3 ms·

Overall it seems like a pretty decent CoC. Altough, I am REALLY not a fan of this line: "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a

Overall it seems like a pretty decent CoC. Altough, I am REALLY not a fan of this line: "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a person's ability to participate within them." I fear that that stipulation will be used to try and kick out people for holding "bad" opinions outside of the project. Like what was tried with Elia Schito.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
asylteltine 3y ago
[flagged]
VancouverMan 3y ago
Enforcement of this code of conduct would seem to inherently put the enforcers in violation of the Code. The Code states, "Harassment and other exclusionary behavior aren't acceptable." Yet, targeting specific individuals with exclusion seems to be the main method of enforcement. As you indicated, the linked-to page recommends exclusion be used: "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a person's ability to participate within them." The GCC Code of Conduct Response Guide (https://gcc.gnu.org/conduct-response.html https://gcc.gnu.org/conduct-response.html) also advocates for the use of exclusion: "In ongoing situations, any member may at their discretion employ any of the tools available to the committee, including bans and blocks." And: "An imposed vacation (e.g. asking someone to "take a week off" from a mailing list or IRC)." And: "A permanent or temporary ban from some or all project spaces (mailing lists, IRC, etc.)." The "vacation" one seems particularly insidious to me, as it tries to portray externally-forced exclusion as something that a person voluntarily imposed on himself. Like so many other open source project codes of conduct, this one also seems to be inherently self-contradictory and hypocritical.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  > The Code states, "Harassment and other exclusionary behavior aren't acceptable." > > Yet, targeting specific individuals with exclusion seems to be the main method of enforcement. That's not the gotcha you think it is; enforcers get higher privileges to enforce. Cops have the authority to carry a gun and kill people; the army has the authority to carry and use guns that civilians don't. "Take some time off" is a more friendly alternative to "you are unwanted / banned"; the former is trying to help them, the latter is excluding them.
  - dingnuts 3y ago
    No, "take time off" is just more condescending. It's fake care, concern trolling, punishment couched in the overly clinical language of millennials who are afraid to upset people because of mental health reasons I would literally rather be banned with language telling me I was banned, because that's honest at least. If you're kicking me out of a community because you don't like me, at least have the decency not to pretend to my face like you are trying to do me a favor.
    - Anthony-G 3y ago
      On more than one occasion, I’ve witnessed a moderator of a web forum or email list asking a participant to “take time off” and the participant later came back and thanked them for it. In those cases, the communities were small enough and it worked because the moderators knew the participant reasonably well and figured (correctly) that they were over-reacting because they were having a bad day.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    Well some of us see the inherent problem with "enforcers get higher privileges " some of us desire equality. I know many people do not any more but whether we are talking about a community or a government giving some members "higher privileges" is a huge problem. In government cops should not have more authority to "carry a gun and kill people" over that of the average person. If a cop needs to use deadly force, then any other person in that same situation should be authorized to use deadly force. Rules for theee but not for me is a terrible doctrine, equality for everyone (including the enforcers) under the law should be the goal
- dingnuts 3y ago
  The people who write these codes and enforce them are cops. Cops aren't against violence, they're against other people using violence. CoCs aren't about stopping harassment and exclusion, they're about establishing a monopoly on harassment and exclusion.
- logicprog 3y ago
  [flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Timon3 3y ago
Without this line, you could directly email everything the CoC bans (e.g. violent threats) to any contributor, and the CoC wouldn't give the community the right to ban you. It should probably be reworded in a way that makes this purpose more clear, but it shouldn't be removed entirely.
- Akronymus 3y ago
  And how would banning the contributor help prevent such messages? That's a topic for law enforcement.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    It increases the cost of overstepping in private messages, which would help prevent them. It decreases the likelihood of future private messages, since the offending contributor will no longer work together with other people from the project. It gives their targets a chance to continue working on the project without having to work together with that person. Why do you think it wouldn't help in any way? And please don't be difficult by choice. As I wrote, it's not just about threats, but also about a host of other things (discrimination, sexually explicit/violent material, doxxing, personal insults, unwelcoming sexual attention, advocation for any of the beforementioned behavior, repeated harassment). Not everything is something you would approach the police over, but it's all stuff you don't want to be subject to because you contribute to an open source project.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

asylteltine 3y ago

[flagged]

VancouverMan 3y ago

Enforcement of this code of conduct would seem to inherently put the enforcers in violation of the Code. The Code states, "Harassment and other exclusionary behavior aren't acceptable." Yet, targeting specific individuals with exclusion seems to be the main method of enforcement. As you indicated, the linked-to page recommends exclusion be used: "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a person's ability to participate within them." The GCC Code of Conduct Response Guide (https://gcc.gnu.org/conduct-response.html https://gcc.gnu.org/conduct-response.html) also advocates for the use of exclusion: "In ongoing situations, any member may at their discretion employ any of the tools available to the committee, including bans and blocks." And: "An imposed vacation (e.g. asking someone to "take a week off" from a mailing list or IRC)." And: "A permanent or temporary ban from some or all project spaces (mailing lists, IRC, etc.)." The "vacation" one seems particularly insidious to me, as it tries to portray externally-forced exclusion as something that a person voluntarily imposed on himself. Like so many other open source project codes of conduct, this one also seems to be inherently self-contradictory and hypocritical.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
> The Code states, "Harassment and other exclusionary behavior aren't acceptable." > > Yet, targeting specific individuals with exclusion seems to be the main method of enforcement. That's not the gotcha you think it is; enforcers get higher privileges to enforce. Cops have the authority to carry a gun and kill people; the army has the authority to carry and use guns that civilians don't. "Take some time off" is a more friendly alternative to "you are unwanted / banned"; the former is trying to help them, the latter is excluding them.
- dingnuts 3y ago
  No, "take time off" is just more condescending. It's fake care, concern trolling, punishment couched in the overly clinical language of millennials who are afraid to upset people because of mental health reasons I would literally rather be banned with language telling me I was banned, because that's honest at least. If you're kicking me out of a community because you don't like me, at least have the decency not to pretend to my face like you are trying to do me a favor.
  - Anthony-G 3y ago
    On more than one occasion, I’ve witnessed a moderator of a web forum or email list asking a participant to “take time off” and the participant later came back and thanked them for it. In those cases, the communities were small enough and it worked because the moderators knew the participant reasonably well and figured (correctly) that they were over-reacting because they were having a bad day.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  Well some of us see the inherent problem with "enforcers get higher privileges " some of us desire equality. I know many people do not any more but whether we are talking about a community or a government giving some members "higher privileges" is a huge problem. In government cops should not have more authority to "carry a gun and kill people" over that of the average person. If a cop needs to use deadly force, then any other person in that same situation should be authorized to use deadly force. Rules for theee but not for me is a terrible doctrine, equality for everyone (including the enforcers) under the law should be the goal
dingnuts 3y ago
The people who write these codes and enforce them are cops. Cops aren't against violence, they're against other people using violence. CoCs aren't about stopping harassment and exclusion, they're about establishing a monopoly on harassment and exclusion.
logicprog 3y ago
[flagged]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Timon3 3y ago

Without this line, you could directly email everything the CoC bans (e.g. violent threats) to any contributor, and the CoC wouldn't give the community the right to ban you. It should probably be reworded in a way that makes this purpose more clear, but it shouldn't be removed entirely.

Akronymus 3y ago
And how would banning the contributor help prevent such messages? That's a topic for law enforcement.
- Timon3 3y ago
  It increases the cost of overstepping in private messages, which would help prevent them. It decreases the likelihood of future private messages, since the offending contributor will no longer work together with other people from the project. It gives their targets a chance to continue working on the project without having to work together with that person. Why do you think it wouldn't help in any way? And please don't be difficult by choice. As I wrote, it's not just about threats, but also about a host of other things (discrimination, sexually explicit/violent material, doxxing, personal insults, unwelcoming sexual attention, advocation for any of the beforementioned behavior, repeated harassment). Not everything is something you would approach the police over, but it's all stuff you don't want to be subject to because you contribute to an open source project.