Initial SJW attack defeated

An SJW gives up on his initial attempt to seize control of the PHP project:

I’ve decided to withdraw the CoC RFC. There are many reasons for it, but there are a few points I want to make.

As to the content of the RFC, when I initially proposed it, I selected the Contributor Covenant due to it being a well adopted standard. Several people raised objections to it, and I was completely open to changing it. But the more objections I see, the more I feel the nature of the objections actually justifies the Covenant as the choice rather than justifies switching it. The more I hear people complain about the “scope of applicability” being outside the project, the more it’s apparent that many (not all, but many) simply don’t want to need to think about their actions in other contexts. Some will claim that ambiguity will lead to abuse, but the underlying idea is “treat people with respect”. And as long as you do that, all will be fine.

And while several would rather see a CoC that focuses on “positive behavior”, to me that’s not what a CoC is for. The CoC is to take a stand and say “this is what we will not tolerate”. Positive behavior should be encourage in another “Contributing” document. Where you detail how people should contribute. The CoC is a mechanism for people to feel safe. And safety is achieved by taking a stand.

As far as voting on just the CoC without a private reporting mechanism (which implies some degree of “teeth”), I’ve made it clear that I don’t believe that’s tenable. I believe that asking people to go public with every incident defeats the entire point of having a CoC.

I am also not happy with the RFC in its current state (I’ve been clear about that since day one). But I also have no further energy to evolve it further. Hence, there is nothing left for me to do but withdraw it.

Notice the First Law of SJW at work: the initial suggestion is that the Code of Conduct is simply about being nice, and that there is nothing controversial about it. But then, the moment that anyone objects, the fact that there is controversy only proves the need for this uncontroversial policy to be implemented. And then notice how, although the Code is said to be about nothing but feelings, it needs “teeth” and private enforcement in order to be “tenable”.

And don’t forget the Second Law of SJW: SJWs always double down. No sooner did Ferrara withdraw his attempt to impose the Code of Conduct on the project than someone else proposed it again.

One of those who successfully resisted the initial entryist attack, PHP project member Paul Jones, explains in detail why the Code of Conduct is nothing more than an SJW weapon used to exert political control over an OSS project:

Recently, Anthony Ferrara opened an RFC for PHP internals to adopt and enforce a code of conduct. Even leaving aside for the moment whether this is an appropriate use of the RFC system, the RFC generated a lot of discussion on the mailing list, in which I participated at great length, and for which I was hailed as abusive by at least one person in favor of the RFC (a great example of a kafkatrap).

To restate what I said on the mailing list, my position on the RFC is not merely “opposed”, but “reject entirely as unsalvageable” (though I did make some attempts at salvage in case it goes through). I continue to stand by everything I said there, and in other channels, regarding the proposed Code of Conduct.

Normally, if you had not heard about this particular discussion, I would say you were lucky, and probably the happier for it. In this case, I have to say that you should be paying close attention. The Code of Conduct as presented enables its enforcers to stand in judgment of every aspect of your public, private, professional, and political expression. I understand that’s a bold assertion; I will attempt to support it below.

The Contributor Covenant version on which the RFC is based is authored and maintained by intersectional technologist and transgender feminist Coraline Ada Ehmke. Ehmke believes that open source is a political movement:

    From the onset open source has been inherently a political movement, a reaction against the socially damaging, anti-competitive motivations of governments and corporations. It began as a campaign for social liberty and digital freedom, a celebration of the success of communal efforts in the face of rampant capitalism. What is this if not a political movement?

– Why Hackers Must Welcome Social Justice Advocates

Whether or not this description of open source is accurate, it is true that Ehmke thinks of open source as a political arena. As such, one must read the Contributor Covenant as a political document, with political means and political ends. Specifically, it is a tool for Social Justice.

As a tool for Social Justice, it recognizes no boundaries between project, person, and politics. This attitude is written into the Contributor Covenant with the text, “This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.” So, when is a project participant not representing the project? The answer appears to be “never.”

Never accept any Code of Conduct proposed for any reason. And every OSS project leaders should impose a rule that anyone proposing a Code of Conduct will be immediately expelled from the project. At a bare minimum, only those who have been contributing to the project for at least three years should be permitted to propose, discuss, or vote on project-related rules.

Notice how the SJW Coraline had been a member of the Ruby project for all of two days before proposing the Code of Conduct there. But in the present circumstances, it is much better to simple expel every member, new or old, who proposes or supports one.