Yeah I was worried for a second jcs might have something interesting to say about backward- and forward- edge CFI, but then I remembered he's woke and closed the tab before the mind virus could get me.
It might! But unless jcs changed his appearance and his accent since I last met up with him in Chicago, this is one of the millions of other people named Stein.
OK, no idea. I've been in the same room with him too, but I didn't look very carefully at the CCC presentation. An awfully big coincidence, given jcs's OpenBSD involvement! But totally possible. Neither here nor there to my point about this page as a resource, if you can, somehow, look past the code of conduct concerns.
I don’t care one bit about the code of conduct conversation you’re having. Just found it funny that you’ve been attributing this site to jcs for years based just on a common surname.
Can’t find anything from “years ago,” though. So maybe my search skills are weak, or maybe I confabulated the memory of finding others, so I’ll withdraw that. Either way, I hope you agree that this thread (now rightfully behind a flag) is all played out.
The onus is always on you to figure out what information is and is not reliable. People who haven't stated their feelings still have them. They might still be pursuing an agenda other than being informative. If anything, someone stating their reservations should make you feel more comfortable, because it gives you a better lens to view their statements through and judge what parts you trust more or less.
Personally, what makes me discount a source as unreliable is when they don't state clearly what their problems are but instead make it known through vague insinuations or by a litany of tangential complaints. When someone says "I'm uncomfortable with X" I respect their candor, regardless of how I feel about X.
Someone stating their reservations when those are directly relevant to the subject at hand, sure. If they aren't directly relevant to the subject under discussion but are directly related to a negative impact on the person while they were performing the relevant work then I get that as well.
But someone who isn't mature enough to separate their irrelevant personal views from the task at hand when communicating with an audience, not so much. It calls into question their ability to be objective.
Note that I apply this equally, even to those who interject pet topics that I strongly support.
Granted. However, the quote at issue doesn't come out of left field. It is natural to consider the internal politics of an open source project when writing a wide ranging, in depth critique of the project. Plenty of projects don't have a CoC, it is idiosyncratic to be "proud" not to have one, and that does reflect on the project (I leave it to you to decide if it's for better or worse).
CoC are the homeowners associations of the free software world. Some think they're essential to keep undesirables out; others won't have anything to do with them.
The source of petty disagreement, in this instance, is that you went to this website, clicked on "about," found an offhand mention of CoCs, which you took out of context to derail the conversation and start an argument. You complain that the author is injecting their "feelings" into a discussion, but you're clearly going out of your way to inject your anti-CoC politics into a discussion of an operating system. You complain that CoCs are tools to exclude people, meanwhile you are attempting to dissuade people from engaging with this author's work because an offhand remark rubbed you the wrong way.
That seems a rather unreasonable characterization.
While I didn't raise a comment over it (since I felt it likely that it might sour the discussion) I too found myself wondering about the motivations behind that remark when I came across it. As it happens I had the exact same thought that GP had - to wonder if there was an ulterior motive at play. However based on the rest of the content I came to the conclusion that the site didn't seem to be particularly biased. Highly technically opinionated, a bit colorful, but not a malicious hit piece.
And for what it's worth I thought the HoA analogy you're responding to here was on point. Those also tend to be incredibly polarizing to a bewildering degree. Apparently a large portion of Americans get remarkably bent out of shape if you try to regulate their behavior, while a different set is similarly incensed by attempts to prevent said regulation.
The motivations seem pretty plain. They were anticipating the question, "why did you host this site yourself?" I don't think there's any need to read further into it. You seem to have come to that conclusion yourself.
The HOA analogy would be appropriate if HOAs were about conduct among colleagues. It's pretty obvious why you need to set ground rules when you have a huge number of people collaborating - you get incidents of people behaving inappropriately, and if that behavior proliferates, you will create a hostile environment where it's difficult for work to be done. (See this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43147705)
HOAs are a problem because there is very little shared interest in regulating the size of hedges or the color you may paint your house or whatever. It's a scheme to keep property values elevated.
There is no connection between these phenomena. One of them addresses pragmatic and real problems, however flawed the implementation may be. The author is a scheme to manipulate property markets. There is no shared cause between them.
The author's second point (about general hostility) answered the question. The CoC comment above it appears as a non sequitur to me. You misunderstood my conclusion - it was that the remainder of the site passed my "is this a hit piece or is this just a bit spicy" check.
> The HOA analogy would be appropriate if HOAs were about conduct among colleagues.
There was nothing inappropriate about the analogy. If they both involved colleagues then the analogy would be pointless because they would be the same thing. The entire point of an analogy is the abstract similarities between things that are different.
The necessity of CoCs does not follow from the necessity of ground rules. That is a conclusion that you silently slipped in without justification. Social norms have not historically been codified as CoCs. Moreover, I would dispute that codifying social norms is the actual intended purpose of CoCs despite being the stated one.
"Very little shared interest" and "scheme to keep property values elevated" appear contradictory to me. Property values are a very strong shared interest for most people. Avoidance of noisy or otherwise disruptive neighbors are another strong shared interest. Folks just don't always agree on all the details.
> One of them addresses pragmatic and real problems, however flawed the implementation may be.
That would be HoAs, of course, which prevent my neighbor from unilaterally tanking my outrageously expensive (relative to my income) investment. CoCs in contrast are a recent trend and thus obviously unnecessary for productive collaboration.
By "appropriate" I meant "fitting" or "suitable". Just in case you took my meaning as "inappropriate in conversation," I could have been more clear, my mistake.
My supposition about the necessity of ground rules is precisely as supported as the alternatives offered in this discussion. Poorly supported by the standards of rigorous debate, I agree, but supported enough for casual discussion. No one has offered any evidence CoCs are caused by busybodies. ("Silently" seems unnecessary, it wasn't silent, I stated it aloud and described why I thought it was so. I can't help but point out again, you go on to dispute it, but not with any evidence. I think that's fine for casual discussion, but it's not meeting the bar you're setting.)
"Scheme to elevate property values" is a shared interest if all of the homeowners primarily view their homes as financial instruments. People get bent out of shape with HOAs because they want their home for other things. Some people would rather put up radio towers or paint their house a garish color or park a truck on their lawn than maximize their property value.
CoCs are as old as dirt. I signed one every single year in elementary school, decades ago. They've been a norm in workplaces for a long time. They're more recent in open source projects, and they started because of problems projects were having - people being creepy at conferences, people starting drama on mailing lists, etc.
What's recent is the politicization of CoCs.
If it helps, I would agree that busybodies might abuse both of these mechanisms to impose themselves on their neighbors and colleagues. I disagree that that is the root of why they exist, on the basis that they can be explained by incentives and pragmatic considerations. On an Occam's razor basis, if I don't need to assume busybodies are the motivating force to explain the existence of these things, then I won't, until such a time I receive evidence I can't explain without them. Were we colleagues, and I were involved in drafting a CoC, "I don't want a CoC because I'm worried it will be abused by busybodies" is a concern I'd take seriously.
> By "appropriate" I meant "fitting" or "suitable".
I felt that the analogy was both of those.
> "Silently" seems unnecessary, it wasn't silent
You wrote "it's pretty obvious why you need to set ground rules" in regards to CoCs, which implies that CoCs are the primary or preferred or standard means for doing that. It's an unstated premise, and one that I disagree with.
> you go on to dispute it, but not with any evidence.
You implied a rather sweeping claim (the necessity of CoCs to enforce ground rules) which I believe puts the burden of evidence squarely on you.
While not obligated by social convention, I believe my point that social norms have not historically been codified as CoCs qualifies as a veritable mountain of evidence disputing your implication. People have been successfully collaborating (and enforcing social ground rules) for approximately all of human history; CoCs in comparison are a quite recent development.
> "Scheme to elevate property values" is a shared interest if all of the homeowners primarily view their homes as financial instruments.
You could as well claim that noise ordinances aren't a shared interest because some people like to party in their yard into the wee hours. The observation would be correct but it would not support the claim. Note that even if the group collectively chooses not to prioritize something it still remains a shared interest inasmuch as the definition of "interest" is something which has a negative or positive impact on the individual.
> they started because of problems projects were having - people being creepy at conferences, people starting drama on mailing lists, etc.
Agreed that those are certainly the sorts of things that the people in favor of them claimed as justification. That those things were happening at a problematic rate, that a CoC would meaningfully reduce that rate, that the benefits of this reduction would outweigh any negative impacts a CoC might have, and that this was their motivation in pursuing their adoption. I was never convinced, particularly on that last point.
As far as drama on mailing lists goes, I believe the results in the years since speak for themselves. Any self respecting troll would be envious of the amount of drama CoCs have been used to kick up. In that sense they truly are exactly like an HoA.
> What's recent is the politicization of CoCs.
I believe that politicization you refer to is what drove the recent widespread adoption in open source projects that you speak of. As but one example, consider the route that sqlite took and how controversially that was received. Surely if the reasoning driving the adoption was as you suggest then very few people would have been bothered by the document that project adopted.
> On an Occam's razor basis, if I don't need to assume busybodies are the motivating force
For the record, you are the one who brought busybodies into this. My previous claim was merely that CoCs are "unnecessary for productive collaboration". If you had asked I would have answered that I think politics are the motivating force. Regardless, you merely assumed a different motivating force and I am unconvinced by it. From my perspective, if I don't need to assume the sudden and mysterious breakdown in the ability of people to constructively collaborate in the absence of CoCs then I won't.
You are applying standards only to my comments. Your statements are just as "sweeping" and "silent". We're both just asserting stuff based on our experiences, but it only seems to be a problem when I do it. I'm doing my best to have a productive discussion, but I don't think it's possible under the circumstances.
Not to mention that in the general case it seems desirable that a community can exist without needing a CoC. Being disappointed that some community out there is doing just fine without CoC is a /really weird/ point to make in a marketing piece evangelizing how secure OpenBSD is as a technology. To the extent that it feels out of place and yes detracts. Some would even go so far as to argue that OpenBSD is second to none in security because they don’t give a shit about politics and tone in their community. They swiftly dismiss the wasted cycles spent on those in other communities, instead spending their precious time focusing on just being really good. The author sorta misses the plot point there.
That's only if you take CoC enjoyers at their word. It makes perfect sense when you realize it's not about advancing project or community, but rather controlfreak ideology.
a.) They found it off-putting that OpenBSD was "proud" not to have a CoC, in the context of whether they would choose to work with them or to host the website themselves. Consider taking a moment to read the passage in question: https://isopenbsdsecu.re/about/
This idea they were surprised a project succeeded without having a CoC is an artefact of this particular discussion, not something the author ever said or implied. It was in the same category as de Raadt swearing at people over email - they didn't anticipate a productive exchange if they reached out. That's it.
If someone declares they reserve the right to treat people however they please, and then you observe them treating people in a way you don't want to be treated, and your conclusion is, "I don't think emailing this person is a good use of my time, I'm just going to host this website myself" - I find it hard to understand how anyone would find that objectionable, that seems simple, common sense, and largely neutral.
b.) Whenever you have a large group of people collaborating for an extended period of time, you have incidents. There's drama. There's inappropriate behavior. It's just how it goes. It's a Murphy's Law thing.
Eventually people sit down and say, "we've gotta set some ground rules." You probably signed a code of conduct at every school you attended and every job you've accepted. I know I have.
You can disagree with that without viewing it as a conspiracy. It's a predictable result of being in a large community, and about as ideological as traffic lights.
I did read the page in question… You talk like it would be any different with the linux kernel. A CoC doesn’t govern whether you’re entitled to a productive discussion with the big maintainer. Theo swearing at one person cannot be extrapolated to swearing at all people. And in linux’s case it apparently doesn’t prevent good contributions from getting stonewalled and shunned (to the point of turning contributors away) by righteous zealots in the community anyway.
If you read the page then I don't understand why you continue to mischaracterize what it says. Eg, the page offers multiple examples of de Raadt swearing at people, which you characterize as "swearing at one person." Frankly, it makes me doubt your candor.
I was speaking rhetorically. I don't mean to imply there’s only one i stance of swearing. Anyway that’s not even the point. We know Theo is abrasive. It also makes good security. Weird to complain about “the community” on a page evangelizing the success of said community. If the author doesn't want to dive into the mailing list then good for them. Leave it at that.
You weren't speaking rhetorically, you were mischaracterizing what the author said to weaken their statement. That's the most charitable way to describe it without parting from the facts.
> If the author doesn't want to dive into the mailing list then good for them. Leave it at that.
And no, the author whined about how he doesn’t like the icky openbsd community very much arguably out of place. (There are multiple people who have mentioned they think it’s out of place, at least.) That’s not leaving it at that. Leaving it at that implies no further action.
I believe you when you say you made no error and that it was part of your rhetorical strategy. The problem is that your rhetorical strategy was to mischaracterize the author's statement in order to weaken it. That's dishonest. Saying "that was merely rhetorical" doesn't magically make it not dishonest. (This is on top of your earlier mischaracteiztion that they were "surprised" a project succeeded without a CoC, which I presumed was a mistake caused by a game of telephone in this discussion until you implied that wasn't the case. I can't take you at your word when you have mischaracterized the author multiple times then doubled down.)
If you had said, "oh, that was a mistake, I didn't mean to imply they had extrapolated from a single instance," then I would've believed you then, too.
They made a side note in an "about" page. You're making a mountain out of a pebble. The author made a minor note about their thought process, you have been complaining about it and have now crossed into personal attacks on them. "Whining" is not a stone you ought to be throwing.
