Right. I see that you do not understand what I am trying to convey. And I do not understand where you think you are going as I see your writing evolve from advocating basic decency to encouraging the systematic establishment of a kafkaesque system of "local" justice.
We are discussing a complex matter, with deep ramifications. In fact, I don't know that there is anything which is more complex or delicate. This is why I keep advising caution and restraint; it would not be smart to assume that "just slap a CoC on it" is an adequate answer to deep societal problems. Some (if not all) "cultural revolutions" do not end up having the intended consequences.
Now, it may be that I am confused or wrong, or that my explanatory skills are not adequate. In any case, your own explanatory skills have not been adequate to convince me of the former.
When you write:
> A development community that exists of me and one other individual who contributes patches can be held to the conditions of a code of conduct I've chosen - if I feel that the other contributor has breached that, I'm free to block them from any project-related resources even if doing so causes them professional harm.
you are (explicitly) assuming ownership; the "community" you are talking about is effectively private property, which you indeed have a right to manage it as you wish.
But ownership does not scale. Nobody will object as long as your "community" remains pretty small and unimportant—but as you manage to grow it, and make it "successful"—or, in other terms, impactful—your ownership (and, consequently, authority) is going to be contested.
At some point, society is going to try to turn your private "community" into "commons," or at least into some kind of regimented association. This often entails domain-specific regulation, but can also, potententially, nationalization or outright breakup. You may fight it, succeed for a while, and ultimately negotiate a comfortable position for yourself—but inalienable private property, no matter its impact, only exists in libertarian fantasies.
So. Your post:
> aims to provide some things that community leaders should think about when the issue is raised.
and talks about "acceptable," "punishment," "removing." This is all and well as long as you are talking about your private property, but at the risk of repeating myself, you better expect that "leadership" to be seriously questioned as the "community" in question grows to become increasingly impactful.
And even if a "community" (by your definition, which still isn't clear) doesn't grow much, an orthodoxy growing *across* communities is going to cause any outgroup to consider the linked-by-orthodoxy faction as a whole. This is why you keep hearing nonsense such as "the open-source community," "techies," or even "liberals." Are those "communities"?
What I see growing in society is increasingly defensive and weaponized ideological groups which resist societal reintegration. Consequently, "resistance" is also mounting on both sides. If you see this as a "good thing," or "winning," then you are, in my opinion, seriously deluded. This is a mounting "cold civil war," and its potential outcomes are ghastly.
-D
P.-S. — I will add that while I am reacting to a specific, particularly tactless tweet of yours, it is only the last straw; I have been observing a pattern in your "evolution" which worries me greatly.
It is some kind of "appeal to authority" which does not limit itself to being a rhetorical device—as bad as that is—but then gets transformed implemented into inescapable artifacts by industrious application of technical competence. "Code is law," in other words. And I believe you see "CoC"s as "just some other form of code."
In my opinion, your *methods* in trying to improve social justice, your work on TPMs and other security apparatus, your willingness to be employed by one of the GAFA, when all taken together, tell me that despite unquestionably good original intentions, you seem to be sliding into something pretty ugly and terribly misguided.
You (unfortunately) are not alone in this, and the pace is accelerating. The worst offenders do not have to be named, but I as taken aback, for example, when I saw Tim Bray advocating embedding more inescapable "security" mechanisms at the core of basic devices:
Mark Carrigan calls it "techno-fascism," and while the term is controversial, I would certainly agree that the underlying trend is a terrible threat to free society.
P.-S. (bis) — I will not comment much on your "nope" and other bizarre claims regarding participation in Ubuntu. You know perfectly well that it's a commercial entity, that they defend their private turf, and that they will only let you have an influence if it's on their terms—or happens to coincide with them. You have conveniently omitted to specify whether you considered that to be the kind of "community" your essay addresses.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: "Discipline"? "Members"? What kind of "community" are you talking about?
Date: 2017-12-22 11:16 am (UTC)We are discussing a complex matter, with deep ramifications. In fact, I don't know that there is anything which is more complex or delicate. This is why I keep advising caution and restraint; it would not be smart to assume that "just slap a CoC on it" is an adequate answer to deep societal problems. Some (if not all) "cultural revolutions" do not end up having the intended consequences.
Now, it may be that I am confused or wrong, or that my explanatory skills are not adequate. In any case, your own explanatory skills have not been adequate to convince me of the former.
When you write:
> A development community that exists of me and one other individual who contributes patches can be held to the conditions of a code of conduct I've chosen - if I feel that the other contributor has breached that, I'm free to block them from any project-related resources even if doing so causes them professional harm.
you are (explicitly) assuming ownership; the "community" you are talking about is effectively private property, which you indeed have a right to manage it as you wish.
But ownership does not scale. Nobody will object as long as your "community" remains pretty small and unimportant—but as you manage to grow it, and make it "successful"—or, in other terms, impactful—your ownership (and, consequently, authority) is going to be contested.
At some point, society is going to try to turn your private "community" into "commons," or at least into some kind of regimented association. This often entails domain-specific regulation, but can also, potententially, nationalization or outright breakup. You may fight it, succeed for a while, and ultimately negotiate a comfortable position for yourself—but inalienable private property, no matter its impact, only exists in libertarian fantasies.
So. Your post:
> aims to provide some things that community leaders should think about when the issue is raised.
and talks about "acceptable," "punishment," "removing." This is all and well as long as you are talking about your private property, but at the risk of repeating myself, you better expect that "leadership" to be seriously questioned as the "community" in question grows to become increasingly impactful.
And even if a "community" (by your definition, which still isn't clear) doesn't grow much, an orthodoxy growing *across* communities is going to cause any outgroup to consider the linked-by-orthodoxy faction as a whole. This is why you keep hearing nonsense such as "the open-source community," "techies," or even "liberals." Are those "communities"?
What I see growing in society is increasingly defensive and weaponized ideological groups which resist societal reintegration. Consequently, "resistance" is also mounting on both sides. If you see this as a "good thing," or "winning," then you are, in my opinion, seriously deluded. This is a mounting "cold civil war," and its potential outcomes are ghastly.
-D
P.-S. — I will add that while I am reacting to a specific, particularly tactless tweet of yours, it is only the last straw; I have been observing a pattern in your "evolution" which worries me greatly.
It is some kind of "appeal to authority" which does not limit itself to being a rhetorical device—as bad as that is—but then gets transformed implemented into inescapable artifacts by industrious application of technical competence. "Code is law," in other words. And I believe you see "CoC"s as "just some other form of code."
In my opinion, your *methods* in trying to improve social justice, your work on TPMs and other security apparatus, your willingness to be employed by one of the GAFA, when all taken together, tell me that despite unquestionably good original intentions, you seem to be sliding into something pretty ugly and terribly misguided.
You (unfortunately) are not alone in this, and the pace is accelerating. The worst offenders do not have to be named, but I as taken aback, for example, when I saw Tim Bray advocating embedding more inescapable "security" mechanisms at the core of basic devices:
https://twitter.com/timbray/status/942176960632971264
Mark Carrigan calls it "techno-fascism," and while the term is controversial, I would certainly agree that the underlying trend is a terrible threat to free society.
P.-S. (bis) — I will not comment much on your "nope" and other bizarre claims regarding participation in Ubuntu. You know perfectly well that it's a commercial entity, that they defend their private turf, and that they will only let you have an influence if it's on their terms—or happens to coincide with them. You have conveniently omitted to specify whether you considered that to be the kind of "community" your essay addresses.