Godot Engine continues advancing Vulkan support, adopts new Code of Conduct

Quoting: scaineI think this is the first the I've ever been called an extremist though!

:P

I've doing some extreme drinking on the 7D2D stream. That probably counts. :)

Quoting: chrFor the record, I too am an extremist, but it isn't relevant to this discussion and extreme views are no reason for uncivil behavior generally.

I agree that extremism should be welcome and allowed and that uncivil behavior is where codes of conduct should focus, rather than the politics (extreme or not) of a community member.

Quoting: chrBtw I think calling someone an extremist is maybe also a form of name-calling, as in addition to the descriptive meaning (someone who is extreme in their views) a judging aspect was also present ("those people are bad/invalid"), I feel.

I agree. Over the past few days I've reflected on the way I've expressed things here. I probably shouldn't have used that specific wording, and/or shouldn't have used specific names.

I'd like to apologize for the way I phrased my statement. Sorry.

As I thought about the concept of extremism, I wondered where the bar is set for that descriptor. If everyone in the world has an extreme world view, is that view no longer an extremist one? If so, the term "extremist" would mostly be redefined to mean "nonconforming", which is a beneficial trait except in authoritarian structures.

Quoting: chrDonald Trump, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates have unimaginably more power over Godot than even the project leaders, even if they never exercise it (or specifically realize they have it).

I suppose that could potentially be true. Regardless, if any of those figures wanted to contribute to a FOSS project, I would hope that the project would welcome them with open arms. Regardless of what their personal impressions of them might be outside of the project.

I mostly just want to see an open and inclusive community that would welcome anyone who tries to bring more to the table than they take away regardless of what they believe. Regardless of "who" they were.

Regardless of where they donate their money.
Regardless of their opinions on certain high-profile criminals.
Regardless of their opinions on any hot-button issues.

Regardless of how they identify or the labels that others apply to them.

As long as they kept the off-topic stuff in the proper channels, either by avoiding that type of conversation in the community, or by directing it to an off-topic forum.

Quoting: chrWe want to limit the exclusion of people based on any unchangeable aspects of a person. And I feel there is no middle ground between accepting all people based on their unchangeable aspects of person AND accepting people who via their actions/speech exclude other people based on their unchangeable aspects of their person. You can either tolerate one or the other, not both.

I agree that we should avoid the exclusion of people based on immutable aspects of their being.

I think it is okay for bigots to exist. It is okay for all manner of folks to exist. It is okay for folks to have opinions that are incompatible with mine. It is okay for a demographic to believe that my demographic shouldn't exist and/or shouldn't have any rights.

It is okay to disagree with me. Disagreement alone should never be a reason to exclude someone from a community.

How that disagreement manifests is a far more important facet to focus on than the disagreement itself.

Quoting: chrI might completely be wrong, but I didn't get this impression and therefore feel that this is an unfair conclusion.

I came to that conclusion as a result of folks seeming to express that they'd like to discriminate and gatekeep based on their subjective impression of who someone was rather than objective measurements of what they do in the community.

If Thanos or Satan, for example, wanted to be a part of a community, I say please let them. If, through their actions in the community alone you cannot determine that they are actually causing harm, please be tolerant enough to accept them as members of the community.

If someone is considered to be bigoted in various ways, that alone shouldn't be a reason to exclude them from a community. If they take actions within the community that are vile, that is different.

If I were to potentially mislabel someone as an extremist and the CoC had a ban on extremists being part of the community, I'd hope that some type of objective measurement could be applied to determine that I was the one at fault for applying the label in an overly broad manner.

Quoting: psymin-- SNIP --

So, the takeaways here are that bigotry is both immutable and okay and we shouldn't mind if someone kills half of the entire humanity or funds someone with similar aspirations, as long as they don't do that in our community. Cool cool.

I'll just go and say that if I was operating an open source project with any sort of community, if I know you follow a hateful ideology that aims to harm me, my community or someone else purely based on irrational prejudices, I'll kick you to the curb and not even entertain the notion that your ideology might be considered normal. Either you fix yourself or you make sure I never find it out.

You know, I have to say, I haven't received a single comment report for this entire debate. Well done community. Great to see that a reasonably healthy debate can be had, without serious name calling and mud slinging :)

My own personal stance is the same rainbows and sunshine as always, I hope people can always find a way to get along. Even when views are different, as hard as that can be sometimes.