5 ms·

From reading peoples' complaints, they're worried that the CoC can/will be used to beat "problematic" developers into submission and reduce their ability to spe

From reading peoples' complaints, they're worried that the CoC can/will be used to beat "problematic" developers into submission and reduce their ability to speak and discuss freely. I think it's completely overblown. If a person's ability to discuss software development requires them to belittle others for their sexuality or political observation or gender or anything else not related to software development, then they should feel unwelcome and they should make a hasty exit from the community. The CoC makes room for everyone except serial harassers. If a person can't work on professional terms as part of a larger development community, they should go somewhere else and probably work on their own instead.

x220 8y ago
The problem arises when "belittlement" or harassment is defined by someone's feelings rather than any objective, specific standard.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  Which is exactly why there's a board, requiring 2/3rds majority in a vote, after reviewing the evidence in question. A person cannot simply accuse people they don't like and get them excluded for breaching the CoC. It doesn't work that way. And harassment/belittelment is always a question of feelings. You can't set up a clear concise objective standard. It's a case by case thing.
  - x220 8y ago
    > a board, requiring 2/3rds majority in a vote So instead of merely depending on the feelings of the accuser, it depends on the feelings of two thirds of the board? That's not much better. You can make objective rules that are not subject to feelings, you just have to be willing to not please everyone. When you don't have objective rules, people are less likely to participate in the game because people can't be sure that they aren't breaking a rule.
    - KozmoNau7 8y ago
      The board has a set of rules, that is the CoC. However as in any case where people are involved, they will have to deliberate and discuss to reach a conclusion. Perfectly normal. If you have a set of strict objective rules, some people will find a way to game them, and still harass people.

x220 8y ago

The problem arises when "belittlement" or harassment is defined by someone's feelings rather than any objective, specific standard.

KozmoNau7 8y ago
Which is exactly why there's a board, requiring 2/3rds majority in a vote, after reviewing the evidence in question. A person cannot simply accuse people they don't like and get them excluded for breaching the CoC. It doesn't work that way. And harassment/belittelment is always a question of feelings. You can't set up a clear concise objective standard. It's a case by case thing.
- x220 8y ago
  > a board, requiring 2/3rds majority in a vote So instead of merely depending on the feelings of the accuser, it depends on the feelings of two thirds of the board? That's not much better. You can make objective rules that are not subject to feelings, you just have to be willing to not please everyone. When you don't have objective rules, people are less likely to participate in the game because people can't be sure that they aren't breaking a rule.
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    The board has a set of rules, that is the CoC. However as in any case where people are involved, they will have to deliberate and discuss to reach a conclusion. Perfectly normal. If you have a set of strict objective rules, some people will find a way to game them, and still harass people.