Rodriguez was a co-founder and is an OG in the modern graph computing/database space. This is precisely what so many of us warned about codes of conduct being used to cripple FOSS projects by political actors.
I mean look Coraline Ehmke's personal posts. Ehmke is an absolutely toxic garbage example of humanity on social media. The very living embodiment of the unhinged, angry at everyone, vitriolic tranny.
And that's the person whose code of conduct everyone adopted. Just let that sink in.
This is precisely what so many of us warned about codes of conduct being used to cripple FOSS projects by political actors.
I thought so too... and then I actually read the twitter feed they are up in arms about. https://twitter.com/thecoopste... [twitter.com]
I think TFA summed it up nicely.
Its content is deliberately engineered to offend everyone, achingly so. We could tell you it is lazy and punches down, which are both kryptonite for good satire,
Or as former ASF board member Niclas Hedhman described it:
"The tweets in question were obvious satire, 'bad/dark humor' and trolling for the sake of making people upset," said Hedhman. "It was the essence of why I am not on Twitter and think it is the worst plague that has been inflicted on humans in recent years. I didn't like Marko's tactics, but I can understand his angle."
You can call it "cancel culture" but really what's happening is the foundation is protecting their image by disassociating themselves. It's literally a business decision because it has the potential to cause them reputational harm. Frankly, if you don't want to be part of that organization then it
You can call it "cancel culture" but really what's happening is the foundation is protecting their image by disassociating themselves. It's literally a business decision because it has the potential to cause them reputational harm.
Yes, that is exactly the core of cancel culture: People threaten to judge the whole ASF because of the clearly unrelated comments of one person related to a particular piece of software.
This is reminiscent of the worst of McCarthyism and the Red Scare during the 1950s in the US.
Yes, that is exactly the core of cancel culture: People threaten to judge the whole ASF because of the clearly unrelated comments of one person
That's nothing new and the response has been around since PR was invented. The only thing that has changed is people's ability to communicate with a mind-boggling number of people. It used to be difficult but now with social media you just have to type it up and hit send.
If that's how you define "cancel culture" then it's been around for a century but it's only in the last decade or so that people have optimized a way to bring consequences upon themselves which frankly is their own doing.
You are lying in order to victim blame. I guess that's how you cope with being McCarthyist. Boycotts have always been about actions that the target took, never about something as inane as some third party -- in this case, who doesn't even work for them -- tweeting mean jokes.
For that matter, it makes clear that it's not remotely intended as a contract, but as a blanket excuse for crybullying and other abusive behaviors: "This code is not exhaustive or complete. It serves to distill our common understanding of a collaborative, shared environment and goals. We expect it to be followed in spirit as much as in the letter, so that it can enrich all of us and the technical communities in which we participate.". (Underline converted to bold.)
The CoC is not a contract because it does not describe either mutual obligations or consideration. Those are two of several elements that are required to establish a contract under the relevant legal systems.
But even if one wanted to treat it as a contract, it is literally impossible to agree to comply with it, because it clearly says that it is neither complete nor comprehensive.
But even if one wanted to try to agree with it, the law -- at least in the US, where it would be interpreted -- contrues contrac
It doesn't have to be a legal contract. Since the project is under the ASF and uses ASF resources, they can do anything they want with it. If they wanted to kick him out because he violated a secret rule to not wear blue on Thursdays then that would still be within their right.
Likewise, he's free to fork the project and plaster it on github and insist on the exact same CoC while being a total hypocrite about it.
Bottom line, stop crying to me because I don't give a shit.
How is that different than before CoCs ever existed?
Before CoCs, anyone with any sense at all would have realized how daft it is to fire a person who wrote so much of a piece of software -- from a volunteer position, even! -- over mean jokes they wrote that have nothing to do with the software or the position.
Also before CoCs, the people who wanted to fire someone would bother to explain the rationale, rather than hiding behind a toxic document.
"Oh what wouldn't I give to be spat at in the face..."
-- a prisoner in "Life of Brian"
The Code of Conduct works exactly as we warned (Score:5, Insightful)
Rodriguez was a co-founder and is an OG in the modern graph computing/database space. This is precisely what so many of us warned about codes of conduct being used to cripple FOSS projects by political actors.
I mean look Coraline Ehmke's personal posts. Ehmke is an absolutely toxic garbage example of humanity on social media. The very living embodiment of the unhinged, angry at everyone, vitriolic tranny.
And that's the person whose code of conduct everyone adopted. Just let that sink in.
Re: (Score:2)
This is precisely what so many of us warned about codes of conduct being used to cripple FOSS projects by political actors.
I thought so too... and then I actually read the twitter feed they are up in arms about. https://twitter.com/thecoopste... [twitter.com]
I think TFA summed it up nicely.
Its content is deliberately engineered to offend everyone, achingly so. We could tell you it is lazy and punches down, which are both kryptonite for good satire,
Or as former ASF board member Niclas Hedhman described it:
"The tweets in question were obvious satire, 'bad/dark humor' and trolling for the sake of making people upset," said Hedhman. "It was the essence of why I am not on Twitter and think it is the worst plague that has been inflicted on humans in recent years. I didn't like Marko's tactics, but I can understand his angle."
You can call it "cancel culture" but really what's happening is the foundation is protecting their image by disassociating themselves. It's literally a business decision because it has the potential to cause them reputational harm. Frankly, if you don't want to be part of that organization then it
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, that is exactly the core of cancel culture: People threaten to judge the whole ASF because of the clearly unrelated comments of one person related to a particular piece of software.
This is reminiscent of the worst of McCarthyism and the Red Scare during the 1950s in the US.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, that is exactly the core of cancel culture: People threaten to judge the whole ASF because of the clearly unrelated comments of one person
That's nothing new and the response has been around since PR was invented. The only thing that has changed is people's ability to communicate with a mind-boggling number of people. It used to be difficult but now with social media you just have to type it up and hit send.
If that's how you define "cancel culture" then it's been around for a century but it's only in the last decade or so that people have optimized a way to bring consequences upon themselves which frankly is their own doing.
Re: (Score:1)
You are lying in order to victim blame. I guess that's how you cope with being McCarthyist. Boycotts have always been about actions that the target took, never about something as inane as some third party -- in this case, who doesn't even work for them -- tweeting mean jokes.
Re: (Score:2)
You are lying in order to victim blame.
Victim? He violated the contract he agreed to be part of his project. He could have refused to join but he did not. This was an unforced error.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should read their Code of Conduct again, and decide whether ASF claims they control all of Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being obdurate. It's merely about the conduct of people working on the project and it's scope is not limited.
Re: (Score:2)
For that matter, it makes clear that it's not remotely intended as a contract, but as a blanket excuse for crybullying and other abusive behaviors: "This code is not exhaustive or complete. It serves to distill our common understanding of a collaborative, shared environment and goals. We expect it to be followed in spirit as much as in the letter, so that it can enrich all of us and the technical communities in which we participate.". (Underline converted to bold.)
Re: (Score:2)
If he didn't like the contract then he should have placed his project under Apache Software Foundation. Everything else is just crocodile tears.
Re: (Score:2)
Again -- the CoC is explicitly not a contract. It does not even pretend to be a contract.
Re:The Code of Conduct works exactly as we warned (Score:2)
How silly, if you have to agree to it then of course it is.
Re: (Score:2)
The CoC is not a contract because it does not describe either mutual obligations or consideration. Those are two of several elements that are required to establish a contract under the relevant legal systems.
But even if one wanted to treat it as a contract, it is literally impossible to agree to comply with it, because it clearly says that it is neither complete nor comprehensive.
But even if one wanted to try to agree with it, the law -- at least in the US, where it would be interpreted -- contrues contrac
Re: (Score:2)
The CoC is not a contract because...
It doesn't have to be a legal contract. Since the project is under the ASF and uses ASF resources, they can do anything they want with it. If they wanted to kick him out because he violated a secret rule to not wear blue on Thursdays then that would still be within their right.
Likewise, he's free to fork the project and plaster it on github and insist on the exact same CoC while being a total hypocrite about it.
Bottom line, stop crying to me because I don't give a shit.
Re: (Score:2)
You are the one who called it a contract and asserted that was important, so don't be surprised when someone points out that you were wrong.
At least you now admit that ASF essentially relies on arbitrary proceedings and secret rules in this kind of incident.
Re: (Score:2)
At least you now admit that ASF essentially relies on arbitrary proceedings and secret rules in this kind of incident.
How is that different than before CoCs ever existed?
Re: (Score:2)
Before CoCs, anyone with any sense at all would have realized how daft it is to fire a person who wrote so much of a piece of software -- from a volunteer position, even! -- over mean jokes they wrote that have nothing to do with the software or the position.
Also before CoCs, the people who wanted to fire someone would bother to explain the rationale, rather than hiding behind a toxic document.