unofficial mirror of guix-devel@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
* Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?
@ 2018-10-23 11:15 Mathieu Lirzin
  2018-10-23 13:38 ` Tobias Geerinckx-Rice
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: Mathieu Lirzin @ 2018-10-23 11:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: guix-devel

Hello,

Following the announcement made by RMS regarding the new GNU Kind
Communication Guidelines (GKCG) [1], I would like to know if the Guix
developpers in particular its maintainers would agree to adopt it in
place of the current Code of Conduct (CoC)?

Adopting the GKCG instead of a CoC would help attracting people (like
me) who agree to use a welcoming and respectful language which
encourages everyone to contribute but are reluctant in contributing to
any project following a CoC due to its punitive nature and the politics
of its authors [2][3].

Thanks.

[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2018-10/msg00001.html
[2] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
[3] https://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy

-- 
Mathieu Lirzin
GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761  070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?
@ 2018-10-28 11:58 HiPhish
  2018-10-28 12:33 ` Gábor Boskovits
                   ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: HiPhish @ 2018-10-28 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: guix-devel

I have had two packages merged, which I guess that makes me technically a
contributor, so here is my takes on the issue.

In my opinion Codes of Conduct (or CoCs in short) are one of the worst things
that have happened in recent years to Free and Open Source projects (hold that
though, I will address it soon enough), and the Contributor Covenant (CC in
short) is the worst offender. I will explain shortly why this is, but please
allow me to elaborate first.

There is no problem of harassment in FLOSS, there is a problem of socially
awkward nerds in FLOSS. Harassment presupposes malice, i.e. that the offending
person is intentionally being abusive. If you have never said anything that
made you want to vanish into the ground the moment it came out of your mouth
you are not human. Some people will slip up more often than others, and let's
face it: the people who are more likely to slip up are also more often the 
ones
who are good at programming. Why is it this way? I don't know, I'm not a
psychologist or anthropologist, I just need to know that this is the way 
things
are.

Now here is the important part: for an offensive act to be committed it takes
two sides, the offender and the offended. Part of social competence is knowing
not to slip up, but part of it is also knowing to just let it slide when
someone else slips up. Again, I'm not talking just about online discourse, but
social interaction in general. When someone says something stupid just ignore
that person, and if it keeps happening try to correct them in a friendly
manner. This is how we grow as humans.

This leads me into why the CC is a harmful CoC. The CC presupposes malice by
default, more than half of its content is focused on punitive measures, not on
helping each other. In contrast, the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines (GKCG
in short) explicitly promotes a cooperative two-sided perspective:

> Please assume other participants are posting in good faith, even if you
> disagree with what they say. When people present code or text as their own
> work, please accept it as their work. Please do not criticize people for
> wrongs that you only speculate they may have done; stick to what they
> actually say and actually do.
>
> Please do not take a harsh tone towards other participants, and especially
> don't make personal attacks against them. Go out of your way to show that 
you
> are criticizing a statement, not a person.
>
> Please recognize that criticism of your statements is not a personal attack
> on you. If you feel that someone has attacked you, or offended your personal
> dignity, please don't “hit back” with another personal attack. That tends to
> start a vicious circle of escalating verbal aggression. A private response,
> politely stating your feelings as feelings, and asking for peace, may calm
> things down. Write it, set it aside for hours or a day, revise it to remove
> the anger, and only then send it.

There is nothing like this in the CC, but there is this:

> Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be
> reported by contacting the project team at [INSERT EMAIL ADDRESS]. All
> complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a response
> that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. The project
> team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of
> an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted
> separately.
>
> Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good
> faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other
> members of the project’s leadership.

The CC is claiming to foster "an open and welcoming environment" while at the
same time holding a gun to every maintainer's head. The accused is not even
allowed to know what the accusation is about (confidentiality clause), so how
are they supposed to know what they did was wrong? There is no clause that
allows the accused to defend their position, only punishment is defined. This
applies even to the maintainer, so if they maintainer wants to protect an
unjustly accused person, the maintainer will be on the chopping block. To make
matters worse, the CC never defines what constitutes offensive behaviour.  
Take
a look at the following list:

> * The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention 
or
>   advances
> * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
> * Public or private harassment
> * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic
>   address, without explicit permission
> * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a
>   professional setting

The fourth point is clear, but what exactly constitutes any of the remaining
four? Is "Wow, thank you so much, I could kiss you!" considered "unwelcome
sexual attention" or just an exaggerated expression of joy? Is overhearing
people talking about "dongles" and "forking repos" considered unwanted sexual
attention? 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. Do you think this
makes for a healthy community?

The GKCG does not even attempt to define what qualifies as unacceptable,
because unless you pay a lawyer to write a tens of pages long document which 
no
one will read, you will never have a sufficient definition. Truly money well
spent.

As for the last point, if you really want to remove anything that would be
inappropriate in a professional setting, you have to go all out. No "I could
kiss you", but also no informalities, no emotion, and the project maintainer
will have to sign all his mails not with "Ludo'" or "Ludovic", but as "Mr
Courtès", RMS becomes "Dr. Stallman", Guix becomes "The GNU Guix project", no
Hacker culture jokes and quips the manual, and so on. If this what you want?

As a closing thought, I wish to address my opening statement that CoCs are one
of the worst things to happen in recent years to FLOSS. The argument with 
which
CoCs are "sold" to FLOSS projects is that there is problem of harassment in 
the
community which prevents people from contributing. And yet I have to see any
project where contributions have improved as a result of adopting a CoC, where
people who were previously harassed became contributors. In fact, I have yet 
to
see any actual harassment, and not just socially awkward nerds being socially
awkward. On the other hand, I have seen enough examples of existing long-time
contributors being expelled from projects and being harassed, especially by
proponents of the CC. 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. Yet none of
those people end up contributing to the projects they disrupt. Is the damage
you invite really worth it?

Guix is too important of a project, functional package management is the only
proper solution to package management. I believe there are interest groups of
proprietary software companies who would rather want projects like Flatpak
succeed, which are more applicable to proprietary software. Please don't let
them hold a gun to every contributor's head by inviting trouble into the
project. You have people in this very thread who are afraid of contributing,
and even I was considering leaving my packages just sitting on my local hard
drive rather than submitting them upstream, but as the GKCG says: "Please
assume other participants are posting in good faith, even if you disagree with
what they say."

PS: I agree that there is no point in having both the CC and the GKCG at the 
same time

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?
@ 2018-10-28 23:37 HiPhish
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread
From: HiPhish @ 2018-10-28 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: guix-devel

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018, at 7:33 AM, Gábor Boskovits wrote:
> 3. GKCG seems to be inadequate in the opinion of the maintainers, as:
> a. it does not define acceptable behaviour, and
> b. it does not define processes.

To be honest, neither does the CC really. It throws out a vague list, but 
never goes into any detail. I believe this is intentional, if you never define 
what the goalposts are, then you can move them around as much as you want and 
apply punishment as you see fit.

The same goes for due process, it does not define how to apply punishment, just 
that the punishment can range from a warning to getting completely banned. 
Also the accused has no right to defense, the accusation does not need to be 
disclosed and if any maintainer disagrees they can be removed from the project 
as well. This is just a kangaroo court system.

> I proposed to try to roll our own, essentially based on GKCG,
> but have the acceptable behaviour and the processes defined.

I am not totally opposed to it, but it's like writing your own license: other 
people have already put thought into it, so just use what they have written. 
The GKCG has the added bonus that it is an official GNU guideline, so it would 
be nice to have it throughout the GNU projects. The Debian CoC seems fine, and 
KDE has a decent one as well.
https://www.kde.org/code-of-conduct/

> Do you think that this could result in a better situation overall?

Improve in regards to what exactly? Are the maintainers afraid that the 
mailing list will turn into 4chan if there is no CoC in place?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?
@ 2018-10-30  0:46 Alex Griffin
  2018-10-30  2:09 ` Alex Griffin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread
From: Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-30  0:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tonton; +Cc: guix-devel

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018, at 5:58 PM, Tonton wrote:
> There are limits though. The CC pledges you to abide by it's rules in
> relation to a certain community. Outside of this you are not pledged to it.
> but see below.

I know, but my point is that pledging yourself to the CoC is way different than just entering a space with established rules or norms that you should follow.

> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "The words themselves actually
> carry weight, and not just as rules to follow" How do they carry weight
> outside of setting rules? I'm a bit intrigued by how much weight you put in
> your words though. Do you never blow with the wind and dance with the stars
> because of this bondage to words?

The words "covenant" or "code" in this sense of the word are far more weighty than guidelines or even rules. Obviously I do speak casually most of the time but not when discussing statements of value.

> I too spent some time mulling that one over, but seeing as it
> asks you to pledge what I see as a low standard of communication I found no
> problem with it. The fact that it gives some of us pause is probably enough
> to warrant a change though.

It's not *just* a low standard of communication. The same sentence goes on to list a whole slew of categories you might use to put people into groups, which I don't agree with because it encourages treating people as members of a group rather than as individuals.

> Debians spend time
> encouraging positive behaviour, and alludes to process - it misses
> responsibility and properly talking about process.

Both documents barely address responsibility at all, and to properly address it would veer this discussion far down the philosophical rabbit hole.

> Debians also misses defining negative behaviour, which leaves it up to
> potential contributors to investigate what is allowed and not in the
> community. This is enough for some to not bother trying, and that is one of
> the important points. I (we) want to include them.

Behavior which causes conficts qualifies as *potentially* negative, to be negotiated as it occurs, except possibly in very serious cases.

> Alex Griffin <a@ajgrf.com> wrote:
> > In a sense, the Debian Code of Conduct is a code in name only. It's really
> > just 6 guidelines for kind communication and resolving conflicts
> > peacefully, and finally a method for seeking recourse either as a last
> > resort or in serious cases. The Contributor Covenant is actually a real
> > covenant.
> 
> that's the same thing. :) I encourage reading the tao of pooh - this is
> completely off topic.

They're not the same thing at all. A covenant is something you pledge yourself to, a code in this sense of the word might otherwise be called a creed. A code might also just be a plain old list of rules, which the Debian CoC still wouldn't qualify for.

-- 
Alex Griffin

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2018-11-01 10:36 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 78+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-10-23 11:15 Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Mathieu Lirzin
2018-10-23 13:38 ` Tobias Geerinckx-Rice
2018-10-23 14:39   ` Mathieu Lirzin
2018-10-24  1:06 ` Alex Griffin
2018-10-24  3:02   ` Jack Hill
2018-10-24 10:02     ` Ludovic Courtès
2018-10-24 14:21       ` Alex Griffin
2018-10-26 21:36         ` Tonton
2018-10-26 22:37           ` Alex Griffin
2018-10-28 18:42             ` Tonton
2018-10-28 19:50               ` Alex Griffin
2018-10-28 20:25                 ` Alex Griffin
2018-10-28 21:12                 ` Thorsten Wilms
2018-10-28 21:26                 ` Alex Griffin
2018-10-29  8:59                 ` Björn Höfling
2018-10-29 10:49                   ` Thorsten Wilms
2018-10-29 13:43                     ` Alex Griffin
2018-10-29 17:48                     ` Christopher Lemmer Webber
2018-10-30  7:48                       ` Patch submission should not imply agreement to policy (was Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?) Mark H Weaver
2018-10-30 13:28                         ` Christopher Lemmer Webber
2018-10-30 19:39                           ` Thorsten Wilms
2018-10-31  8:58                             ` Alex Sassmannshausen
2018-10-31 12:17                               ` Thorsten Wilms
2018-10-31 12:48                                 ` Alex Sassmannshausen
2018-10-31 11:17                           ` Mark H Weaver
2018-11-01  3:47                             ` Mark H Weaver
2018-10-31 20:51                         ` Thorsten Wilms
2018-10-29 22:58                 ` Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Tonton
2018-10-29 18:16             ` Cook, Malcolm
2018-10-24 10:23 ` Ludovic Courtès
2018-10-24 16:06   ` Mathieu Lirzin
2018-10-25 10:23   ` Ricardo Wurmus
2018-10-25 15:25     ` Mathieu Lirzin
2018-10-25 23:03     ` George Clemmer
2018-10-26  2:43       ` Gábor Boskovits
2018-10-26 21:25         ` Alex Griffin
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-10-28 11:58 HiPhish
2018-10-28 12:33 ` Gábor Boskovits
2018-10-28 16:14   ` Alex Griffin
2018-10-28 20:55   ` Thorsten Wilms
2018-10-29 11:27     ` Alex Sassmannshausen
2018-10-29 17:00       ` Thorsten Wilms
2018-10-29 17:50         ` Ricardo Wurmus
2018-10-29 11:29   ` Alex Sassmannshausen
2018-10-29  8:23 ` Björn Höfling
2018-10-29 10:10   ` Thorsten Wilms
2018-10-29 11:13     ` Alex Sassmannshausen
2018-10-29 17:15       ` Thorsten Wilms
2018-10-29 17:43         ` Ricardo Wurmus
2018-10-29 20:44     ` Björn Höfling
2018-10-29 11:08 ` Alex Sassmannshausen
2018-10-29 18:50   ` HiPhish
2018-10-29 23:54     ` Tonton
2018-10-30  0:38       ` HiPhish
2018-10-30  5:13         ` Nils Gillmann
2018-10-31  9:27     ` Alex Sassmannshausen
2018-10-31 12:29       ` HiPhish
2018-10-31 12:46         ` Alex Sassmannshausen
2018-10-31 13:23           ` HiPhish
2018-10-31 14:14             ` Jelle Licht
2018-10-31 14:55               ` HiPhish
2018-10-31 12:30       ` HiPhish
2018-10-31 13:48         ` Jelle Licht
2018-10-31 14:55           ` HiPhish
2018-10-31 17:17             ` Thorsten Wilms
2018-11-01 10:35             ` Mark H Weaver
2018-10-31 13:48         ` Thomas Danckaert
2018-10-31 14:06           ` Alex Griffin
2018-10-31 14:55           ` HiPhish
2018-10-31 16:41             ` Thorsten Wilms
2018-11-01  2:58             ` Mark H Weaver
2018-11-01  9:14         ` Mark H Weaver
2018-11-01  8:40       ` Steffen Schulz
2018-10-29 12:48 ` Giovanni Biscuolo
     [not found]   ` <9066320.aHiQMI0tiE@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740>
2018-10-29 18:49     ` HiPhish
2018-10-28 23:37 HiPhish
2018-10-30  0:46 Alex Griffin
2018-10-30  2:09 ` Alex Griffin

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).