Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adopt CoC for Visual F# Tools Repo #772

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Dec 8, 2015

Conversation

@KevinRansom
Copy link
Member

commented Dec 7, 2015

[ Edited to clarify ]

Microsoft are proposing to adopt the http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/3/0/ for the Microsoft Visual F# Tools repo.

Clarification: this is for the Visual F# Tools open source repo by Microsoft and not for F# more generally, see this blog post for more details on the relationship.

This COC has been adopted by a number of relevant OSS projects including Swift and Mono.

Please review these amendments to the read.me, enacting this. Also review the code of conduct page on the wiki:https://github.com/Microsoft/visualfsharp/wiki/Code-of-Conduct

And also : http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/3/0/

Kevin

NB: the email address is percolating through our servers. Please allow 24 hours to test it :-)

This project has adopted the code of conduct defined by the Contributor Covenant to clarify expected behavior in our community. This code of conduct has been adopted by many other projects. For more information see the Code of conduct.

@davidpodhola

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 7, 2015

@KevinRansom

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Dec 7, 2015

It's an interesting read.

I feel like in this particular repo, there have been no incidents so far requiring a code of conduct. But it is a quite eclectic collection of contributors. However, codifying the rights and responsibilities of participants, will ensure a consistent playing field moving forward as a wider group of contributors join in. I believe this Contributor Covenant represents a lightweight formulation, that consists of common sense 'how to get along well' requirements.

My 2cents

@semidefinite

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 8, 2015

  1. If Brendan Eich were an F# maintainer or contributor, how would this CoC have impacted him?
  2. If an F# maintainer or contributor told off color jokes on Twitter, how would this CoC have impacted him or her?
@photex

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 8, 2015

+1 for CoC!

@radekm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 8, 2015

Is this a joke or is it for real? BTW I don´t see why should anyone need that.

@radekm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 8, 2015

Or to put it in other words how can CoC prevent any problems?

@mathias-brandewinder

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 8, 2015

Personally, I think such a document is a good idea, for a couple of reasons:

  1. there are a lot of talented people out there who are wary of engaging online, because, well, the internet doesn't always bring out people's best behaviors. Sending a clear message that this is a welcoming place is in my mind a positive. I want more talented and nice people in this community!
  2. the F# community is awesome, let's keep it that way. Other communities have had to deal with unwelcome behavior in the past, and that can be very damaging. It's easier to handle when ground rules are established from the beginning.
  3. The way I read the document, essentially it says 'when you contribute or publicly represent The Visual F# Tools repo from Microsoft, be respectful and professional'. Maybe I am misreading it, but I don't see anything hugely polemical there - that's what I strive to do anyways, and more or less what I expect (and have seen) from other members of the community.
    So in principle, I am all for it. There is a French saying that states 'it goes without saying, but it goes better saying it' - what's wrong with stating the values and attitude we would like to see when working together as a community? That being said, I'd be happy to hear if there are some specific sticking points in the proposed document. Historically, it seems code-of-conduct related discussions get some people agitated; I totally respect that, but would like to understand better where the objections are coming from, and what I am missing.
    Cheers, and... love you all :)
    Mathias
@photex

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 8, 2015

Very nicely stated @mathias-brandewinder

@radekm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 8, 2015

what's wrong with stating the values and attitude we would like to see when working together as a community?

IMO it only distracts from more important documents like CONTRIBUTING.md without bringing any benefits - people are offended by different things and I doubt that any single CoC can make everyone happy. Why not just simply ignore a person who offends you?

@panesofglass

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 8, 2015

I'm generally against CoC's. Whereas not having one may prevent some from contributing, the opposite is also true. I can share more details offline if interested. None of this matters much, though, as I cannot build this repo locally. I've unfollowed and will remove my fork in expectation that this moves forward.

@bryanedds

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 8, 2015

Suggested alternative -

https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC

Let's avoid all this political crap and social justice warrior entryism.

Oppose, of course.

And whoever is pushing this crap - grow up.

@jeroldhaas

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 8, 2015

I'm on the fence about CoC's; on the one hand I see their purpose, and ability to make those uncomfortable with toxic environs / members feel more welcome, however others like @panesofglass might feel future amendments to the currently-loosely-defined CoC could cause an evolution to restrictions that would exclude people in the future. I am not for this.

@CumpsD

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 8, 2015

What I've seen is usually something along the lines of:

  • Vibrant and healthy community
  • CoC gets brought up
  • Days get spend discussing about why we need/dont need it
  • It usually stays
  • Whenever something bad happens, the piece of text is worthless

So why have one to begin with and spend all the energy, while we live in a world with rules as it is.

I agree NCoC might be too hard for some and depend very much on culture, but I hope my 5 points above show it's about having common sense

@photex

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 8, 2015

@bryanedds has perfectly illustrated why a CoC should be adopted.

I've largely avoided the fsharp community because this has appeared to be the prevelant attitude.

@bryanedds

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 8, 2015

@photex: So what you're saying is that adopting a CoC is going to inhibit me from saying what I just said?

Please, show me the text of a CoC that would do this, and that would be even more reason to stop it.

@panesofglass

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 8, 2015

@photex I'm sorry you feel that way. I've typically experienced a very open, warm, and excited community. I do find the topic of CoC to be one of the most volatile (in any community) and especially when it has such a broad, non-time-bounded reach.

@radekm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 8, 2015

has perfectly illustrated why a CoC should be adopted

And how would CoC help?

I agree how @CumpsD stated it:

Whenever something bad happens, the piece of text is worthless

@CumpsD

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 8, 2015

Maybe it should not be in the wiki yet until this entire discussion ended?
https://github.com/Microsoft/visualfsharp/wiki/Code-of-Conduct

@KevinRansom

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Dec 8, 2015

@CumpsD It was in the wiki, to give everyone a chance to review it. This PR establishes the fact of the CoC in the readme.

I think the thread generated the passionate discussion that we expected. I will be accepting this PR this afternoon.

Thanks all for your feedback

Kevin

@CumpsD

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 8, 2015

Didn't expect the Visual F# Tools repo to follow the new Microsoft trend of working with PR's as they do on vNext.

It's not for feedback and community but just a "We decided on this, but lets put it in a PR because we are OSS"

What is the feedback from your (MS?) side on all the points raised?

@photex

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 8, 2015

My point was only that the words chosen were specifically designed to make a large portion of the wider development community not welcome. A CoC is how a project states ahead of time that contributors are expected to avoid that behavior. This in my opinion is a good thing and can be helpful for encouraging new contributions from developers who otherwise might not want to get involved.

@bryanedds

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 8, 2015

I had several plans to contribute, which I will now reconsider on following through if I have to agree to this schlock.

I know more than one other person who is in the same boat.

@Krzysztof-Cieslak

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 8, 2015

  1. Why even start this CoC "discussion" (it's not really discussion, but it will be described in later point)? I don't know of any example of negative / unfriendly behavior of someone from F# community (and people contributing to this repository are all active and well known members of general F# community). It looks like that someone in Team saw that Swift has CoC and said "That is what cool kids do these days, we also need one". Don't fix what's not broken.
  2. Since there are no problems with community, only thing that can be achieved with CoC may be making situation worse - creating some kind of division in community, making people to not contribute to this repo etc. (what is visible even now on Twitter, Slack, and this issue) - we gain nothing (as there are no problems to solve [and if there were any problems CoC wouldn't solve them]) but we can lose lot - unity in community, people contributing etc.
  3. Obviously, it's not a discussion - you put us in "we must accept it" situation. After making it public on GitHub there is no way we cannot accept it as it would bring bad marketing ("those F# guys don't want Coc so they must be really toxic") to F# and no one here wants it. So we are forced to accept your decision.
  4. Also saying "thanks for feedback but it doesn't matter and I'll accept it" is very inline of behavior of "New Microsoft". Bit sad we see it here. At least give us more time than 24 hours for feedback - there is big F# event right now in London, and lot of people are there and might not have time / possibilities to comment and participate in discussion. If I believed in conspiracy theory I would say that this discussion was started on purpose in the moment when lot of members of community are busy with something else.

Obviously, I'm not even contributor here so feel free to ignore :)

@KevinRansom

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Dec 8, 2015

Thank you all for the vigorous and heartfelt passion.

Kevin

KevinRansom added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 8, 2015

@KevinRansom KevinRansom merged commit d3b9694 into dotnet:master Dec 8, 2015

1 check passed

continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
@matthid

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 8, 2015

I personally don't really care about adding a CoC or not and I probably will never read it anyway, but I really like @Krzysztof-Cieslak's answer and would like to add the following:
It's obviously useless - because people who should read it will either not read it or won't care - so why waste some space in the repository for it?

I think people using F# learned to love to remove unnecessary things (like braces, semicolons ...) so why add a completely useless file? ;)

Just my 2 cents (Btw this made my day)

@bryanedds

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Dec 8, 2015

Social Justice Warriors: 1
Contributor Freedom: 0

@dsyme dsyme changed the title Adopt code of conduct Adopt CoC for Microsoft Visual F# Tools Repo Mar 2, 2016

@KevinRansom

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Mar 2, 2016

@FunctionalFirst everyone starts in our community with their very first post. We are inclusive and welcoming even when we disagree with them.
@KirinDave thank you for choosing to take down your post. I hope you hang around and send some awesome pull requests, or tricky to find bug reports, or makes some interesting language, library or process improvement suggestions.

Kevin

@Krzysztof-Cieslak

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 2, 2016

OK, so on topic:

I would like to express my fundamental opposition against any suggestions of F# community being dominated by "entitled white guys". Such statement is unacceptable given active F# communities existing in Japan, India, across South America, in South Africa and in many other places around the world. It also plays down role of amazing women in our community - speakers, organizers of local communities and users groups, contributors to opensource ecosystem, members of F# Software Foundation Board of Trustees. Such statement suggest total lack of knowledge about our community, and is really interesting in context of this discussion.

@KevinRansom KevinRansom changed the title Adopt CoC for Microsoft Visual F# Tools Repo Adopt CoC for Visual F# Tools Repo Mar 2, 2016

@bryanedds

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 2, 2016

@Krzysztof-Cieslak Yep, it's quite revealing.

The truth is, they don't want to stop sexism, they just want to aim it solely at men. They don't want to stop racism, they just want it aim it solely at whites. They don't want to stop abuse generally, they just want to aim it solely at their ideological opponents. It's digital McCarthy-ism, and we need to do a lot more to protect our communities from their malicious tampering.

I understand that MS, like most major corporations, is already sufficiently infiltrated already by SJWs in high place. I understand how they have used that ill-gotten power to make MS force their SJW CoC's down our throats. I understand that maybe @KevinRansom maybe had no choice but to adopt this due to how MS was internally manipulated into adopting such a policy. But it all goes to show the modus operandi of these people, and the deleterious effect they have on organizations and communities.

@KevinRansom

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Mar 2, 2016

@Krzysztof-Cieslak I think you have expressed excellent concerns with the post, and saying that, in the way you just did would have been exactly the right approach. The tangential attack on fitness to comment was a personal attack that was not really helpful, and did not directly address your specific concerns.

Thank you

Kevin

@jchidley

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 2, 2016

Here's my understanding of things. This is a Microsoft repository and Microsoft's policy is to have a Code of Conduct. I understood, at the beginning of this thread, that the CoC was optional: I see that it was my mistake. This is, after all, Microsoft's public repository for Visual Studio F#. Rightly, they decide how it is run and the CoC was adopted by them.

I don't think that Microsoft is in the business of victimising anyone nor supporting political causes. That is not Microsoft's business. So we have a benign CoC with an owner that likely to be extremely cautious in its implementation. Personally, I am unworried.

For the record, I worked for Microsoft for over 13 years. I have a little insight into how they think but I don't represent the company any more.

@jchidley

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 2, 2016

I have followed the F# community for a number of years. I am one of those people who read a lot but actively contribute very little. I have found, in contrast to what I have seen in this thread, that the community is open, welcoming and supportive. And very, very smart.

@bryanedds

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 2, 2016

@jchidley - You're correct that none of this is done by Microsoft intentionally. It has instead been orchestrated internally by a group of SJWs who use Microsoft's reach to push their agenda onto employees, customers, and communities. Microsoft is probably not even aware of these people's intent, and almost certainly does not share it. But our communities are damaged nonetheless.

If Microsoft does have a particular responsibility in this, it's that it needs to understand how people like this infiltrate their organization and push their cultural marxist politics on their employees, customers, and community members. That's where Microsoft has dropped the ball.

@jchidley

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 2, 2016

I am certain that Microsoft is driven by its own agenda and no one else's. This CoC fits with what Microsoft is trying to do as an organisation. Microsoft is fighting to remain relevant.

@bryanedds

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 2, 2016

I'd like to know how you ascertain your certainty - especially for an organization as massive as Microsoft.
(Edited to remove unnecessary qualification -- Kevin Ransom)

@jchidley

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 2, 2016

Let's do that conversation over some beers. Most of this thread belongs in a bar, in my view.

@jacqueline-homan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 2, 2016

This, because it bears repeating:

I have followed the F# community for a number of years. I am one of those people who read a lot but actively contribute very little. I have found, in contrast to what I have seen in this thread, that the community is open, welcoming and supportive. And very, very smart.<--- @jchidley

Yes the F# community is a great community and I am very happy and proud to be a part of it as a relatively new member (I just learned about F# and joined the community last year) and look forward to building experience and skill as a programmer, specifically as an F# developer. If anyone is interested in attending the F# virtual conference coming up on March 4th, check out the speaker lineup and the technical topics that will be covered look fascinating. I will be attending, of course. As for me, I'm just here for the coding 👅

@jchidley @bryanedds As for the convo over beers, don't forget about the pizza! Gotta have some authentic nerd food. Nerds need sustenance, LOLZ! Maybe we can figure out how to digitize pizza and beer over the Internet and take virtual F# meetups and pairing sessions to a whole new level :)

@lilred

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 2, 2016

@jchidley: thanks for chiming in.

Most of this thread belongs in a bar, in my view.

+1. I'll be in Redmond this summer, if anybody wants to have a good-natured discussion over a pint of Mac & Jack's ;)

@bryanedds - I wouldn't frame this as a conspiracy to impose "cultural marxism" on the Microsoft ecosystem. Making symbolic gestures of support for social justice is hugely fashionable in the business world, this is just more of the same.

@dsyme: if that policy is public, would you mind linking it?

And finally, my take: a code of conduct is probably a good thing, but there are better, less politicized codes than the Contributor Covenant.

I'd appreciate if the matter was put to a vote in the community.

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 2, 2016

@migueldeicaza
I fully agree that code of conducts are for the benefit of communities, especially large ones (otherwise we wouldn't need laws), but, and this is the point, to be effective they have to be as clear as possible, should not leave room for arbitrariness and should not be against fundamental rights (as far as this is possible).
The adopted code of conduct fulfills not a single of these points nor does it address some of the sound points that were made in this thread.

@bryanedds

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 3, 2016

@lired - Okay, well I was just trying to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt. However, if MS is complicit in this, then they need to heed the following -

Microsoft's employees, customers, and community members do NOT deserve to be victimized by abusive, power-hungry interlopers for the sake of corporate PR games.

I talk privately with many people both outside and inside Microsoft, and we are individually ready to push back on this type of policy. MS employees do not want their livelihoods threatened by internal agenda-pushing HR warriors just as many of us out in this community do not want to be policed by race- and gender-warring social crusaders.

@richlander

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Mar 3, 2016

Microsoft is very committed to a diverse workforce and an inclusive culture. We believe that this commitment is aligned with both employee success and shareholder benefit. While I agree with these notions, they are not my original ideas, but a corporate-wide strategy with CEO and board approval. These ideas are not new, nor are they a secret. The company has been on this plan for multiple decades. In fact, the company sees itself as a leader in inclusiveness and has been successful recruiting many talented professionals because of it. It works for us, on multiple levels. As an aside, while we're pretty good at inclusiveness, I'll be the first to admit that we have work to do on diversity.

We're also not the only company with this plan. I'd suggest that most of our industry peers have similar approaches. I've seen some programs from Apple and Facebook, in particular, that I think are quite strong. I'm less informed on some of the others.

As employees, we are required to take "Standards of Business Conduct" training annually. The training includes many topics, such as avoiding installing malware, open source licensing and (topic for today) reasonable employee behavior. On the last topic, the SBC videos act out both best case and unacceptable scenarios of employee interpersonal engagement. It's made very clear how we should go about supporting each other in our workplace and also some off-campus scenarios. The videos cover gender, race, sexual orientation, age and other issues. As a company, we don't claim to be perfect in our implementation of this guidance, but each year we aim to get better. Our big theme this year was "Unconscious Bias". I understand GitHub did unconscious bias training a couple years ago, too.

One might wonder how this all transfers to code of conducts. There is a strong alignment between codes of conducts and our standards of business conduct in that they both outline acceptable conduct. There is more to it than that.

When we started to do more open source projects at Microsoft and make it a new lifestyle for a large number of employees, we had some concerns about how our employees would be treated in a public setting. We deeply care about how our employees are treated in (at least) two different ways: their happiness and their effectiveness. We wanted our employees to be focused on code reviews, discussing technical direction in issues and of course making lots of commits. That leaves them happy and effective and happy about being effective. We didn't want them to deal with trolling that one sometimes sees. We also wanted to limit project governance issues to a very small group of people, leaving everyone else to engineering.

GitHub is very public (which is a good thing). Most of our engineers had never done open source. Some don't even have social media accounts. We felt confident about moving forward (and we did) but had some concerns.

We also discussed culture. We knew that we had to adopt and adapt to many aspects of open source culture, particularly those related to GitHub. We did, however, believe that there were some aspects of the Microsoft culture that would be beneficial to bring with us to our public GitHub projects. A key one is the way we design APIs and programming languages. We believe we have something unique to offer on that. Another one is the way we treat each other. Most of the teams I work with at Microsoft are happy teams and that should naturally translate to happy open source projects since there are a lot of Microsoft employees on these projects.

Later, we saw code of conducts becoming more popular and saw projects we personally respect adopting them. The code of conduct mechanism (A) seemed like a great way of describing behavior that would protect our employees, at least in terms of stated intention, and (B) aligned closely with our own internal standards of business conduct. Naturally, we care deeply about community members as well!! We thought that our concerns for employees would naturally translate to community members.

It's a fair question of whether the chosen code of conduct is the best or right one. I'm not an expert on that. I do know that codes of conduct as a general concept are a good expression of our approach to effective work and conduct at Microsoft. As a Microsoft project, we feel that we're setting ourselves up for long-term success by having a code of conduct. It's familiar to us in a new public environment. We believe it protects our employees and by extension our valued community. Last, we do believe in the general notions described in this and other codes of conduct of mutual (or at least neutral) respect as the starting point for safe collaboration and contribution.

We are going to keep the code of conduct. As maintainers, we feel most comfortable with a code of conduct in place, for the reasons given. We deeply respect anyone's right not to like the concept of a code of conduct for any reason. If that means that some people cannot in good conscious participate on this project, then we will regret but have to accept that. We do hope, however, that most community members (current and future) will accept and even appreciate the code of conduct. If that's a foolish hope, then we will accept that too.

@bryanedds

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 3, 2016

@richlander - So the SJWs in your HR department are shoving this "unconscious bias" dogma down your employee's throats - repugnant nonsense ripped straight from the 3rd-wave feminist playbook - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meT-8a83Pfw

You spend all these words, and pretend to have attained some understanding of the issues at play, but you're just conforming the corruption that has spread across the software industry. That SJWs have successfully corrupted most major organizations is no reason for Microsoft to follow suit - but as
you have demonstrated - they have and you choose to use that fact to justify jumping off the same cliff. While you could choose to protect your employees, customers, and community from this abusive, anti-white, anti-male McCarthyist movement, you've instead buckled to pressure for PR
reasons. You've done what is easy, you've made up the reasons needed to make it sound right. This is not credible long-term thinking.

Yes, it is arguable what is precisely in MS's short-term interests during this current PC flare up. But if you think that continually buckling to these external influences is in your company's long-term interests, then you need to think again. Microsoft's long-term interests lie in enabling excellence for their employees, providing great experiences for their customers, and giving rewarding incentives to their community members - NOT in creating for them a climate of fear with ambiguous codes of conduct, social justice witch-hunts stripped of due process, and political posturing to appease the self-appointed enforcers of political correctness.

I mean, either I'm completely stupid and off the mark, or Microsoft needs to start taking seriously the responsibility for protecting its corporate integrity from outside interlopers - from outside interests whose concerns are at best orthogonal and at worst incompatible with Microsoft's long-term
goals. Continuing to justify and defend this politicized encroachment is irresponsible to your share-holders, your employees, your customers, and our communities.

@lilred

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 3, 2016

@richlander: Thank you for opening up. I really appreciate that you're letting us see things from your perspective.

@bryanedds: If you have beef with Microsoft's company-wide strategy, methinks the Visual F# repo issues isn't the place to hash them out.

@bryanedds

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 3, 2016

@lilred - Why wouldn't this be the place? This is where their alleged strategy directly affects me and our community - where the rubber has hit the road, so-to-speak.

However, if you have someone with whom I can productively escalate this conversation (EG - resulting in potentially more than a form letter restating policy), I am glad to receive that / those contacts, and to escalate this conversation appropriately.

@isaacabraham

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 3, 2016

I've had enough of this thread. Unsubscribing.

@bryanedds I think the point is - Microsoft have made a decision, and for better or for worse, they're going to stick with it. You've clearly made your point regarding how you feel. Others may or may not agree with you - but simply rehashing it over and over again here isn't going to change anything.

@jchidley

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 3, 2016

Thanks for "unsubscribe" tip Issac.

@bryanedds

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 3, 2016

While I also grow weary of this discussion, I think we need to recognize how much we've collectively learned from this thread thanks to the involvement of the dissenting voices -

  1. We've seen how this CoC was actually forced on us by top-down Microsoft policy, rather than by an off-the-cuff proposal by the F# tools team.

  2. We've seen how that policy has been created by interloping political interests that have little to nothing to do with engineers, engineering, or successful community management - instead igniting an unprecedented F# community-wide shit-storm.

  3. We've seen how our opinion as a community was never to be taken into account in the first place, despite the transparently token effort at collecting it right before merging the PR.

  4. More generally, we've see how Microsoft intends to treats its community members as an extension of their corporate / political purview rather than as intellectually-independent contributors.

Thus, we have a lot more information as to why we should avoid contributing to Microsoft open source projects to the largest extent possible - at least until they reconsider the policies that make community contributors second-class to company politics dictated by external interests.

Of course, I am hoping to be given contacts that will allow me to argue further for a change in policy at Microsoft, but being the benevolent gentleman that I am, I will also conclude my involvement in this thread.

@dahlbyk

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 3, 2016

Thus, we have a lot more information as to why we should avoid contributing to Microsoft open source projects to the largest extent possible.

If your ideology is more important to you than the other merits of Microsoft projects (and GitHub projects, and Atlassian-hosted projects, and GitLab-hosted projects, and...), that's your choice. But to suggest that Microsoft is "doing this to you" is simply being dramatic.

Let's get back to merit-based technical discussions, eh?

(Nominating this conversation to be Locked.)

@FunctionalFirst

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 3, 2016

@dahlbyk

If your ideology is more important to you than the other merits of Microsoft projects

That's been precisely the argument of those who oppose this CoC: why prioritize demonstrably damaging ideology over programming? No one here was talking about ideology before this was foisted upon us.

@lilred

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 3, 2016

+1 for locking, @KevinRansom what's up

@radekm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 3, 2016

Nominating this conversation to be Locked.

Why lock the conversation when you can simply ignore it?

@KevinRansom

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Mar 3, 2016

I have some closing remarks to make on this thread, to correct a few misunderstandings and to set the ground for future discussions on this particular issue.

  1. The COC was not imposed on the F# repo by any form of management edict. It was deemed necessary because of some heated threads on other repos that we also frequent.
  2. This partitular wording for the COC was chosen because it aligned closely with internal Microsoft processes,and values with which we are familiar and value, as described by @richlander.
  3. This COC is not intended to be a political statement in support of any movement. It is intended to be a gentle reminder to participants that we all give freely of our own time to make F# a better tool for all developers.

@bryanedds is a principled and passionatate advocate of a self policing comunity. I respect and value his position, I wish that I believed it was achievable. But all of our experiences indicate that the Internet is not yet ready for that.

I think the objections to the COC are:

  1. It is not necessary
  2. It supports a political agenda
  3. It can be used to shuffle innovative out of the box thinking.

The arguments for it are:
1 It is necessary when things slide away from the purely technical and professional.
2. It helps out of the box innovative thinkers get heard by requiring discussion to be respectful and on-topic
3. It ensures that Engineers working on the F# repo, both MS employees and OSS contributors do not have to deal with harassing behavior.

I believe that the COC is a net good. I have asserted that we are not supporting any political agendas we just want to get work done as effectively as possible. I promise to be vigilant to look for attempts to intimidate and exclude innovative thinkers.

The COC will remain on the repo. Thank you Bryan for persevering with demanding an explanation. It has certainly helped me to better understand what the issues are and how to deal with such contentious issues openly and respectfully.

Kevin Ransom

@bryanedds

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 3, 2016

@KevinRansom, I was hoping to leave this thread but your statements are just not entirely true.

The Contributor Covenant, as imported by the CoC, is demonstrably political, driven and created by outside political interests (http://geekfeminism.org/), actively harmful to the community, and ultimately causes more discord and abuse than it resolves.

Had we had a discussion about the CoC before it were merged, the Contributor Covenant, a tool created by social justice agitators to socially police open-source contributors, could have been removed, and much of this disharmony avoided.

@KevinRansom

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Mar 3, 2016

@bryanedds Well ... we are going to have to agree to disagree on the "Political-ness or otherwise of the COC. However, for sure our objective is not agenda driven. It is to get work done.

Thank you

Kevin Ransom

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
You can’t perform that action at this time.