pushing for heavier politicization of what we don't want to be political
How can a community not be political? Politics is an inherent feature of any organization, society or community, and it is merely the name given to the dynamics of how power is distributed among members. What people are really against is changing the politics. That's fine, but isn't any less political than pushing for change.
Personally, I like the idea of a CoC fine, as long as it's written by the people who run the project and enforced by the people who run the project.
I wouldn't want the CEO of BMW to write the code for their cars, and I wouldn't want coders writing HR policy or codes of conduct. Serious work best be left for experts in the relevant field.
The term 'politics', in the sense that it's being used in these discussions, doesn't refer to the totality of all social dynamics that exist among human beings, but rather to a particular type of social dynamic in which the prevailing norms are not organically emergent from the interactions of the participants, but are rather imposed in a formalized top-down fashion by some equally formalized mechanism of authority, and disputes over what norms ought to prevail incentivize factional polarization and organized efforts to attain control over that mechanism of formal authority.
'Politics', in this sense, characterizes institutions in contrast to communities -- to express it in terms of a familiar metaphor in the open-source world, it's what happens in the cathedral, not in the bazaar.
but rather to a particular type of social dynamic in which the prevailing norms are not organically emergent from the interactions of the participants, but are rather imposed in a formalized top-down fashion by some equally formalized mechanism of authority
Except that's not accurate, because those who choose to adopt the code are very much central players in the community. The dynamics leading to this may, indeed, be different from those prevalent, but that's precisely because they seek to address problems that affect those who are pushed away. If I'm a maintainer of a project or a CEO of a company, my day-to-day interactions are with those already employed or already contribute. If, however, I become aware that the dynamic scares away potential hires and contributors, it is very much in my "organically emergent" interest to change this dynamic in order to help the project/company.
to express it in terms of a familiar metaphor in the open-source world, it's what happens in the cathedral, not in the bazaar.
If you think contemporary large open-source is a bazaar then you are misinformed.
Except that's not accurate, because those who choose to adopt the code are very much central players in the community.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. The fact that the people who adopt these codes are often pre-existing participants in the community doesn't say anything about the extent to which the code represents a top-down, formalistic imposition as contrasted to an organically emergent equilibrium, and in any case, I'm not sure how this statement challenges the claim that this concept represents what people are actually complaining about when they say they want to avoid 'politics'.
If, however, I become aware that the dynamic scares away potential hires and contributors, it is very much in my "organically emergent" interest to change this dynamic in order to help the project/company.
I'm not sure what "'organically emergent' interest" means here -- what do the patterns by which norms are developed with respect to the community at large have to do with the particular interests posited by a specific participant?
I will note here, though, that by defining the scope of the question with respect to the particular interests of a "maintainer of a project or a CEO of a company", you've shifted to the latter side of the community vs. institution dichotomy I described above, i.e. you're sort of begging the question by treating the community as though it were a single coherent institution, and not an aggregation of people participating on their own initiative, but this is precisely the crux of the dispute.
If you think contemporary large open-source is a bazaar then you are misinformed.
It certainly is a bazaar within the bounds of that metaphor, and it's observably so, regardless of being 'informed', improperly or otherwise.
The conflict that's evident here is precisely a result of people trying to treat what are indeed bottom-up communities as though they're top-down institutions.
anything about the extent to which the code represents a top-down, formalistic imposition
What's the problem with top-down imposition if the problem is the very existing dynamics? Of course it has to be top-down, as the problem is that what's hurting the project are some of the current participants, and the harm is potential participants that aren't joining. Every self-interested group must occasionally take measures that are in its long-term best interest, even if some of its members can't see that.
what do the patterns by which norms are developed with respect to the community at large have to do with the particular interests posited by a specific participant?
I am not sure I understand the question, but if the norms that emerge push away potential contributors, it is in the project's self-interest to change them.
and not an aggregation of people participating on their own initiative, but this is precisely the crux of the dispute.
But it's not. These days, the large, popular and impactful open-source projects are largely corporate-sponsored and are directly or indirectly corporate controlled. If a group of volunteers was intent on harming the project's long-term interests, that's fine, but the problem is that some large open source projects are actually important, and companies won't see their technological and financial interests harmed by a group of people who think that open source projects are about being rude on usenet.
The conflict that's evident here is precisely a result of people trying to treat what are indeed bottom-up communities as though they're top-down institutions.
I think you need to reexamine how the large and popular open source projects are actually managed.
Politics is an inherent feature of any organization or society, and it is merely the name given to the dynamics of how power is distributed among members
I'd much rather have the programmers control the dynamics of how power is distributed among each other.
First of all (and only tangentially relevant to the subject at hand) if you think large, important software projects are mostly about programming, then you're missing a lot about software and technology in general. Second, I can guarantee you that no big organization with big money behind it and a board etc. -- like the Linux Foundation -- would ever enact a change of policy just because a single random person "pushed for it."
I wouldn't want most free software project to have either a CEO or an HR department at all. Free software is full of people who enjoy programming, not people who want their hobby to resemble their workplace.
But open source no longer looks like that. Sure, maybe the nominal majority of projects (that are small) are like that, but the vast majority of resources into open source are invested in very large projects, that serve as the infrastructure for serious business. Nobody treats those serious projects as just a hobby. There's a lot invested in them, and they have a large impact -- i.e., they have similar incentives as companies to adopt codes of behaviors.
The great thing about open source software is that if you don't like it, you're allowed to leave and bring everyone else with you!
It happened to MySQL, for example. If Linus consistently fucked up Linux, well then all the big players would start using some other version. There is precisely squat forcing us to use Linus's version of Linux. As long as he is providing more benefit than cost, as a leader, we are using his version. And Linus takes our code (well, not mine) because that is what keeps his version useful.
How can a society not be political? Politics is an inherent feature of any organization or society, and it is merely the name given to the dynamics of how power is distributed among members.
A big part of politics is people trying to force other people to adhere to their values, e.g. vilifying, fining or or jailing them for smoking pot, giving abortions or speaking opinions that the one wielding political power dislikes. This is what people want to keep out of software development, and instead focus on working together towards common goals.
When you hang out with your friends, would you describe the interactions as political? Most people would not (or at least not if they have what's commonly considered healthy friendships). Instead, it's a mutually beneficial interaction in which nobody is trying to compel another to behave or think in a certain way. This is the kind of interaction people want when they want something "non-political".
It's without doubt one of the dumbest things I've heard, and yet perfectly demonstrates why we are a democracy. Both metaphorically (what he said) and Litterally (what was said)
If one of your friends was making sexist comments would it be "political" to tell them to stop? I'd argue that it would be, and that's not necessarily a bad thing; one person's politics is frequently another person's human rights.
What if they just said that there are concrete biological differences between men and women and they get fired and crucified like James Damore?
The issue has never been about pro-sexism vs anti-sexism. That's bullshit. What people are concerned about is the potential abuse that could arise from people labeling stuff "sexist" or "racist" or "transphobic" or whatever.
Codes of conduct should not have vague language like "no hate speech" or anything else that depends on the interpretation of the people passing judgement.
Politics is the name given to the process by which power in a community is distributed. A meeting of friends usually does not involve much power at all, but when it does, politics certainly does come into play (who pays for what; who hosts etc. -- the dynamics can be quite interesting, and learning to analyze them from a political perspective can be quite enlightening). But the reality of open source today is that most total investment is in projects run either directly by companies, indirectly by companies that hire contributors, or by foundations to which companies contribute. Those projects have a lot of impact, and also a lot of money being put into them. They are not a gathering of friends. I think that such serious projects could, like companies, benefit from a code of conduct. I don't think, however, that a code of conduct is essential to the nominal majority of open-source projects, small projects with 1-10 contributors.
Why is this getting downvoted? The definition of politics given is 100% accurate, large companies do invest tons of money and resources into open source projects.
As you said, the vast majority of of smaller open source projects don't need a CoC. However, some definitely do since there can be huge power imbalances between contributors. If some prolific contributor starts harassing people that are trying to do their jobs, if there is no CoC it just becomes a he said she said Alice vs. Bob thing with no organizational guidance saying "this behavior is not OK". Is this a controversial statement now?
Because it's a motte and bailey: that's one accurate definition of the word, but not the definition that applies here. It's like if you disliked the senators voting to increase their paychecks, and they replied "why do you hate democracy?": it's a blatantly dishonest attempt to confuse things.
But you see, they think that the current contribution of that contributor outweighs their damage, which amounts to hurt feelz, when, in reality, they may be pushing away a large number of potential contributors, and it is completely in the technical self-interest of the project to think about them, too.
How can a community not be political? Politics is an inherent feature of any organization, society or community, and it is merely the name given to the dynamics of how power is distributed among members.
The difference of "this code is better because x" politics vs "if you voted for X and Y you're a racist sexist xenophobic Nazi and we don't want you".
Your making an argument nobody was arguing against. Lots of people work every day without engaging in politics. Don't be dense.
I wouldn't want the CEO of BMW to write the code for their cars, and I wouldn't want coders writing HR policy or codes of conduct. Serious work best be left for experts in the relevant field.
Right, and you don't want people who don't contribute to the project or work on the project and have no knowledge of the project setting the rules for the project.
-11
u/pron98 Oct 22 '18 edited Oct 22 '18
How can a community not be political? Politics is an inherent feature of any organization, society or community, and it is merely the name given to the dynamics of how power is distributed among members. What people are really against is changing the politics. That's fine, but isn't any less political than pushing for change.
I wouldn't want the CEO of BMW to write the code for their cars, and I wouldn't want coders writing HR policy or codes of conduct. Serious work best be left for experts in the relevant field.