Re: Boost Asset Stewardship Review from Ion

From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-08 19:51:47

niedz., 8 wrz 2024 o 16:55 Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
napisał(a):

> On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 7:27 AM Christian Mazakas via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > The problem is, if you named this code-of-conduct.html, it triggers a
> > visceral reaction such as Andrey chudding out quite badly in my review
> > thread.
> >
>
> The phrase "code of conduct" is never used generically, and usually carries
> with it certain expectations of a specific brand of toxic western politics.
> For example, the Beman Project, Clang/LLVM, and Carbon codes of conduct are
> similar (or identical?) and include this clause:
>
> "In rare cases, violations of this code outside of these spaces may affect
> a person’s ability to participate within these spaces."
>

I admit I initially thought you were making this up, so I went and checked.
And this statement is really there:
https://github.com/beman-project/beman/blob/main/docs/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

I would have a request for people proposing the addition of a Code of
Conduct to Boost that they specify if they mean:

* The instructions for how to behave in Boost fora and mailing lists, or
* Establishment of a body that punishes the individuals (e.g through
banning them from participation) for not adhering to the rules, committing
crimes, or performing actions in their private life that are deemed
inappropriate.
* Something else.

Apparently, there are different interpretations of a "Code of Conduct".

Regards,
&rzej;

>
> I am not particularly fond of these types of rules, and seeing them applied
> in Boost would make me reconsider my participation. There's a good reason:
> I've already been banned from the Carbon project for my "off-platform
> behavior." Not because I attacked anyone, but because I failed to
> sufficiently punish someone in the Official C++ Language Slack Workspace.
> And I recall a certain person who was banned from LLVM after years of
> contribution, because of a legal entanglement from fifteen years ago. They
> have done nothing wrong, yet they are banned from participation because
> "other people feel unsafe."
>
> If someone bothers me, I can simply ignore them or use stronger technical
> means to avoid their content. I don't particularly like it when some person
> or group of people claiming "authority" decides for me who I can associate
> with. It is especially bothersome when governments do it. For example, by
> demanding that tech companies deplatform people from certain countries.
> Minimizing someone's position by calling it a "chud out" is not only
> dismissive but it is tone deaf to the damage caused when the people who
> make up the rules go on witch hunts for political enemies. This not only
> damages contributors but also hurts the projects where it happens. If one
> were so inclined they might compare the quality of technical discussions on
> Slack compared to a certain inclusive Discord with its comprehensive Code
> of Conduct and form a new opinion.
>
> Thanks
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>