https://ethicalsource.dev/definition/
I worry that "open source" is already a slippery and ambiguous term.
It makes RMS's work to clearly define free software (not open source) both hard and important .
I would like a link to the source, rather than someone saying a given source happened to send X.
I could not in a quick 5 min of searching through Eric S. Raymond posts on that thread, see the actual source that is quoted.
#1 https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists...
#2 ""On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:09 PM Eric S. Raymond <esr at thyrsus.com> wrote:""
Before potentially defaming anyone I would very much like a reference to the actual words they said, and would hope everyone else similarly judges based on confirmed content.
For example, the source you link may have just attempted to reconstruct the message based on what can be seen in the reply. However the chain of authenticity has been extended to contain those who may have motive to unfaithfully reproduce or even fake a/the message. We can't know as the transparency of the archive is now also in question.
Edit:
Under the assumption the reproduction is faithful, my own personal OPINIONs...
Calling someone a loonytoon is uncouth, deserving a brief lecture for attacking someone rather than debating the ideals they happen to believe in at the current time (or in the past if it's a clear reference to such). (Edit 2:) Also in that paragraph, there's a term I'd hesitate to Google for not knowing it's meaning offhand... I'm not sure how good/bad it might actually be.
The vividly disgusting and offensive description (which could very easily have been added in the quoted reply) of rat* (censored) is something that a rational adult just shouldn't use on such a forum. If that's what OSI acted on, they really should be more transparent about it as well as their decision process.
Most of the version you linked on TechRights is otherwise speech that should be protected and encouraged. It is a protest and valid expression of feelings; save for some charged language.
> I am not fooled. You are mounting an ideological attack on our core principles of liberty and nondiscrimination. You will not succeed while I retain any ability to oppose this.
and
> Because that way he couldn't use our prestige to advance his goals. He couldn't use OSI to pretend to be pro-freedom while actually being against freedom.
Both of these messages are hostile, assume bad faith and (as noted by some supporters of ESR's position) unhelpful for resolving the issue.
In some issues there's no way to helpfully resolve them. What sort of meet-in-the-middle do you propose here, exactly? Either open source licenses as determined by the OSI don't discriminate against particular users, or they can, and that's a values based decision. There's no real way to be 'helpful' about it: no is no.
> toxic loonytoon
> The actual goal of the movement behind the ESD
> banishing contributors for wrongthink
> The "Persona Non Grata" clause is best understood as an attempt to paralyze resistance to such political ratfucking
Like I said I don't know the OSI culture (or this context) but nothing about this message strikes me as someone who's acting in good faith. There's lots of nonsense out there, but engaging in good faith is about taking what people say in collaborative environments as given in good faith.
I'm open to being wrong and this tone being appropriate. I don't mean ESR has to be nice to people he doesn't like outside of the official policy discussion. But if people are trying to do work this doesn't seem like an appropriate way to engage.
So you don't know who ESR is, and you're going to act like the man who has put his entire life into this effort as though he's not "acting in good faith". Wow.
If anything, I'd question whether everyone else on the list even knows what 'good faith' is, as they voluntarily proceed to censor themselves.
However, that's still a ridiculous email, and inappropriate for any context where grownups are trying to have a serious conversation about adult matters.
First off, it's unprofessional. But even beyond that, the email is either intended to persuade through facts and reasoned argument, or bully though shouting. It's clearly not written to persuade (there are no facts or reasoned arguments), ergo its intended to bully.
> Its originator is a toxic loonytoon who believes "show me the code" meritocracy is at best outmoded and in general a sinister supremacist plot by straight white cisgender males.
"Show me the code" is a good principle, and not just in programming. Hard data is much better than ad hominems or making arguments from authority. It is, therefore, sadly ironic that ESRs linked email is purely comprised of ad hominems, and the best his defenders can do is to make arguments from authority. Your code isn't automatically right because you're the CTO, and your arguments aren't automatically right because you're the co-founder, and the more heated and inflated your claims get, with no citations or links or proof, the less time I have for you.
ESR remains correct on the principles he has spent his life advocating for. His email is still garbage, and I fully support the removal of anyone who authors emails like that from a mailing list until they apologise and commit to behaving better in the future.
This isn't a profession. It's a volunteer effort. ESR has spent enough time talking about this now that expecting every single email he writes to include a total re-encapsulation of the entire effort is ridiculous. Of course, this is why arguing with these sorts of people is such a pain; they forget everything you've ever said, and any point ever admitted-to is forgotten the next day like as though no such admission had ever been made.
I would suggest that is a distinction without a (in this context) relevant difference.
Also, you didn't address my other, larger point.
Or at the very least explaining rationally why you feel the other person is not acting in good faith.
These people are HUGE fans of triangulation, their supporters will tear you a new one on twitter if you don't toe the line.
What does “triangulation” mean in this context?
Triangulation refers to when your primary aggressor has their associates perform social pressures (sometimes without them applying much themselves.)
For lack of a better example, consider the aspect of Shunning in some religions/cults; If the leader thinks someone is out of line, word quickly spreads, and the entire group will focus their behavior on making the target feel unwelcome.
Source: dealt with more culty shit than I ever wanted to, which is why these movements creep me out so much.
>Ratfucking is an American slang term for political sabotage or dirty tricks
And now he is banished.
Are you really arguing against this?
ESR could be acting within the community standards of OSI, in which case I don't think he should be banned.
I also find the way he engages to be more hostile than I'm comfortable with and probably wouldn't want to work an environment where it was the norm.
I'm not an expert on government and law, but it is my understanding that due process is rooted in the recognition that circumstances are often more nuanced than laws can accommodate, and so evaluation of the circumstances are necessary for every case.
I'm not saying OSI actions should follow the same due process as criminal courts, but my point is no, saying the things he said at countless companies, corporations, environments, under some context or another, would not result in firing.
If there is some sort of evidence that the candidate in question is in fact a toxic loonytoon, by some sort of objective standard, then it's perfectly fine to use that language.
At some point, you have to call a spade a spade, and a toxic loonytoon a toxic loonytoon.
Otherwise I think you only 'persuade' people that already agree with you and others that might have otherwise changed their minds are alienated.
That said, I generally like the idea of not banning people and I have a high tolerance for this kind of communication not really bothering me that much - but I still think it's generally bad form and probably does scare away others.
The CoC people will not like that any better.
Suppose you write a mailing list post which absolutely names no names, but only presents expressions of specific ideas, and then calls those ideas "toxic" and "loony", with justifications and all. That will still be equally offensive. It will be still be interpreted as an attack on the identifiable person or group behind those ideas, even though they have not been named.
Focusing on ideas is better, but breaking down why you think something is wrong without being an ass is really the goal.
I've loosely followed this stuff for a few years, and I just don't see it. I just see people trying to punish the people they hate.
IMO: His opinion has a lot of weight here. He founded the project. Without his philosphy in the start you wouldn't be where it is today.
So this was clearly one of those no recovery situations. Either guidelines for civil behavior or "show me the code" meritocracy wins but it's hard to see "agreeing to disagree" being possible here.
My concern is if you're drawing the line over this what you're communicating to people is that you cannot negatively sum up another individual, even when it's warranted. A productive conversation can be had on the merits of the label. Are you trying to incentivize long posts about all of the non-sensical policies that the individual is pushing?
The point is it's pretty plausible the ESR was breaking guidelines that had been laid down already. Maybe he should have broken them for all I know but all I'm saying really is that for an authority to remain credible they have to enforce guidelines specifically when someone is openly defying them. That's it.
Anyway, search and form your own opinion.
This one incident turned me off of not only that person but the entire cancel culture movement.
Are you perchance saying that you "cancelled" the cancel culture movement based on a single interaction you didn't enjoy?
They have noble goals, but the approach is wrong in a lot of cases. Many of the people have the same toxic personalities that they rail against so loudly.
From other comments, you seem to be drawing a distinction between "social pressure" and "individual choices". Can you explain when one becomes the other?
If one shopkeeper won't serve you, they're exercising their own rights and you can take your business elsewhere. But if every shopkeeper won't serve you, you're probably being discriminated against. I don't presume to draw the line precisely, but we recognise the difference.
If the mob is acting to achieve an ends I perceive as righteous, I might never see the mob for what they really are.
I've found many people do even less well than I do, at this.
>"Giving everyone freedom means giving evil people freedom, too." (OSD FAQ) It doesn't have to be like this.
It's time to stop bad actors from using our work in unethical ways. It's time to give open source developers around the world the tools they need to exercise their ethical responsibilities as engineers and members of human society. It's time for us to stop shirking our ethical obligations, and take responsibility for the use of our work.
From:
https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Main/OSI+Board+of+Directors/...
Also:
https://mobile.twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/12294568573176...
(Edited to include her position in her own words)
The problem for people like Ehmke is there aren't really many evil people in society, and those who do exist tend to get handled by the justice system. So she just ends up picking fights with random people. She's bad news and anywhere she shows up is best recommended to evict her post-haste.
https://where.coraline.codes/blog/ethical-source-osi-electio...
She has done more than anybody else to cause destructive internal strife in Open Source software projects. Her being on the OSI board is simply appalling. OSI needs to be defunded and ignored if she can not be removed.
He is referring to one of the people running for the board of directors whose major goal is to introduce Codes of Conduct into open source projects.
I can’t wait until this identity politics pendulum starts swinging back. Some people are going to be really embarrassed about the legacy they left for themselves while it was still around.
ts originator is a toxic loonytoon who believes "show me the code" > meritocracy is at best outmoded and in general a sinister supremacist > plot by straight white cisgender males."
I think open source has a serious problem in the sense that there are a lot of projects headed by single, rather abusive and obsessed individuals. And moreover, where a stream of obscenities in an email is considered a normal way of communicating, accompanied by a "if you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen" attitude. "Show me the code meritocracy" can be more or less this.
My guess is that OSI has been attempting to change the situation. Part of the change would demanding people avoid streams of "strong language" as ESR uses above. Moroever, I suspect people already said "we're aiming for a better standard of communication".
As far the practical value goes, I'm not sure if there is an easy way to change the situation. Installing an ombudsman on projects is kind of hard given the projects are indeed going to belong to those who produce a lot of decent code. People create open source software that scratches their itch, not to conform to others' values.
It deserves a warning, maybe, but banning him? Cancel culture indeed.
Would that kind of language/dialog be tolerated if it was directed at other people present or on the team? Or towards stakeholders? Of course not.
Of course, our discussions don't get immortalized on a public mailing list for every interested busybody to critique, and that does change the dynamic a bit...
The ESR comment clearly directed at an OSI "person present" who also was a stakeholder, FYI.
But I think if I was in charge and I had to police behaviour a warning would be my first reaction, rather than an immediate ban.
I mean, aren't we supposed to tell people when they're wrong first, and only resort to harsher means later?
The person behind ESD has a history of getting people 'removed' from projects.
To them, I say: physician, heal thyself. I'm really sorry that they've lived a life being bullied so much that they derive such pleasure from doing so to others.
Individuals, who, let's not forget that, are the reason the projects exist in the first place, and who may feel more attachment to the projects than others. That they react more strongly to the impression that some other group is trying to take over their project, often years or decades of their life, and destroy it (by their standards) is understandable, I think.
And also, let's not forget that those seeking control via CoC are often equally abusive, they just strategically limit their abusiveness to Twitter & co and keep it off of official mailing lists to be able to say "I always stayed professional (here, while I was backstabbing everywhere else)".
Absolutely, it's quite a quandary. The thing is, there's a difference between "random tool ten people use and no one would create with person X" and, say, Open Office and there are a variety of shades in between. At some point, the "I created this and I can manipulate it any way I want" thing is really problematic and stands in the way of a semi-important standard/application/library but at other points, there is no easy alternative.
What I do like about the "there's no place for niceness here" is one thing over all: if you can make it there, you can take the heat. And if you're in a position of responsibility, that's really something that is extremely important. It sorts out the people that can't stand the heat, and that's ugly and hard on those people, but it's good for the project, because you can't have them only experience the heat for the first time when they are in power and Amazon leans on them with their billion dollar law team and the promise of a cushy office job.
I understand the idea of "this madness and chaos got us this far, but we'll have to grow up and start doing it the way the people do it that we didn't like when we started it, it's just too big and too important". It's very similar to what happened in the crypto scene when a bunch of guys did some cool stuff and then they realize that their little project now is worth more than many countries' GDP, that's probably a sobering talk.
I don't know that it's necessarily a good idea, though. So far, benevolent dictators have worked out great, even if some of them ruled with a sharp tongue and an iron fist. Whether the alternative will work as well remains to be seen.
Why not fork those projects and makes those awesome forks full of code with unicorns and glitter?
If those single rather abusive individuals have to compete with code + unicorns + glitter, I'm certainly going to switch to that and I bet the others will too
There's expressing yourself fully and accurately, and there's expressing yourself respectfully. It's entirely possible to do both, and that quoted response really didn't do much of either.
It makes you sound like you're one bad day away from chasing swans through the park nakedly and it isn't really productive in any community.
People like Eric need to come to terms with the fact that being a productive contributor is not an excuse for anti-social behaviour, that open source communities these days are huge and people from many places who may not get your jokes or your political discussions are participating, and that cultures change.
That might sound like generic senseless profanity, but it's actually a term with specific meaning: "Ratfucking is an American slang term for political sabotage or dirty tricks."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking
Whether or not ratfucking is indeed happening here as ESR asserts is another matter. I mean only to comment on the meaning of the term.
There are strong criticisms of CoCs and questioning of the necessity of that. I don't think that's too much of a reach in how that was communicated. A bit exaggerated yes.
Sure there is a nuanced discussion about what is too much for a CoC but the sort of discussion that he thinks is supposed to be cut out actually needs to be shut down. I'm surprised it took this long, to be honest.
>> * The "Persona Non Grata" clause is best understood as an attempt to paralyze resistance to such political ratfucking by subverting th freedom-centered principles of OSI. It is very unlikely to be the last such attempt.
> Make no mistake; we are under attack. If we do not recognize the nature of the attack and reject it, we risk watching the best features of the open-source subculture be smothered by identity politics and vulgar Marxism.
I mean, if you are this much out of touch with reality, maybe it's time to quit Facebook, Twitter etc.
I don't agree with him but I feel a bit sorry for him. He's passionate about this and he believes what he's saying. Perhaps nothing could make him see things differently, but banning him definitely won't.
I stand by my assessment it's not classy language though.
Etymonline says, "pertaining to or characteristic of a (high) class," from 1891. https://www.etymonline.com/word/classy GCIDE says, "having elegance or taste or refinement in manners or dress," and "exhibiting refinement and high character. Opposite of low-class." WordNet says, "Elegant and fashionable." What brings all these definitions together is that something is good in the particular way that the upper class values.
It's true that many people who admire the manners of the upper class consider their behavior standards to be "high standards", and they certainly are demanding standards. But "classy" is not used to describe conformance to any demanding standards of personal behavior, such as a soldier's enthusiastic yelling and physical fitness, Clarence Darrow's unyielding advocacy of the welfare of the world's poorest, Feynman's profound mathematical learning and epistemic humility, or the brutal, unvarnished honesty demanded by Dutch society. As you know if you are a native speaker of English, none of these are considered "classy", however demanding they may be, because they do not belong to the [English and North American] upper class, which demands very high standards of etiquette, euphemism, diplomacy, fashion, and stoicism. Those virtues are "classy"; the other virtues I described above are not only not "classy" but in many cases positively opposed to "classiness".
It's interesting to look at the older roots of the word and see links to social class there but I'm not using the term in that sense. The definition I referred to is a modern one from Mirriam Webster.
The ideological line you're laying down here is a specifically upper-class ideology, as revealed by its content, not just the words you use. Your lack of awareness of the origin of that ideology comes from does not liberate you from that origin; on the contrary, it enslaves you to it, making you an instrument of agendas you do not understand and cannot question. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22551881
The question is really which set of values will determine the future course of the Open Source Initiative: the values of foulmouthed mullet-wearing truck drivers or the values of refined ladies and gentlemen who couldn't possibly, oh, how simply dreadful.
† Personae non Gratae, you might say.
I'd agree that ESR might have received a better reception for his point of view if he'd expressed himself differently though.
That's how it seems to me, anyway. God help us.
For the sake of fairness, consider the case that people opposing him would use similar lunatic language.
They would drop fighting words like neoconservatives, greedy capitalist, far right nuts into the discussion. That would be crazy just as well.
----
For the record, I think ESR was mostly right on the issues. He is just communicating like lunatic angry person.
I fully agree with the idea that "ethical" licenses aren't free software, but the dude is a terrible actor in this. He violated the rules, and got banned. That's not a bad thing!
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists....
Seems odd that someone should be banned for life for a fairly tame message that was already automatically filtered (one assumes for the various word choices not the content)...
A bit rough tone, sure, but I think that shows that he’s actually passionate about these things. That’s good, not bad.
What I find interesting are the ways that CoCs are sometimes selectively weaponized.
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists....
I'm not familiar with the culture or standards of the OSI but I don't think I'd wanna participate in a community where this kind of engagement is normal, so good for them I suppose?
Edit: replaced plorkyeran's account link with their post. I also now notice others posted the link, but I saw plorkyeran's post.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22521608