Russ Cox: Go, Open Source, Community

http://blog.golang.org/open-source

by agonzalezro • 11 years ago

149 70 11 years ago

blog.golang.org

codemac2• 11 years ago

Was pleasantly surprised to see the veritably (at times) acidic rsc championing a code of conduct. Definitely will be beneficial to the community. I haven't heard about any incident that has lead to a CoC being necessary, which is awesome.

AYBABTME• 11 years ago

It's interesting that you say that, from my little interaction at Gophercon with him, he was a very nice and genuine person. In the parent article, he also mentions:

   For example, I have learned that when I am pressed for 
   time I tend to write fewer words, with the end result that 
   my emails seem not just hurried but blunt, impatient, even 
   dismissive. That's not how I feel, but it's how I can come 
   across, and that impression can be enough to make people 
   think twice about using or contributing to Go. I realized 
   I was doing this when some Go contributors sent me private 
   email to let me know. Now, when I am pressed for time, I 
   pay extra attention to what I'm writing, and I often write 
   more than I naturally would, to make sure I'm sending the 
   message I intend.

which might relate to your point of view.

throwaway9996663• 11 years ago

Perhaps we should question the proliferation of coaxing more and more in smilies and pleasantries, when all that is really needed is a straightforward, factual answer.

Smilies and pleasantries are fine, if they come up naturally. But why do people get slighted when someone replies to them with a straightforward – not rude, not crass, not sarcastic, just straightforward – answer?

I've caught myself getting slighted at people I know who reply to texts or messages in a direct way. Now that everyone uses smilies for personal communication, the direct to-the-point style feels cold and dismissive. But then I realize that they might be perfectly kind and pleasant people in reality. They just have a different text/message style.

0xdeadbeefbabe2• 11 years ago

My feelings are happier when you get to the point quickly and don't waste my time.

jbarham• 11 years ago

I've been reading Russ' emails for 15+ years since he was a Bell Labs wunderkind hacking on Plan 9. On the Plan 9 mailing list he was one of the most prolific and consistently helpful posters, so I think it's unfortunate that he comes across to you as being "acidic" when in real life he's obviously anything but. But as he said in his talk, when pressed for time he tends to make his emails brief, which may give the impression that he is curt, when really it's a weakness of the medium, not the person.

kylequest5• 11 years ago

When I read this response about bitwise NOT operator it definitely felt like an impatient and dismissive RTFM response. A patient and welcoming answer could've been much shorter: "hey, we use ^ instead of ~ for that".

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/A9mCgLwy...

hollerith• 11 years ago

I am surprised to see Russ Cox called "veritably (at times) acidic".

Although I suppose it is possible it has changed, his behavior over the 1990s and 2000s on the mailing list for Plan 9 was consistently polite and kindly. He was much more ready than most to help with a bug fix or with information.

The reason I continued to read that mailing list for all those years is how much I was learning from his posts (and to a lesser extent those of a few other participants).

The same readiness to help and politeness was on display when as a complete stranger I wrote to him a few years ago.

EdiX6• 11 years ago

I agree that a code of conduct is a great idea but I'm really bummed to read that the Django CoC is going to be adopted by golang.

1. The Django CoC uses very vague language on what it is forbidden and explicitly tells you that "this isn’t an exhaustive list of things that you can’t do" just to be extra vague in what constitutes unacceptable behaviour.

2. It does not define what process will be used to address CoC violations, being ejected from an OS project for violating the CoC can be a serious thing with personal and professional ramifications but an accused is not given the right to face their accuser nor the right to an impartial jury (which would be hard to do anyway since the accusation could be something like "he's making me anxious")

3. It overextends itself "violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a person's ability to participate within them" which means that not only you are under the scrutiny of the kangaroo court when you are posting on golang spaces but everywhere else: ycombinator, reddit, your personal blog, etc. Honestly I feel like just writing this criticism is painting a target on my forehead, talk about safe spaces.

I wouldn't be making this comment if CoCs hadn't already been used in bad faith to attempt to character assassinate OS contributors (for exmaple the Kubuntu debacle or this [1])

[1] https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/

microtonal4• 11 years ago

There was a lengthy discussion on a CoC on the golang-nuts list it was concluded that (3) would should probably not be included for the time being.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/golang-nuts/sy-YcVPADj...

EdiX6• 11 years ago

I've only read the first page and I already saw a problematic statement from A. Gerrand (which seems to be in charge of this CoC proposal).

User Peter Kleiweg raises this concern "Who gets to decide what is racist? And even whether or not racist is a bad thing?" and while I disagree with him on this particular issue the answer that Gerrand gives is very problematic:

"If it's speech that makes people feel unwelcome and discriminated against, then I personally believe that's a bad thing."

the problem with this is that, for example, an open display of support for gay marriage will make some catholics (for example) unwelcome and discriminated against. This isn't even theoretical, this is an argument that actually happens in the real world, just not in the bubble inhabited by Gerrand, apparently.

nindalf• 11 years ago

That link was discussed on reddit[1] as well and it appeared as if the overwhelming majority preferred not to introduce a code of conduct like Django's. I'm disappointed that their usual approach of "Less is more" didn't influence this decision as well.

[1] http://redd.it/3abyva

manish_gill• 11 years ago

Huh, this completely puts me off that project.

ta140604• 11 years ago

Similar concerns (with more examples) have been raised in CoC discussion over on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/3abyva/a_code_of_co...

zurn3• 11 years ago

There are good reasons why rules regulating human social behaviour (such as legislation) are written in this "vague" way, not attempting to be formal-verification-level complete but relying upon human interpretation. It follows that to work well it needs the people doing the interpretation (judges, committees, ombudsman, etc) to be competent, and be selected so that people can have faith in them.

Regarding your [1], the GNOME code of conduct referenced therein explicitly says "There is no official enforcement of these principles, and this should not be interpreted like a legal document". So maybe that CoC is being applied contrary to its design there.

EdiX6• 11 years ago

There are good reasons why rules regulating human social behaviour (such as legislation) are written in this "vague" way, not attempting to be formal-verification-level complete but relying upon human interpretation

I wasn't arguing for formal verification, but you should notice that actual legislation is a lot less vague than the Django CoC.

It follows that to work well it needs the people doing the interpretation (judges, committees, ombudsman, etc) to be competent, and be selected so that people can have faith in them.

And that's another problem with the Django CoC that I was mentioning, there's nothing there insuring that someone that's accused receives a due process, nor that all complaints are listened to equally.

tspiteri• 11 years ago

I don't think the example you link to has anything to do with character assassination. The article lists the comments in a bug entry on a bug tracker, and points out two comments that were deleted. I happen to agree with the deletions, some comments have no place in a bug tracking system that should be used to fix bugs, not argue politics and accuse other people of malicious intent. Such comments are not conducive to bug fixing, so they have no place on a bug tracker.

Deleted comment 1 included "But I doubt I would waste time on coding as I’m sure you’ll just make an excuse to reject it, just as you’re making excuses instead of fixing this bug."

Deleted comment 2 included snippets like "except where they deliberately break it" and "but I’m sure it’s still their agenda to make it a dependency just because they want it to be".

egeozcan• 11 years ago

At the same time, Go's static typing avoids much of the repetition of traditional statically typed languages

As a happy user of Go, I usually find myself writing slightly more code than C#. Maybe it's because of the lack of generics or maybe it's because that I have 10x more experience in C#. To me, it's interesting to read this.

krat0sprakhar• 11 years ago

I believe Russ is alluding to Go's type inference which Java / C++ / C# dont have.

mseepgood2• 11 years ago

C# and C++11 have Go-like type inference (var, auto).

aikah• 11 years ago

Go has type inference but having to declare types everywhere hardly make a language more "verbose".

The problem with Java(lang) is the culture.

Instead of writing programs in a pragmatic way, Java devs feel the need to forcefully over architecture code bases, because there are afraid that a colleague looking at their code will not find it JEEish enough.

Obviously Go doesn't have the same culture since it doesn't force developers into writing classes everywhere. So it's easier to hack something quickly with a bunch of functions and variables, like in most dynamic languages.

aws_ls• 11 years ago

I think what he means is this:

x := y // say y is of type int

// rather than in C/C++ & Java

int x = y;

So you just declare the type once, and don't have to repeatedly declare it

issaria3• 11 years ago

Maybe Rob Pike can say something about this CoC thing. Don't really like the way Russ does things.

kylequest5• 11 years ago

Rob Pike is a great example of how you don't have to be a jerk even when you are busy.

rsc6• 11 years ago

I'm sorry for that, but can you elaborate? If something I'm doing bothers people, I'd really like to know what it is so that I can try to address it. Thanks.

issaria3• 11 years ago

You did a great job improving the language.

For me, CoC is where programming meets politics. Whom gained benefit from their current position is likely to impose those rules to protect their now interest.

Pretty much there is a soul behind each language, Ricky Hicky for Clojure, Guido van Rossum for Python, Matz for Ruby, and Rob Pike for Go. Those people are not insecure, and I never felt them to be so aggressive.

0xdeadbeefbabe2• 11 years ago

Does the political climate in CA demand that people ignore subtle nuances about inclusiveness?

Linus said, "...I've literally had developers who were working on things that I didn't really like, but I didn't shut down early enough. They worked on it for a long time; they felt that it was ready, they submitted it to me, and I said "no this was horrible" because at that point I had to make a decision. And at least in one of those cases I had some other friends basically email me later and saying "the guy is suicidal"." http://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/395/how-do-i-d...

I think you imply a CoC, and Russ's style needs no improving. If you must adopt a CoC why don't you assume people will behave badly and provide a workaround instead of relying on virtue.

Russ Cox: Go, Open Source, Community

Related Stories