Semi Annual Rant
Here is where I rant about how hypersensitivity only serves to destroy a community. Unfortunately, as it falls of deaf ears, this is the most effort I am willing to expend. May common sense and humor continue on.
Oh, and just because something offends you, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It may be wrong to you, and if it is, reasonably tolerate it.
Related posts:
#1 by Rich on March 29, 2007 - 6:12 pm
Quote
I hear you, brother. As a newcomer to Linux and Ubuntu from the Windows world I’ve tried to familiarize myself with your established user forums before asking questions or making comments, and I see high frustration levels among newbies generating some venting. Like many, my Ubuntu experience is getting started, and aborted, by the unsolvable (insoluble?) wireless connection issue. It can be maddening, especially to those who can’t be a part of the community until they can solve tough technical problems outside their skill set. If we all recognize the zen/beginner’s mind issue then we’ll all survive each other…
#2 by Matthew Garrett on March 29, 2007 - 6:41 pm
Quote
What’s your evidence for suggesting that telling offended people that they should put up with it is less damaging to the community than asking people to avoid behaving in whatever manner is deemed offensive? It’s not just a theoretical issue that free software projects lose contributors because of perceived hostility, sexism and general offensiveness in the community – it’s documented fact, and exemplified by this specific case.
#3 by admin on March 29, 2007 - 7:38 pm
Quote
Ah yes, just like when Mark did the whole open suse thing, and everyone was up in arms etc, I see that it destroyed the community.
No wait, it’s still here. All this drama serves no purpose.
#4 by DIO on March 29, 2007 - 8:38 pm
Quote
Dio Brando is the greatest super villain ever.
#5 by Alex on March 30, 2007 - 5:49 am
Quote
“It’s still here” misses the point.
Like pulling down a wall, you can keep knocking chunks out of it with a sledgehammer and the wall is still there basically right up until you destroy it completely.
If the drama stops people knocking chunks out of it, or encourages people to build more than destroy, the community will grow. If people are allowed to knock chunks out of it, it’s more difficult to grow.
#6 by Chris Cunningham on March 30, 2007 - 10:18 am
Quote
What kills communities is when they put up with sociopathic morons (due to a focus on community and diversity) for long enough for said morons to build up a power base.
Prominent free software examples in the last month include Daniel Robbins leaving Gentoo again, and Mozilla Corporation staff getting threatened by MozillaZine forum moderators. Looks like this is a popular month.
– Chris
#7 by admin on March 30, 2007 - 12:47 pm
Quote
I am not advocating putting up with any “sociopathic morons”. I am advocating “not sweating the small stuff” and “not making mountains out of molehills”. If someone is a repeat offender, then it is cause for action.
#8 by oomu on March 30, 2007 - 3:45 pm
Quote
tolerance of the intolerance ?
#9 by David Gerard on March 31, 2007 - 7:54 am
Quote
No, the question is whether the CoC is taken seriously within Ubuntu.
Looks like that’ll be a “no”, then.
#10 by admin on March 31, 2007 - 11:38 am
Quote
I would invite you to read the CoC first. https://launchpad.net/codeofconduct/1.0.1
#11 by David Gerard on March 31, 2007 - 12:20 pm
Quote
I’m going by the behaviour and expressed opinions in this incident; saying “go read the referred-to text” isn’t really anything to do with that. except highlighting how the people involved (e.g. yourself) have taken a stance that it doesn’t matter.
#12 by admin on March 31, 2007 - 1:04 pm
Quote
There are plenty of people taking a stance completely opposite of mine, which indeed means the process is working. When the group can continue to exist and be productive in spite of dissenting opinions, then all is well. There is no clear cut right answer here.
#13 by J.B. Nicholson-Owens on March 31, 2007 - 6:45 pm
Quote
“[J]ust because something offends you, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.” Who gets the power to decide what is wrong?
#14 by Matthew Garrett on April 1, 2007 - 2:26 pm
Quote
“When the group can continue to exist and be productive in spite of dissenting opinions, then all is well”
When people are leaving the community as a result of the perception of offensive behaviour, I find it hard to agree that “all is well”. What if we could be more productive if we still had those people? Is the freedom to imply that women are harder to work with sufficiently important that it’s worth losing contributors over?
#15 by admin on April 1, 2007 - 2:55 pm
Quote
If someone leaves over a comment, how dedicated could they possibly be, much less how much could someone so fickle contribute?
#16 by Matthew Garrett on April 1, 2007 - 3:06 pm
Quote
It’s not “Someone leaving over a comment”. It’s “Someone leaving because certain classes of behaviour appear to be considered acceptable”. I left Debian because I found the mailing lists unnecessarily hostile and people seemed generally uninterested in doing anything about it. Am I insufficiently dedicated? Did my fickleness prevent me from contributing?
#17 by admin on April 1, 2007 - 3:28 pm
Quote
Leaving Debian for Ubuntu is not a stretch by any means, since every change possible is pushed back upstream.
I don’t believe you can appease every last person in a community at all times, and am having trouble seeing how it’s possible.
#18 by Matthew Garrett on April 1, 2007 - 3:39 pm
Quote
“Leaving Debian for Ubuntu is not a stretch by any means, since every change possible is pushed back upstream.”
I’m really not sure what on earth that has to do with anything I said. Leaving Debian had nothing to do with contributing to Ubuntu. I no longer have any interest in integrating code with Debian. I no longer handle Debian bug reports. I no longer represent Debian in various places. As a result, someone else in Debian has to do that work instead. That’s a loss to Debian. Whether it’s a significant loss is a different matter, and you might argue that it’s not. But if I’m unhappy with the situation in Debian, does that mean that other people are likely to be as well? It turns out that the answer is yes – various people refuse to participate on Debian mailing lists any more, with the result that their expertise is unavailable. It’s hard to argue against the fact that this impairs the ability to produce a high-quality distribution.
“I don’t believe you can appease every last person in a community at all times, and am having trouble seeing how it’s possible.”
It’s not about “appeasing” anyone. It’s about setting standards of behaviour and then enforcing them. Where those standards get set is something of a matter of judgement, but in terms of maximising the total possible number of contributors it makes sense to ensure that racism, homophobia, sexism and the like aren’t tolerated. Making that clear costs almost nothing and makes the community significantly more welcoming. So where’s the benefit in allowing them?
#19 by admin on April 1, 2007 - 5:05 pm
Quote
No disagreement with respect to the last paragraph. I see no advantage in allowing sexism, racism, homophobia etc, nor do I advocate that.
At the same time, I just don’t want to read it everywhere like it is the end of the world. Mistakes happen, how about a friendly post on the same list, helping the original poster understand it is incorrect, where it happened, rather than making it a huge issue?
#20 by Matthew Garrett on April 1, 2007 - 7:27 pm
Quote
The problem isn’t the original joke – nobody made a big deal of it, someone simply said that it violated the Code of Conduct (which, as far as I can tell, it did). The matter could have dropped there, but instead several people started arguing that it wasn’t offensive, and that anyone who found it offensive was overly sensitive. That’s not a welcoming attitude. It’s not an on-topic discussion on a project mailing list. The only thing it does is give the impression that the Ubuntu community doesn’t like people who find sexist jokes offensive, and letting that impression stand deprives us of potential contributors. So, yes, it’s then worth making a big fuss about – we need to do as much as possible to correct that impression.