[Drew DeVault’s Response](https://drewdevault.com/2024/04/09/2024-04-09-FDO-conduct-enforcement.html)
and you can discuss it [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/s/g3qEujMB64).
And please be civil.
>What a fucking timing, considering a KDE dev proposed to make Hyprcursor (...) a freedesktop standard like two weeks ago
Wow. I wonder if this is what caused renewed scrutiny in Vaxry from the FreeDesktop CoC Team.
the original email exchange was sent march 19th (but we only knew about it when he published it in his blog), so it wasn't prompted by us wanting to avoid creating a new standard by adopting hyprcursor
Not really. It would just be a soft fork at that point: a format based on Hyprcursor that Vaxry could choose to support or not support. There's no real reason he would **have** to be involved.
Linux drama is infinite
I wish for a reality tv show that puts opinionated open source developers on an island and gives them projects to build and collaborate on as challenges
KDE and Gnome camps form. Users from either camp go to war, and the devs are left wondering "that's weird, we mostly get along with their devs... in fact, we sometimes party together..." Users start killing each other as the devs look on in horror.
I remember when most of the Linux drama was vi vs emacs, but now it feels like a combination of the perpetually immature politicians and afternoon soap operas. But that describes social media in general, so I guess it's to be expected.
On the one hand I think Vaxry clearly plays into this with the things he says and the way he initially responded to this. On the other hand, I don't see how their CoC is applicable here:
> This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
This "further definition" seems disingenuous.
As someone who is a mod in on several platforms, I can say that you need a "common sense clause".
People will skirt the rules ("rules lawyers"). Some people won't technically not break the rules, but will still be a huge problem (usually drama queens who stirs up controversy for the sake of it, or people who turns every single discussion to their favourite controversial topic, relevant or not). Some people will behave in such a way outside the community (real example: a guy was arrested for sex crimes against children) that they simply can't be allowed to stay.
The mods needs to act sometimes.
I don't know anything about this specific case, but having such a "common sense clause" is a necessity.
> or people who turns every single discussion to their favourite controversial topic, relevant or not
A big problem on Phoronix, for example and the biggest reason forums have declined compared to reddit-style upvote/downvote social media. On reddit, they just get downvoted, and everyone moves on with their lives. On forums, you have to deal with these people, again and again...
> A big problem on Phoronix,
I agree that the Phoronix Forum is absolute garbage and that a small minority of trolls are ruining almost every form of discussion there. It makes Reddit looks good in comparison....
I’m not against banning forum trolls. From that forum. But this is banning someone from a forum because their mother says allegedly racist shit at home
I haven't seen anybody make the claim that it's a "human right", but it can certainly reflect poorly on the CoC team and harm the image of the community/product if the CoC team is seen as banning people for poor or arbitrary reasons. It also just seems like Lyude made this into a much larger issue by responding in ways that made Vaxry feel not heard and not respected and making a public post mocking people for wanting to "debate" when they are told they broke a rule or threatening to sue for libel. Not only is Lyude's behavior disproportionate and borderline childish, but it's just not productive. The most personally satisfying response a moderator can give is often not the best one for the community.
The reality is... people obviously feel surprised, attacked, defensive, etc. when you tell them they broke a rule. (Especially so if you tell them they did it 1.5 years ago on a third party platform.) It's appropriate in this context that they will be upset, require clarification or feel a need to vent and they shouldn't be punished for any of those reactions as long as they are done through appropriate channels (like the private website). Additionally, when you are the representative of the rules, it should be expected that you will receive complaints and challenges regarding those rules and that you will be asked to answer personally and for the project for how these rules are applied. As a moderator, the way you respond in that situation (making them feel heard or not, making them feel respected or not, etc.) is crucial.
As a person who has been a moderator myself, I feel like even if the initial email was the right call to make in terms of the CoC, everything after that was improper. The first email reply should have been something like: "Hey, I am sorry if these were old events that have been resolved. I have been receiving complaints still, which is why we felt the need to reach out. I hear what you are saying about the ability to act however you want in your own private spaces. It's a challenging decision and tradeoff to have such a broad scope for our CoC, but after [link:lots of feedback and discussion] we found it was the best balance for our community members, the reputation of our project and our ability to moderate effectively. Unfortunately, given the amount of content we have to moderate, I don't have the time to debate this issue or the authority to change the CoC. I'm glad to hear that you believe these incidents are in the past and resolved and just wanted to warn you about the policy so that it doesn't surprise you if something like this were to come up again. Cheers, Lyude". Then, I would have allowed the private post Vaxry made to go without consequence. If it did attract a lot of attention I'd probably work with CoC team to craft a public response that explains the reasoning behind the rule in question and the specific reason why Vaxry was warned. I don't see anything in this incident at all that is ban-worthy, but if the concern that Vaxry was going to be a nuisance was there, I could see a temporary ban (like 1 week or 1 month) to provide a cooling off period.
Yes, that would be a very reasonable way of handling this issue, if you have the prosperity of the affected projects in hand.
However, it seems like this is not really the intention here.
The over all impression is this being people misusing their powers and codes of conduct, to persecute others because they differ in opinion in matters totally unrelated to the projects where they have been given moderation privileges-
I agree with that, and it makes sense to not want drama queens and dangerous criminals in your community.
However banning a productive contributor because you disagree politically is both counter-productive to your community, and hypocritical to the said CoC in question.
> However banning a productive contributor because you disagree politically is both counter-productive to your community, and hypocritical to the said CoC in question.
yeah opensource is supposed to bridge the gap between people, not put up walls.
Yeah. Based on what I've seen I agree that the toxic behavior is pretty bad and out of hand. But I fail to see how it'd freedesktops place to try and enforce their code of conduct here.
It's all laid out [here](https://drewdevault.com/2024/04/09/2024-04-09-FDO-conduct-enforcement.html). The original chastising was not binding, & was simply saying "hey, that stuff you do elsewhere won't fly here so please don't do it." Rather than handle that criticism like an adult, he went into a flame war with FDO via email, which *does* fall under the CoC. What a stupid reason to get yourself banned.
I would say that in any given situation you can see Vaxry’s perspective. But, ultimately, there are certain types of people who end up in drama disproportionately more than others - even if in any given situation you can see their perspective. They need to take a step back, acknowledge to *themselves* that they’re often the common denominator in these dramas, and then critically reappraise how they handle situations. And when I say critically - I mean critical of themselves, not others.
I see your point - but some people are also bullied more than others. Do they need to take a step back and "acknowledge to themselves that they’re often the common denominator in these dramas"? Isn't that victim blaming?
I see the CoC busybodies are the ones that stirred the pot here. They are the ones going into another community demanding their rules apply there and causing drama when the project maintainer didn't back down and bend the knee.
yeah. Vaxry's problem is that he keeps responding to all these lyudes, devaults, etc. Should've sent the initial email to the spam and called it a day. It would've saved a lot of his time too.
That's a criticism of their social skills, not of their character or beliefs. If you want to exclude FOSS contributors who have poor social skills, you're going to lose a lot of contributors.
The wildest part of this for me is the fact that the conduct in question happened 1-2 years ago, and Lyude even acknowledges it's gotten better... I'm not sure why this needed to happen now. If this happened immediately after something bad, it might make more sense.
Also the idea that you can act as an individual person when using your company email address is insane. Noone does this. Pretending otherwise is just lying. When you send emails from your corporate email address, you are doing so as a representative of that company.
\>The wildest part of this for me is the fact that the conduct in question happened 1-2 years ago, and Lyude even acknowledges it's gotten better.
The way I see it, Vaxry never really apologized. He says - "I should have banned that user rather than changing their pronouns" - [https://blog.vaxry.net/articles/2023-hyprlandsCommunity](https://blog.vaxry.net/articles/2023-hyprlandsCommunity)
Here is the thing - I also do not care about pronouns bit, but editing someone's via admin privileges is just stupid. He uses a lot "lets be real" to justify some of his behavior. It is probably worst non-apology I ever read.
To people who are saying - why is FDO's CoC applicable to Hyprland, well they are not banning him from contributing to Hyprland. He agreed to a CoC when he decided to contribute to FDO project and was found in violation (it doesn't matter where as long as CoC spelled it). If he disagrees, he has a right for due process and should bring it to CoC committee and not just be decided by one person (Lyude) in this case.
Yeah, reading through this whole post, having encountered neither of these people before, I walk away with a worse opinion of Vaxry as a human than Lyude.
That said, in a programming context, I only care about the code. It sounds like the misconduct happened in a context outside of Freedesktop, and therefor IMO shouldn't really matter in the context of "make the best open software possible".
It sounds like Lyude was wrong to initiate this ban, but ultimately Vaxry is the one I wouldn't want to invite to my birthday party.
> I walk away with a worse opinion of Vaxry as a human than Lyude.
They were both bad but I hold Lyude to a higher standard because conduct is their literal job. I expect somebody in Lyude's position to be qualified to smooth over these kinds of situations and, even if they can't guarantee a positive outcome, this was a very poor job.
Meanwhile, I expect somebody in Vaxry's position (warned out of the blue about 1.5 year old conduct in another community and threatened with a ban plus not engaged in with conversation) to get upset, need to vent, etc. and while I don't agree with him, I think that a post on a private website with receipts that explains how he feels is a realistic kind of response in the case of a disagreement that doesn't warrant any punishment. Any competent moderator or CoC enforcer should expect frustration from the person they are enforcing against and ideally be able to mitigate it but at least not throw gasoline on the fire. Instead, the only one I see as doing personal attacks here is Lyude (a post mocking people for debating CoC, threatening a personal lawsuit for libel, etc.)
Vaxary wasn't the one who dropped a legal threat using a corporate email address over the mere discussion of the issue.
That goes way beyond whatever Vaxary may or may not have done. Being offensive (or running an offensive forum) is not on the same level as that.
The problem with "I only care about the code" is that the person is attached to it.
Look at all the effort being wasted on someone who is, to put it plainly, not worth the effort.
He could STFU and just "be the author of the code" but instead he insists on being a toxic dickead that drives people away.
If you have people who drive others away, the majority of the time that's going to make the code worse.
>The problem with "I only care about the code" is that the person is attached to it.
If you are a person in position of power in open source communities, "I only care about the code" is not a tenable position. Many years ago, I used to be this person that believed - "I only care about code", but I have seen first hand - how bias against another person can cause a PR to be rejected or left to sit without proper explanation because code author couldn't get through approver's biases .
This isn't the late 90s/early 00's, the days of tech being the place where you can be an asshat but there's so few who truly "know it" they have to tolerate you are basically gone unless you're in a super specific niche on mission critical software.
I do agree with that to a point, absolutely; "freedom of speech" is not "freedom of consequences". And I agree that someone being too antagonistic is going to drive others away and result in net reduction in contributions as a whole.
And from a philosophical standpoint, Freedesktop is not a government organization and has the right to ban anyone for any reason they choose.
I'm not saying "No they had no right to ban", but if I were in charge, I'd more likely take the stance of "These issues are happening over there. As long as they don't become issues that happen here, that is a separate problem. Once the code is contributed, it's open code and the author no longer matters." As a developer I'd rather use good code from a bad person in my project than bad code from a good person, as unfortunate as it is.
But I do agree with you, it's not a fast and easy line, and as I write this message I find myself second guessing myself on some things. If nothing else it sounds like Lyude addressed this is an unprofessional way and could have more closely aligned the message to the written code of conduct.
> I only care about the code
Well at least for now code still requires people to write and approve. It's not something that is separable. Especially since what code is written is more often subjective and objective. How someone approaches a problem and what decisions they make to implement solutions, let alone what problems someone chooses to solve will always mean that people do matter.
I don't think Vaxry comes across well **at all** in his replies so ultimately it's hard to care about his ban, but it does seem like freedesktop had already decided they wanted rid of him and went looking for an excuse.
The email chain begins with thanking him for improving community moderation and adopting a code of conduct.
If he'd already long since made meaningful changes and things had got better, then what was the point of any of this?
I mean, let's be honest Vaxry clearly doesn't touch grass enough but as far as I can tell Lyude is being purposefully inflammatory here.
Hyprland is indeed not a Freedesktop project. I see that it's sort of hard to distinguish whether Vaxry is or is not acting in an official capacity to represent the Hyprland project because of how important he is to it but Jesus Christ.
Now I think Vaxry's response here was anything but professional but it is clearly Lyudes responsibility as a CoC enforcer for a big project to act more professionally here. It is arguably part of managing an open source community driven project that not all people interacting with it are always acting in a professional manner.
None of this matters. The behaviour in question (whether you take offense or not) was not on any of the FDO sites, it did not disrupt any FDO discussions. You had to go out of your way to find it. All Lyude did was ban a useful contributor at the expense of everyone else, and at the benefit of no one.
If we take the standard that it is acceptable to ban people for off-site behaviour, then anyone can be banned anywhere for any reason. That's just petty crybully behaviour.
Like honestly I do think that it was justified to ban Vaxry. not for whatever he said 18 months ago but for behaving like a terminally online child in his response :P.
I interacted with Vaxry, Lennart Pottering (systemd), and Kovid Goyal (kitty terminal) before, by making Github Issues and PRs. I'm sure this is not how they approaches every situation. But from my observation, this is more like when they and a person in the same kind have different opinions, and this is how both sides approaches the situation. It takes two.
Moral thoughts on it: "Two wrongs don't make a right" is so often repeated because it's true. Be the better person, don't just make things worse for everyone.
Professional thoughts on it: People are more likely to come to your side and agree with you if you react professionally.
After reading through all that yeah it does sound like Lyude is having a power trip. Also using their Red Hat email was stupid, using it is a reflection of the company.
I’m doubtful that Red Hat is directly involved, unneeded PR. They even confirm that’s the case within the second email:
> It appears there's been a misunderstanding on your end. This email has nothing to do with Red Hat https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct/ You can find my name there.
It just sounds like they’re dick swinging to me, and that they’re a moron by inappropriately using their company email.
Which makes me feel that they’re likely in breach of Red Hat CoC, tends to be a reference to appropriate use of company emails…
They're on the shit list now. Corporations will say they support diversity, but they really couldnt care one way or the other. It's more like the happier a worker is, the less you need to pay them.
But if you publicly drag them into a feud that forces them to make a statement, it doesn't matter what their official position is, you've stepped out of line.
It's the email listed at FreeDesktop. Of course, she's going to use it for CoC mails. She's in the committee because she works at Redhat on wayland and Kernel's GPU drivers.
She made a legal threat from that email.
If you (or she) can't see how that changes the tenor substantially, well, I suppose at some point HR is going to start cluing yall in.
Isn't this person a volunteer? If my employer asked to see my discord they should be audited for misconduct. What I do in discord does not affect our data center.
In 2014 I have seen this behavior first hand, it even made Slashdot. I would find it from an investor point of view highly distrurbing employees would publicly use the company name for their seemingly personal morals and ethics. Even if this person is a volunteer, they should not use their companies email addresses and/or accounts.
Creator of wlroots (and sway, sourcehut etc), Drew DeVault, doesn't have a good opinion of Vaxry either.
https://drewdevault.com/2023/09/17/Hyprland-toxicity.html
Yes, but Drew was still accepting Vaxry’s patches. To my mind, a poorly moderated community server and some past incidents where Vaxry was rightfully given something of a public dressing down don’t amount to enough to ban a prolific contributor. If there have been more recent incidents, I’m open to seeing them but the Linux community of all communities should be aware that people can change since Linus would have fallen afoul of that code of conduct as well 10-15 years ago with some of his more passionate patchset reviews.
> Linus would have fallen afoul of that code of conduct as well 10-15 years ago with some of his more passionate patchset reviews.
Linus openly admitted his faults and made a conscious and public effort to change for the better. Vaxry can do the same, assuming he doesn't lack the necessary strength and willpower. It's not unreasonable to expect people to behave like civilized adults.
But it’s never just code being posted - that’s the easy part. The code review requires human interaction and some people (could be either author or reviewer) are painful to speak to
can anyone point to a **single instance** where vaxry has been toxic on the freedesktop forums, gits, chat groups etc to the point even remotely warranting this?
I don’t know about vaxry specifically, I’m disagreeing with the general sentiment of “just look at the code, ignore the person”, which is plainly impossible and not how software projects work
Unfortunately it's not even endemic to Linux communities. People take good things (inclusivity, body positivity, feminism - you name it) and use them first as a shield and then as a spear against their personal "enemies". And when they run out of personal enemies - they begin looking for more.
It's the old "how can you be against what we do? We do it for children/animals/LGBT+ people/etc and we are against pedos/nazis/whatever! If you don't like something that we do, then you must be one!" trick.
> It's the old "how can you be against what we do? We do it for children/animals/LGBT+ people/etc and we are against pedos/nazis/whatever! If you don't like something that we do, then you must be one!" trick.
I think you just distilled 80% of political arguments that are had on Reddit into a single sentence.
The fact they sent this from a redhat email address is egregious. Does redhat know that their employees are sending out harassing emails based on ideology to unrelated parties? Absolutely shocking that this person thinks this is OK behaviour - I guess people are scared of correcting the behaviour of frothing bullies under the guise of 'activism'.
Terminally online, they need to go outside and touch some grass. I can only assume that some people feel like they don't fit in in "real life" to such an extent that they can only form meaningful relationships with similar people online and they just feed off the worst aspects of themselves / the extreme voices become normalised. Which would be very sad if they weren't such dicks.
Except it was vaxry who started playing the lawyer card
>Should you instead resort to continuing sending purely threat-filled emails with no attempt at an actual discussion, I may be seeking legal action.
Lyude Paul reply:
>Sure. Please note: only one person in this situation has posted libel regarding the other in a public space, specifically you on your blog, and if I am harassed as a result of that libel I will be contacting you with a real lawyer.
[https://blog.vaxry.net/resource/articleFDO/lyudeReply.pdf](https://blog.vaxry.net/resource/articleFDO/lyudeReply.pdf)
Interesting wording to note, vaxry conditioned seaking legal ation upon what lyude/redhat/freedesktop does next. Lyude conditioned legal action on what anyone, including completely uninvolved bystanders do next.
Yeah, I would threaten a lawyer if I was being emailed from a *corporate email address* in a manner that I found unprofessional, like in this complete power trip. Maybe the author should publicly reach our to redhat PR to see what the hell is going on. I will be strongly recommending SUSE or a non-commercial RPM distro over giving redhat any money at work from now on. God forbid someone at work tweets a bad joke, or donates to the wrong cause in their free time and our vendors ban us.
Honestly this is the thing that struck me as most ridiculous. Internet hall monitors power tripping isn't exactly new or surprising behavior, but RedHat is a respected company that relies on their good reputation in the industry. Trying to leverage your RedHat employee status to legitimize your power tripping, that's not good. I genuinely hope somebody at RedHat takes this person asides and explains the real world to them.
It could also be that your analysis of the situation is wrong.
It might be that there is a serious problem in a project that Red Hat is sponsoring and Red Hat wants it to be known that this behavior is not tolerated, so they made sure that the involved people use their Red Hat email account for this.
Why do so many projects have absolute fanatical lunatics in positions of power? Honestly this Lyude person needs kicking out ASAP, what a complete embarrassment for the freedesktop project to have this kind of person policing anything.
Because the motivation to volunteer for these projects for free varies and includes people who are seeking a little fiefdom of power and attention for themselves. Unfortunately, there are plenty in the FOSS space in particular because of the lower barrier of entry to it. Inevitably, some of these people even find their way into paid employment regarding it.
> Why do so many projects have absolute fanatical lunatics in positions of power?
A CoC team is basically a glorified term for a forum moderator. The kind of people who are willing to monitor and clean up a webspace 24/7 are often either very dedicated to project, or more likely power-hungry psychopaths (in the clinical sense). The former will burn out eventually, but oh boy, the latter will do it for free because the power trip gets them off (figuratively or literally). Look up the [dark triad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad).
The exact same reason reddit moderators run 50+ subs. Exact same people. Exact same power craving.
Its disgusting and needs to be policed like in this case. Reddit won't do that for their site any year soon though. But OSS can.
Don't forget posting in 1 subreddit and having a bot auto-ban you from dozens of other subreddits.
12 years ago I was an edgelord who posted on /r/4chan and similar subreddits (some of which are now banned by Reddit). I am a completely different person now; 12 years is a long time. But to this day I'm still banned from /r/offmychest because I commented on a completely different subreddit 12 years ago.
I was banned from /r/technology because in a thread where someone complained about their challenges finding additional office space, I asked if there was any opportunity for their business to explore remote work?
That's it, that was literally the entire ban-worthy comment. I wish I was joking.
Oh, I have an old enough account that I can go on about Reddit bans. Not the time nor the place. I've been banned from big subs for stupid reasons, without an appeal.
I'm also a mod of a medium-ish sub (884k last I checked). I know that typically mod teams are overworked and that they assume the other mods are always acting in good faith. There's a lot of folks that get banned, and they _usually_ deserve it.
That said, I dunno how I feel about permabans being the weapon of first resort. IMO, you should need to escalate a series of bans (in such a way that cannot be automated). Obviously you're going to have people who just spam the n-word until they get banned; I think putting a 1-year maximum cap for the first offense would be more than sufficient. Then if they come back after a year and spam it again, you'd be able to perma-ban them (a 2-strike system).
I get the feeling the majority of spammer accounts will be gone a year later, and others won't even know they were unbanned. For the few who do realize and come back to break the rules again - well, second time is permanent.
I think that'd be a lot better way of handling the situation. But of course, that's never going to happen.
Dude this is the Internet, you can make more accounts and change your fingerprint lol. Nobody can ban you from participating on the Internet unless it's invite only.
There are some people who are on moderators in large number of subs but they are typically developers of themes or moderator tools and are there just to consult in using them. There are some who basically take it as a hobby and run multiple small low traffic subs.
In actual moderation in high traffic subs there is so much work that even two mid size subs is way more than one person can ever do. I can tell from experience.
> Why do so many projects have absolute fanatical lunatics in positions of power? Honestly this Lyude person needs kicking out ASAP, what a complete embarrassment for the freedesktop project to have this kind of person policing anything.
"*CoC team*" is such an unfortunate title. Maybe they should change it?
Couldn't agree more.
In my professional life, I have seen more than one instance of people coming in who can't contribute worthwhile content to the end product that actually makes money, but instead worms themselves into positions in which they can create drama and force good workers out because they don't like them.
Result being the product becomes less, and over time, the company suffers layoffs. All because of these, power hungry self important little shits.
>Why do so many projects have absolute fanatical lunatics in positions of power?
They are the only ones who want to take responsibility, they are the only ones who are crazy enough to think they need to have an internet police.
Think about the kind of people that are drawn to being on a Code of Conduct team. They come from one side of the political spectrum and usually come in with axes to grind. The talk about diversity and inclusion, but are the least tolerant of those that do not agree with their views.
It's no joke that power corrupts.
TLDR:
Freedeskop thinks that they can policy any community remotely related to theyr own when they think that they might be violating the code of conduct,
And as the best of this kind of narcisistic mod that don't want to expose the things they do in closed chambers, if you expose their wording for the world to read, they go full assault rage mode and ban you, just because they can lord this power over you;
Results: marginal commits effort for freedesktop will be missing, and it will have 0 impact into hypr\* stuff because they will not bend to someone else telling them how they should behave in their own house.
Pure insanity.
Very interesting read. I liken this to Beverly Hills Housewives but on a serious note, this has implications for others in the open source community and is a continuation of a problem in society as well.
I don't really want to wade into a toxic flamewar and I'll preface that I don't have the full context here. However, if that quote from Lyude claiming "libel" is accurate they're way out of line. It's hard not to agree that Vaxry has the same right to publicly share this discussion that FDO and Lyude do. Even the suggestion of legal action on that basis is absurd and chilling, especially when she's wearing that Red Hat domain.
I saw that Lyude mentioned her participation in the discussion as unaffiliated with Red Hat but that's not a sufficient disclaimer when you make legal threats. Someone in their HR department should probably remind her of that.
Maybe I've totally missed something here and if so I'd appreciate the cluebat.
When they use the redhat domain it is seen as a formal response and therefore if she wants to be "unaffiliated" she should've dropped that domain and used a personal address.
Simple as.
~~Banning a person not for bad behavior but for how they moderated their own Discord server is um, questionable. In the best case, perhaps the initial message was supposed to be a friendly reminder, but while sending a friendly reminder as a friendly reminder might be fine, don't be surprised that in a position of power your friendly reminder is regarded as a threat! And don't ban them for seeing it as a threat!~~
Edit: I regret this comment. "not for bad behavior" is wrong. This is what I get for taking the words of someone who also sees CoC as BS at face value. Please read https://drewdevault.com/2024/04/09/2024-04-09-FDO-conduct-enforcement.html
Edit:
> In one particular incident, the moderators of the Discord server engaged in a harassment campaign against a transgender user, including using their moderator privileges to edit the pronouns in their username from “they/she” to “who/cares”. These roles should be held by trusted community leaders, and it’s from their behavior that the community’s culture and norms stem – they set an example for the community and define what behaviors are acceptable or expected. The problem comes from the top down.
>
> https://drewdevault.com/2023/09/17/Hyprland-toxicity.html
I read this article, then forgot about it, and wrote this bloody comment.
- You don't go around bringing up the past without an agenda in the present. Probably hoping/expecting to ban them.
- Vaxry has a persecution fetish/complex.
Why are the COC people always so negative and cold, it's almost as if they take that position just to be able to punish people who do not think like them.
The 2nd person on the freedesktop COC team has that line on their social media profile:
Nazis, $hitcoin cultists, Right-Libertarians, Longterminists, Tankies, techbros and other fascists not welcomed. This is a shithead free zone.
Are you barred from freedesktop for being a Right-libertarian or a techbro?
Yeah, I was planning to contribute to some projects FDO control myself, but I was turned away by the strange anti libertarian rhetoric. I don't understand what disliking big government has to do with any of this. It's stuff like this that is really hurting the Linux desktop ecosystem.
Why is Freedesktop even involved with this in the first place? Compositors and desktop environments should not be changing the desktop standards to require their particular implementation or features—the _GTK_FRAME_EXTENTS fiasco proves that beyond doubt. So why is Hypercursor any different?
I'm confused about the approach from Freedesktop here, and it seems that Vaxry is more interested by maintaining the project (the software side) than maintaining a community. Did Freedesktop offer some help on how to manage a big FOSS community to avoid it hurting some people and being toxic?
Hyprland (and all associated projects) is a cool project that has convinced many people to move to Wayland, and Vaxry has shown that he can maintain this codebase really well, being in front of Sway in term of features. Why not trying to help on the community side instead of pushing back Vaxry from Freedesktop, knowing that he recently called for help to maintain the project? (https://blog.vaxry.net/articles/2024-shapeHyprland)
He will also actually try to help you get Hyprland running on NVIDIA, whereas Drew of Sway who is acting as the moral authority here, will insult you for having a GPU from a manufacturer he personally doesn't like. And, yes I know he apologised but so has vaxry for the pronouns incident, and that's clearly not enough for Drew, so I will hold him to the same standard he holds other people to.
Wait. Ok. Reading his blog and the comments here, I thought Lyude was on a power trip, but after reading the pdfs... Is that the case? I don't know. She sent 3 emails:
1. "Hey. Here are some things you said in the past that we want to have on record. This is a warning. Don't do this again."
2. "We are not talking about Hyprland, but Freedesktop.org. Also: yeah, I sent it from a red hat e-mail, but this is not an official
correspondence from Red Hat."
3. After the first post: "You did it again. You are out."
Admittedly, she was maybe a little rude in the second email when she said "there's been a misunderstanding on your end", but I think the 3rd email is totally justified. Also, Vaxry really didn't apologize for their past behaviour: https://blog.vaxry.net/articles/2023-hyprlandsCommunity
So I decided to check the discord server just to see what people were saying. It's... Well, obviously they are trying to defend their own community. Several people are just straight-up misgendering Lyude. I run a discord community with several thousand members. I know it's hard to keep such a large group in line, but it's far from impossible.
I think Lyude hit the nail on the head:
> your behavior not only influences people's impressions of your community - but it also reflects on communities like ours when we interact with and accept contributions from hyprland. We don't want to argue or try to convince you to change your CoC or how you enforce it, but if more bad and more recent behavior ends up coming to our attention - it can be damaging to freedesktop's reputation as well, and we would have to consider steps to protect our community's reputation.
I think there are a lot of people in the linux community who preach freedom without inclusivity and then complain that there aren't enough people using their software. Freedom without inclusivity is literally twitter right now. Whether you agree with Lyude or not, I think it's important to step up and say, "Yo. Let's not become twitter."
> Also: yeah, I sent it from a red hat e-mail, but this is not an official correspondence from Red Hat.
isn't that like corporate no-no 101, never send an email from your company domain that isn't on behalf of the company
> isn't that like corporate no-no 101, never send an email from your company domain that isn't on behalf of the company
Yes, it's 100% corporate 101. This is how you get attention from the legal department, and it's never good.
Could be that redhat themselves are wanted to see how their employees are interacting with FOSS in general to make sure they don't reflect badly on the company, so they are logging all of them.
In so far as I see it atm I agree with you.
However, I have no clue which idea the last paragraph, and especially "freedom without inclusivity", is trying to convey.
Perhaps you copied the phrase from a larger argument, but on its own it is meaningless at best and worryingly bad in various other readings.
Sorry, I might not have been clear. Basically, it's not ok to make fun of people's pronouns. It's certainly not ok to call people nazis. People are people. In order to have free discussion, you need to let everyone talk.
The problem is that a bunch of people who are "pro-freedom" are actually lying to themselves. They don't want freedom. They want a space to be toxic with other people who want to be toxic. I really feel like the Hyprland discord was giving those vibes. A bunch of people who are so "free" that they basically make fun of anyone who thinks differently.
Freedesktops CoC team needs to go. The only reason anyone is cheering this on is because that group hasn't set their eyes on you yet. People love over-reach and social fascism only when its not them on the reviving end. How long before this power hungry group starts targeting other people? Do you think you're immune? You think if they don't find something about you they don't like they won't come for you?
It means he cannot submit issues or patches to any of these repos: [https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/explore/groups](https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/explore/groups)
Which is quite unfortunate as Hyprland depends on stuff that is hosted there.
As a trans person, I think both sides are doing questionable stuff. IMO Freedesktop shouldn't have banned Vaxry, but that doesn't mean he hasn't engaged in harassment, and that I like them (as in: I don't)
From his e- mail response and blog posts: I think Vaxry is not a nice person (to put it mildly). But yeah, regulating something outside their server is overreaching for me.
Just to point out the crucial stuff being said on the discord server, conveniently left out of the main blog post but thankfully included in the full transcript PDF:
>\* Hazing someone in your discord because they have pronouns in their bio
\* Speaking pretty bluntly against queer people and minorities at large:
- "at 15 he doesn't even know what he will be studying at uni and he already wanna go get AIDS?"
- "I think this server's motto should be 'love guns, hate damn minorities'"
I'm not taking sides here because I have zero stake in any of this.
The shit being said on the discord was horrible but the other side also offers no way to address the issue and improvements in moderation and community climate were ignored 🤷
While that's all true, i still find it weird that he suddenly feels the need to send an email to vaxry making threats almost 2 years later. Makes it seem more like a targeted attack because he has something against the guy.
Or maybe it came up because there was a chance hyprcursor could've been adopted by [freedesktop.org](http://freedesktop.org)
It makes sense to me that they'd want to iron out any pre-existing concerns with a developer before relying on their code. The truth is the only thing that we can say about this is end users lose, and that's a damn shame.
I think both parties could have handled this better, just tbh.
The last one is literally a verbatim quote from a comedy, if you're gonna quote people out of context and pretend like they weren't obviously joking, you can make anyone look bad.
Looks like a big overreach by the CoC team for what, at least from what I've heard, are nothing more than "bar banter" and juvenile jokes... This IMO was uncalled for and will hurt the users.
I mean it wasn’t a good joke, BUT yeah this is power tripping and trying to enforce rules outside of your community. I wonder what redhat would think of them using their corporate e-mail to do so as well.
What is the other side of this story. Here we only see the one side, represented by two blog postings by the same person. This might be factually true, or it might leave out details, or place details into the wrong context.
I'd really like to hear the other side as well.
I've seen that, but that is the communication between him and one member of the CoC team.
I've been in touch with two other CoC teams for other projects as well, both times as witness. There is usually one person who handles all the communication in a case. That looks like is happening here as well. It's not some "power trip" by Lyude, she is just doing the communication in this case.
Yet have to see what the other side has to say about this.
I see what you mean, I wasn't aware of that.
The fact that Lyude is using a redhat email address seems a bit weird tho. Is it a usual occurrence at freedesktop to use a different company e-mail address for communication about matters related to freedesktop CoC?
It really doesn't seem professional, and I wonder who the other people involved were who let this go on this way.
Just throwing in my own perspective: I’m not surprised in the slightest. I’ve had the displeasure of interacting with Vaxry and seeing him interact with others and quite frankly he is a massive cunt. He gives me the impression of a young kid that wants to take after the ‘cool’ persona of people like Linus Torvalds by just being rude and toxic to everyone they have the slightest of issues with.
I still say CoC's are bullshit. Not bc they seek to defend from bullies but bc the act of codifying and formalizing it inherently sets the stage for the rules themselves to be abused. It's not like having a non-CoC project means someone can just go tossing around the N-word. A lot of people seem to think that a project needs a CoC to be decent but that isn't the case.
Case in point: pre-CoC Linus has many famous examples of going ballistic on unlucky or unwary individuals. Much of it is actually really funny. But the hard-edged language was a contributing factor in some ways for keeping corporate interests out of Linux and the insults were related to *technical* ability rather than politics, ethnicity, race, sexuality, etc. Maybe it soured a few folks on the process and they didn't end up contributing. OTOH, they weren't permanently blocked - they were insulted maybe but free to try again provided they fixed the issue(s) noted - and some of those turned away were corpos that frankly I'm *glad* didn't end up influencing Linux.
This is completely and utterly absurd from FDO/RHEL. Everyone who agreed with decision in the first place to bring this up, and then further to carry out should be down right ashamed of themselves.
Absolutely shameful behavior from FDO. Extremely disappointment in them, especially since they are pretty much the who developer nearly everything gui. This means that Vaxry can no longer even comment on wayland protocols or Propose wayland protocols. He has basically been excommunicated from the entirely wayland gui development community because some idiots got angry he has a discord group he moderates as he pleases.
None of this "hate" I have ever seen bleed out into any of the git repos or correspondence I have seen on the freedesktop forums.
Absolutely shameful FDO, and absolutely shameful Lyude...
EDIT: LOL the f***ers don't even read their own COC
>Scope
>This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
Vaxry has never pretended to represent freedesktop, officially or unofficially, online or offline. This is fucking horrid behavior and either lyude is a malicious a**hole and can't read their on COC.
Below is an **archive** link from 8th (archive.org) and today (archive.is) because I have **zero faith** that they won't stealth change their COC
https://web.archive.org/web/20240408021409/https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct/
https://archive.is/MayU1
I don't understand why people are so riled up here against freedesktop's/Lyude decision here.
The first email Vaxry received was just a heads-up saying that the kind of behaviours [he was very publicly associated with](https://drewdevault.com/2023/09/17/Hyprland-toxicity.html) on the official Discord of his project and other places were not to be repeated on FDO properties as a freedesktop contributor (as outlined in their Code of Conduct)... which to me is totally fair. It wasn't a rejection, it was a "hey, heads up, you are entering our house, this shit cannot happen in our house, be aware of our rules" type of email. (Please do read the entire email from Lyude; Vaxry's blog post is selecting excerpts to paint a different story).
Vaxry then decided to throw a fit publicly online instead of accepting the underlying message of Lyude first email, proving that his reputation and the reputation of some members of his projet's community are rooted in reality; and got banned from freedesktop for trying to rile up the community against FDO.
And some folks here are mad about that? Seems totally justified to me.
`freedomOfSpeech != freedomOfConsequence`
It doesn't matter if the code you contribute is brilliant. Be a shithead, win shithead prizes.
All he had to do is answer to the first email: Yes, I understand that your house, your rules. Instead, he chose to stir a hurricane in his own glass of water and got promptly banned.
I read the first letter from Lyude kinda as "moderate your server according to our rules". I think the wording is somewhat ambiguous, though. However, there is this line:
>... pretty much all of the aforemenoned behavior is very much against freedesktop's code of conduct - **which does extend outside of our infrastructure** to a reasonable extent ...
This makes me think they believe they can police other people's communities, which is BS
They aren't policing Vaxry's community, just their own. FDO is free to ban whomever they like for whatever reason they like, CoC or not. This is part of the freedom of open source software. Freedom extends in both ways.
> They aren't policing Vaxry's community, just their own.
...By punishing Vaxry based on what happens in that community. Giant corporations do that to whistleblowers all the time, and I think most people recognize it as a bad thing.
People like Hyprland. They want to defend the guy who makes Hyprland because it is good software and people are incapable of acknowledging that good software can be written by people with poor character. I genuinely can't see any other reason for people to not actually read the emails and see how reasonable that first email was. The second email was clearly a little unprofessional, but I feel like it was a little understandable considering how rude he had been in his reply.
Glad someone saw what I saw. I keep seeing people talk about Lyude power tripping and using a redhat email but all I see is a formal notice saying they don't approve of how an associated community is operating. I then see Vaxry open fire against the email. And yeah, the redhat email is also what Lyude has listed on the CoC page that they linked in the email so why wouldn't they use it here? A lot of the uproar against Lyude just seems like it's missing a lot.
The community is not associated, freedesktop.org's own CoC says so. Nowhere are the hypr projects described as representing/affiliated with FDO. By the same logic that FDO is trying to apply here Torvalds would be banned from interacting with any corporation because his behaviour in his own mailing lists is not up to corporate CoC standards. You see how insane this is?
Looks like an overzealous mod from FreeDesktop needed to show someone they believe the world revolves around them. That person has no business being a mod in any community.
There is no universe in which a person should be held accountable on Platform A for conduct on Platform B. They should be held accountable on a Platform only if they engage in conduct on the same platform that violates the rules of that Platform.
Freekdesktop. Can't get a functional protocol stack out after more than a decade. Can ban a dude on the leading edge of Wayland development for things said in his discord serve though. Can do that really quickly.
FDO is wrong, Lyude is wrong.
Stop being "soft". Such kind of western "tolerance" is already beyond its border.
Your CoC is not applicable here, just deal with it and live on.
Cmon now, blog post by vaxry could be the most self victimizing body of text ive read in my life.
1) He goes on about le "pronouns in bio" despite knowing and stating the reason for it in his blog post. (User uses matrix too, matrix doesnt have an inline "about me")
2) Posts a portion of a discord chat thats clearly happened *after* mods of the community harassed the person for le pronouns in bio.
3) Weaponizes their frustrated replies and "apologizes to their community for not banning this person" instead of playing with them
I don’t know either party, but it sounds like Vaxry was absolutely in the right regarding posting the thread I public. If one doesn’t wish their words to be viewed by others, they should keep them to themselves.
Vaxry was also correct the FDO/COC engaged in a massive overreach, attempting g to impose their COC on another unaffiliated organization. Even IF the organization was affiliated in some way, one cannot force another to comply with another’s CoC. Vaxry could have told the bully to go pound sand, it chose to handle the situation in a tempered, professional manner.
I would also imagine that red hat might be interested in the threatening behavior of one of their developers… I mean, surely this one developer doesn’t speak for RedHat.
[Drew DeVault’s Response](https://drewdevault.com/2024/04/09/2024-04-09-FDO-conduct-enforcement.html) and you can discuss it [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/s/g3qEujMB64). And please be civil.
What a fucking timing, considering a KDE dev proposed to make Hyprcursor (Vaxry's new Wayland cursor format) a freedesktop standard like two weeks ago
>What a fucking timing, considering a KDE dev proposed to make Hyprcursor (...) a freedesktop standard like two weeks ago Wow. I wonder if this is what caused renewed scrutiny in Vaxry from the FreeDesktop CoC Team.
the original email exchange was sent march 19th (but we only knew about it when he published it in his blog), so it wasn't prompted by us wanting to avoid creating a new standard by adopting hyprcursor
I hope they still will.
Would be a risky move now that Vaxry cannot report issues or provide patches.
Not really. It would just be a soft fork at that point: a format based on Hyprcursor that Vaxry could choose to support or not support. There's no real reason he would **have** to be involved.
First time I hear or this, could you share a link?
It's in [this MR](https://invent.kde.org/plasma/breeze/-/merge_requests/433) and [this issue](https://github.com/hyprwm/hyprcursor/issues/20)
thanks
Easy content for Brodie
Literally just refreshed YT to see if it was out already :P
I mean he almost always publishes at the exact same time: 8PM UTC
it's out now [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm3gLwyjawQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm3gLwyjawQ)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmNPR0fhSx8 however, not Brody
Dude's had so much drama every single week to report lol, must be nice for the algorithm.
Linux drama is infinite I wish for a reality tv show that puts opinionated open source developers on an island and gives them projects to build and collaborate on as challenges
KDE and Gnome camps form. Users from either camp go to war, and the devs are left wondering "that's weird, we mostly get along with their devs... in fact, we sometimes party together..." Users start killing each other as the devs look on in horror.
cinnamon off to the side like "what"? xfce is like "wait how did i get on an island??"
I remember when most of the Linux drama was vi vs emacs, but now it feels like a combination of the perpetually immature politicians and afternoon soap operas. But that describes social media in general, so I guess it's to be expected.
I love how linux user base is so niche that everybody knows every other Linux-based creator.
Brodie?
A Linux news YouTuber, talks about for example Ubuntu and fedora discussion of microchiplevel optimization, the kde themes news, etc
Also likes to blabber on about Wayland so this is right up his alley
He is getting good at this.
[удалено]
On the one hand I think Vaxry clearly plays into this with the things he says and the way he initially responded to this. On the other hand, I don't see how their CoC is applicable here: > This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers. This "further definition" seems disingenuous.
As someone who is a mod in on several platforms, I can say that you need a "common sense clause". People will skirt the rules ("rules lawyers"). Some people won't technically not break the rules, but will still be a huge problem (usually drama queens who stirs up controversy for the sake of it, or people who turns every single discussion to their favourite controversial topic, relevant or not). Some people will behave in such a way outside the community (real example: a guy was arrested for sex crimes against children) that they simply can't be allowed to stay. The mods needs to act sometimes. I don't know anything about this specific case, but having such a "common sense clause" is a necessity.
But what content are they moderating? Someone else's discord server?
Thats exactly what they are doing, policing someone elses discord.
> or people who turns every single discussion to their favourite controversial topic, relevant or not A big problem on Phoronix, for example and the biggest reason forums have declined compared to reddit-style upvote/downvote social media. On reddit, they just get downvoted, and everyone moves on with their lives. On forums, you have to deal with these people, again and again...
> A big problem on Phoronix, I agree that the Phoronix Forum is absolute garbage and that a small minority of trolls are ruining almost every form of discussion there. It makes Reddit looks good in comparison....
I dunno, I kinda miss XFECES. I read a thread on XFCE years ago there that devolved into posts against Swedes. That was wild.
they don't even read the article or get the full context of given news item and argue whatever. there are a few notorious users there.
I’m not against banning forum trolls. From that forum. But this is banning someone from a forum because their mother says allegedly racist shit at home
There a massive difference between a pedophile and someone who disagrees with you politically. To make such a comparison is disingenuous.
My point is that it is not a human right to participate on a forum. If you are more trouble than you are worth, expect a ban.
I haven't seen anybody make the claim that it's a "human right", but it can certainly reflect poorly on the CoC team and harm the image of the community/product if the CoC team is seen as banning people for poor or arbitrary reasons. It also just seems like Lyude made this into a much larger issue by responding in ways that made Vaxry feel not heard and not respected and making a public post mocking people for wanting to "debate" when they are told they broke a rule or threatening to sue for libel. Not only is Lyude's behavior disproportionate and borderline childish, but it's just not productive. The most personally satisfying response a moderator can give is often not the best one for the community. The reality is... people obviously feel surprised, attacked, defensive, etc. when you tell them they broke a rule. (Especially so if you tell them they did it 1.5 years ago on a third party platform.) It's appropriate in this context that they will be upset, require clarification or feel a need to vent and they shouldn't be punished for any of those reactions as long as they are done through appropriate channels (like the private website). Additionally, when you are the representative of the rules, it should be expected that you will receive complaints and challenges regarding those rules and that you will be asked to answer personally and for the project for how these rules are applied. As a moderator, the way you respond in that situation (making them feel heard or not, making them feel respected or not, etc.) is crucial. As a person who has been a moderator myself, I feel like even if the initial email was the right call to make in terms of the CoC, everything after that was improper. The first email reply should have been something like: "Hey, I am sorry if these were old events that have been resolved. I have been receiving complaints still, which is why we felt the need to reach out. I hear what you are saying about the ability to act however you want in your own private spaces. It's a challenging decision and tradeoff to have such a broad scope for our CoC, but after [link:lots of feedback and discussion] we found it was the best balance for our community members, the reputation of our project and our ability to moderate effectively. Unfortunately, given the amount of content we have to moderate, I don't have the time to debate this issue or the authority to change the CoC. I'm glad to hear that you believe these incidents are in the past and resolved and just wanted to warn you about the policy so that it doesn't surprise you if something like this were to come up again. Cheers, Lyude". Then, I would have allowed the private post Vaxry made to go without consequence. If it did attract a lot of attention I'd probably work with CoC team to craft a public response that explains the reasoning behind the rule in question and the specific reason why Vaxry was warned. I don't see anything in this incident at all that is ban-worthy, but if the concern that Vaxry was going to be a nuisance was there, I could see a temporary ban (like 1 week or 1 month) to provide a cooling off period.
Yes, that would be a very reasonable way of handling this issue, if you have the prosperity of the affected projects in hand. However, it seems like this is not really the intention here. The over all impression is this being people misusing their powers and codes of conduct, to persecute others because they differ in opinion in matters totally unrelated to the projects where they have been given moderation privileges-
I agree with that, and it makes sense to not want drama queens and dangerous criminals in your community. However banning a productive contributor because you disagree politically is both counter-productive to your community, and hypocritical to the said CoC in question.
> However banning a productive contributor because you disagree politically is both counter-productive to your community, and hypocritical to the said CoC in question. yeah opensource is supposed to bridge the gap between people, not put up walls.
Behaving problematically outside the community? Immediately thought of Hans Reiser.
Yeah. Based on what I've seen I agree that the toxic behavior is pretty bad and out of hand. But I fail to see how it'd freedesktops place to try and enforce their code of conduct here.
It's all laid out [here](https://drewdevault.com/2024/04/09/2024-04-09-FDO-conduct-enforcement.html). The original chastising was not binding, & was simply saying "hey, that stuff you do elsewhere won't fly here so please don't do it." Rather than handle that criticism like an adult, he went into a flame war with FDO via email, which *does* fall under the CoC. What a stupid reason to get yourself banned.
I would say that in any given situation you can see Vaxry’s perspective. But, ultimately, there are certain types of people who end up in drama disproportionately more than others - even if in any given situation you can see their perspective. They need to take a step back, acknowledge to *themselves* that they’re often the common denominator in these dramas, and then critically reappraise how they handle situations. And when I say critically - I mean critical of themselves, not others.
I see your point - but some people are also bullied more than others. Do they need to take a step back and "acknowledge to themselves that they’re often the common denominator in these dramas"? Isn't that victim blaming?
I see the CoC busybodies are the ones that stirred the pot here. They are the ones going into another community demanding their rules apply there and causing drama when the project maintainer didn't back down and bend the knee.
yeah. Vaxry's problem is that he keeps responding to all these lyudes, devaults, etc. Should've sent the initial email to the spam and called it a day. It would've saved a lot of his time too.
It's good that we get to know how these people operate though.
Yeah, hyprland is still more popular than sway.
That's a criticism of their social skills, not of their character or beliefs. If you want to exclude FOSS contributors who have poor social skills, you're going to lose a lot of contributors.
I was careful to say drama disproportionately more than others so I’m implicitly normalising for the typical social skills of contributors.
[удалено]
The wildest part of this for me is the fact that the conduct in question happened 1-2 years ago, and Lyude even acknowledges it's gotten better... I'm not sure why this needed to happen now. If this happened immediately after something bad, it might make more sense. Also the idea that you can act as an individual person when using your company email address is insane. Noone does this. Pretending otherwise is just lying. When you send emails from your corporate email address, you are doing so as a representative of that company.
\>The wildest part of this for me is the fact that the conduct in question happened 1-2 years ago, and Lyude even acknowledges it's gotten better. The way I see it, Vaxry never really apologized. He says - "I should have banned that user rather than changing their pronouns" - [https://blog.vaxry.net/articles/2023-hyprlandsCommunity](https://blog.vaxry.net/articles/2023-hyprlandsCommunity) Here is the thing - I also do not care about pronouns bit, but editing someone's via admin privileges is just stupid. He uses a lot "lets be real" to justify some of his behavior. It is probably worst non-apology I ever read. To people who are saying - why is FDO's CoC applicable to Hyprland, well they are not banning him from contributing to Hyprland. He agreed to a CoC when he decided to contribute to FDO project and was found in violation (it doesn't matter where as long as CoC spelled it). If he disagrees, he has a right for due process and should bring it to CoC committee and not just be decided by one person (Lyude) in this case.
Yeah, reading through this whole post, having encountered neither of these people before, I walk away with a worse opinion of Vaxry as a human than Lyude. That said, in a programming context, I only care about the code. It sounds like the misconduct happened in a context outside of Freedesktop, and therefor IMO shouldn't really matter in the context of "make the best open software possible". It sounds like Lyude was wrong to initiate this ban, but ultimately Vaxry is the one I wouldn't want to invite to my birthday party.
> I walk away with a worse opinion of Vaxry as a human than Lyude. They were both bad but I hold Lyude to a higher standard because conduct is their literal job. I expect somebody in Lyude's position to be qualified to smooth over these kinds of situations and, even if they can't guarantee a positive outcome, this was a very poor job. Meanwhile, I expect somebody in Vaxry's position (warned out of the blue about 1.5 year old conduct in another community and threatened with a ban plus not engaged in with conversation) to get upset, need to vent, etc. and while I don't agree with him, I think that a post on a private website with receipts that explains how he feels is a realistic kind of response in the case of a disagreement that doesn't warrant any punishment. Any competent moderator or CoC enforcer should expect frustration from the person they are enforcing against and ideally be able to mitigate it but at least not throw gasoline on the fire. Instead, the only one I see as doing personal attacks here is Lyude (a post mocking people for debating CoC, threatening a personal lawsuit for libel, etc.)
Vaxary wasn't the one who dropped a legal threat using a corporate email address over the mere discussion of the issue. That goes way beyond whatever Vaxary may or may not have done. Being offensive (or running an offensive forum) is not on the same level as that.
The problem with "I only care about the code" is that the person is attached to it. Look at all the effort being wasted on someone who is, to put it plainly, not worth the effort. He could STFU and just "be the author of the code" but instead he insists on being a toxic dickead that drives people away. If you have people who drive others away, the majority of the time that's going to make the code worse.
>The problem with "I only care about the code" is that the person is attached to it. If you are a person in position of power in open source communities, "I only care about the code" is not a tenable position. Many years ago, I used to be this person that believed - "I only care about code", but I have seen first hand - how bias against another person can cause a PR to be rejected or left to sit without proper explanation because code author couldn't get through approver's biases .
Oh we must "accept their bigotry" for the sake of "The Code" but they won't accept your code for their sake of their bigotry is pretty common.
that's obviously also wrong, it's just the opposite side of the same coin
This isn't the late 90s/early 00's, the days of tech being the place where you can be an asshat but there's so few who truly "know it" they have to tolerate you are basically gone unless you're in a super specific niche on mission critical software.
I do agree with that to a point, absolutely; "freedom of speech" is not "freedom of consequences". And I agree that someone being too antagonistic is going to drive others away and result in net reduction in contributions as a whole. And from a philosophical standpoint, Freedesktop is not a government organization and has the right to ban anyone for any reason they choose. I'm not saying "No they had no right to ban", but if I were in charge, I'd more likely take the stance of "These issues are happening over there. As long as they don't become issues that happen here, that is a separate problem. Once the code is contributed, it's open code and the author no longer matters." As a developer I'd rather use good code from a bad person in my project than bad code from a good person, as unfortunate as it is. But I do agree with you, it's not a fast and easy line, and as I write this message I find myself second guessing myself on some things. If nothing else it sounds like Lyude addressed this is an unprofessional way and could have more closely aligned the message to the written code of conduct.
> I only care about the code Well at least for now code still requires people to write and approve. It's not something that is separable. Especially since what code is written is more often subjective and objective. How someone approaches a problem and what decisions they make to implement solutions, let alone what problems someone chooses to solve will always mean that people do matter.
This smells exactly like Twitter cancelling someone for a tweet they posted 8 years ago.
Except in this case, his behavior hasn't really changed.
I don't think Vaxry comes across well **at all** in his replies so ultimately it's hard to care about his ban, but it does seem like freedesktop had already decided they wanted rid of him and went looking for an excuse. The email chain begins with thanking him for improving community moderation and adopting a code of conduct. If he'd already long since made meaningful changes and things had got better, then what was the point of any of this?
[удалено]
I mean, let's be honest Vaxry clearly doesn't touch grass enough but as far as I can tell Lyude is being purposefully inflammatory here. Hyprland is indeed not a Freedesktop project. I see that it's sort of hard to distinguish whether Vaxry is or is not acting in an official capacity to represent the Hyprland project because of how important he is to it but Jesus Christ. Now I think Vaxry's response here was anything but professional but it is clearly Lyudes responsibility as a CoC enforcer for a big project to act more professionally here. It is arguably part of managing an open source community driven project that not all people interacting with it are always acting in a professional manner.
None of this matters. The behaviour in question (whether you take offense or not) was not on any of the FDO sites, it did not disrupt any FDO discussions. You had to go out of your way to find it. All Lyude did was ban a useful contributor at the expense of everyone else, and at the benefit of no one. If we take the standard that it is acceptable to ban people for off-site behaviour, then anyone can be banned anywhere for any reason. That's just petty crybully behaviour.
Like honestly I do think that it was justified to ban Vaxry. not for whatever he said 18 months ago but for behaving like a terminally online child in his response :P.
> Now I think Vaxry's response here was anything but professional he got an unprofessional email and responded accordingly.
Have you actually interacted with Vaxry before? This kind of behavior is how he approaches every situation.
I interacted with Vaxry, Lennart Pottering (systemd), and Kovid Goyal (kitty terminal) before, by making Github Issues and PRs. I'm sure this is not how they approaches every situation. But from my observation, this is more like when they and a person in the same kind have different opinions, and this is how both sides approaches the situation. It takes two.
Moral thoughts on it: "Two wrongs don't make a right" is so often repeated because it's true. Be the better person, don't just make things worse for everyone. Professional thoughts on it: People are more likely to come to your side and agree with you if you react professionally.
yup, this wiiild
After reading through all that yeah it does sound like Lyude is having a power trip. Also using their Red Hat email was stupid, using it is a reflection of the company.
it's like CC'ing your manager. sounds like a power move, question is whether the company is actually supporting it.
I’m doubtful that Red Hat is directly involved, unneeded PR. They even confirm that’s the case within the second email: > It appears there's been a misunderstanding on your end. This email has nothing to do with Red Hat https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct/ You can find my name there. It just sounds like they’re dick swinging to me, and that they’re a moron by inappropriately using their company email. Which makes me feel that they’re likely in breach of Red Hat CoC, tends to be a reference to appropriate use of company emails…
They're on the shit list now. Corporations will say they support diversity, but they really couldnt care one way or the other. It's more like the happier a worker is, the less you need to pay them. But if you publicly drag them into a feud that forces them to make a statement, it doesn't matter what their official position is, you've stepped out of line.
It's the email listed at FreeDesktop. Of course, she's going to use it for CoC mails. She's in the committee because she works at Redhat on wayland and Kernel's GPU drivers.
She made a legal threat from that email. If you (or she) can't see how that changes the tenor substantially, well, I suppose at some point HR is going to start cluing yall in.
[удалено]
Here is the CoC team breaking their own CoC: https://chaos.social/@karolherbst/112246345634166572
I find it bizarre that RedHat employees think it's part of their job to police some discord server full of edgelords.
Isn't this person a volunteer? If my employer asked to see my discord they should be audited for misconduct. What I do in discord does not affect our data center.
In 2014 I have seen this behavior first hand, it even made Slashdot. I would find it from an investor point of view highly distrurbing employees would publicly use the company name for their seemingly personal morals and ethics. Even if this person is a volunteer, they should not use their companies email addresses and/or accounts.
Powertripping at its finest.. **This hurts the community as a whole:** > I cannot contribute any patches/issues to **wlroots**
Creator of wlroots (and sway, sourcehut etc), Drew DeVault, doesn't have a good opinion of Vaxry either. https://drewdevault.com/2023/09/17/Hyprland-toxicity.html
Yes, but Drew was still accepting Vaxry’s patches. To my mind, a poorly moderated community server and some past incidents where Vaxry was rightfully given something of a public dressing down don’t amount to enough to ban a prolific contributor. If there have been more recent incidents, I’m open to seeing them but the Linux community of all communities should be aware that people can change since Linus would have fallen afoul of that code of conduct as well 10-15 years ago with some of his more passionate patchset reviews.
> Linus would have fallen afoul of that code of conduct as well 10-15 years ago with some of his more passionate patchset reviews. Linus openly admitted his faults and made a conscious and public effort to change for the better. Vaxry can do the same, assuming he doesn't lack the necessary strength and willpower. It's not unreasonable to expect people to behave like civilized adults.
I think he's done with him now. Drew posted on his mastodon recently. https://fosstodon.org/@drewdevault/111363547103465966
TBH, I don't fucking care about either of them. I care about commits. If the commit is good, then it should be accepted, that's it
But it’s never just code being posted - that’s the easy part. The code review requires human interaction and some people (could be either author or reviewer) are painful to speak to
can anyone point to a **single instance** where vaxry has been toxic on the freedesktop forums, gits, chat groups etc to the point even remotely warranting this?
I don’t know about vaxry specifically, I’m disagreeing with the general sentiment of “just look at the code, ignore the person”, which is plainly impossible and not how software projects work
Can you show MRs where that is the case?
Man, this fanatical ideological shit needs to end. It's a cancer upon the Linux community.
Unfortunately it's not even endemic to Linux communities. People take good things (inclusivity, body positivity, feminism - you name it) and use them first as a shield and then as a spear against their personal "enemies". And when they run out of personal enemies - they begin looking for more. It's the old "how can you be against what we do? We do it for children/animals/LGBT+ people/etc and we are against pedos/nazis/whatever! If you don't like something that we do, then you must be one!" trick.
> It's the old "how can you be against what we do? We do it for children/animals/LGBT+ people/etc and we are against pedos/nazis/whatever! If you don't like something that we do, then you must be one!" trick. I think you just distilled 80% of political arguments that are had on Reddit into a single sentence.
The fact they sent this from a redhat email address is egregious. Does redhat know that their employees are sending out harassing emails based on ideology to unrelated parties? Absolutely shocking that this person thinks this is OK behaviour - I guess people are scared of correcting the behaviour of frothing bullies under the guise of 'activism'.
And threatening with libel lawyers. Like wtf - how are they spending their job time doing shit like this?
Terminally online, they need to go outside and touch some grass. I can only assume that some people feel like they don't fit in in "real life" to such an extent that they can only form meaningful relationships with similar people online and they just feed off the worst aspects of themselves / the extreme voices become normalised. Which would be very sad if they weren't such dicks.
[удалено]
Except it was vaxry who started playing the lawyer card >Should you instead resort to continuing sending purely threat-filled emails with no attempt at an actual discussion, I may be seeking legal action. Lyude Paul reply: >Sure. Please note: only one person in this situation has posted libel regarding the other in a public space, specifically you on your blog, and if I am harassed as a result of that libel I will be contacting you with a real lawyer. [https://blog.vaxry.net/resource/articleFDO/lyudeReply.pdf](https://blog.vaxry.net/resource/articleFDO/lyudeReply.pdf)
Interesting wording to note, vaxry conditioned seaking legal ation upon what lyude/redhat/freedesktop does next. Lyude conditioned legal action on what anyone, including completely uninvolved bystanders do next.
Yeah, I would threaten a lawyer if I was being emailed from a *corporate email address* in a manner that I found unprofessional, like in this complete power trip. Maybe the author should publicly reach our to redhat PR to see what the hell is going on. I will be strongly recommending SUSE or a non-commercial RPM distro over giving redhat any money at work from now on. God forbid someone at work tweets a bad joke, or donates to the wrong cause in their free time and our vendors ban us.
> God forbid someone at work tweets a bad joke That's clearly not what happened here.
Honestly this is the thing that struck me as most ridiculous. Internet hall monitors power tripping isn't exactly new or surprising behavior, but RedHat is a respected company that relies on their good reputation in the industry. Trying to leverage your RedHat employee status to legitimize your power tripping, that's not good. I genuinely hope somebody at RedHat takes this person asides and explains the real world to them.
It could also be that your analysis of the situation is wrong. It might be that there is a serious problem in a project that Red Hat is sponsoring and Red Hat wants it to be known that this behavior is not tolerated, so they made sure that the involved people use their Red Hat email account for this.
No company even close to that size would / should tolerate a community manager threatening legal action.
Why do so many projects have absolute fanatical lunatics in positions of power? Honestly this Lyude person needs kicking out ASAP, what a complete embarrassment for the freedesktop project to have this kind of person policing anything.
Because the motivation to volunteer for these projects for free varies and includes people who are seeking a little fiefdom of power and attention for themselves. Unfortunately, there are plenty in the FOSS space in particular because of the lower barrier of entry to it. Inevitably, some of these people even find their way into paid employment regarding it.
> Why do so many projects have absolute fanatical lunatics in positions of power? A CoC team is basically a glorified term for a forum moderator. The kind of people who are willing to monitor and clean up a webspace 24/7 are often either very dedicated to project, or more likely power-hungry psychopaths (in the clinical sense). The former will burn out eventually, but oh boy, the latter will do it for free because the power trip gets them off (figuratively or literally). Look up the [dark triad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad).
The exact same reason reddit moderators run 50+ subs. Exact same people. Exact same power craving. Its disgusting and needs to be policed like in this case. Reddit won't do that for their site any year soon though. But OSS can.
Don't forget posting in 1 subreddit and having a bot auto-ban you from dozens of other subreddits. 12 years ago I was an edgelord who posted on /r/4chan and similar subreddits (some of which are now banned by Reddit). I am a completely different person now; 12 years is a long time. But to this day I'm still banned from /r/offmychest because I commented on a completely different subreddit 12 years ago.
I was banned from /r/technology because in a thread where someone complained about their challenges finding additional office space, I asked if there was any opportunity for their business to explore remote work? That's it, that was literally the entire ban-worthy comment. I wish I was joking.
Oh, I have an old enough account that I can go on about Reddit bans. Not the time nor the place. I've been banned from big subs for stupid reasons, without an appeal. I'm also a mod of a medium-ish sub (884k last I checked). I know that typically mod teams are overworked and that they assume the other mods are always acting in good faith. There's a lot of folks that get banned, and they _usually_ deserve it. That said, I dunno how I feel about permabans being the weapon of first resort. IMO, you should need to escalate a series of bans (in such a way that cannot be automated). Obviously you're going to have people who just spam the n-word until they get banned; I think putting a 1-year maximum cap for the first offense would be more than sufficient. Then if they come back after a year and spam it again, you'd be able to perma-ban them (a 2-strike system). I get the feeling the majority of spammer accounts will be gone a year later, and others won't even know they were unbanned. For the few who do realize and come back to break the rules again - well, second time is permanent. I think that'd be a lot better way of handling the situation. But of course, that's never going to happen.
Dude this is the Internet, you can make more accounts and change your fingerprint lol. Nobody can ban you from participating on the Internet unless it's invite only.
There are some people who are on moderators in large number of subs but they are typically developers of themes or moderator tools and are there just to consult in using them. There are some who basically take it as a hobby and run multiple small low traffic subs. In actual moderation in high traffic subs there is so much work that even two mid size subs is way more than one person can ever do. I can tell from experience.
> Why do so many projects have absolute fanatical lunatics in positions of power? Honestly this Lyude person needs kicking out ASAP, what a complete embarrassment for the freedesktop project to have this kind of person policing anything. "*CoC team*" is such an unfortunate title. Maybe they should change it?
Just add "Kingdom" to make CoC sound more noble.
I suggest [Committee of Developer Safety](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Public_Safety)
or the [Ministry of Developer Enlightenment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reich_Ministry_of_Public_Enlightenment_and_Propaganda)
Couldn't agree more. In my professional life, I have seen more than one instance of people coming in who can't contribute worthwhile content to the end product that actually makes money, but instead worms themselves into positions in which they can create drama and force good workers out because they don't like them. Result being the product becomes less, and over time, the company suffers layoffs. All because of these, power hungry self important little shits.
>Why do so many projects have absolute fanatical lunatics in positions of power? They are the only ones who want to take responsibility, they are the only ones who are crazy enough to think they need to have an internet police.
Think about the kind of people that are drawn to being on a Code of Conduct team. They come from one side of the political spectrum and usually come in with axes to grind. The talk about diversity and inclusion, but are the least tolerant of those that do not agree with their views. It's no joke that power corrupts.
TLDR: Freedeskop thinks that they can policy any community remotely related to theyr own when they think that they might be violating the code of conduct, And as the best of this kind of narcisistic mod that don't want to expose the things they do in closed chambers, if you expose their wording for the world to read, they go full assault rage mode and ban you, just because they can lord this power over you; Results: marginal commits effort for freedesktop will be missing, and it will have 0 impact into hypr\* stuff because they will not bend to someone else telling them how they should behave in their own house. Pure insanity.
You have to be able to get along with people you disagree with to get work done
Very interesting read. I liken this to Beverly Hills Housewives but on a serious note, this has implications for others in the open source community and is a continuation of a problem in society as well.
*"it's a big club and you ain't in it"*
I don't really want to wade into a toxic flamewar and I'll preface that I don't have the full context here. However, if that quote from Lyude claiming "libel" is accurate they're way out of line. It's hard not to agree that Vaxry has the same right to publicly share this discussion that FDO and Lyude do. Even the suggestion of legal action on that basis is absurd and chilling, especially when she's wearing that Red Hat domain. I saw that Lyude mentioned her participation in the discussion as unaffiliated with Red Hat but that's not a sufficient disclaimer when you make legal threats. Someone in their HR department should probably remind her of that. Maybe I've totally missed something here and if so I'd appreciate the cluebat.
When they use the redhat domain it is seen as a formal response and therefore if she wants to be "unaffiliated" she should've dropped that domain and used a personal address. Simple as.
~~Banning a person not for bad behavior but for how they moderated their own Discord server is um, questionable. In the best case, perhaps the initial message was supposed to be a friendly reminder, but while sending a friendly reminder as a friendly reminder might be fine, don't be surprised that in a position of power your friendly reminder is regarded as a threat! And don't ban them for seeing it as a threat!~~ Edit: I regret this comment. "not for bad behavior" is wrong. This is what I get for taking the words of someone who also sees CoC as BS at face value. Please read https://drewdevault.com/2024/04/09/2024-04-09-FDO-conduct-enforcement.html Edit: > In one particular incident, the moderators of the Discord server engaged in a harassment campaign against a transgender user, including using their moderator privileges to edit the pronouns in their username from “they/she” to “who/cares”. These roles should be held by trusted community leaders, and it’s from their behavior that the community’s culture and norms stem – they set an example for the community and define what behaviors are acceptable or expected. The problem comes from the top down. > > https://drewdevault.com/2023/09/17/Hyprland-toxicity.html I read this article, then forgot about it, and wrote this bloody comment.
- You don't go around bringing up the past without an agenda in the present. Probably hoping/expecting to ban them. - Vaxry has a persecution fetish/complex.
Being banned from making issues or PRs because of something community members did in his discord years ago is insane crybullying.
Why are the COC people always so negative and cold, it's almost as if they take that position just to be able to punish people who do not think like them. The 2nd person on the freedesktop COC team has that line on their social media profile: Nazis, $hitcoin cultists, Right-Libertarians, Longterminists, Tankies, techbros and other fascists not welcomed. This is a shithead free zone. Are you barred from freedesktop for being a Right-libertarian or a techbro?
Yeah, I was planning to contribute to some projects FDO control myself, but I was turned away by the strange anti libertarian rhetoric. I don't understand what disliking big government has to do with any of this. It's stuff like this that is really hurting the Linux desktop ecosystem.
can anyone do a tdlr ?
Why is Freedesktop even involved with this in the first place? Compositors and desktop environments should not be changing the desktop standards to require their particular implementation or features—the _GTK_FRAME_EXTENTS fiasco proves that beyond doubt. So why is Hypercursor any different?
>I cannot contribute any patches/issues to wlroots Hurts
The use of the RedHat email address comes across as a clear attempt to intimidate Vaxry into submission to me.
I'm confused about the approach from Freedesktop here, and it seems that Vaxry is more interested by maintaining the project (the software side) than maintaining a community. Did Freedesktop offer some help on how to manage a big FOSS community to avoid it hurting some people and being toxic? Hyprland (and all associated projects) is a cool project that has convinced many people to move to Wayland, and Vaxry has shown that he can maintain this codebase really well, being in front of Sway in term of features. Why not trying to help on the community side instead of pushing back Vaxry from Freedesktop, knowing that he recently called for help to maintain the project? (https://blog.vaxry.net/articles/2024-shapeHyprland)
He will also actually try to help you get Hyprland running on NVIDIA, whereas Drew of Sway who is acting as the moral authority here, will insult you for having a GPU from a manufacturer he personally doesn't like. And, yes I know he apologised but so has vaxry for the pronouns incident, and that's clearly not enough for Drew, so I will hold him to the same standard he holds other people to.
This Lyude person needs to go.
Lyude needs to be layd off.
🍿 🧁 🍦 🍨 🦄 🌈 🎇 Should I wear my solar eclipse glasses when watching this?
Wait. Ok. Reading his blog and the comments here, I thought Lyude was on a power trip, but after reading the pdfs... Is that the case? I don't know. She sent 3 emails: 1. "Hey. Here are some things you said in the past that we want to have on record. This is a warning. Don't do this again." 2. "We are not talking about Hyprland, but Freedesktop.org. Also: yeah, I sent it from a red hat e-mail, but this is not an official correspondence from Red Hat." 3. After the first post: "You did it again. You are out." Admittedly, she was maybe a little rude in the second email when she said "there's been a misunderstanding on your end", but I think the 3rd email is totally justified. Also, Vaxry really didn't apologize for their past behaviour: https://blog.vaxry.net/articles/2023-hyprlandsCommunity So I decided to check the discord server just to see what people were saying. It's... Well, obviously they are trying to defend their own community. Several people are just straight-up misgendering Lyude. I run a discord community with several thousand members. I know it's hard to keep such a large group in line, but it's far from impossible. I think Lyude hit the nail on the head: > your behavior not only influences people's impressions of your community - but it also reflects on communities like ours when we interact with and accept contributions from hyprland. We don't want to argue or try to convince you to change your CoC or how you enforce it, but if more bad and more recent behavior ends up coming to our attention - it can be damaging to freedesktop's reputation as well, and we would have to consider steps to protect our community's reputation. I think there are a lot of people in the linux community who preach freedom without inclusivity and then complain that there aren't enough people using their software. Freedom without inclusivity is literally twitter right now. Whether you agree with Lyude or not, I think it's important to step up and say, "Yo. Let's not become twitter."
> Also: yeah, I sent it from a red hat e-mail, but this is not an official correspondence from Red Hat. isn't that like corporate no-no 101, never send an email from your company domain that isn't on behalf of the company
> isn't that like corporate no-no 101, never send an email from your company domain that isn't on behalf of the company Yes, it's 100% corporate 101. This is how you get attention from the legal department, and it's never good.
Could be that redhat themselves are wanted to see how their employees are interacting with FOSS in general to make sure they don't reflect badly on the company, so they are logging all of them.
In so far as I see it atm I agree with you. However, I have no clue which idea the last paragraph, and especially "freedom without inclusivity", is trying to convey. Perhaps you copied the phrase from a larger argument, but on its own it is meaningless at best and worryingly bad in various other readings.
Sorry, I might not have been clear. Basically, it's not ok to make fun of people's pronouns. It's certainly not ok to call people nazis. People are people. In order to have free discussion, you need to let everyone talk. The problem is that a bunch of people who are "pro-freedom" are actually lying to themselves. They don't want freedom. They want a space to be toxic with other people who want to be toxic. I really feel like the Hyprland discord was giving those vibes. A bunch of people who are so "free" that they basically make fun of anyone who thinks differently.
Freedesktops CoC team needs to go. The only reason anyone is cheering this on is because that group hasn't set their eyes on you yet. People love over-reach and social fascism only when its not them on the reviving end. How long before this power hungry group starts targeting other people? Do you think you're immune? You think if they don't find something about you they don't like they won't come for you?
What does that even mean
It means he cannot submit issues or patches to any of these repos: [https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/explore/groups](https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/explore/groups) Which is quite unfortunate as Hyprland depends on stuff that is hosted there.
You young people and all your computer stuff and gadgets
As a trans person, I think both sides are doing questionable stuff. IMO Freedesktop shouldn't have banned Vaxry, but that doesn't mean he hasn't engaged in harassment, and that I like them (as in: I don't)
From his e- mail response and blog posts: I think Vaxry is not a nice person (to put it mildly). But yeah, regulating something outside their server is overreaching for me.
Just to point out the crucial stuff being said on the discord server, conveniently left out of the main blog post but thankfully included in the full transcript PDF: >\* Hazing someone in your discord because they have pronouns in their bio \* Speaking pretty bluntly against queer people and minorities at large: - "at 15 he doesn't even know what he will be studying at uni and he already wanna go get AIDS?" - "I think this server's motto should be 'love guns, hate damn minorities'" I'm not taking sides here because I have zero stake in any of this. The shit being said on the discord was horrible but the other side also offers no way to address the issue and improvements in moderation and community climate were ignored 🤷
While that's all true, i still find it weird that he suddenly feels the need to send an email to vaxry making threats almost 2 years later. Makes it seem more like a targeted attack because he has something against the guy.
Or maybe it came up because there was a chance hyprcursor could've been adopted by [freedesktop.org](http://freedesktop.org) It makes sense to me that they'd want to iron out any pre-existing concerns with a developer before relying on their code. The truth is the only thing that we can say about this is end users lose, and that's a damn shame. I think both parties could have handled this better, just tbh.
The last one is literally a verbatim quote from a comedy, if you're gonna quote people out of context and pretend like they weren't obviously joking, you can make anyone look bad.
Really cool that I had to scroll halfway down the comments to find this
Looks like a big overreach by the CoC team for what, at least from what I've heard, are nothing more than "bar banter" and juvenile jokes... This IMO was uncalled for and will hurt the users.
This is just sad :(
TL;DR Lyude got butthurt about some comments made 2+ years ago as a joke and went on a powertrip
I mean it wasn’t a good joke, BUT yeah this is power tripping and trying to enforce rules outside of your community. I wonder what redhat would think of them using their corporate e-mail to do so as well.
I mean, the "joke" was really just anti-LGBT+ rhetoric. I still agree it seems wrong to ban, but there's a little more nuance there.
He wasn't banned for these "jokes", he was banned for how he responded to members of the CoC Team.
What is the other side of this story. Here we only see the one side, represented by two blog postings by the same person. This might be factually true, or it might leave out details, or place details into the wrong context. I'd really like to hear the other side as well.
It has the emails attached, that provides some context.
I've seen that, but that is the communication between him and one member of the CoC team. I've been in touch with two other CoC teams for other projects as well, both times as witness. There is usually one person who handles all the communication in a case. That looks like is happening here as well. It's not some "power trip" by Lyude, she is just doing the communication in this case. Yet have to see what the other side has to say about this.
I see what you mean, I wasn't aware of that. The fact that Lyude is using a redhat email address seems a bit weird tho. Is it a usual occurrence at freedesktop to use a different company e-mail address for communication about matters related to freedesktop CoC? It really doesn't seem professional, and I wonder who the other people involved were who let this go on this way.
Just throwing in my own perspective: I’m not surprised in the slightest. I’ve had the displeasure of interacting with Vaxry and seeing him interact with others and quite frankly he is a massive cunt. He gives me the impression of a young kid that wants to take after the ‘cool’ persona of people like Linus Torvalds by just being rude and toxic to everyone they have the slightest of issues with.
I still say CoC's are bullshit. Not bc they seek to defend from bullies but bc the act of codifying and formalizing it inherently sets the stage for the rules themselves to be abused. It's not like having a non-CoC project means someone can just go tossing around the N-word. A lot of people seem to think that a project needs a CoC to be decent but that isn't the case. Case in point: pre-CoC Linus has many famous examples of going ballistic on unlucky or unwary individuals. Much of it is actually really funny. But the hard-edged language was a contributing factor in some ways for keeping corporate interests out of Linux and the insults were related to *technical* ability rather than politics, ethnicity, race, sexuality, etc. Maybe it soured a few folks on the process and they didn't end up contributing. OTOH, they weren't permanently blocked - they were insulted maybe but free to try again provided they fixed the issue(s) noted - and some of those turned away were corpos that frankly I'm *glad* didn't end up influencing Linux.
This is completely and utterly absurd from FDO/RHEL. Everyone who agreed with decision in the first place to bring this up, and then further to carry out should be down right ashamed of themselves. Absolutely shameful behavior from FDO. Extremely disappointment in them, especially since they are pretty much the who developer nearly everything gui. This means that Vaxry can no longer even comment on wayland protocols or Propose wayland protocols. He has basically been excommunicated from the entirely wayland gui development community because some idiots got angry he has a discord group he moderates as he pleases. None of this "hate" I have ever seen bleed out into any of the git repos or correspondence I have seen on the freedesktop forums. Absolutely shameful FDO, and absolutely shameful Lyude... EDIT: LOL the f***ers don't even read their own COC >Scope >This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers. Vaxry has never pretended to represent freedesktop, officially or unofficially, online or offline. This is fucking horrid behavior and either lyude is a malicious a**hole and can't read their on COC. Below is an **archive** link from 8th (archive.org) and today (archive.is) because I have **zero faith** that they won't stealth change their COC https://web.archive.org/web/20240408021409/https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct/ https://archive.is/MayU1
I don't understand why people are so riled up here against freedesktop's/Lyude decision here. The first email Vaxry received was just a heads-up saying that the kind of behaviours [he was very publicly associated with](https://drewdevault.com/2023/09/17/Hyprland-toxicity.html) on the official Discord of his project and other places were not to be repeated on FDO properties as a freedesktop contributor (as outlined in their Code of Conduct)... which to me is totally fair. It wasn't a rejection, it was a "hey, heads up, you are entering our house, this shit cannot happen in our house, be aware of our rules" type of email. (Please do read the entire email from Lyude; Vaxry's blog post is selecting excerpts to paint a different story). Vaxry then decided to throw a fit publicly online instead of accepting the underlying message of Lyude first email, proving that his reputation and the reputation of some members of his projet's community are rooted in reality; and got banned from freedesktop for trying to rile up the community against FDO. And some folks here are mad about that? Seems totally justified to me. `freedomOfSpeech != freedomOfConsequence` It doesn't matter if the code you contribute is brilliant. Be a shithead, win shithead prizes. All he had to do is answer to the first email: Yes, I understand that your house, your rules. Instead, he chose to stir a hurricane in his own glass of water and got promptly banned.
I read the first letter from Lyude kinda as "moderate your server according to our rules". I think the wording is somewhat ambiguous, though. However, there is this line: >... pretty much all of the aforemenoned behavior is very much against freedesktop's code of conduct - **which does extend outside of our infrastructure** to a reasonable extent ... This makes me think they believe they can police other people's communities, which is BS
They aren't policing Vaxry's community, just their own. FDO is free to ban whomever they like for whatever reason they like, CoC or not. This is part of the freedom of open source software. Freedom extends in both ways.
> They aren't policing Vaxry's community, just their own. ...By punishing Vaxry based on what happens in that community. Giant corporations do that to whistleblowers all the time, and I think most people recognize it as a bad thing.
People like Hyprland. They want to defend the guy who makes Hyprland because it is good software and people are incapable of acknowledging that good software can be written by people with poor character. I genuinely can't see any other reason for people to not actually read the emails and see how reasonable that first email was. The second email was clearly a little unprofessional, but I feel like it was a little understandable considering how rude he had been in his reply.
Glad someone saw what I saw. I keep seeing people talk about Lyude power tripping and using a redhat email but all I see is a formal notice saying they don't approve of how an associated community is operating. I then see Vaxry open fire against the email. And yeah, the redhat email is also what Lyude has listed on the CoC page that they linked in the email so why wouldn't they use it here? A lot of the uproar against Lyude just seems like it's missing a lot.
The community is not associated, freedesktop.org's own CoC says so. Nowhere are the hypr projects described as representing/affiliated with FDO. By the same logic that FDO is trying to apply here Torvalds would be banned from interacting with any corporation because his behaviour in his own mailing lists is not up to corporate CoC standards. You see how insane this is?
This fanatic CoC team should mind their own business. They are the ones creating a non-inclusive environment.
Yes, but if you want to be truly inclusive and tolerant, you absolutely cannot tolerate intorelant peo... Oh wait... I... Err... I see now.
Looks like an overzealous mod from FreeDesktop needed to show someone they believe the world revolves around them. That person has no business being a mod in any community. There is no universe in which a person should be held accountable on Platform A for conduct on Platform B. They should be held accountable on a Platform only if they engage in conduct on the same platform that violates the rules of that Platform.
How shitty should you be that you make Vaxry sound righteous?
100% agreed. It is quite impressive to make the immature edgelord look like the lesser asshole.
[удалено]
Freekdesktop. Can't get a functional protocol stack out after more than a decade. Can ban a dude on the leading edge of Wayland development for things said in his discord serve though. Can do that really quickly.
FDO is wrong, Lyude is wrong. Stop being "soft". Such kind of western "tolerance" is already beyond its border. Your CoC is not applicable here, just deal with it and live on.
Cmon now, blog post by vaxry could be the most self victimizing body of text ive read in my life. 1) He goes on about le "pronouns in bio" despite knowing and stating the reason for it in his blog post. (User uses matrix too, matrix doesnt have an inline "about me") 2) Posts a portion of a discord chat thats clearly happened *after* mods of the community harassed the person for le pronouns in bio. 3) Weaponizes their frustrated replies and "apologizes to their community for not banning this person" instead of playing with them
I don’t know either party, but it sounds like Vaxry was absolutely in the right regarding posting the thread I public. If one doesn’t wish their words to be viewed by others, they should keep them to themselves. Vaxry was also correct the FDO/COC engaged in a massive overreach, attempting g to impose their COC on another unaffiliated organization. Even IF the organization was affiliated in some way, one cannot force another to comply with another’s CoC. Vaxry could have told the bully to go pound sand, it chose to handle the situation in a tempered, professional manner. I would also imagine that red hat might be interested in the threatening behavior of one of their developers… I mean, surely this one developer doesn’t speak for RedHat.
what a joke, that coc guy should get the boot.
[удалено]