Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@mikeal
Last active December 29, 2015 20:29
Show Gist options
  • Star 8 You must be signed in to star a gist
  • Fork 0 You must be signed in to fork a gist
  • Save mikeal/7724521 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save mikeal/7724521 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Inclusive by Exclusion

When you build a community you're creating a culture. That culture will be about more than the code, the modules, or the language. The people you draw in will have their own biases and behaviors that impact the kinds of people you continue to draw as you grow.

Cultures will naturally fight behavior that is divisive. That is, behavior that is divisive to the established members of that community. As a community grows larger it is harder and harder to change what the culture finds acceptable because changing it, even if it is inclusive in nature, is disturbing and divisive to existing membership. Fighting for change in established cultures means dealing with a lot of dismissive language and attacks for the "tone" of your argument.

That is why it is so important that a culture becomes comfortable with aggressively fighting exclusionary behavior. While it is certainly more beneficial to make pro-active steps to increase diversity we cannot be dismissive of the effect that passionate reactions to poor behavior have.

More important than the actors themselves this sets the tone for acceptable behavior in the observers. Spectators come to recognize what is and is not acceptable behavior. Most newcomers will mimic what they see and observe as good behavior and those unwilling to bend to the culture won't join by self-selection. It may sound harsh but this self-selection is an inevitability, you will either self-select out people comfortable with a dominating gender or race or by including them people of more diverse backgrounds will exclude themselves.

It's not enough to simply state your values, you must live up to them. You cannot accept behavior, or people unwilling to change behavior, that is racist, homophobic, or gender biased. While certain behaviors are more serious or offensive than others the more uncompromising the culture is to even the smallest exclusionary practice the more inclusive it will be of increased diversity in the long term. You want people uncompromising and unaccepting of exclusive practices because they are cultural anti-bodies to those joining that would actively hinder diversity.

We've worked hard in node to make it clear what is not acceptable. This applies to everyone, the culture demands it from not only new members but the established leaders. If you're thinking of joining the node community you should recognize and accept this culture and know that we don't accept exclusionary behavior and we never will.

@aredridel
Copy link

Thank you, Mikeal.

@andcam
Copy link

andcam commented Nov 30, 2013

spot on.

@hovatterz
Copy link

Ignoring the fact that this is a totally, ridiculously dramatic write up, what this boils down to is: "We are inclusive to everyone... as long as they share the same opinions and bias as us."

It just creates an echo chamber. How is no one else noticing this?

Alt text

I don't disagree with the idea of equality and inclusion for everyone, but all the ridiculous blog posts, write ups, and public shaming of people for making mistakes is asinine.

Edit:

Send a damn email if you think someone screwed up. Don't be so overdramatic about everything guys/gals.

@ceejbot
Copy link

ceejbot commented Nov 30, 2013

Thanks, Mikeal.

@mikeal
Copy link
Author

mikeal commented Nov 30, 2013

@hovatterz you are exactly right, we are not open to or accepting of bigoted people, behavior and "opinions." To be accepting of them would exclude people of more diverse backgrounds. You can hold whatever opinions you like privately but if you express them in our community in a way that would exclude the underrepresented you will be shut out. This "echo chamber" necessarily excludes the voices of those that would perpetuate racial and gender norms.

@rwaldron
Copy link

👍

@SaraJo
Copy link

SaraJo commented Nov 30, 2013

This is great, Mikeal, thanks. I agree that we need to be unwavering. You never know who is watching, or how things effect people.

@eaton
Copy link

eaton commented Nov 30, 2013

"We are inclusive to everyone... as long as they share the same opinions and bias as us."
I don't disagree with the idea of equality and inclusion for everyone, but all the ridiculous blog posts, write ups, and public shaming of people for making mistakes is asinine.

Two points here that are worth noting. First, "inclusive of everyone" is always a general principle with specific exceptions. An inclusive community can be true to its values, for example, even if it excludes people who murder other members of the community. That is not a matter of enforcing unanimity, but one of preserving the community's core values. If I belong to an inclusive community of pet lovers, but I announce that dogs owners are less important than cat owners, it is important to note that my views are not simply a neutral perspective in relation to the community's values. They are directly in opposition.

If "Existing members of the community should remain comfortable at all costs" is a community's core value, well, that's another story.

Second, I see very little public shaming of people for making mistakes. I see a lot of pushback and public protest when people double down on those mistakes, defend them, or counter-attack people who pointed them out. This is regrettable in some ways, because when complex and nuanced issues are being discussed there are bound to be some ruffled feathers. Humans often react this way, whether the change is being forced to write unit tests or being asked to use less exclusive language.

@crawfordcomeaux
Copy link

Solid post. The positive response to the whole situation on the part of the community & Joyent is encouraging. It's so ridiculous to chide people for being intolerant of bigotry in any form; intolerance is the only thing that must not be tolerated if seeking to preserve tolerance.

@jteneycke
Copy link

👍 Thanks, Mikeal.

@michaelsbradleyjr
Copy link

@mikeal what, if any, are the ethical limits of this "unacceptance" approach, or do you anticipate that there are essentially no limits? I ask in all sincerity.

With respect to a modern day lightning rod: suppose a developer states that she is a Christian, and in view of her church's teachings on sexual ethics, she holds to and argues for the understanding that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and that their promotion in the public square (e.g. legal recognition of same-sex marriages) is harmful to society and the common good.

What should be the consequences for her with respect to "unacceptance"? Would it matter whether she expressed her views in (relative) private vs. public correspondence? Should she still be allowed to fully participate in her developer community – online, or as a conference attendee or speaker? Do you believe she should experience consequences with respect to her current or future employment? With respect to recognition and acceptance of her open source contributions?

When I read your gist, which I realize is written out of a deep passion for and commitment to equality as you understand it, what came to mind is the concept of "shunning". Are you, in fact, advocating for a bristling social rejection (with respect to the developer community) of those who hold views you don't find acceptable? Or is "shunning" only called for when offending views are expressed in particularly egregious manners or contexts?

@Bluebie
Copy link

Bluebie commented Dec 2, 2013

[TW: nasty abusive words] I just wanted to say thanks. As a girl in open source, I often experience abuse - so much so that I've set my git installs to list my real name as "bluebie" to help minimise it. Just a couple of months ago someone called me a bitch and a slut on a programming forum after I knocked back his pull request. I had to work with the forum admin to develop policies on how to deal with it, because I'm one of the only women on there, and certainly the highest profile one. Pretty alienating.

Often times I feel like just hiding away and giving up on computer sciency stuff. I've pretty much abandoned freenode due to sexism. Having people like you, Mikeal, stand up and be articulate in precisely why and how bigotry, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc, is harmful, really makes a big difference to those of us mostly lurking in the background. I'd certainly be inclined to package up and release more of my code if my experience of open source communities was more positive.

Still, things are improving. Used to be you couldn't admit to being female on freenode. Nowdays, it's just incredibly annoying to do so (nevermind irc clients 'outing' you by taking your system user account "real name" and providing it at login by default, just like git does)

@mikeal
Copy link
Author

mikeal commented Dec 2, 2013

@michaelsbradleyjr my comments relate to behavior, not opinions. In other words, whether someone holds a sexist opinion or not is less relevant than their behavior if they act in a way that creates barriers to women involving themselves in the community. Someone who is tone deaf and having a bad day could act in a way that discouraged diversity, they wouldn't have to hold a divisive opinion, and I do think that we should react strongly in discouraging that behavior. Opinions strictly held in private have little impact because we can't see them and they don't create barriers to people getting involved in the community, it is only when those opinions fuel public actions and behavior that they do have an impact and that we have the opportunity to let them know such behavior is unacceptable.

@mikeal
Copy link
Author

mikeal commented Dec 2, 2013

@Bluebie thanks for saying this and putting yourself out there. What you said means a lot and I hope we can build a better community that is more welcoming in the future than the experience you've had in the past.

@michaelsbradleyjr
Copy link

@mikeal, thank you for taking the time to write a thought out reply.

I think, though, that the questions I raised (and their underlying concerns) are still germane given the realities of our day. Namely, that in the age of social media the line between private and public discourse is often blurry at best.

Consider again the hypothetical developer. Suppose she were to engage in a lively debate concerning a sensitive topic – such as the one suggested before, or any other – by way of her twitter feed, or a facebook backed comments section, or google plus, or gist comments, or whatever. It would only be a matter of time before someone tied her comments back to her persona within her online developer community, at the office, her meetup group/s, etc. I don't believe this is too hypothetical.

Then, faced with the community mounting an "unacceptance" campaign against her, she would have at best a few options: recant her positions and make apologies for words said in the past; stick her ground and suffer the consequences; keep her mouth shut in the first place.

With respect to deeply held beliefs, all three are non-trivial matters, but it would partly depend on the scale of the consequences. If it were simply a matter of being on the receiving end of some sharp words, perhaps being persona non grata for a time, that would be one thing. If instead she were to face the loss of her ability to participate in and contribute to open source projects/communities, or even risk her ability to keep or find employment, that would be another thing altogether.

And that brings the matter back around to the question of the ethical limits of an "unnaceptance" policy within developer communities, workplaces, etc. While I have no problem generally with the idea that behaviors and words which (or persons who) are discriminatory or divisive should be discouraged, I have to wonder about how the offending actions and words are to be judged, and the limits of exclusion with respect to those who express ideas that are unpopular. I don't think any of us want to create atmospheres wherein our peers are genuinely afraid to speak about their personal beliefs for fear of being shunned, losing their commit privileges, or their jobs.

@reggi
Copy link

reggi commented Jan 13, 2015

I'm glad this exists. This makes me glad to be apart of the community! 😄

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment