GCC got its Code of Conduct too!

[gmb42]

I do have a female friend who works in marketing and the abuse she has suffered from arseholes at conferences, trade shows etc. is unbelievable when all she can do is smile back nicely.


If the conduct policies allow her to report unacceptable behaviour and the arseholes get disciplined\reprimanded\ejected then I'm all for that.

Might be some intercultural idiom, because here "a female friend" would be a dog bitch here, in Ro.  I mean such words would refer to a canine, not a women.  Also, what exactly did she suffered, and why she didn't reported.  I thought UK was always the country gentlemen men.  We always have had laws here about protecting women, even during the communism.

Not to say, a code of conduct is not a law.  So, kind of futile about protecting women.  However, such codes of conduct are tool to normalize "inclusion", which for your country (and the EU, too) means illegal immigrants, and turning a blind eye to the wave of crime they brought.

Example #1, a self-identifying dick.

[newbrain]

Always.

[Citation Needed]

Unless by "misuse" you mean "arseholes will, sometimes, maybe, face consequences of being, well, arseholes".

[newbrain]

illegal immigrants, and turning a blind eye to the wave of crime they brought.

This is quite ironic.
Guess which nationality was stereotyped in Italy, up to some years ago, as being "lazy workers, or criminals".
It was a stupid thing to think then and still it is now, but as a Romanian you might have well been on the receiving side of discrimination.
I don't think you would have liked that. I'm sure I would not.

[MK14]

Let me try and express my concerns/worries, in a shorter way.

Currently, GCC is completely NOT political.

It shouldn't be, but I worry, that the thin end of the wedge of politics, starts creeping into GCC and its directly associated documentation etc.

E.g. It ends up changing its licencing terms, so that companies that buck the politically correct way, are NOT allowed to use GCC.  I.e. Promoting the 'cancel' culture, in some way.

[newbrain]

It ends up changing its licencing terms, so that companies that buck the politically correct way, are NOT allowed to use GCC.

Nope.
The very moment that happens, they lose rights to the GPLed code base(1), unless they find and get permissions from each and every copyright holder(2) and re-license gcc. Insta-fork will follow.

So, unless those terms become part of a "GPLv4" (gcc is licensed with an "or later" clause), not going to happen.

(1) The GPL is voided if you try to tack additional conditions on it. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/appendix_gpl.html
(2) Since 2021 authors need not assign the Copyright to the FSF. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-June/236182.html

EtA: Moderators, how is this in Programming? General "technical" chat would seem more appropriate.

[MK14]

It ends up changing its licencing terms, so that companies that buck the politically correct way, are NOT allowed to use GCC.

Nope.
The very moment that happens, they lose rights to the GPLed code base(1), unless they find and get permissions from each and every copyright holder(2) and re-license gcc. Insta-fork will follow.

So, unless those terms become part of a "GPLv4" (gcc is licensed with an "or later" clause), not going to happen.

(1) The GPL is voided if you try to tack additional conditions on it. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/appendix_gpl.html
(2) Since 2021 authors need not assign the Copyright to the FSF. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-June/236182.html

EtA: Moderators, how is this in Programming? General "technical" chat would seem more appropriate.

Thanks.  But presumably there are other ways, the apple cart could get upset.  My understanding is that projects like GCC, are helped, because a number of programmers from big technological companies, get funded to work on it.  If GCC becomes polarised, politically.  Some may object and remove their funded programmers.

On the other hand.  As you suggested, in a worse case scenario.  GCC would just get forked, and the new team(s), on the new fork, could decide upon their own 'Code of Conduct', or even decide to go back to having none.

So, I suppose my concerns/worries, should be alright in practice, for the reasons you already stated in your post.  Just that it might, in hopefully rare circumstances, end up getting forked.

[Nominal Animal]

Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you to stop, then stop.

This will be used to silence issues the authors do not want to address.

A major problem in GCC development in the past (up till 10-15 years ago or so) was the core developers forming a clique that did not accept any kind of criticism from anyone without at least a PhD in CS.

I know from personal experience that things like trying to address quadmath (quad precision FP, 128-bit floating point math) dynamic allocation alignment requirements is considered harassment by the GCC developers, because the C standard does not require such, therefore it is not needed.  (Which means if you wanted to use quadmath, you'll need to use posix_memalign() for dynamic allocation.)

Now, such GCC devs can simply tell the bug reporter at the mailing list or bugzilla that this is harassment of the GCC authors, and to please stop.
If the bug reporter insists, they will be banned, based on the CoC.

Nice tool for avoiding responsibility and interaction.

For the Linux kernel, the CoC has lead to a large fraction of kernel developers not responding to emails addressed to them and to the mailing list, unless the sender is already known.  It is just easier to not answer, than risk being in violation of CoC.

So, I'm not painting pictures of what could happen, I'm telling what these CoCs have already caused in in related FOSS projects.
And the GCC project has done so much work to try and address their hostility towards "outside" contributions in the last decade...

It is interesting that these CoC's never address shunning or ignoring communications based on personal beliefs, ideology, or feelings.

[Monkeh]

I know from personal experience that things like trying to address quadmath (quad precision FP, 128-bit floating point math) dynamic allocation alignment requirements is considered harassment by the GCC developers, because the C standard does not require such, therefore it is not needed.

Now, such GCC devs can simply tell the bug reporter at the mailing list or bugzilla that this is harassment of the GCC authors, and to please stop.
If the bug reporter insists, they will be banned, based on the CoC.

If you've already been told they're not interested in whatever change you want made, then yes, it actually is. If someone didn't like the length you cut your grass and bugged you about it every fortnight, what would you call that?

It is interesting that these CoC's never address shunning or ignoring communications based on personal beliefs, ideology, or feelings.

Why should it? They have the right to just not deal with you. You have no right to demand their time.

[Nominal Animal]

It is interesting that these CoC's never address shunning or ignoring communications based on personal beliefs, ideology, or feelings.

Why should it? They have the right to just not deal with you. You have no right to demand their time.

Good question!

The simple answer is that when you let personal beliefs, ideology, and feelings affect your work, especially engineering and scientific work, the end result suffers.

Like I said, this has been perceived as a problem before in the GCC development, by the GCC project itself.  It lead to many compiler bugs and issues persisting over several years, even when a fix was already available.  These CoC's either deliberately or accidentally allow developers desiring to engage in such activities (concentrate on writing new code, instead of fixing the issues they caused), the tools to socially do so.

It seems to me that instating CoC's like this, negates/nullifies a lot of the work done to make sure the community actually works; to keep the entire project alive and worth participating in.

[AndyBeez]

So GCC zentral requested their contributors respect each other and play nice?

Obviously they have little regard for the way these online tech brommunities function. Less behaving like intelligent grownups and more acting up like Musk/Zuckerberg cage rage retards.

Just play nice in Dave's house.

[Monkeh]

It is interesting that these CoC's never address shunning or ignoring communications based on personal beliefs, ideology, or feelings.

Why should it? They have the right to just not deal with you. You have no right to demand their time.

Good question!

The simple answer is that when you let personal beliefs, ideology, and feelings affect your work, especially engineering and scientific work, the end result suffers.

Like I said, this has been perceived as a problem before in the GCC development, by the GCC project itself.  It lead to many compiler bugs and issues persisting over several years, even when a fix was already available.  These CoC's either deliberately or accidentally allow developers desiring to engage in such activities (concentrate on writing new code, instead of fixing the issues they caused), the tools to socially do so.

It seems to me that instating CoC's like this, negates/nullifies a lot of the work done to make sure the community actually works; to keep the entire project alive and worth participating in.

So we need a CoC which forces people to engage with others against their wishes? Or go back to having no rules as to behaviour where people can equally choose to ignore others?

[Nominal Animal]

So we need a CoC which forces people to engage with others against their wishes? Or go back to having no rules as to behaviour where people can equally choose to ignore others?

No, neither.

What I object to, is CoC which focuses on feelings and offense, instead of getting the best out of each possible contributor.  They paper over things so they're no longer visible, instead of actually fixing anything.

My English skills are not sufficient for drafting a better one, but the points I'd like to see addressed are, roughly,

• Be responsible.  Ignoring valid criticism harms everyone.
   
• Criticism of your contributions is not targeted at your person, it is targeted at a thing.  There is no need to take offense.
   
• The project relies of effective collaboration.  Avoiding collaboration because of social reasons harms everyone, and is counterproductive.

Question is, why the detailed CoC's do not include such guidance, and instead concentrate on feelings and offense?  The above harms every single community project at least as much as nasty word use does.  Very few projects have ever been harmed by sensitive snowflakes storming away in a huff, having been offended for one reason or another.  Why not tackle the real issues too, when tackling the popular social emotive ones?

[Monkeh]

Be responsible.  Ignoring valid criticism harms everyone.

The project relies of effective collaboration.  Avoiding collaboration because of social reasons harms everyone, and is counterproductive.

Be considerate. Your work will be used by other people, and you in turn will depend on the work of others. Any decision you take will affect users and colleagues, and you should take those consequences into account when making decisions.

Criticism of your contributions is not targeted at your person, it is targeted at a thing.  There is no need to take offense.

This is more or less the reciprocal of:

Be respectful. Not all of us will agree all the time, but disagreement is no excuse for poor behavior and poor manners. We might all experience some frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to turn into a personal attack.

[MK14]

Hardly. But we have seen time and time again where this sort of thing leads.
Controlled speech, renaming of industry terminology, cancellations if you dare step out of line etc.
It always ends up being misused. Always.

On the other hand, some/all of the CoC, might mean that a wider audience of possible talent, can enter into discussions.  Without being put off.

Unlike the situation before, with no CoC's being implemented, which could mean it was a sort of wild west frontier type of zone.  Where only battle hardened, soldiers, with arrogance and perhaps other not so pleasant characteristics, roam.

So, maybe in time it will lead to good things.

[EEVblog]

So, maybe in time it will lead to good things.

Based on experience over the last decade of identity politics being rammed into almost every corner of society, it likely won't lead to good things.
I'd be willing to bet money on it.

[MK14]

So, maybe in time it will lead to good things.

Based on experience over the last decade of identity politics being rammed into almost every corner of society, it likely won't lead to good things.
I'd be willing to bet money on it.

Analogy: There is going to be a big meetup of Electronics and other technical people, limited to a maximum of 50 people, the topic vaguely being vintage electronics and computers.
(A bit like your somewhat recent Tandy/Radio-Shack meetup in Australia Video, with Dick Smith Kits).  I.e. Like this:   https://youtu.be/KKEYAdXEW-M

You can design the advert for it.

If you take that advert and significantly change it, in fundamental ways.  Maybe aiming for a completely different type of people.

Then who those 50 people will end up being, can totally change.

So, these new CoC, may change the mix of people that interact, in meetings and various communication meetings.  But that WON'T necessarily improve things really.

I.e. (From your post, I just quoted) You could well be right.

E.g. worded correctly as it was, originally.  Ended up with the existing 50 people, as per the video I linked to above.  Resulting in (apparently) a really interesting and fun, successful meeting.

But if the original advert was written in an extreme politically correct way, making it open and attractive for ANYONE, even people who have no knowledge about electronics/computers, absolutely ZERO interest in vintage electronics/computers, but who were interested in the free entry, and (hypothetical in my example) big supply of free food and refreshments.

You could end up with the first 50 people being hungry, homeless people, who just want the food.  There then ends up being a big fight over who gets the food, all the laptops and other stuff gets stolen, and all your camera equipment gets stolen. Etc.

So the politically correct stuff sounds really good.  But in practice, making things a free for all, doesn't necessarily lead to good results.

Sorry, my example is perhaps too extreme, but it is to try to make a point.

[newbrain]

And the point seems to be (in general, not you in particular) that abuse of a rule is more worrying and important than abuse of persons.

Point taken, but not agreed.

The radio ham community has had an informal CoC since, brace for it, 1928.
In 2008 it was formalized and adopted more officially.
It does not look like we are on an impending catastrophe for that.

[MK14]

And the point seems to be (in general, not you in particular) that abuse of a rule is more worrying and important than abuse of persons.

Point taken, but not agreed.

The radio ham community has had an informal CoC since, brace for it, 1928.
In 2008 it was formalized and adopted more officially.
It does not look like we are on an impending catastrophe for that.

I'm actually coming from the complete OPPOSITE point of view.  Let me explain.

A rather long time ago, perhaps 5 to 15 years ago, there was a fairly big open source project (which I don't want to name, for reasons), which I wanted to get changed (improved).

I researched it, and it was almost certain, that their (the people who run that free, open source project), had (if I'd said which project, I'd feel bad, saying these things about it, publicly) very significant attitude issues (such as being extremely pedantic/arrogant/unfriendly/elitist etc).  By looking through the past historical (things like the official mailing list (if applicable) and/or forums and/or other internet accessible things).

I discovered that there was ZERO chance they would even vaguely consider my idea(s).

So, at the time, I was very disappointed (although I didn't even try, others had, with essential identical or near identical ideas), and the answer was always a big fat "NO!".

So, now, some 5 to 15 years later, the project is still missing these features.

There are/were alternatives, actually quite a few.  Ironically one of those alternatives, actually implements essentially identical idea(s), that I (and others), wanted that project to implement.  But in general the alternatives, are significantly worse, than the main project leader (I'm talking about), for this software type/functionality.

So in effect, I wanted that project, 5 to 15 years ago, to have a nice friendly CoC, then I and others, could have, hopefully got our various 'improvements' put into the project.

But, now, perhaps 10 years later, I'm older, wiser, have more (or different) experience, and actually realize that the changes we proposed, were actually a terrible idea, and would have harmed the project.

Because it turns out, if they had put those ideas/changes into the software project, it would have ended up breaking lots of things, in extremely big and bad ways, which at the time, many years ago, I had not even slightly appreciated.

So I'm now actually pleased they ignored a lot of people, as it has helped save the project and perhaps kept it going.

On the other hand.  I do criticize them, for not at least using their vast experience and knowledge, to reasonably carefully explain to lesser mortals.  The technical reasons, on why the various proposed changes, were NOT really possible/practicable, because of what are essential compatibility issues.

Changing things, so that the 'modernisation' could take place, would have been an almost impossible nightmare.  Because it would have stopped perhaps thousands (yes, I really mean 1,000's), of other open source projects.  Because they depended on it NOT changing the way and syntax etc, of how it works.

Each of those thousands of other projects, could have taken perhaps 6 months of very hard work, to implement the necessary changes.  Hence the almost impossible nightmare to change things.

Worse still, they could only officially change things for their own (big, or super big), project.  The other thousands of projects which depended on the project (I'm refusing to name), were potentially out of their control, and they would only be able to suggest changes to the original authors, which may or may not, be implemented, sometime.

So in summary.  An enforced CoC, especially in my real-life example, but I suspect there are a huge number of projects in a similar boat.  May not really be a good thing.

Edit: Warning, possible slight/partial factual errors.  The GIST of the text is right.  But I'm still NOT a big expert on the aforementioned open source project, so some of the details may be incorrect.  The overall concept to still ok, I think.

[Nominal Animal]

And the point seems to be (in general, not you in particular) that abuse of a rule is more worrying and important than abuse of persons.

No, I disagree.

Take myself for an example.  I do not abuse people.  (I mean, the idea of me exploiting others, or trolling others just to get "kicks", makes me literally sick.  Even contemplating the idea starts making my stomach upset.  It is a core part of/value to myself: I want everyone I interact with to gain from the interaction.)

Yet, I do annoy people a lot.  In the vast majority of cases, it is unintended.  (I do occasionally use the pattern where I deliberately annoy someone, then immediately – in the same message – turn around and (try to) provide very real, very useful and applicable information and advise.  This has been necessary at times to "jolt" the person out of an unproductive line of thought or pattern of action, because emotion cuts through the conscious mind.)
Sometimes, it is a language failure.  My language output is technical: I carefully work out the words and sentences, and try to anticipate the way the message is understood, but because of my own personal faults, I often miss the subtext and 'tone', causing a misunderstanding.
Other times, I just.. fail.

I fully agree that intentional abuse, verbal or physical, is reprehensible and should not be allowed in any community.

Exactly how that should be policed, varies.  I prefer a direct, stern warning, instead of e.g. temporary auto-bans, because that way an accidental 'abuser' can explain it was not their intention, and apologise.  (Because this is what I want to do, if I do accidentally do that.  Like I said, I do not do it intentionally, ever.  If I was just silently auto-banned with a note, I would have to remove myself from the community.)

More importantly, what each individual perceives as abuse, varies.  The worst kind of verbal abuse towards myself is not name-calling, but twisting my words as if they meant something else; completely ignoring my responses; and knowingly not admitting an error and acknowledging a fix to "save face" (or keep ones popularity score up).

Thus, a successful Code of Conduct has to focus on making the most out of each possible contributor.  It must not focus on ensuring the community has the least amount of abuse, because even technical matters sometimes require stern words and raised emotions to get the message through, and some members have a ridiculously low barrier of labeling something as abuse.  Avoidance of annoyance and negative emotions completely, is not useful: only avoiding unnecessary and intentional annoyance and negative emotions is, and even then there may be acceptable exceptions.

The kind of people that plague communities can be characterised as "players".  They routinely use social manipulation, because that is what keeps them going and gives them the jollies they're after.  These also immensely enjoy exploiting the rules against the members of the community; even moreso when they manage to affect the rules to include cracks they can exploit.  This is nothing new, and is easiest to see in Western countries' tax codes.  Psychologically, we call such people 'sociopaths'.  I can name a few prominent ones in various communities, too, pointing out their past behaviour (as recorded in mailing lists etc.), and discussing their hugely negative effects on those communities.

I hate "players".  It is their behaviour that I refer to, when I mention "social games".  It is them, when I talk about the dangers with CoCs, or any community rules.  I see the damage that kind of people have caused and continuously cause, and consider it a bigger danger than the small squabbles between community members who fail to behave in a sensible manner towards each other.  So, it is not the rule per se, but how such rules are applied in practice.

(Edit: No community I've participated in, not even the just-us-guys ones, have allowed groping or accosting anyone or anything of that sort.  Off-color jokes yes, but typically directed at oneself, because they're funnier that way.  Like I like to tell jokes about us Finns.  I also like utterly absurd jokes and comics, which some perceive as racist and offensive, but to me are just so absurd and ridiculous they're actually funny.)

In summary, with respect to Codes of Conduct, having observed and participated in communities without them for decades, I do believe that the risk of giving additional tools to sociopathic social players is greater than the sum of small squabbles and hurt feelings between ordinary productive members that the CoC can alleviate, because of the wording of these CoCs.

As a comparison, I do not see any similar dangers (as the wording I quoted in in my first post to this thread) in the Debian Code of Conduct.  I like the Debian CoC, and just simply agree with it.  It could be better (but I cannot draft a better one myself), and perhaps it also has such cracks, but I personally don't see any.

And don't laugh! I am fully aware of "4. Try to be concise", and am working on it. 

[DiTBho]

Social games... don't abuse people... makes me think of people like James, who trolls and can call you "mentally ill" to disrupt discussions.

People like him know how to do their job, and they certainly don't stop even when you point out that they have passed the limits, so they go ahead using their linguistic ability to twist whatever you want to say, disturb the discussion, play their social games to manipulate others and piss you off for frustration, consequently leading the audience to find you more annoying than the troll who is pressing you.

No moderators chimed in to point out that it's nothing but pointless and toxic behavior, but they don't need to chime in, don't abuse people if you're aiming for mutual benefit is quite the point when it comes to ethical conduct for discussions that are intellectually fruitful.

[MK14]

Social games...

It is tricky.

Some issues, get on some peoples nerves, some of the time.  Which sometimes triggers, dominant, bordering on abusive behaviour or worse.

E.g. IF I DO THIS

I know it can annoy some people.

In the situation you brought up.  I think they, right at the beginning, should have accepted that it is your right as an individual, to choose what you like and don't like.  Then stopped.

NOT go on and on .....
about it and start accusing you of things.

The thing is, regularly bad forum members, can be warned, then excluded if necessary.  But when it is more of a one off situation, it is much harder to deal with.

This forums CoC, is basically (see top right of main forum page):

No news is good news. Be excellent to each other.

Which I see as being roughly translated into 'Use your Common Sense'.

[DiTBho]

In the situation you brought up.  I think they, right at the beginning, should have accepted that it is your right as an individual, to choose what you like and don't like.  Then stopped.

Yup, plus, as a popularizer I suck. 100% my fault there.
Maybe it's worth it for my coming Youtube channel.
We will see 

[Nominal Animal]

We also need to remember that those with the social and linguistic skills playing their games, truly believe everyone does it too; that it is normal.
Many see nothing wrong in it, and just see it as themselves using the skills they have to achieve the goals they want: as "fair game".

I can see how it can be necessary in a competitive world, and I know how important and necessary it is in the business world, but it is counterproductive in a cooperative technical community, because there, it is the facts and work that should rule, not persons or interpersonal interactions, otherwise the end product suffers.

The Ignore list is an useful tool for avoiding that here on EEVblog forums, especially because you can every now and then clear the list, and see if things have changed.  I believe it is best to consider it as a tool to control ones own reactions, i.e. to avoid interacting with members you believe you cannot mutually beneficially interact with.

It is also important to not get bitter or vindictive.  We each only see a small part of the communications, so it is not reasonable to expect to see people being taken to task.  Instead, we need to just treat each thread as a new start from blank state, and observe how it goes.

This forums CoC, is basically (see top right of main forum page):

No news is good news. Be excellent to each other.

Which I see as being roughly translated into 'Use your Common Sense'.

Yep.  I also like the common "Don't be a dick" one.

[Ed.Kloonk]

I wonder if these peeps that enforce obnoxious CoC on everybody even realize the irony of their behaviour.

[Nominal Animal]

I wonder if these peeps that enforce obnoxious CoC on everybody even realize the irony of their behaviour.

I suspect they truly believe they are making the world a better place.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.