Yeah I agree with Ben; this is one of those highly conservative things that
might sound good, but just allow more and more extreme responses to
nonconformist behaviour. Every unpleasant system at some point had good
intentions, and asked the question, "But why wouldn't you want people to be
like this?"
The answer is: I don't know, but there are almost certainly things that the
current lack of rules allow that I also like, and I won't like it when
they're gone.
Similarly, as Ben makes clear, while you may intend one thing when writing
down rules, you actually open them up to any interpretation, and things can
get much more extreme than you intended. That's one of the reasons people
start liberal but become conservative; they want change, but no, we didn't
think anyone would ever do *that!* And if you say, "But we won't let things
go bad" then the obvious answer is: you have written rules, or you have
dictators. Having both is the same as having dictators. All it'll do is
expose inconsistencies when the dictators don't like unforseen implications
of rules, and so override them, or they'll interpret the rules in
non-obvious ways to get people to stop doing things they feel they're
allowed to do (e.g. people call smacking your kids "beating" them, because
"beatings are bad" is a rule we agree with).
But I'm a liberal at heart :) I can see that it's very attractive to be
able to come down hard on people who offend you, but without a lot more
detail it's probably just going to cause a lot of aggravation and drive
people to more liberally educated communities.
The community doesn't seem so vast that it needs self-appointed governers,
but possibly I'm wrong there.
On Monday, 8 September 2014 09:16:23 UTC+2, Benjamin Scherrey wrote:
>
> I thought I made my objections pretty clear in my original email but I'll
> attempt to be more pedantic about it now. The specific language in the PR
> 86 is:
>
> "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a
> person's ability to participate within them." for both faq.html and
> index.html.
>
> I disagree with your assertion "that only makes explicit something that
> was already the case" because that's a) not how I read it and b) completely
> impossible to reasonably enforce or expect. I hope that what is occurring is
> simply a matter of "I don't think it means what you think it means" but
> what you're really saying here is that all people on this planet must
> comply with our "code of conduct" at all times in all places or risk being
> removed from our community - right after, mind you ironically, claiming to
> support an encourage the participation of all individuals. So what is this
> code of conduct that we're imposing on all of humanity for the salvation of
> the world? Fortunately there is, literally, a list:
>
> <ul>
> <li>Violent threats or language directed against another person.</li>
> <li>Sexist, racist, or otherwise discriminatory jokes and
> language.</li>
> <li>Posting sexually explicit or violent material.</li>
> <li>Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally
> identifying information ("doxing").</li>
> <li>Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist
> terms.</li>
> <li>Unwelcome sexual attention.</li>
> <li>Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.</li>
> <li>Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you to
> stop, then stop.</li>
> </ul>
>
> So lets see... anyone who has done any of the following completely outside
> the context of the Django community or forums is now not welcome to
> participate:
>
> 1) Ever threatened to or actually spank their children.
> 2) Ever used violence or threat there-of to defend another person from
> same.
> 3) Ever posted a naked or somewhat explicit picture of themselves or
> others in a private message to another person or in a forum, such as a
> photo site like flickr.
> 4) Dox'd a person who is clearly engaging in criminal activity under a
> pretense of anonymity.
> 5) Ever repeated a joke with sexual or racial content.
> 6) Ever asked someone out or complemented another person on their looks
> who didn't want it.
> 7) Said it's ok for someone to do any of the above.
> 8) Said or did it twice.
>
> Seriously?!?! This *is* really what you're saying. (BTW - I've done all of
> the above at one time or another so ban me now.)
>
> Of course some of these (but not all - and it depends a lot about whom)
> may seem outrageous but they are true to the letter of the code of conduct.
> I agree these things probably don't belong in the context of a Django
> discussion or group but I do not believe you can enforce elimination this
> conduct outside of same. And - then there's just the ability to agree to
> disagree. One can very credibly argue that many religions or political
> philosophies are racist, sexist, etc. Are all practicing members of same
> now banned from participation in Django? This RP language says yes.
>
> Now that I have, again, been responsive to your dismissal of my
> objections, please do me the courtesy of re-reading my original (and this)
> email and attempt to be responsive to it's content.
>
> thank you,
>
> -- Ben Scherrey
>
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Daniele Procida <[email protected]
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014, Benjamin Scherrey <[email protected] <javascript:>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Nothing you've written disagrees with what I said, nor do you address
>> >the core concern I bring up about the "change of substance" which is
>> chock
>> >full of opportunities for the law of unintended consequences to come up
>> and
>> >bite us all.
>>
>> What in your opinion is (or was) the "change of substance" in <
>> https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/pull/86>?
>>
>> I didn't see any but a very minor one, that only makes explicit something
>> that was already the case.
>>
>> >Re-reading the existing documents, I find that this language
>> >introduces an entirely different tone to the language of these policies
>> >and, again, implies some dangerous precedents beyond what the writers may
>> >intend.
>>
>> Which language in pull request 86?
>>
>> Daniele
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Django developers" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected] <javascript:>.
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
>> <javascript:>.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20140907200417.1287303773%40mail.wservices.ch
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Chief Systems Architect Proteus Technologies <http://proteus-tech.com>
> Chief Fan Biggest Fan Productions <http://biggestfan.net>
> Personal blog where I am not your demographic
> <http://notyourdemographic.com>.
>
> This email intended solely for those who have received it. If you have
> received this email by accident - well lucky you!!
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/e5149231-37b7-49fd-bc62-4e6a9bcb819f%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
