SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A disturbing trend in the coding world is looking to claim yet another victim. This time it's the Ruby language:
I am the creator of the Contributor Covenant, a code of conduct for Open Source projects. At last count there are over 13,000 projects on Github that have adopted it. This past year saw adoption of Contributor Covenant by a lot of very large, very visible projects, including Rails, Github's Atom text editor, Angular JS, bundler, curl, diaspora, discourse, Eclipse, rspec, shoes, and rvm. The bundler team made code of conduct integration an option in the gem creation workflow, putting it on par with license selection. Many open source language communities have already adopted the code of conduct, including Elixir, Mono, the .NET foundation, F#, and Apple's Swift. RubyTogether also adopted a policy to only fund Ruby projects that had a solid code of conduct in place.
Right now in the PHP community there is a healthy debate about adopting the Contributor Covenant. Since it came from and has been so widely adopted by the Ruby community at large, I think it's time that we consider adopting it for the core Ruby language as well.
Our community prides itself on niceness. What a code of conduct does is define what we mean by nice. It states clearly that we value openness, courtesy, and compassion. That we care about and want contributions from people who may be different from us. That we pledge to respect all contributors regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or other factors. And it makes it clear that we are prepared to follow through on these values with action when and if an incident arises.
I'm asking that we join with the larger Ruby community in supporting the adoption of the Contributor Covenant for the Ruby language. I think that this will be an important step forward and will ensure the continued welcoming and supportive environment around Ruby. You can read the full text of the Contributor Covenant at http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/3/0/ and learn more at http://contributor-covenant.org/.
Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
[Ed Note: Rest assured we already have this situation firmly resolved here at SN. Our official response to those who would propose a code of conduct boils down to a very firm "No". If you'd like the unvarnished version, please feel free to ask on IRC.]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 25 2016, @03:23PM
You couldn't pass up the chance to dump on old buzzard breath, could you?
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gman003 on Monday January 25 2016, @03:33PM
It's relevant in this case. He consistently filters everything through his worldview (more so than everyone else), and so everything I read from him has to account for that (again, more so than everyone else).
If *he* cannot come up with an actual reason to oppose this, I can have pretty good confidence that there *is* no actual reason. Motivated thinking is still thinking - I can't trust him to fairly evaluate both sides, but I can trust him to hunt down all the evidence he can against his chosen nemeses.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @04:44PM
If *he* cannot come up with an actual reason to oppose this, I can have pretty good confidence that there *is* no actual reason.
That does not follow.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by gman003 on Monday January 25 2016, @05:23PM
Yes, it does.
Buzzard is not a complete idiot. He is *extremely* biased, and often ruled by emotions and factionalism rather than reason, but he knows how to use logic. He only selectively does so - if he actually thought about how he was acting, I don't doubt that he would realize that his rabid anti-SJW crusade is almost identical in form to that which he is fighting against - but when he *does* employ logic, he does so moderately well. This fallacy is usually called "motivated reasoning" or "motivated cognition" or something of the sort - he is trying to use logic to prove he is right, not to use logic to determine what is right.
I cannot trust him to fairly represent the weaknesses of his own side, or the strengths of any opposing views. I cannot even trust him not to exaggerate the strengths of his side, or the weaknesses of his opposition. But if he cannot claim *any* actual fault in his opposition, it is more likely that there is no such fault than that Buzzard failed to find it. It would not be definitive proof, but it would be influential.
In formal terms, Buzzard has a substantial history of being able to find fault with certain groups. Even starting from low priors, he has a high evaluated probability of finding that fault if it exists (note the inverse is not true - the probability of him finding fault where there is no fault is also quite high). Therefore, given the observation "Buzzard finds no actual fault", we have weak evidence that there is no actual fault.
In fact, he did cite an actual fault, so this all is moot. I have not yet verified whether his claim is correct, because I have better things to do with my time than investigate trivial culture wars, but it's at least better than no claims of evidence at all.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @05:31PM
The bias is why I keep coming back to Soylent. I see enough SJW crap everywhere else it's fun having someplace where I know half the usual commentariat isn't going to put up with that garbage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @06:20PM
Yes, it does.
No, it doesn't The mere fact that Buzzard cannot find a reason to oppose this says nothing about the probability that a reason exists; there are simply too many unknown factors for you to make such a claim. The best way to find out would be for you to investigate yourself.