Re: Code of Conduct: Is it time?

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 3:21 PM, James Keener <jim(at)jimkeener(dot)com> wrote:

> This line has already been substantially changes. Can we keep discussion
> of the language of the WIP in the thread meant for it? This way people
> don't waste time discussing language which no longer exists.
>

I think the question though is relevant to a more general question of codes
of conduct.

Here is where I see the danger.

This is a global project. It is going to involve people with wide
perspectives on controversial and sensitive issues. It is not
inconceivable that we will include groups on the email lists who see the
mere presence of eachother as a personal attack. Coming up with examples
would probably be inappropriate but PostgreSQL is widely used and so that
may happen.

In LedgerSMB we have had civilians on the project in countries that were
threatening to go to war with eachother. But at least those weren't
culture war issues so we more or less just worked through the situation.

A second problem is that my experience is that folks who are going to push
people's buttons are going to be careful to do so in order to ensure the
community doesn't see it. To be frank, bullies usually have a level of
political sophistication that their victims lack and I don't see how a CoC
fixes that. (If it is just to say "yes we have one" then my experience is
also such that I worry about those people who worry about that.)

One of the nice things about the Ubuntu Code of Conduct is that it focuses
primarily on the positive. It is long, perhaps overly verbose, but it does
focus on what the community wants rather than what the community wants to
avoid.

It is easy to say "don't do these things." But it is perhaps better to say
"these are the values our community lives by. Please respect them."

>
> Jim
>
> On January 12, 2016 9:17:55 AM EST, Neil Tiffin <neilt(at)neiltiffin(dot)com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jan 12, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Steve Litt <slitt(at)troubleshooters(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All because somebody just *had* to personally insult someone else,
>>>> repeatedly, and nobody thought that was a bad thing, and when the
>>>> recipient finally objected, the objection was chalked up to him or her
>>>> valuing his/her victimhood.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I was thinking along the same lines when I saw JD's original list
>>> containing that "victimhood" line. I think that one line pretty much
>>> eviscerates the entire purpose of having the CoC.
>>>
>>>
>> I don’t remember the “victimhood”
>> line, but it is important to make sure people understand that the problem manifests itself both by being to sensitive by the complainer and not being sensitive enough by the group. I do believe that in any document it needs to be stated that everyone is expected to be tolerant of others. A free society cannot exist without some level of tolerance.
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>

--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more