From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: HiPhish Subject: Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 19:49:46 +0100 Message-ID: <1597638.gf1vM8XEL8@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> References: <11169507.O9o76ZdvQC@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> <87lg6g536v.fsf@roquette.mug.biscuolo.net> <9066320.aHiQMI0tiE@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59232) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHCbq-0005CO-0S for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 14:49:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHCbm-0005Ag-NL for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 14:49:53 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:51711) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gHCbm-00056J-8k for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 14:49:50 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1140D21413 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 19:49:47 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <9066320.aHiQMI0tiE@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Giovanni Biscuolo Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org (I forgot to CC this message to the mailing list, sorry if you get it twice) On Monday, 29 October 2018 19:34:47 CET you wrote: > On Monday, 29 October 2018 13:48:24 CET Giovanni Biscuolo wrote: > > if I was to choose a code of conduct for a project of mine I'd _never > > ever_ choose "Contributor Covenant" since it's so vague that - in good > > faith - I could never accept to commit to enforce it > > > > please consider CC does _not_ define: > > > > 1. the standards of acceptable behavior: it's up to the maintainers to > > clarify [1] > > > > 2. specific enforcement policies [2]: if needed (are the default ones > > sufficiently defined? IMHO not) maintainers should define enforcement > > policies > > > > so it would be mine (as maintainer) responsibility to address this two > > issues: no thanks, I do not want to "reinvent the weel" of > > "constitutions" > > This sort of thing is also why a Free license is not allowed to contain > clauses like "the software may not be used for evil purpose". Are you really > competent to judge what constitutes "evil"? The CC is just vague enough to > allow any malicious person to move the goalposts as they see fit. > > > > The accused is not even > > > allowed to know what the accusation is about (confidentiality clause), > > > > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/CODE-OF-CONDUCT#n68 > > does not say so, confidentiality is about the reporter, not the > > accusation claims (even if knowing the accusation could easily lead to > > the accuser, if the accusation is about one single unacceptable > > behaviour) > > > > > There is no clause that allows the accused to defend their position > > > > this should be part of a per-project enforcement policy, defined by > > maintainers (point 2 above) > > That's the thing, you have just found the loophole. The accused can be > denied any right to defense under the pretense that presenting the > accusation could compromise the identity of the accuser, thus breaking the > rules of the CC. You as an accused are at the complete mercy of an > arbitrary judgment. > > > > If I wanted I could consider it the former and pull the trigger > > > metaphorically. I am asking because this is not a hypothetical question, > > > people have been loosing their jobs over these issues for real. > > > > plz do you have any link to the relevant news, I mean of people being > > fired for CC enforcement? It would be very useful for my research > > > > any civilized country should have a legislation to address workers being > > fired based on their political views (this is discrimination) > > Companies don't generally disclose the reason for firing employees, but the > two most prominent cases are that of James Damore and the incident known as > "Donglegate". > > In the case of Damore, he wrote an internal memo at Google, criticising the > unfair treatment between the sexes. The memo got leaked, blow up by the > media into a full-fledged "manifesto" of a cabal of women-haters and Damore > lost his job. > > "Donglegate" as about a woman overhearing a conversation of two men during > PyCon 2013, where the talked about "dongles" and "forking repos". The > conversation was not addressed at her, she was eavesdropping, took their > photos without consent, uploaded them to Twitter and used the PyCon Code of > Conduct as a justification. At least one of the men has been fired > subsequently. The only reason why we know of this incident is because the > woman could not contain the joy of destroying a family-man's livelihood. > > Both of those incidents are well-known, so you can read up on them if you > want to. The man from Donglegate has since found employment at an all-male > company and he prefers it that way. Here is a question to anyone who thinks > CoCs are a good thing: do you really think that driving such a wedge > between men a women makes for a healthy and safe environment? How do you > think his wife felt? Do you think she was happy that the family's income > was now gone? > > > plz do you have more examples of contributors being expelled? I need it > > for my research purposes > > Take the case of this Drupal maintainer: > https://www.garfieldtech.com/blog/tmi-outing > > He was kicked out of the project because he has a maledom fetish (BDSM where > the man is the dominant part). That's right, he was removed from the > project because what he did in his bedroom was not politically correct. Not > because of abuse, rape, or anything, just because people took issues with > what he did in private. > > > > The CC's own author is one of the worst offenders of the > > > CC's own terms, going after people's private social media accounts and > > > quote-mining them to demand their expulsion or even extort money. > > > > this is a bold accusation, made in pubblic too: plz can you give us the > > relevant news on this so you can justify this claim? > > I don't have a list of links at hand, but you already mentioned the Opal > maintainer. > https://web.archive.org/web/20160227000631/https://github.com/opal/opal/ > issues/941 > There is also this interesting Ruby thread: > https://web.archive.org/web/20160128191532/https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues > / 12004 > As you can see from Ehmke's comments, there is no interest in becoming a > member of these communities, only installing a CoC that defines punishment. > No other CoC is acceptable to Ehmke. I also remember a Tweet saying > something along a lines of "This person said XYZ, he should donate money to > a transgender charity of my choice", but I don't have a link, so take it > for what it's worth. If this is not defamation and money extortion, they I > don't know what is. > > > > You have people in this very thread who are afraid of contributing > > > > **Q2**: given there are at least more than 3 people afraid of facing > > possible consequences to **their possibility to contribute** due to a > > perceived uncertainty of the project code of conduct, don't you feel the > > need to specifically address this in > > https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/contribute/ at least saying "do not be > > afraid to contribute"? :-) > > > > ...or do you think all this arguments are just FUD? I'll accept if you > > just say: yours are just FUD :-D > > I'm not sure what you mean by FUD. Adding a "don't be afraid to contribute" > does not mean anything. If someone is holding a gun at you and says "just > stay calm", would you feel comfortable? > > > > and even I was considering leaving my packages just sitting on my local > > > hard drive rather than submitting them upstream, > > > > another possibility should be (even personal) forking with no commitment > > to become an active contributor... but it would be an uneffective workflow > > Yes, but this does not benefit anyone. I mean, I could also make my packages > proprietary, but what would be the point? Hacker culture was always about > people tinkering and sharing, but we cannot have that if there is a group > actively antagonizing anyone who wants to join.