Rule-of-law for social interactions in a collaborative work environment are perhaps useful or a preference, but they are not an "absolute" requirement, that is ridiculous.
Moral codes were once the primary enemy for people seeking progress and freedom from unrecognized but forced moral authorities (the Church in the west). The same people almost immediately after overthrowing that authority and code seek to enact one of their own.
This is just a tragic lack of vision.
If the perceived issue is that the "other" moral codes are immoral, mine are better, it is not a matter of freedom vs oppression but one oppressor vs another. People apparently have been frightfully unaware and incognizant of what they have been fighting for.
Moral law is for a less evolved time. Progress isn't making the codes better but leaving them behind unnecessary.
Telling people to be nice in a git repository is fine, acting like a rigid social code of conduct is an absolute need is a dark sign of the future to come.
I'm no anarchist but good god, the normalization of leftist oppression is scary. (I don't think I'm overreacting)
Did you miss that line?
Carefully enforced codes of conduct as an absolute must is not asking for respect. A vast ocean lies between them.
Normalizing life governed so in ever expanding circumstances is – really it is difficult to find a different word for this – fascist.
Leftist fascism is something new, and unfortunately something very many people want, at this point mostly unaware or only in-effect. Many people find values, actions, and ideas different from their own as dangerous, ugly, or wrong. Diversity is turning into dichotomy (you're in or your out).
Promoting and normalizing enforcement of social rules under the guise of helping people is exactly how fascism grew, and it was always promoted as something good, helpful, and necessary.
You don't need rules to manage a community. That doesn't mean you can't manage it, kick out somebody who isn't boing nice, or tell someone they are being inappropriate.
Rules are the enemy of good judgement, each one you enact is an admission of inadequacy. Nobody is perfectly adequate. Rules have a place, a purpose, a need. Put them where they are unavoidable and rebel against them where they aren't. The world isn't fixed by legislation, rules should be safety nets not train rails.
Rules are dangerous and wanting them everywhere so the world will act like you want is the root of evil which has happened many times before, small starts like insisting codebases are inadequate, unprofessional, and "other" if their rules aren't up to your standards isn't the last step towards something awful, but it paves the way towards the next one.
My issue isn't with some places having rules, variety is good. My issue is with the absolute and the othering.
Everyone was so busy arguing and being rude that nobody was able to put anything together until now.
That seems like a pretty "reactionary" take.
OpenBSD is a mature project with a relatively snooty/picky but not abusive or cruel community. I've found that not only are the people helpful, if you show that you've made an effort to meet them half way; but working of the software itself shows a degree of empathy which is not common elsewhere.
To fj39dkf since I've been rate limited and can't reply:
> "Reactionary" doesn't mean literally "reacting to a problem", it's a political term that comes from the French revolution, referring to monarchists who became organized and motivated as a reaction against the French revolution.
I am aware of the origin of the term in English, I think it still applies. The people who are shoving their rigid CoCs down people's throats are the establishment; it's just that by adopting the symbols of causes which were previously anti-establishment, they've avoided being seen as such.
Being a bit edgy on the internet is an anti-establishment cause, like hacking[0].
It's more or less synonymous with "conservative" and "right wing" which have similar origins, although today it has more of a pejorative connotation in English, or sometimes specifically refers to people on the colloquial "far-right" who advocate for ethno-nationalism, authoritarianism, military adventurism, nativism, etc.