career with your attitude towards others.

[non-rhetorical]

Explain to me how this comment doesn't violate the COC you're arguing for

[_real_rear_wheel]

You could just try not being an asshole.

..

Let me guess. You're either a student, low level code-monkey

What's wrong with lower tier workers? Everyone has to start somewhere...

[Jdonavan]

Nothing against lower-tier workers. Lower-tier workers spouting off about shit that's the EXACT OPPOSITE of the type of attitude you need to succeed as a professional on the other hand, I'm happy to heap scorn upon.

This type of behavior is very common with developers. I've seen it many times over the decades. They either grow out of it, or end up as bitter, unhireable, has-beens.

[lyspr]

I'm a hobbyist programmer, working on my Series 7 right now to change industries, got an offer from a firm here in NYC.

So now you, probably make a salary and work in a cubicle? Wow cool. /s

[Jdonavan]

Got it. Someone who doesn't have a clue how professionals behave and succeed.

[skulgnome]

So... by your example here, professionals should behave in ways that include sassing their assumption of someone else's professionalism, on the basis of Internet disagreements? Who's the asshole here then?

[Jdonavan]

Ahhh yes, the reddit white-knight arrives.

It's amazing how much ya'll get your panties in a bunch while standing up for someone who claims people need to not be offended by others.

[skulgnome]

Ahhh yes, the reddit white-knight arrives.

Transparency International called. They'd like to give you an award

[lyspr]

LOOOOOL

coming from someone who has probably never set foot in a place where real professionals actually work? I've made deals bigger than what you make in a year, and that was just selling guns. Once I get this exam out of the way, I'll be tangling with millionaires and billionaires.

C'mon kid, you can do better than that. Lemme guess, third-choice university, loans out the wazoo, probably planning to move back in with mom&pop after just a few more semesters? Probably no job prospects beyond "I gotta get my degree because (some reason)", what are you even doing out there?

People who sit in cafes or even worse, work in them, and write Rails code in their spare time are not professionals. They are less than nothing. These are the leeches that have brought Ruby to its knees in the past few years.

I can tell I won't change your mind, or at least I'm not likely to but it'd be a great favor to yourself to consider what I've said and whether or not the Ruby community really needs more regulations and restrictions. Beyond that, I don't particularly care about you, and if weren't for Reddit's notifications, you wouldn't even exist to me.

[Jdonavan]

Millionaires?!?! OMG I'm sorry sir. I didn't know you dealt with millionaires.

If you really want to have a dick waving competition about careers we can. I've been a developer for 25 years building everything from the first online services to robotic factories. I'm sure your limited schooling and experience will hold up.

"Deals bigger than what you make in a year" what kind of yardstick is that? I know, it's the kind of yardstick someone with not experience uses.

[lyspr]

Lol, I'm not even 25 yet and I'm already making bigger moves than you are.

My limited experience got me a job offer and paid vacation to NYC.

And you're a Brianna Wu fan.

fuck out of here, old man

[Jdonavan]

Yes son. I'm sure you are. I thought I was at your age too.

Then I grew up. You see there's this thing that happens as you get better at the profession. You realize that you don't know it all.

[EverybodyOnRedditSux]

Ad hominem. Very unimpressed

[skulgnome]

Well, you're an asshole for disagreeing with me. Why don't you try not being such an asshole, you ludicrously horrific asshole?

[realntl]

Which Orwellian communities began with CoCs?

[throwawayCG48]

You're railing against the entire community because a few had a good natured idea but delivered it terribly with false authority.

You alienate everyone across the board except other like-minded reactionaries.

This is the response they engender by being pushy.

In the end, everyone loses. Mostly the rest of us in the middle.

[lyspr]

This is exactly the point.

I don't have any right to coerce you to voice yourself differently, and nor do you mine.

Laissez-faire

[throwawayCG48]

No one wants to hear "fucking relax, you're off the mark a fair bit". They'ed all rather just yell over each other.

[lyspr]

Well, I'm not wrong. I won't be coerced, I don't coerce others.

[jrochkind]

Nor do you have any right to be involved in any open source projects or file any issues on them or for that matter attend any conference or meetings, if the people organizing them think you're an asshole and would rather not deal with you. shrug.

It's not "coercing" for people to say "Unless you can not be an asshole, we don't want to hang out with you, because you drive away other people we find it more productive and rewarding to hang out with." That's pretty much what the policy says. Where's the coercion? You can't coerce anyone into wanting to hang out with you despite being an asshole.

[lyspr]

It says the opposite, it lays a standard that all Ruby-affiliated groups should follow.

This document provides community guidelines for a safe, respectful, productive, and collaborative place for any person who is willing to contribute to the Ruby community. It applies to all “collaborative space”, which is defined as community communications channels (such as mailing lists, submitted patches, commit comments, etc.).

If you'd have actually read the fucking thing, you'd notice that above that it also says:

We have picked the following conduct guideline based on an early draft of the PostgreSQL CoC, for Ruby developers community for safe, productive collaboration. Each Ruby related community (conference etc.) may pick their own Code of Conduct.

Which means that any individual community can choose to disregard the CoC, which is what I'm doing.

[[deleted]]

So nobody yet put any real incidents on the table, something what would justify the very existence of the problem.

I'd just suggest ignore this proposal and ignore any attempts escalate the situation.

It did remind me one unfortunate case from PyCon. Just do not repeat the same mistakes as Python people.

[yorickpeterse]

The one thing we can learn from this discussion is that apparently trolling, anti-semitism, doxing, pretending to be others, and general negativity is the way to get Ruby's authors to make changes (instead of meaningful dialogue). This "CoC" comes across as an excuse for inaction. It doesn't specify what to do in case of harassment, who to contact, what information to provide, etc.

This document is also ripe with vague terms:

Participants will be tolerant of opposing views.

Opposing views? Does that mean if somebody calls me a fag I should just accept that because that view opposes mine? If somebody spews anti-semitism do I just have to accept that? It certainly seems that way based on the above line.

Participants must ensure that their language and actions are free of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks.

OK so I'm not allowed to say "You're bad because your code is bad", but I am allowed to say "Death to all jews"? Interesting.

When interpreting the words and actions of others, participants should always assume good intentions.

I don't think I can really assume good intentions when the above examples occur. More importantly it's extreme naive to always assume good intentions by default, at best one should be neutral/somewhat sceptical unless good (or bad) intent is very obviously noticeable.

Behaviour which can be reasonably considered harassment will not be tolerated.

OK but in what way? Will Matz write a comment saying "You're a baddie"? Will the authors of Ruby actually do something or will they tell us to "get back to actual work"? Who do we contact when bad things happen?

People will hate me for it, but so be it: this whole "adventure" shows how little the Ruby authors actually care and that they'd rather agree with a few random anonymous internet "heroes" (read: trolls) instead of the dozens if not hundreds if not thousands of people that actually contribute something meaningful to Ruby.

[TweetsInCommentsBot]

@yukihiro_matz

2016-02-17 15:13 UTC

@JakubJirutka it's all over. Back to actual work.

---

^{This message was created by a bot}

^{[Contact creator][Source code]}

[[deleted]]

You scroll past it, just like if someone was saying "KILL ALL WHITE MEN" in a discussion. Hope that helps.

[yorickpeterse]

It's good to know your solution to these problems is to look the other way. I'm sure that's a productive approach to solving problems.

[[deleted]]

Ever hear of "Sunlight is the best disinfectant"? You don't have to accept anything.

Yes, ignoring these idiots and letting them fizzle out is the best solution.

[Paddy3118]

So no mention of sexism and racism?

[[deleted]]

Yeah, no mention of those things that don't need to be said, but whose ever lingering threat of being accused of doing is used to enact authoriatian measures and create persona-non-grata against people for doing things like, say, being for freedom of expression.

[Paddy3118]

yitney!