4 ms·

Only in the sense that everything is subject to personal interpretation of those who are responsible for enforcing a set of rules. But wouldn't you agree that

Only in the sense that everything is subject to personal interpretation of those who are responsible for enforcing a set of rules. But wouldn't you agree that it's generally better to have a set of pretty clear guidelines that might not always be watertight, versus an _entirely_ personal, subjective set of inscrutable rules?

enriquto 8y ago
Maybe, but these guidelines are anything but clear.
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  On the contrary, these guidelines seem to be entirely clear, generally benign, and completely in-line with the general behaviour that anybody would expect in a professional environment. Of course there are grey areas. There inevitably are with any set of guidelines. But what do you realistically expect them to contain? An itemised list of every action which is allowed or proscribed? Instead, these are a general set of guidelines as to how a community should conduct itself – subject as any are to interpretation by those with influence – but a useful reference nonetheless. I'm frankly baffled at the idea that people find this hard to grasp.
pfortuny 8y ago
If you need a judiciary, you had better build it well. You already have one: the granted by the Law. ...
cabraca 8y ago
I dont see "pretty clear guidelines". I see an attempt to regulate complex human behaviour in a one dimensional document. it does not consider culture, tradition and upbringing in different regions. a friendly comment in one culture could be seen as unwelcoming or even sexist in another. the same with "Focusing on what is best for the community" .. there is no single "best" and no single "community". its a melting pot of cultures, countries and people. what benefits one might not benefit the others. this CoC is just an attempt to regulate what you cant regulate. maybe just replace it with "dont be an idiot, respect others and assume good intentions".
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  a friendly comment in one culture could be seen as unwelcoming or even sexist in another. It could be. That's why subjective interpretation and reasonableness are concepts. there is no single "best" and no single "community" There is clearly a single community by any reasonable definition – diffuse though it may be. The role of a set of guidelines is to establish what behaviour that community has generally decided is acceptable or not acceptable. We accept this kind of moderation guideline all of the time. maybe just replace it with "dont be an idiot, respect others and assume good intentions". Yeah, that's basically what it says in a little bit more detail, and with a few more examples. So where's the issue?
  - cabraca 8y ago
    the issue is with people who will follow the CoC to the letter. who will interpret something one says so it fits the CoC definition and will ask for their heads. just look at the stuff happening to Theodore Ts’o https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504 https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504
zdragnar 8y ago
In any non-politically-charged scenario, I might agree. Unfortunately, CoCs too often end up being a screen for abusers to hide behind. I have witnessed large projects adopt CoCs, then turn around and selectively apply them to people who express "wrong" ideas (either in code, issue trackers or on Twitter in unrelated discussions). In this case, I'd prefer to either have something more objective, or nothing at all for such abusive people to hide behind.

enriquto 8y ago

Maybe, but these guidelines are anything but clear.

matthewmacleod 8y ago
On the contrary, these guidelines seem to be entirely clear, generally benign, and completely in-line with the general behaviour that anybody would expect in a professional environment. Of course there are grey areas. There inevitably are with any set of guidelines. But what do you realistically expect them to contain? An itemised list of every action which is allowed or proscribed? Instead, these are a general set of guidelines as to how a community should conduct itself – subject as any are to interpretation by those with influence – but a useful reference nonetheless. I'm frankly baffled at the idea that people find this hard to grasp.

pfortuny 8y ago

If you need a judiciary, you had better build it well. You already have one: the granted by the Law. ...

cabraca 8y ago

I dont see "pretty clear guidelines". I see an attempt to regulate complex human behaviour in a one dimensional document. it does not consider culture, tradition and upbringing in different regions. a friendly comment in one culture could be seen as unwelcoming or even sexist in another. the same with "Focusing on what is best for the community" .. there is no single "best" and no single "community". its a melting pot of cultures, countries and people. what benefits one might not benefit the others. this CoC is just an attempt to regulate what you cant regulate. maybe just replace it with "dont be an idiot, respect others and assume good intentions".

matthewmacleod 8y ago
a friendly comment in one culture could be seen as unwelcoming or even sexist in another. It could be. That's why subjective interpretation and reasonableness are concepts. there is no single "best" and no single "community" There is clearly a single community by any reasonable definition – diffuse though it may be. The role of a set of guidelines is to establish what behaviour that community has generally decided is acceptable or not acceptable. We accept this kind of moderation guideline all of the time. maybe just replace it with "dont be an idiot, respect others and assume good intentions". Yeah, that's basically what it says in a little bit more detail, and with a few more examples. So where's the issue?
- cabraca 8y ago
  the issue is with people who will follow the CoC to the letter. who will interpret something one says so it fits the CoC definition and will ask for their heads. just look at the stuff happening to Theodore Ts’o https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504 https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504

zdragnar 8y ago

In any non-politically-charged scenario, I might agree. Unfortunately, CoCs too often end up being a screen for abusers to hide behind. I have witnessed large projects adopt CoCs, then turn around and selectively apply them to people who express "wrong" ideas (either in code, issue trackers or on Twitter in unrelated discussions). In this case, I'd prefer to either have something more objective, or nothing at all for such abusive people to hide behind.