3 ms·

I don't even understand the point of this part: >Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will n

by zxcvcxz 11y ago

I don't even understand the point of this part: >Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding: > ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ > Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you” > Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts > Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial > Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions It's one of the only CoC I've ever read that specifically condones some forms of harassment. No harassment should be acceptable. I've already switched to gitlab and I'm about to go through the list of projects that use this CoC and make sure I don't use their products anymore.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
Short version for the first of those items: quite a lot of people (trolls, particularly) are adept at spewing hate and then attempting to invoke a code of conduct when called on it, because somehow they're being oppressed when told that their behavior is unacceptable. (The same way lots of bullies are adept at choosing the exact moment where someone finally chooses to respond to suddenly appeal to authority and look innocent, in the hopes that at the very least someone in authority will say something monumentally stupid like "I don't care who started it" and punish everyone.) That doesn't mean a project should tolerate any form of hate. It's simply a statement that a code of conduct is not to be subverted and used as another weapon rather than as a form of protection. Also notice that it talks about the "safety" of one group versus the "comfort" of another, not the "safety" of one group versus the "safety" of another. The latter would be quite different. If you like, look at it as a statement about Bayesian priors: "what situation is far more likely, and should be the default assumption?"
- Karunamon 11y ago
  >That doesn't mean a project should tolerate any form of hate. Here's a better replacement that addresses all concerns: Attacking someone based on their real life identity is not allowed, regardless of what that identity is and furthermore is off topic as this is a technical project, not a sociological one. It has the same effect of banning all -isms by default, is clear enough and unambiguous enough for even a troll to understand and not being able to rules lawyer their way out of (people's identities are off limit, end of discussion), and keeps off topic nonsense out of tech projects.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > Here's a better replacement that addresses all concerns: Because a few moments of thought to compose a reply will produce a better result than people who have been working on codes of conduct for years and have seen the stunts people try to pull? Among many other problems, not all forms of unwelcoming behavior have to do with "attacking someone based on their real-life identity". A statement like that might be a start. And in the process, you've also managed to dismiss any and all discussions of how to positively improve a project to better address social issues, or how to fix existing problems. Congratulations, your code of conduct itself makes people unwelcome.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      >Among many other problems, not all forms of unwelcoming behavior have to do with "attacking someone based on their real-life identity". A statement like that might be a start. Of course not - but it would slot nicely as a replacement into the controversial piece of the Github CoC, which is kind of what I was aiming at. Under what circumstances would a contributor's real life identity ever be relevant in the context of a ticketing system? you've also managed to dismiss any and all discussions of how to positively improve a project to better address social issues Most of the time, those social issue are irrelevant. We're not talking about behavior on a chat channel, or a conference, or a mailing list, we're talking about behavior on a bug tracker. What social issues are not being addressed on a bug tracker that are relevant to the projects in question?
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      >Because a few moments of thought to compose a reply will produce a better result than people who have been working on codes of conduct for years and have seen the stunts people try to pull? Simple amount of effort doesn't guarantee a good result. I'm sure we can all name software projects that added feature after feature as years slipped by and ended up as a bloated, counterproductive mess, much like the CoC we're debating. >And in the process, you've also managed to dismiss any and all discussions of how to positively improve a project to better address social issues, or how to fix existing problems. Congratulations, your code of conduct itself makes people unwelcome. Actually, since you mentioned it: why is it the obligation of every random hobbyist open source project to "better address social issues"?
- unfamiliar 11y ago
  I understand what you are saying, but I don't think this is a good solution. Partly because in an online community, there are typically records of everything that is said so finding the instigator should be quite easy. Consider two different conversations: Conversation A: Person 1 (repeatedly) makes discriminatory comments towards person 2 Person 2 makes only non-discriminatory comments back Conversation B: Person 1 (repeatedly) makes discriminatory comments towards person 2 Person 2 same as above, but eventually makes a discriminatory comment back In conversation B, there was no reason for person 2 to make the discriminatory comment other than their emotions got the better of them and they were dragged down to the level of person 1. But I see no reason why this should be forgiven. Person 2 still made discriminatory comments which violated the code of conduct. We could argue over the appropriate level of retribution they each deserve, but I don't think they should get a free pass. Giving them one encourages a "fight fire with fire" attitude which simply leads to more discrimination. The solution in my eyes is to have a clear definition of discriminatory/harassing comments and enforce it consistently. Stronger repercussions for repeat offenders, warnings for the occasional slip up.

by zxcvcxz 11y ago

JoshTriplett 11y ago

Short version for the first of those items: quite a lot of people (trolls, particularly) are adept at spewing hate and then attempting to invoke a code of conduct when called on it, because somehow they're being oppressed when told that their behavior is unacceptable. (The same way lots of bullies are adept at choosing the exact moment where someone finally chooses to respond to suddenly appeal to authority and look innocent, in the hopes that at the very least someone in authority will say something monumentally stupid like "I don't care who started it" and punish everyone.) That doesn't mean a project should tolerate any form of hate. It's simply a statement that a code of conduct is not to be subverted and used as another weapon rather than as a form of protection. Also notice that it talks about the "safety" of one group versus the "comfort" of another, not the "safety" of one group versus the "safety" of another. The latter would be quite different. If you like, look at it as a statement about Bayesian priors: "what situation is far more likely, and should be the default assumption?"

Karunamon 11y ago
>That doesn't mean a project should tolerate any form of hate. Here's a better replacement that addresses all concerns: Attacking someone based on their real life identity is not allowed, regardless of what that identity is and furthermore is off topic as this is a technical project, not a sociological one. It has the same effect of banning all -isms by default, is clear enough and unambiguous enough for even a troll to understand and not being able to rules lawyer their way out of (people's identities are off limit, end of discussion), and keeps off topic nonsense out of tech projects.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > Here's a better replacement that addresses all concerns: Because a few moments of thought to compose a reply will produce a better result than people who have been working on codes of conduct for years and have seen the stunts people try to pull? Among many other problems, not all forms of unwelcoming behavior have to do with "attacking someone based on their real-life identity". A statement like that might be a start. And in the process, you've also managed to dismiss any and all discussions of how to positively improve a project to better address social issues, or how to fix existing problems. Congratulations, your code of conduct itself makes people unwelcome.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    >Among many other problems, not all forms of unwelcoming behavior have to do with "attacking someone based on their real-life identity". A statement like that might be a start. Of course not - but it would slot nicely as a replacement into the controversial piece of the Github CoC, which is kind of what I was aiming at. Under what circumstances would a contributor's real life identity ever be relevant in the context of a ticketing system? you've also managed to dismiss any and all discussions of how to positively improve a project to better address social issues Most of the time, those social issue are irrelevant. We're not talking about behavior on a chat channel, or a conference, or a mailing list, we're talking about behavior on a bug tracker. What social issues are not being addressed on a bug tracker that are relevant to the projects in question?
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    >Because a few moments of thought to compose a reply will produce a better result than people who have been working on codes of conduct for years and have seen the stunts people try to pull? Simple amount of effort doesn't guarantee a good result. I'm sure we can all name software projects that added feature after feature as years slipped by and ended up as a bloated, counterproductive mess, much like the CoC we're debating. >And in the process, you've also managed to dismiss any and all discussions of how to positively improve a project to better address social issues, or how to fix existing problems. Congratulations, your code of conduct itself makes people unwelcome. Actually, since you mentioned it: why is it the obligation of every random hobbyist open source project to "better address social issues"?
unfamiliar 11y ago
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think this is a good solution. Partly because in an online community, there are typically records of everything that is said so finding the instigator should be quite easy. Consider two different conversations: Conversation A: Person 1 (repeatedly) makes discriminatory comments towards person 2 Person 2 makes only non-discriminatory comments back Conversation B: Person 1 (repeatedly) makes discriminatory comments towards person 2 Person 2 same as above, but eventually makes a discriminatory comment back In conversation B, there was no reason for person 2 to make the discriminatory comment other than their emotions got the better of them and they were dragged down to the level of person 1. But I see no reason why this should be forgiven. Person 2 still made discriminatory comments which violated the code of conduct. We could argue over the appropriate level of retribution they each deserve, but I don't think they should get a free pass. Giving them one encourages a "fight fire with fire" attitude which simply leads to more discrimination. The solution in my eyes is to have a clear definition of discriminatory/harassing comments and enforce it consistently. Stronger repercussions for repeat offenders, warnings for the occasional slip up.