@JordiGH I haven't read this CoC or their complaints, but yeah, don't let the door hit their ass on the way out. Seems better for everyone for them to leave.

@minego Seems pretty standard to me: https://llvm.org/docs/CodeOfConduct.html

@JordiGH I assumed as much. Much better that they leave now instead of waiting for a problem and making someone inforce the CoC, because they know there will be a problem.

@JordiGH Code of Conduct is good.

@JordiGH I usually don't have an issue with the actual text of a Code of Conduct, but how some developers abuse them.

Googlers are well known for threatening to "enforce the CoC" if someone brings up a concern they don't want to address or pretend does not exist. Even if your comments are entirely within the CoC. It is essentially a subtle threat that they are looking for any excuse to shut down the conversation and block you.

@JordiGH I don't read CoC's, but generally try to adhere to Wheaton's Law for online interaction, and leave if that becomes a problem.

@JordiGH And FWIW, I mostly uninvite myself from groups which say I should get access to less because of what my gender or skin color is. If an employer touts itself as an "affirmative action employer" for instance, I assume they don't really want me anyways, and do them the favor of not applying. Probably helps their numbers to have one less white male applicant, so I'm doing them a favor.

I probably wouldn't quit a group over them doing the Outreachy thing though.

@ocdtrekkie On the other hand, I hear, I get to work with lots of people who are different from me? Hell yes, I want to work with people who are different!

@JordiGH Sure, but I can work with people who are different from me anywhere. Especially on the Internet.

But like, why would I put a significant amount of effort into something which the result could be more or less "really like what I see here, but wish your skin was a different color"?

@JordiGH If you send the message that you value other people more than someone because of their skin color or gender, can you really be shocked if that someone wants to go elsewhere?

And I mean, doubly so for an open source community, where I assume this dev was doing free labor to begin with.

@ocdtrekkie Also, you should try applying to a place that isn't full of dudes like you. You might like it! And there's a good chance that the colour of your skin won't be a reason for rejecting you. Try it!

@JordiGH Why do you assume any place I apply is "full of dudes like me"? Pretty big assumption that the only places that have diversity are places which actively discriminate by skin color...

@ocdtrekkie I said online it's mostly only dudes like you. Clearly if you don't do some encouragement to get other kinds of people, you don't get variety.

@JordiGH I honestly couldn't tell you the gender, sexual orientation, or skin color of most of the people I interact with online. It's usually not super relevant.

EtherCalc is not an awesome project because the developer is transgender. EtherCalc is an awesome project because the developer is an awesome developer.

@ocdtrekkie You don't notice those things because they match your own. It's not too different so it's not something you notice.

@JordiGH Or I don't notice because Pull Requests don't require you submit your gender, sexual history, or skin color.

People's ability to participate should never be gated by skin color, gender, or sexual orientation. We need to remove those obstacles, not create new ones.

@ocdtrekkie The gates are already there, but you're lucky enough to ignore them yourself because the gates are not for you. Outreachy is trying to tear down gates that don't apply to you but apply to others.

@JordiGH No, establishing color and gender checks is not "tearing down gates", it's putting them up.

We need to TEAR DOWN the gates. Aka: Actively and zealously shut down anyone who limits someone based on their skin color, gender, or sexual orientation. And keep doing it until all of the gates are gone.

@ocdtrekkie It's too difficult to do that. People don't know their own prejudices. Telling everyone don't be a bigot doesn't work because nobody thinks they're a bigot, so nobody alters their own behaviour. I'm certain you don't think you're a bigot and you seem pretty sure to think you have no prejudices. Believe me, you do. I do too. We all do.

You have to go out and do *outreach*. That's the only thing that has ever tipped the scales.

@JordiGH You can't "even out" bigotry and racism by creating programs that exclude people by gender or skin color. It doesn't work. It may make you feel better in the short term, or help one or two people, but it won't break down the persistent problem.

You have to *destroy* bigotry and racism. We need to bring society past this.

@ocdtrekkie This *is* how you destroy bigotry and racism. By reaching out and bringing people in who would otherwise not participate. By encouraging to them participate and interact with bigots like you and me.

@JordiGH Bigotry doesn't solve bigotry.

@ocdtrekkie The current situation isn't symmetrical. Which is why an outreach program isn't symmetrical either. You need asymmetry to counteract the existing asymmetry. If you add to equal things to both sides of an unbalanced equation, the equation is going to remain unbalanced. Instead, you need to add more to the smaller side.

@JordiGH As I said, you can't "even out" bigotry and racism. Just creates more bigotry and racism to go around. Raises more people believing it's okay to treat people differently based on these things.

@ocdtrekkie I have said homophobic and transphobic things. I've tried to get better. And you know what? Mastodon is helping me change my views. There are so many marginalised people here I can interact with that transphobic and homophobic things I've believed seem like inconceivable lunacy. How could I have ever believed the things I did?

If Masto hadn't made an effort to reach out to those people, I wouldn't have been exposed to them, and my opinions wouln't change.

@ocdtrekkie You don't really get to work with people all that different from you on the internet. It's like 99.9% dudes on the internet. Not very different.

@ocdtrekkie I mean, free software/open source stuff on the internet. There are almost no women. There's not a lot of variety in the kind of person who does this.

@JordiGH good riddance

@JordiGH I bet this knoblet regularly whines about "snowflakes" without any degree of self-awareness.

@Jo He seems to be more cautious than that, at least in the writings he publicly attaches to his name.

@JordiGH yea, good riddance to bad rubbish, as they say

@JordiGH I work tangentially on LLVM so I saw this, and went to read the CoC. That seemed pretty milquetoast to me and AFAIK there was no actual harm done to anyone. So this seems very weird.

@tromey Yeah, I don't understand it at all why this was so offensive. And what's this about a license change discussion?

@badosu I think they are already being antagonistic by characterising Outreachy and the CoC as problematic. They are only problematic in the sense that they are trying to correct for a status quo, a *bad* status quo. Arguing for the status quo is arguing for a bad thing.

I suppose I'm not responding kindly, but I honestly cannot at all sympathise with this position.

@JordiGH Well, to be bad or not, is your opinion.

You can present your opinion without antagonizing or needing to sympathize with anyone.

Dude presented the reasons why he was leaving and did it, without drama. That's it.

If you agree with the social policies that lead to him leaving, then just acknowledge it and move on.

Your point: "If that's so objectionable to you, then yes, by all means, please leave!" was already achieved.

@badosu This "without drama" thing is like saying "no politics". Politics are like accents: everyone has one but you might not notice them if they happen to match yours.

It's a very dramatic thing to post to a public list how a CoC and Outreachy means that you must quit on LLVM, effective immediately. The undramatic thing would be to just leave without saying anything about it.

There is intention behind this dramatic gesture. Let's not downplay that.

@JordiGH Why should a meaningful contributor (working full-time) that leaves due to disagreement of practices leave quietly?

If you care about what you do, it's pretty much good sense to let know why you're doing it, specially when you invested so much time into it.

Anyway, my point is just not to be so intolerant of people who disagree with mandatory social policies.

'social injustice' was pretty infantile though, to be fair.

@badosu There is also drama over quitting. This wasn't something that required quitting. Outreach is the wrong thing to make a stand against. This isn't a "both sides" kind of thing. There is a right and a wrong here, and outreach is just overall more good than bad.

@JordiGH

Again, this is your opinion, there are people who believe equality of outcome is not a societal benefit.

As you said already, if he disagrees he should leave and that's apparently a good thing (in your opinion).

He objects to the policies and did just what you want from someone who disagrees with you.

Simple as that. Except from the silly term used, seemed like a fairly objective heads up notification.

@badosu It was also just an opinion that slavery was a bad thing. I don't need to ever respect someone's opinion to the contrary.

It's ok to say some things are good and bad and it's ok to say so loudly and it's ok to risk antagonising those who disagree.

@JordiGH

I see.

Well, I hope you give some thoughts in the future on not being so divisive, it helps your cause to not marginalize those who think different than you.

To equal people who believe equality of opportunity should be encouraged instead of equality of outcome with defending slavery is not the way to do that.

@badosu Honestly, if you agree with his position that Outreachy's goals are problematic, we probably should stop talking to each other. That's a position that's completely untenable to me.

@badosu And I don't think I'll be able to convince you of the moral rectitude of Outreachy's goals, of why giving marginalised groups more opportunities is good and desirable and not worthy of public ragequits.

@loke Yes, but he views it as an affront worthy of quitting. Why does he feel so attacked by this?

@JordiGH It's entitlement. His view would be perfectly reasonable if we lived in a world that was free of discrimination. In such a world the idea that an organisation would use race or gender to select participants is indeed a very bad one. But, we don't live in such a world.

Anti-discrimination laws must be different in a society with discriminiation compared to one without. His mistake is not realising no single set of standards can apply.