* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? @ 2018-10-28 11:58 HiPhish 2018-10-28 12:33 ` Gábor Boskovits ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 84+ 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] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-28 11:58 Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? HiPhish @ 2018-10-28 12:33 ` Gábor Boskovits 2018-10-28 16:14 ` Alex Griffin ` (2 more replies) 2018-10-29 8:23 ` Björn Höfling ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 3 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Gábor Boskovits @ 2018-10-28 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: Guix-devel I have a feeling that I might confuse some things, as this thread is getting rather long, so let me summarize what I have on my mind so far: 1. There is general consensus that having both CoC and GKCG is pointless. 2. CoC is not welcome by all, mainly because they feel that it discourages contributions. 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. My conclusion is that neither document really cuts the bill. I proposed to try to roll our own, essentially based on GKCG, but have the acceptable behaviour and the processes defined. Do you think this can/should be done? Do you think that this could result in a better situation overall? Best regards, g_bor ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-28 12:33 ` Gábor Boskovits @ 2018-10-28 16:14 ` Alex Griffin 2018-10-28 20:55 ` Thorsten Wilms 2018-10-29 11:29 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 2 siblings, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-28 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gábor Boskovits; +Cc: guix-devel On Sun, Oct 28, 2018, at 7:33 AM, Gábor Boskovits wrote: > I proposed to try to roll our own, essentially based on GKCG, > but have the acceptable behaviour and the processes defined. > > Do you think this can/should be done? > Do you think that this could result in a better situation overall? It's tough work to get everything right in a CoC. I think that's probably why the Contributor Covenant was chosen in the first place, but IMO it was a bad choice. The GKCG is slightly less polished, and only preferable because it does NOT specify processes (making it less important to agree with every word). The processes are where the whole controversy is; nobody objects to behaving compassionately. If you must spell out consequences for bad behavior, the Debian Code of Conduct is impeccable, I suggest starting with that. Despite the fact that I dislike codes of conduct in principle, I couldn't find a single thing wrong with it. -- Alex Griffin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 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 11:29 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 2 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Thorsten Wilms @ 2018-10-28 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel On 28/10/2018 13.33, Gábor Boskovits wrote: > 1. There is general consensus that having both CoC and GKCG is pointless. ACK > 2. CoC is not welcome by all, mainly because they feel that it > discourages contributions. That's a somewhat limited and tame take on it ;) You may count me as having contributed (little as it was) despite of the CC, definitively not because of it. The association with the primary author makes some people think of the ... fighting stance of her, the anti-meritocracy thing and her use of 2nd-hand "quotes" to get people into trouble (trying to keep it short here, thus far from exact). While one may say that the CC can and should be seen on its own, this background does turn it into ... unwelcoming language to some. I take it for some it reads like an invitation to those with little to nothing better to do, to report perceived or even made-up misbehavior. It has run-on sentences and ridiculous lists. Compare, and I can't even bring myself to quote from the start of the sentence in the far distance: "... regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation." With Debian's: "No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they interact constructively with our community." How does one manage to separate gender identity and expression from sexual identity and orientation? Maybe one must take gender studies ... and biology? Disability is listed, not (level of) ability. Body size couldn't be be subsumed by (personal (what other kind could it be?)) appearance? Trying so hard to be political correct, but than using the loaded term "race". This one is too "funny": "The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident." So if Jim reports that Jane threatened him to foobar his baz, then the project team has to contact Jane, but must keep it secret that Jim reported the issue? While being fair to Jane? Maybe such threats are illegal in the countries of both, maybe it's actually one country and police and the judicature might get involved? If the reporter is a 3rd party, sure, but even then an accused person may express anger towards the potential victim, via assuming that the potential victim reported personally. Now there may be cases where protecting a reporter is important and just, but this "protecting any accuser, always" stance seems problematic. > 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. > > My conclusion is that neither document really cuts the bill. > > I proposed to try to roll our own, essentially based on GKCG, > but have the acceptable behaviour and the processes defined. > > Do you think this can/should be done? > Do you think that this could result in a better situation overall? Yes and yes, though I'm not sure how much of a GKCG-alike it should become, as I think it's important to have something short that people can read and agree with (or not). -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-28 20:55 ` Thorsten Wilms @ 2018-10-29 11:27 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 2018-10-29 17:00 ` Thorsten Wilms 0 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Sassmannshausen @ 2018-10-29 11:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: t_w_; +Cc: guix-devel Thorsten Wilms writes: > On 28/10/2018 13.33, Gábor Boskovits wrote: >> 1. There is general consensus that having both CoC and GKCG is pointless. > > ACK > >> 2. CoC is not welcome by all, mainly because they feel that it >> discourages contributions. > > That's a somewhat limited and tame take on it ;) > You may count me as having contributed (little as it was) despite of > the CC, definitively not because of it. I for one am very glad you decided to contribute! > The association with the primary author makes some people think of the > ... fighting stance of her, the anti-meritocracy thing and her use of > 2nd-hand "quotes" to get people into trouble (trying to keep it short > here, thus far from exact). I think if you make these assertions you might want to bring context. As it stands it reads a little like "poisoning the well": you seem to imply the CC is bad because allegedly the author has done bad things in the past. > While one may say that the CC can and should be seen on its own, this > background does turn it into ... unwelcoming language to some. > > I take it for some it reads like an invitation to those with little to > nothing better to do, to report perceived or even made-up misbehavior. And that assumption by those people would be, to the best of my knowledge of the actual facts, incorrect. > It has run-on sentences and ridiculous lists. Compare, and I can't > even bring myself to quote from the start of the sentence in the far > distance: > > "... regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender > identity and expression, level of experience, education, > socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, > religion, or sexual identity and orientation." > > With Debian's: > > "No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we > welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they > interact constructively with our community." > > > How does one manage to separate gender identity and expression from > sexual identity and orientation? Maybe one must take gender studies > ... Just to clarify, gender identity and expression refers to who you (feel like you) are. Sexual identity & orientation is about who you are attracted to. > and biology? Disability is listed, not (level of) ability. Body size > couldn't be be subsumed by (personal (what other kind could it be?)) > appearance? Trying so hard to be political correct, but than using > the loaded term "race". > > > This one is too "funny": > "The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard > to the reporter of an incident." This is not uncommon in the context of harassment cases. > So if Jim reports that Jane threatened him to foobar his baz, then the > project team has to contact Jane, but must keep it secret that Jim > reported the issue? While being fair to Jane? Maybe such threats are > illegal in the countries of both, maybe it's actually one country and > police and the judicature might get involved? > > If the reporter is a 3rd party, sure, but even then an accused person > may express anger towards the potential victim, via assuming that the > potential victim reported personally. > > Now there may be cases where protecting a reporter is important and > just, but this "protecting any accuser, always" stance seems > problematic. This reads like hyperbole. If somenoe makes a complaint about me, I will be contacted by the maintainers. They will discuss the nature of the allegation with me, and hopefully I will be able to say "Shit, I had no idea what I did had this impact on someone else in the community. Thanks for bringing this to me. Any idea how I can avoid this in future?". I don't see where the problem is there? >> 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. >> >> My conclusion is that neither document really cuts the bill. >> >> I proposed to try to roll our own, essentially based on GKCG, >> but have the acceptable behaviour and the processes defined. >> >> Do you think this can/should be done? >> Do you think that this could result in a better situation overall? > > Yes and yes, though I'm not sure how much of a GKCG-alike it should > become, as I think it's important to have something short that people > can read and agree with (or not). Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-29 11:27 ` Alex Sassmannshausen @ 2018-10-29 17:00 ` Thorsten Wilms 2018-10-29 17:50 ` Ricardo Wurmus 2018-10-29 23:54 ` OF-TOPIC: " Tonton 0 siblings, 2 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Thorsten Wilms @ 2018-10-29 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: alex.sassmannshausen; +Cc: guix-devel On 29/10/2018 12.27, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote: >> The association with the primary author makes some people think of the >> ... fighting stance of her, the anti-meritocracy thing and her use of >> 2nd-hand "quotes" to get people into trouble (trying to keep it short >> here, thus far from exact). > > I think if you make these assertions you might want to bring context. > As it stands it reads a little like "poisoning the well": you seem to > imply the CC is bad because allegedly the author has done bad things in > the past. No, I'm saying that some opposition is motivated by the desire to have nothing to do with her, whatsoever. In order to not go off-topic, I tried to outline where the intensity might come from in short form. Of course the rational thing is to separate the CoC from its primary author. But then CoC supporters like to explain how offense depends on the feeling of those offended, so maybe you might not want to declare this aspect of it to be meaningless. Discussions regarding the CoC and Ehmke tend to attract problematic comments, but the start of this seems reasonable enough: https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/974038-why-the-linux-coc-is-bad/ Two interesting reactions to attempts to establish the CoC in projects: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004#note-95 http://paul-m-jones.com/archives/6214 >> I take it for some it reads like an invitation to those with little to >> nothing better to do, to report perceived or even made-up misbehavior. > > And that assumption by those people would be, to the best of my > knowledge of the actual facts, incorrect. This depends solely on whether there are people like that (numerous enough to matter). >> How does one manage to separate gender identity and expression from >> sexual identity and orientation? Maybe one must take gender studies >> ... > > Just to clarify, gender identity and expression refers to who you (feel > like you) are. Sexual identity & orientation is about who you are > attracted to. I get gender identity and expression and orientation, but honestly don't understand what sexual identity is supposed to mean in distinction. Wikipedia makes it seem to be identical to sexual orientation. Biological sex doesn't appear at all!? >> So if Jim reports that Jane threatened him to foobar his baz, then the >> project team has to contact Jane, but must keep it secret that Jim >> reported the issue? While being fair to Jane? Maybe such threats are >> illegal in the countries of both, maybe it's actually one country and >> police and the judicature might get involved? >> >> If the reporter is a 3rd party, sure, but even then an accused person >> may express anger towards the potential victim, via assuming that the >> potential victim reported personally. >> >> Now there may be cases where protecting a reporter is important and >> just, but this "protecting any accuser, always" stance seems >> problematic. > > This reads like hyperbole. If somenoe makes a complaint about me, I > will be contacted by the maintainers. They will discuss the nature of > the allegation with me, and hopefully I will be able to say "Shit, I had > no idea what I did had this impact on someone else in the community. > Thanks for bringing this to me. Any idea how I can avoid this in > future?". > > I don't see where the problem is there? The problem is you completely ignored the problem of maintaining confidentiality while letting the accused know _exactly_ what the accusation is about. The CoC encourages "believe the accuser" and "guilty until proven innocent" for the accused. -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-29 17:00 ` Thorsten Wilms @ 2018-10-29 17:50 ` Ricardo Wurmus 2018-10-29 23:54 ` OF-TOPIC: " Tonton 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Ricardo Wurmus @ 2018-10-29 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: t_w_; +Cc: alex.sassmannshausen, guix-devel Hi Thorsten, > On 29/10/2018 12.27, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote: > >>> The association with the primary author makes some people think of the >>> ... fighting stance of her, the anti-meritocracy thing and her use of >>> 2nd-hand "quotes" to get people into trouble (trying to keep it short >>> here, thus far from exact). >> >> I think if you make these assertions you might want to bring context. >> As it stands it reads a little like "poisoning the well": you seem to >> imply the CC is bad because allegedly the author has done bad things in >> the past. > > No, I'm saying that some opposition is motivated by the desire to have > nothing to do with her, whatsoever. In order to not go off-topic, I > tried to outline where the intensity might come from in short form. > > Of course the rational thing is to separate the CoC from its primary > author. But then CoC supporters like to explain how offense depends on > the feeling of those offended, so maybe you might not want to declare > this aspect of it to be meaningless. > > Discussions regarding the CoC and Ehmke tend to attract problematic > comments, but the start of this seems reasonable enough: > https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/974038-why-the-linux-coc-is-bad/ > > Two interesting reactions to attempts to establish the CoC in projects: > https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004#note-95 > http://paul-m-jones.com/archives/6214 Please try to avoid redirecting the focus of this thread by referencing unrelated topics. The Guix maintainers have used the CoC in the past to investigate and respond to harassment reports. I would appreciate it if you didn’t make assumptions about how this happens when you don’t have that kind of information and you don’t shoulder this responsibility. Otherwise people might easily misunderstand your comments. -- Ricardo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* OF-TOPIC: Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-29 17:00 ` Thorsten Wilms 2018-10-29 17:50 ` Ricardo Wurmus @ 2018-10-29 23:54 ` Tonton 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Tonton @ 2018-10-29 23:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thorsten Wilms; +Cc: alex.sassmannshausen, guix-devel On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 18:00:28 +0100 Thorsten Wilms <t_w_@freenet.de> wrote: > >> How does one manage to separate gender identity and expression from > >> sexual identity and orientation? Maybe one must take gender studies > >> ... > > > > Just to clarify, gender identity and expression refers to who you (feel > > like you) are. Sexual identity & orientation is about who you are > > attracted to. > > I get gender identity and expression and orientation, but honestly don't > understand what sexual identity is supposed to mean in distinction. > Wikipedia makes it seem to be identical to sexual orientation. > Biological sex doesn't appear at all!? > Biological sex is what it is, though there are way more than 2. Sexual identity is about your sexual identity, while orientation is about attraction. Recommended: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hmULQc5jIw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoUORx0LeIc Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81-FEauK9II Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ9ly4cK9tg > > The CoC encourages "believe the accuser" and "guilty until proven > innocent" for the accused. > It encourages believe the accuser (often termed victim). This does not imply guilt for another part. Very few things are black and white. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-28 12:33 ` Gábor Boskovits 2018-10-28 16:14 ` Alex Griffin 2018-10-28 20:55 ` Thorsten Wilms @ 2018-10-29 11:29 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 2 siblings, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Sassmannshausen @ 2018-10-29 11:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gábor Boskovits; +Cc: Guix-devel Hello, Gábor Boskovits writes: > I have a feeling that I might confuse some things, as this thread is > getting rather long, so let me summarize what I have on my mind so > far: > > 1. There is general consensus that having both CoC and GKCG is pointless. > 2. CoC is not welcome by all, mainly because they feel that it > discourages contributions. > 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. > > My conclusion is that neither document really cuts the bill. > > I proposed to try to roll our own, essentially based on GKCG, > but have the acceptable behaviour and the processes defined. > > Do you think this can/should be done? > Do you think that this could result in a better situation overall? I appreciate the motivation behind this effort. Personally I think it is better to stick with a widely used, and fairly robust policy. In addition, rolling our own will be a very long, exhausting process, and we'll likely end up with a document that still doesn't please everyone. Just my 2¢. Alex > > Best regards, > g_bor ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-28 11:58 Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? HiPhish 2018-10-28 12:33 ` Gábor Boskovits @ 2018-10-29 8:23 ` Björn Höfling 2018-10-29 10:10 ` Thorsten Wilms 2018-10-29 11:08 ` Alex Sassmannshausen ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Björn Höfling @ 2018-10-29 8:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: HiPhish; +Cc: guix-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 15353 bytes --] Hi HiPhish, thank you very much for your insights. Others just said that they are against the CoC and its politics, you brought up arguments. Thank you. Though I have a slightly different view on it that I will explain. Note these are my personal thoughts, I don't know what the Guix maintainers think about it. I hope it is understandable, as I'm not a native speaker I had to search for words and hopefully used them right. On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:58:51 +0100 HiPhish <hiphish@posteo.de> wrote: [..] > There is no problem of harassment in FLOSS, there is a problem of > socially awkward nerds in FLOSS. I agree in one point with you: In tech, there are so many nerds. People who are shy. Who don't know how to talk to others. Who focus on technology. Who are awesomely good in their tech field. And who don't know how to cope with other human beings and because of that they could cause irritations or injuries on the other side. > 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. It doesn't matter if harassment stems from malicious intent or just from foolishness (I believe the biggest nerd currently sits in the white house and he doesn't know better, but that doesn't make it better for the people being his target). The only thing that cares is that the target person feels harassed (To avoid that word and its blaming/biased sound, I will use the words "actor" and "target" for the persons involved). And yes, that is totally subjective to the target. If he/she/they have that feeling, they have it. I will come back to that point later. Concerning the target part, you formulated "just let it slide when someone else slips up": Depending on who said it, how it was said, how deep it hurt, etc that might be a reaction. Once. Twice (Or at least that used to be the reaction in the last century?). But every time you let something hurtful just go through, two things happen: First you give the acting part the feedback that this behavior is accepted (and can be repeated). And secondly you bring them in an acting role and yourself in a re-acting one (if at all, it might be better described as an "ambient" role, like the room around has [cmp. women who silently "accept/agree into" sexual abuse]). Furthermore, there happen to be some portions of humanity that have the bad luck to be just "slipped upon" more often than others. They might be intelligent, they might have a diploma [why at all do they need to justify?!], they have just -- by some random distribution and "evaluation function" -- the "wrong" skin-color, the "wrong" birth place, the "wrong" language, the "wrong" sex, the "wrong" non-binary sexual identity that society cannot cope with or take whatever. Because they got beaten up more often by random, unimportant features, we call them minorities. And for those who are the targets it is no longer "just a joke", "just once" or whatever. They get harassed, targeted too often. > 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. [..] For me, "please" is a too relaxed word here. That's why I'm against the GKCG. It is not at all a pleasure for the target person. It is about stopping the act that violates target immediately. > 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. In my view, this is an unfair quotation/comparison. For reference, I'm tanking my quotes from the text version: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.txt I would compare somehow the whole "Please"-series of the GKCG with the "Our Standards" part of the CoC, where good and bad behavior is explained (maybe it would have been better to use full sentences here), quoting the first two positives here: * Using welcoming and inclusive language * Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences To me, the GKCG looks more like rules between equally powerful actors, be it like in martial arts with the same belts or GNU hackers with the (more or less) same cultural background and education. "Please guys [intentionally using the male pronoun here] you know the rules, be polite and fair to each other. If someone is a bit rude, you know, he doesn't mean it, you know that, come back to the rules please. Please calm down guys, no more flamewars, debate about the code like the old greeks did about philosophy." It's not meant to protect a minority target from a majority/powerful actor. > > > > 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 part with the gun feels awkward to me. I would say it differently, and that word is also used in the CoC: The project maintainers have the re-sponsibility to (re-)act whenever someone feels to be a target of harassment, abuse, pressure, uncomfortable behavior, or whatever you call it. Any incident when someone feels hurt. It is like an employer has the responsibility for the employees. The employer has to protect them, from work accidents and from threads from other employees or customers. And the maintainer is the one who has the power to do so: Zhe [trying to be as gener-neutral as possible here] can grant or revoke submitting rights, can block IRC channels, can block on the majordomo. Zhe can and should use that power to stop violate acts against a member. That power can be abused of cause, but then we should deal with that abusage behaviour. > 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. The important part here is to protect the target/victim. If they must fear more abuse, more hate we have to protect them and give them our word that we don't betray them. If that is assured, we should give as much as possible explanations what, against whom, why, etc some behavior was wrong. > 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 I wrote in the beginning, this is totally subjective what hurts. Whenever someone felt hurt, it is a fact that this person felt hurt and asked maintainer for help. That's why it is open, and only with examples. The question here -- that society in general has in this debate -- is how someone who interacts with other persons can assure to do the "right" thing without feeling restricted in normal life. How to express ones overwhelming emotions without offending someone, scandalizing things. How to get the attraction of a person, how to interact physically with them, even in a job-situation without getting into trouble. And the nerd wants that to be formalized, to have a set of rules to obey and then it works. That's not possible. Low is an attempt to formalize that. A first order approximation. A trade-off. Law has to balance between the two sides: The "attacker" and the "attacked" and needs to ensure the freedom and actionability of both of them. But beyond that there is more, call it "respectfullness". And society is currently more focusing on this gray area. And yes, it might cost someone the job although that person wasn't spoken guilty in a juridical sense. We should find a good balance and I think Guix had that balance in the past. To quickly step into and say that a word, a pronoun, a physical behavior was inappropriate (for the target, the community) and must be stopped immediately. Only if that goes on, there should be other consequences. > 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? Its not about getting more formal or "colder". Emotions, nerdiness, cool jokes, sarcasm, talking against institutions and persons. All allowed. Thinking out a short name/pet name for yourself and then being called by others with that name is totally OK (Calling someone else with out their consent is not, its getting worse if that name stems from disabilities, racial membership, etc). With "I would kiss you" I would be careful. If you know the person personally/physically and that person likes to be physical (with you), OK. But in an anonymous online conversation: no. I know at last one person with whom I do not want to kiss. And where the announcement of that feels ugly. No thanks. Borders trespassed. > > 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. It is impossible to measure where a project would stay now if a harassment wouldn't have been there. These harassed people are just not there and you don't know anything about them, its like dark matter instead of colorful light. If you look around and search, you will find plenty examples where people received unrespectful behaviour and quit. How to evaluate that loss? Wheater you call that "harassment" or not. Something happend to the victims/target. Example: Sage Sharp left the kernel development: https://sage.thesharps.us/2015/10/05/closing-a-door/ How good would have been the USB 3.0 driver now, or the community documentation, when he would have continued his work with passion in a respectful community? > 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? I haven't yet read enough about the author of CC to draw my conclusions. At least what I can say is that the author uses a lot of sarcasm at places where direct, polite speech would have been more appropriate. I believe that the Guix community is quite good when it comes to practical issues with the CoC: They act immediately and try to cool discussion down quickly. I hope we can hold long term contributors even if they do mistakes. My impression is that we loose some because prior to anything happening they somehow feel restricted or observed with a CoC. That restriction is more in their head than in reality. I would encourage them to go on, to contribute, and if something crosses borders, that can be handled. Thanks again for your discussions, Björn [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-29 8:23 ` Björn Höfling @ 2018-10-29 10:10 ` Thorsten Wilms 2018-10-29 11:13 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 2018-10-29 20:44 ` Björn Höfling 0 siblings, 2 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Thorsten Wilms @ 2018-10-29 10:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel On 29/10/2018 09.23, Björn Höfling wrote: > Example: Sage Sharp left the kernel development: > > https://sage.thesharps.us/2015/10/05/closing-a-door/ > > How good would have been the USB 3.0 driver now, or the > community documentation, when he would have continued his work with > passion in a respectful community? Sage may feel you mis-gendered them, as they prefer they/them. Please be respectful ;) Sage advocates the CoC and called an opponent a "rape apologist", based on not just a mean spirited interpretation, but rather factually wrong. I think this qualifies as slander. https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504 using as reference: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Rape_apology_on_LCA_mailing_list This is a prime example of what may make one suspicious of CoCs and the Covenant in particular, when people who want them do things like that. It looks like war, with the usual effects on truth and fairness. -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-29 10:10 ` Thorsten Wilms @ 2018-10-29 11:13 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 2018-10-29 17:15 ` Thorsten Wilms 2018-10-29 20:44 ` Björn Höfling 1 sibling, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Sassmannshausen @ 2018-10-29 11:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: t_w_; +Cc: guix-devel Hi Thorsten, Thorsten Wilms writes: > On 29/10/2018 09.23, Björn Höfling wrote: >> Example: Sage Sharp left the kernel development: >> >> https://sage.thesharps.us/2015/10/05/closing-a-door/ >> >> How good would have been the USB 3.0 driver now, or the >> community documentation, when he would have continued his work with >> passion in a respectful community? > > Sage may feel you mis-gendered them, as they prefer they/them. Please > be respectful ;) Thank you for letting us know; I certainly would aim want to respect their preference. > Sage advocates the CoC and called an opponent a "rape apologist", > based on not just a mean spirited interpretation, but rather factually > wrong. I think this qualifies as slander. > > https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504 > using as reference: > http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Rape_apology_on_LCA_mailing_list I'm sorry, I'm not clear on where the factual incorrectness was in the things you linked to above. I did not follow the original debate in detail so am going on the links you provide. > This is a prime example of what may make one suspicious of CoCs and > the Covenant in particular, when people who want them do things like > that. It looks like war, with the usual effects on truth and fairness. I'm not seeing this from what you linked to. Best wishes, Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-29 11:13 ` Alex Sassmannshausen @ 2018-10-29 17:15 ` Thorsten Wilms 2018-10-29 17:43 ` Ricardo Wurmus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Thorsten Wilms @ 2018-10-29 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: alex.sassmannshausen; +Cc: guix-devel On 29/10/2018 12.13, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote: >> https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504 >> using as reference: >> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Rape_apology_on_LCA_mailing_list > > I'm sorry, I'm not clear on where the factual incorrectness was in the > things you linked to above. I did not follow the original debate in > detail so am going on the links you provide. If you read what was quoted from Theodore Tso's email and now think that calling him a rape apologist is warranted, then, as the very least, I have to doubt your reading comprehension. -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-29 17:15 ` Thorsten Wilms @ 2018-10-29 17:43 ` Ricardo Wurmus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Ricardo Wurmus @ 2018-10-29 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: t_w_; +Cc: alex.sassmannshausen, guix-devel, hiphish Hi Thorsten, I’m replying to your email, but this message is also a general comment about this discussion. > On 29/10/2018 12.13, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote: > >>> https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/status/1042769399596437504 >>> using as reference: >>> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Rape_apology_on_LCA_mailing_list >> >> I'm sorry, I'm not clear on where the factual incorrectness was in the >> things you linked to above. I did not follow the original debate in >> detail so am going on the links you provide. > > If you read what was quoted from Theodore Tso's email and now think > that calling him a rape apologist is warranted, then, as the very > least, I have to doubt your reading comprehension. Please let’s not go down tangents like this. Sage and Theodore Ts’o are not contributors to Guix, nor is Coraline Ada Ehmke, so I would not want to discuss their activities in the context of this discussion. This community has been using the Code of Conduct for quite some time now, and I think we’ve been doing pretty well so far. If you would like to improve the text of the Code of Conduct to clarify it, I would like to encourage you to submit a patch draft here: https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant The text has undergone a series of revisions that demonstrate that the exact wording is not set in stone and that communities are willing to update the text to reduce misunderstandings. Discussing this here on this mailing list is likely not going to have the effect that you may be hoping for as the CoC is a tool that the maintainers have decided to adopt. If you have concrete suggestions to improve the text in the context of Guix and you think that it would not be applicable to the text that our CoC is based on, then please contact the maintainers: ludo@gnu.org and rekado@elephly.net. Thank you! -- Ricardo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-29 10:10 ` Thorsten Wilms 2018-10-29 11:13 ` Alex Sassmannshausen @ 2018-10-29 20:44 ` Björn Höfling 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Björn Höfling @ 2018-10-29 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thorsten Wilms; +Cc: guix-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 617 bytes --] On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 11:10:42 +0100 Thorsten Wilms <t_w_@freenet.de> wrote: > On 29/10/2018 09.23, Björn Höfling wrote: > > Example: Sage Sharp left the kernel development: > > > > https://sage.thesharps.us/2015/10/05/closing-a-door/ > > > > How good would have been the USB 3.0 driver now, or the > > community documentation, when he would have continued his work with > > passion in a respectful community? > > Sage may feel you mis-gendered them, as they prefer they/them. Please > be respectful ;) I'm sorry. I will more focus on my pronouns next time. Thanks for reminding me. Björn [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-28 11:58 Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? HiPhish 2018-10-28 12:33 ` Gábor Boskovits 2018-10-29 8:23 ` Björn Höfling @ 2018-10-29 11:08 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 2018-10-29 18:50 ` HiPhish 2018-10-29 11:37 ` Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? (-> convivenza) Nils Gillmann 2018-10-29 12:48 ` Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Giovanni Biscuolo 4 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Sassmannshausen @ 2018-10-29 11:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: HiPhish; +Cc: guix-devel Hello, I strongly support the CC and a specific CoC. Just to put my cards on the table. HiPhish writes: > 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. I think you a have burden of proof here, given that our culture at large has serious issues with harassment. Why would you think FLOSS community is somehow different from the wider community? > Harassment presupposes malice, i.e. that the offending person is > intentionally being abusive. You can harass someone whilst believing your acting positively. E.g. an ex-partner that "just wants to show how much they love the person that spurned them". And ends up stalking them. > 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. You're conflating harassment and offense here. It is one thing to be offended by individuals using the wrong cutlery for the entrée; it is another entirely for someone to, e.g. use crass racist caricatures. > 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? I personally am not aware of such behaviour. I think if you bring these accusations into this thread it might be worth having some evidence perhaps? Dunno. > Guix is too important of a project, functional package management is the only > proper solution to package management. All the more important we do everything we can to minimise the existing barriers to contributions from all walks of life. > 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. This reads hyperbolic, if not somewhat conspiratorial to me. No guns are being held to anyone's head, no life's endangered or violence even threatened. I also disagree with the implication that harassment complaints might be weapons used by a nefarious competing party. > 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." If you don't mind me asking, what are you afraid of? Best wishes, Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-29 11:08 ` Alex Sassmannshausen @ 2018-10-29 18:50 ` HiPhish 2018-10-29 23:54 ` Tonton 2018-10-31 9:27 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: HiPhish @ 2018-10-29 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: alex.sassmannshausen; +Cc: guix-devel On Monday, 29 October 2018 12:08:56 CET you wrote: > I think you a have burden of proof here, given that our culture at large > has serious issues with harassment. Why would you think FLOSS community > is somehow different from the wider community? No, you have a burden of proof that "our" culture (whatever this "our" is supposed to mean, I have no idea where you live and you have no idea where I live) has a serious issue with harassment. > You can harass someone whilst believing your acting positively. E.g. an > ex-partner that "just wants to show how much they love the person that > spurned them". And ends up stalking them. You cannot accidentally stalk someone. Stalkers who are not aware they are harassing have a mental disorder. Calling them harassers is against the terms of the CC because it is discrimination by disability. See how easy it is to break the terms of the CC? > You're conflating harassment and offense here. It is one thing to be > offended by individuals using the wrong cutlery for the entrée; it is > another entirely for someone to, e.g. use crass racist caricatures. You intentionally chose the most extreme examples. > All the more important we do everything we can to minimise the existing > barriers to contributions from all walks of life. By pointing a gun at the people most likely to contribute? > This reads hyperbolic, if not somewhat conspiratorial to me. No guns > are being held to anyone's head, no life's endangered or violence even > threatened. I also disagree with the implication that harassment > complaints might be weapons used by a nefarious competing party. People are putting their careers on the line even by having this discussion in the first place. There is a reason why I am using a pseudonym. I have provided links to the other guy of people who had their jobs ruined under the pretense of a CoC. The people who made the accusations never ended up filling the void themselves, they only go around destroying. > If you don't mind me asking, what are you afraid of? See above. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-29 18:50 ` HiPhish @ 2018-10-29 23:54 ` Tonton 2018-10-30 0:38 ` HiPhish 2018-10-31 9:27 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Tonton @ 2018-10-29 23:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: HiPhish; +Cc: alex.sassmannshausen, guix-devel On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 19:50:05 +0100 HiPhish <hiphish@posteo.de> wrote: > On Monday, 29 October 2018 12:08:56 CET you wrote: > > I think you a have burden of proof here, given that our culture at large > > has serious issues with harassment. Why would you think FLOSS community > > is somehow different from the wider community? > No, you have a burden of proof that "our" culture (whatever this "our" is > supposed to mean, I have no idea where you live and you have no idea where > I live) has a serious issue with harassment. You, me, Alex and the rest of Guix share a culture. I'm assuming that is the culture Alex refers to, not the cultures of our distinct offline locale. Also, the burden of proof really is with HiPhish. Harassment in tech, and FLOSS especially has been well documented. See for example: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/FLOSS https://lwn.net/Articles/417952/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/05/open_source_developer_survey_2017/ for a start. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-29 23:54 ` Tonton @ 2018-10-30 0:38 ` HiPhish 2018-10-30 5:13 ` Nils Gillmann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: HiPhish @ 2018-10-30 0:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tonton; +Cc: guix-devel On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 00:54:54 CET you wrote:> > You, me, Alex and the rest of Guix share a culture. I'm assuming that is the > culture Alex refers to, not the cultures of our distinct offline locale. What culture am I sharing with you? I am not a hacker, I only care about code quality, just as only care about the plumbing of my toilet and not plumber culture. I also care about software Freedom because I have been bitten in the behind often enough by proprietary software to know that it is wrong. I care about Guix because functional package management is the only sane way of package management. What is the alternative to Guix? Flatpak and other opaque systems suitable for bundling proprietary software? > Also, the burden of proof really is with HiPhish. Harassment in tech, and > FLOSS especially has been well documented. See for example: > http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/FLOSS > https://lwn.net/Articles/417952/ > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/05/open_source_developer_survey_2017/ > for a start. I asked for proof, not "she said, he said". Except this is just "she said". What if that "groping" as some guy brushing at her butt in a crowd by accident? I have a really hard time believing that there is an epidemic of serial gropers at tech conferences. Does that mean no one gets groped? Of course not, even I had my butt slapped in the past by girls, but so what? Here is a question for you: why are you taking these reports for granted? Do you not consider the possibility that isolated issues are being blown out of proportion by malicious agents? The incidents don't even have to be fake, the offender might be a malicious agent as well. Free and Open Source projects are a problem for proprietary software companies and any means to disrupt the projects is acceptable. Why do you think the CC is so focused on punishment and not healing? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-30 0:38 ` HiPhish @ 2018-10-30 5:13 ` Nils Gillmann 0 siblings, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Nils Gillmann @ 2018-10-30 5:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel What HiPhish and some people in the threads are doing starts to look like strawmen argumentations, and not just today. For once take a look at the surprisingly LOW amount of times the CoC had to be refered to in our 5 years, where the CoC existed 3 years of them. Yes, it it not perfect, some people left but it had different reasons. Start reading into the past before you judge the present of a project. Even without the CoC, most of us share the view to create a welcoming community. Can we just move on? No one seems to get to a new point here, everyone moves in circles. If that's what you want it's okay but move it to another mailinglist. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-29 18:50 ` HiPhish 2018-10-29 23:54 ` Tonton @ 2018-10-31 9:27 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 2018-10-31 12:29 ` HiPhish ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Sassmannshausen @ 2018-10-31 9:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: HiPhish; +Cc: guix-devel Hello, I agree with Ricardo's email that really we should be discussing the CoC in relation to specific patches against it, to avoid circular debate. So I will only respond to the specific bit directly asking me to provide evidence. HiPhish writes: > On Monday, 29 October 2018 12:08:56 CET you wrote: >> I think you a have burden of proof here, given that our culture at large >> has serious issues with harassment. Why would you think FLOSS community >> is somehow different from the wider community? > No, you have a burden of proof that "our" culture (whatever this "our" is > supposed to mean, I have no idea where you live and you have no idea where I > live) has a serious issue with harassment. [I apologise for the narrow focus on sexual / gender / sex based focus of the stats below; it's what I'm most familiar with.] "According to a TUC/Everyday Sexism study on sexual harassment, 52% of women have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace and 80% did not report it to their employer." [https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=9127932a-455f-4d0c-909d-3563c17dc7c5, available from https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace] "In 2014, SSH commissioned a 2,000-person national survey in the USA with surveying firm GfK. The survey found that 65% of all women had experienced street harassment. Among all women, 23% had been sexually touched, 20% had been followed, and 9% had been forced to do something sexual. Among men, 25% had been street harassed (a higher percentage of LGBT-identified men than heterosexual men reported this) and their most common form of harassment was homophobic or transphobic slurs (9%)." http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/statistics/ "Almost fully one third of the approximately 90,000 charges received by EEOC in fiscal year 2015 included an allegation of workplace harassment. This includes, among other things, charges of unlawful harassment on the basis of sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy), race, disability, age, ethnicity/national origin, color, and religion." and "Roughly three out of four individuals who experienced harassment never even talked to a supervisor, manager, or union representative about the harassing conduct." [from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_force/harassment/report_summary.cfm] In 2012, in Belgium, the film Femme de la Rue directly influenced the passing of legislation to make street harassment illegal. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/03/belgium-film-street-harassment-sofie-peeters] It also helped kick-start movements in Belgium and France where street harassment is fairly common. In london, UK, 4 in 10 women between ages of 18 and 34 experienced street harassment in 2011 alone [https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/may/25/four-10-women-sexually-harassed]. "54% (272) had experienced some form of workplace sexual harassment." This is from a 2008 study in Singapore [http://www.aware.org.sg/training/wsh-site/14-statistics/]. The stats bear out 2 things: a) harassment is very prevalent; b) if anything, harassment is underreported, not overreported. Of course the above are all related to a relatively narrow geographic domain. I would be very surprised indeed if there was a place that conducted similar studies, where the picture would not be roughly the same or worse. You are correct that I don't know where you're from, but it kind of doesn't matter, because harassment, especially that on the basis of gender, sex or sexuality, is a global phenomenon. Best wishes, Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 9:27 ` Alex Sassmannshausen @ 2018-10-31 12:29 ` HiPhish 2018-10-31 12:46 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 2018-10-31 12:30 ` HiPhish 2018-11-01 8:40 ` Steffen Schulz 2 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: HiPhish @ 2018-10-31 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: alex.sassmannshausen; +Cc: guix-devel There is a common pattern in all the links you provided: 1) only feminists are seeing this supposed issue, 2) it does not go into the exact nature of the supposed harassment. With regards to the first point: Feminist group have vested interests in furthering conflicts. Even if there is no conflict they will try to create one and then sell you the solution, so please excuse my scepticism. Feminists are proven to keep fabricating issues, like the supposed wage gap. So yes, I am really doubting the veracity of those claims. You know what? When you go into a field filled with awkward nerds that's you occupational hazard. In other occupations you have other hazards: joint injuries from standing at an assembly line, getting your fingers crushed in a machine, falling off a construction site, contracting a disease in health care, having to dig through sewage in plumbing, being shot in law enforcement, or getting into legal problems in nursing. And don't get me started on clients with planet-sized egos holding back payment. I think when it comes to occupational hazards getting hit on by an awkward nerd is pretty harmless. It's certainly much less of an occupational hazard than for the people who are on the receiving end of an accusation and can lose their livelihood in an instant. So please excuse me when I don't fall for the crocodile tears. We are talking about grown-up women here, not children. > According to a TUC/Everyday Sexism study on sexual harassment, 52% of > women have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace and 80% did > not report it to their employer. I am singling out this one as an example of data manipulation. Let's for the sake of simplicity assume that the data is 100% correct and has not been tampered with. Put yourself now in the shoes of an average woman: The question is "Have you experienced instances of sexual harassment in the workplace in the past?". You think a bit and remember Steve who made a dumb joke about your breasts during coffee break last month. So you answer with yes of course. Then the second question is "If so, did you report the incident to your employer?". Considering Steve is a shy guy, it was during coffee break, no one else joined in and after you gave him a stern look he got the message, you of course didn't consider it worth anyone's time to start office drama over pretty much nothing. So you answer with "no". And now your answer gets twisted into "Don't you see all these serious issues going unreported out of fear? You should hire our advocacy agency for sensibility training and diversity counseling. You have a nice business going here, it would be a shame is someone were to call it sexist". > In 2012, in Belgium, the film Femme de la Rue directly influenced the > passing of legislation to make street harassment > illegal. > [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/03/belgium-film-street-harassme > nt-sofie-peeters] It also helped kick-start movements in Belgium and France > where street harassment is fairly common. In london, UK, 4 in 10 women > between ages of 18 and 34 experienced street harassment in 2011 alone > [https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/may/25/four-10-women-sexually > -harassed]. Don't you consider it kind of... problematic that the video only shows people from a, let's call it "diverse" background? Why doesn't she show us all the serial catcallers in the less diverse parts of Belgium? It couldn't be that she intentionally picked the bad part of town, now could it? I feel deeply offended by the implication of this video that people of colour are the primary source of sexual harassment. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 12:29 ` HiPhish @ 2018-10-31 12:46 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 2018-10-31 13:23 ` HiPhish 0 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Sassmannshausen @ 2018-10-31 12:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: HiPhish; +Cc: guix-devel After this email I'm done with the conversation. I have tried to provide you with evidence. You make it clear you have a bone to pick with people concerned with gender equality. This will go around in circles. HiPhish writes: > There is a common pattern in all the links you provided: 1) only feminists are > seeing this supposed issue, 2) it does not go into the exact nature of the > supposed harassment. The TUC is the trade union congress. They are not a feminist organisation. The Belgian government is not a feminist organization. The Guardian is a newspaper and the EEOC is a US government office. > With regards to the first point: Feminist group have vested interests in > furthering conflicts. Even if there is no conflict they will try to create one > and then sell you the solution, so please excuse my scepticism. Feminists are > proven to keep fabricating issues, like the supposed wage gap. So yes, I am > really doubting the veracity of those claims. Pff. I won't even engage with this horse crap. > You know what? When you go into a field filled with awkward nerds > that's you occupational hazard. My line of argument above was precisely that this does not only happen in a field with "awkward nerds". Also I find your assertion that "nerds" are unable to behave decently to other people an insult to myself and "nerds" as a whole. > So please excuse me when I don't fall for the crocodile tears. We are > talking about grown-up women here, not children. I find it shocking you are basically telling people who are being mis-treated by others to just suck it up. It's because of these attitudes I'm glad we have a code of conduct. >> According to a TUC/Everyday Sexism study on sexual harassment, 52% of >> women have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace and 80% did >> not report it to their employer. > I am singling out this one as an example of data manipulation. Let's for the > sake of simplicity assume that the data is 100% correct and has not been > tampered with. Put yourself now in the shoes of an average woman: The question > is "Have you experienced instances of sexual harassment in the workplace in > the past?". You think a bit and remember Steve who made a dumb joke about your > breasts during coffee break last month. So you answer with yes of course. Then > the second question is "If so, did you report the incident to your employer?". > Considering Steve is a shy guy, it was during coffee break, no one else joined > in and after you gave him a stern look he got the message, you of course > didn't consider it worth anyone's time to start office drama over pretty much > nothing. So you answer with "no". And now your answer gets twisted into "Don't > you see all these serious issues going unreported out of fear? You should hire > our advocacy agency for sensibility training and diversity counseling. You > have a nice business going here, it would be a shame is someone were to call > it sexist". Here's the problem with your argument. These findings are reproduced over and over: women are disproportionately affected by harassment, especially of a gendered kind. Even if you find an issue with a specific study, the consensus of virtually all these studies find the same thing. You might have better results if you actually pointed to studies that overturned the consensus. Good luck with that. >> In 2012, in Belgium, the film Femme de la Rue directly influenced the >> passing of legislation to make street harassment >> illegal. >> [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/03/belgium-film-street-harassme >> nt-sofie-peeters] It also helped kick-start movements in Belgium and France >> where street harassment is fairly common. In london, UK, 4 in 10 women >> between ages of 18 and 34 experienced street harassment in 2011 alone >> [https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/may/25/four-10-women-sexually >> -harassed]. > Don't you consider it kind of... problematic that the video only shows people > from a, let's call it "diverse" background? Why doesn't she show us all the > serial catcallers in the less diverse parts of Belgium? It couldn't be that > she intentionally picked the bad part of town, now could it? I feel deeply > offended by the implication of this video that people of colour are the > primary source of sexual harassment. Come on. Get out of here with your manufactured concern. Whatever the specific cases in this video were, the overall point, and the conclusion of the overall debate is that street harassment is a widespread issue, wherever you go. It disproportinately affects women and is disproportinately carried out by men. I'm done here. Have a nice day. Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 12:46 ` Alex Sassmannshausen @ 2018-10-31 13:23 ` HiPhish 2018-10-31 14:14 ` Jelle Licht 0 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: HiPhish @ 2018-10-31 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: alex.sassmannshausen; +Cc: guix-devel If you don't want to continue the discussion then so be it, but I cannot leave my points misrepresented. When I say "you" I don't necessarily mean you personally, but rather the larger discussion. You don't have to respond if you don't want to, I believe we have both made our points and it's up to the readers to draw their conclusions. On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 13:46:49 CET you wrote: > After this email I'm done with the conversation. I have tried to > provide you with evidence. You make it clear you have a bone to pick > with people concerned with gender equality. This will go around in > circles. I have no issue with gender equality, but this is not what feminism is doing. Let's do an analogy: strong nations are good, fascism promotes strong nations, therefore if you believe in a strong nation you are naturally a fascist. Oh, those death camps? Well, that's not *real* fascism, that was just Nazism. And now we have reached Godwin's law. You presuppose that feminism is acting for a good cause (gender equality), so therefore the actions of feminists must be good. There is your problem: never listen to what people say, always look at what they do (this is a rule for life in general, not just this issue). Of course comparing fascism and feminism is a hyperbole, the point is not to look at the labels of a group, but at their actions. > The TUC is the trade union congress. They are not a feminist > organisation. The Belgian government is not a feminist organization. > The Guardian is a newspaper and the EEOC is a US government office. You can have a strong political bias and still not be an activist group. Organizations cooperate, their members can be friends with one another. Happens all the time in all areas. > My line of argument above was precisely that this does not only happen > in a field with "awkward nerds". Also I find your assertion that > "nerds" are unable to behave decently to other people an insult to > myself and "nerds" as a whole. Anyone can behave, but anyone can also slip up. And some people slip up more often than others. Why? I don't know, I'm not a psychologist, I just know that's they way it is. Again, this is not limited to the issue at hand. Everyone knows that hitting people is wrong, but some people are more prone to losing their tamper then others. Why? Again, I don't know, all I know is that you are less likely to be slapped on the head at a university than at a trade job. > I find it shocking you are basically telling people who are being > mis-treated by others to just suck it up. > > It's because of these attitudes I'm glad we have a code of conduct. Everyone has hardships to put up with. It's about the severity of hardships. This is like looking at workplace accidents and putting a papercut right next to a cut to the bone as if they were comparable. If you have a papercut you suck it up, put a band aid on it so you don't bleed over the papers and get back to work. But if you have a cut to the bone you need the wound to get disinfected and stitched up. It would be absurd to say that an office job is more hazardous than a construction site job because people in the office suffer paper cuts more often. I would rather suffer a hundred paper cuts than one cut to the bone. > Here's the problem with your argument. These findings are reproduced > over and over: women are disproportionately affected by harassment, > especially of a gendered kind. Even if you find an issue with a > specific study, the consensus of virtually all these studies find the > same thing. > > You might have better results if you actually pointed to studies that > overturned the consensus. Good luck with that. I am not saying these studies cannot be reproduced, I am doubting the severity of the issue. If we suppose that certain people tend to slip up more often (which I did above) then of course you will find these patterns more often. But again, how severe of a problem is Steve making a stupid joke at coffee break? > Come on. Get out of here with your manufactured concern. Whatever the > specific cases in this video were, the overall point, and the conclusion > of the overall debate is that street harassment is a widespread issue, > wherever you go. It disproportinately affects women and is > disproportinately carried out by men. You just went on about reproducibility. OK, then why don't they reproduce that video in areas where the ethnic makeup is closer to the Belgian average? Or in areas with a higher standard of living? After all, this happens wherever you go, even though these street harassment video are always shot in the same kind of area for some reason. Doesn't that strike you as odd? This is the sort of data manipulation I mean, you go through the bad part of town, people do bad things. But you conveniently ignore all the other bad things that would happen in that area. I am sure no one gets mugged in the ghetto after dark. No, street harassment is the only issue here. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 13:23 ` HiPhish @ 2018-10-31 14:14 ` Jelle Licht 2018-10-31 14:55 ` HiPhish 0 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Jelle Licht @ 2018-10-31 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: HiPhish; +Cc: guix-devel Hello! HiPhish <hiphish@posteo.de> writes: > If you don't want to continue the discussion then so be it, but I cannot leave > my points misrepresented. When I say "you" I don't necessarily mean you > personally, but rather the larger discussion. You don't have to respond if you > don't want to, I believe we have both made our points and it's up to the > readers to draw their conclusions. > > On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 13:46:49 CET you wrote: >> After this email I'm done with the conversation. I have tried to >> provide you with evidence. You make it clear you have a bone to pick >> with people concerned with gender equality. This will go around in >> circles. > I have no issue with gender equality, but this is not what feminism is doing. ^^^^^^ Good to hear that! I think you can leave debates about the actual or intended goals of any feminism movements to mailing lists or other platforms devoted to that topic though. > Let's do an analogy: strong nations are good, fascism promotes strong nations, Let's not, as the points that are being are discussed are specific, not abstract and quite real. Analogies have a time and place for being useful, but this is not one of them. > therefore if you believe in a strong nation you are naturally a fascist. Oh, > those death camps? Well, that's not *real* fascism, that was just Nazism. And > now we have reached Godwin's law. You presuppose that feminism is acting for a > good cause (gender equality), so therefore the actions of feminists must be > good. There is your problem: never listen to what people say, always look at > what they do (this is a rule for life in general, not just this issue). Of > course comparing fascism and feminism is a hyperbole, the point is not to look > at the labels of a group, but at their actions. > >> The TUC is the trade union congress. They are not a feminist >> organisation. The Belgian government is not a feminist organization. >> The Guardian is a newspaper and the EEOC is a US government office. > You can have a strong political bias and still not be an activist group. > Organizations cooperate, their members can be friends with one another. > Happens all the time in all areas. This confused me. You mean collectives of people are made up of people, and therefore associate with other people? > >> My line of argument above was precisely that this does not only happen >> in a field with "awkward nerds". Also I find your assertion that >> "nerds" are unable to behave decently to other people an insult to >> myself and "nerds" as a whole. > Anyone can behave, but anyone can also slip up. And some people slip up more > often than others. Why? I don't know, I'm not a psychologist, I just know > that's they way it is. Again, this is not limited to the issue at hand. > Everyone knows that hitting people is wrong, but some people are more prone to > losing their tamper then others. Why? Again, I don't know, all I know is that > you are less likely to be slapped on the head at a university than at a trade > job. > >> I find it shocking you are basically telling people who are being >> mis-treated by others to just suck it up. >> >> It's because of these attitudes I'm glad we have a code of conduct. > Everyone has hardships to put up with. It's about the severity of hardships. > This is like looking at workplace accidents and putting a papercut right next > to a cut to the bone as if they were comparable. If you have a papercut you > suck it up, put a band aid on it so you don't bleed over the papers and get > back to work. But if you have a cut to the bone you need the wound to get > disinfected and stitched up. It would be absurd to say that an office job is > more hazardous than a construction site job because people in the office suffer > paper cuts more often. I would rather suffer a hundred paper cuts than one cut > to the bone. > >> Here's the problem with your argument. These findings are reproduced >> over and over: women are disproportionately affected by harassment, >> especially of a gendered kind. Even if you find an issue with a >> specific study, the consensus of virtually all these studies find the >> same thing. >> >> You might have better results if you actually pointed to studies that >> overturned the consensus. Good luck with that. > I am not saying these studies cannot be reproduced, I am doubting the severity > of the issue. If we suppose that certain people tend to slip up more often > (which I did above) then of course you will find these patterns more often. But > again, how severe of a problem is Steve making a stupid joke at coffee break? The problem is not only Steve making a stupid joke; the problem is the environment that led to Steve thinking it is okay to make statements like these in the first place. The only way to 'fix' this problem is to change the environment so that people are less likely to slip up, and to keep each other honest about (tiny) mistakes that everyone inevitably makes. To be honest, your recurring statement about people being more or less likely to slip up is not really coherent; I think we can all agree that every on slips up sometimes. > >> Come on. Get out of here with your manufactured concern. Whatever the >> specific cases in this video were, the overall point, and the conclusion >> of the overall debate is that street harassment is a widespread issue, >> wherever you go. It disproportinately affects women and is >> disproportinately carried out by men. > You just went on about reproducibility. OK, then why don't they reproduce that > video in areas where the ethnic makeup is closer to the Belgian average? Or in This seems like a question to ask the researchers, but because you have a concern regarding methodology does not invalidate the by now seemingly irrefutable clues that these issues do exist. > areas with a higher standard of living? After all, this happens wherever you > go, even though these street harassment video are always shot in the same kind > of area for some reason. Doesn't that strike you as odd? > > This is the sort of data manipulation I mean, you go through the bad part of > town, people do bad things. But you conveniently ignore all the other bad > things that would happen in that area. I am sure no one gets mugged in the > ghetto after dark. No, street harassment is the only issue here. Your text seemingly goes from `ethnically diverse' -> `[lower] standard of living' -> `bad part of town' -> `ghetto'. I will assume you acted, and will continue acting in good faith, but I implore you to critically have a look at your thought processes and see how incredibly rude this might come across. If this was not your intention at all, then I apologize and hope you can still take my comments as a constructive critical note on parts of your writing style. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 14:14 ` Jelle Licht @ 2018-10-31 14:55 ` HiPhish 2018-10-31 15:41 ` Stop it. Formerly - " Pjotr Prins 0 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: HiPhish @ 2018-10-31 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jelle Licht; +Cc: guix-devel On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 15:14:53 CET you wrote: > This confused me. You mean collectives of people are made up of people, > and therefore associate with other people? More like "I scratch your back, you scratch my back" or "oh, I know just the right guy for the job". You let that happen often enough and you end up with several groups all being "in bed with each other" so to speak. This is not limited to feminism, it happens in all areas of life of course. > The problem is not only Steve making a stupid joke; the problem is the > environment that led to Steve thinking it is okay to make statements > like these in the first place. The only way to 'fix' this problem is to > change the environment so that people are less likely to slip up, and to > keep each other honest about (tiny) mistakes that everyone inevitably > makes. To be honest, your recurring statement about people being more or > less likely to slip up is not really coherent; I think we can all agree > that every on slips up sometimes. Agreed, but the punishment should also fit the crime. You can have a quick talk with Steve and then everyone shakes hands and is friends again. The problem is that there exist groups who want to exploit Steve's slip-up for their own gains by blowing it issue out of proportion. They cannot justify their existence and their bills if the issue can be sorted out with a short conversation, so Steve has to be punished properly. > This seems like a question to ask the researchers, but because you have > a concern regarding methodology does not invalidate the by now seemingly > irrefutable clues that these issues do exist. The issue exists, but how prevalent is it? Remember "manspreading"? Take a photo of a man taking up three seats in an almost empty subway, crop the photo so you cannot see that the subway is mostly empty, write an academic paper on the issue you created, sell the solution in the form of an awareness campaign, finance it with taxpayer money, and in the end people even get arrested because no matter how dumb the rules are, they have to be enforced. When my sister told me about manspreading she couldn't stop laughing, because even she sits like that when there is enough space. And why wouldn't she? I view the catcalling issue the same way: go through the bad part of town, make an issue out of it, sell the solution. I am confident if you were to do this experiment in an area closer to Belgian standard of living none of this would happen. > Your text seemingly goes from `ethnically diverse' -> `[lower] standard > of living' -> `bad part of town' -> `ghetto'. I will assume you acted, > and will continue acting in good faith, but I implore you to critically > have a look at your thought processes and see how incredibly rude this > might come across. If this was not your intention at all, then I > apologize and hope you can still take my comments as a constructive > critical note on parts of your writing style. I got carried away, I was not controlling my emotions enough I guess :) My problem is when people like Mr Sassmannshausen take accusations at face-value without any shred of scepticism. People have had their lives ruined by false accusations and this sort of injustice is what makes my blood boil. Listening and believing benefits neither the innocent nor the real victims, it only drives a wedge between people. Who profits? Those who thrive on conflict, creating problems and selling solutions. (I had a much more polemic response to the previous mail, but I deleted it, so I guess I still had some emotional control) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 14:55 ` HiPhish @ 2018-10-31 15:41 ` Pjotr Prins 2018-10-31 17:51 ` Leo Famulari 0 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Pjotr Prins @ 2018-10-31 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: HiPhish; +Cc: guix-devel I suggest to end this thread. HiPhish, come and discuss your points at FOSDEM. We'll set up a working group for those who care about these things. Pj. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 15:41 ` Stop it. Formerly - " Pjotr Prins @ 2018-10-31 17:51 ` Leo Famulari 2018-11-01 14:40 ` Ludovic Courtès 0 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Leo Famulari @ 2018-10-31 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pjotr Prins; +Cc: guix-devel, HiPhish [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 383 bytes --] On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 04:41:53PM +0100, Pjotr Prins wrote: > I suggest to end this thread. HiPhish, come and discuss your points at > FOSDEM. We'll set up a working group for those who care about these > things. I agree. The subject has been discussed ad nauseam across the internet, and even offline, and we are not going to achieve a breakthrough here on the Guix mailing list. [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 17:51 ` Leo Famulari @ 2018-11-01 14:40 ` Ludovic Courtès 2018-11-01 15:11 ` Alex Griffin 2018-11-02 2:04 ` Mark H Weaver 0 siblings, 2 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2018-11-01 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Leo Famulari; +Cc: guix-devel, HiPhish Hi, Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 04:41:53PM +0100, Pjotr Prins wrote: >> I suggest to end this thread. HiPhish, come and discuss your points at >> FOSDEM. We'll set up a working group for those who care about these >> things. > > I agree. The subject has been discussed ad nauseam across the internet, > and even offline, and we are not going to achieve a breakthrough here on > the Guix mailing list. +1. Furthermore, this project, like any other, has its license, its rules, etc. Of course we can discuss these things together, it’s what makes a project healthy. However, when joining the project, one agrees to follow these rules—it would seem unreasonable to join and at the same time push for a change of rules that have long been established by members of the group. Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-11-01 14:40 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2018-11-01 15:11 ` Alex Griffin 2018-11-02 2:04 ` Mark H Weaver 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Griffin @ 2018-11-01 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guix-devel On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, at 9:40 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > it would seem unreasonable to join and at the same > time push for a change of rules that have long been established by > members of the group. Agreed, that's why I left the project without making a fuss and waited over 15 months for someone else to bring it up first. At least for my part I only wanted people to understand my perspective, whether or not you make any changes is up to the people who actually have a stake in the project. -- Alex Griffin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-11-01 14:40 ` Ludovic Courtès 2018-11-01 15:11 ` Alex Griffin @ 2018-11-02 2:04 ` Mark H Weaver 2018-11-04 9:15 ` Mark H Weaver ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Mark H Weaver @ 2018-11-02 2:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guix-devel, HiPhish Hi Ludovic, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis: > >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 04:41:53PM +0100, Pjotr Prins wrote: >>> I suggest to end this thread. HiPhish, come and discuss your points at >>> FOSDEM. We'll set up a working group for those who care about these >>> things. >> >> I agree. The subject has been discussed ad nauseam across the internet, >> and even offline, and we are not going to achieve a breakthrough here on >> the Guix mailing list. > > +1. I'm unable to travel to FOSDEM this year, so moving the discussion there would effectively exclude me from participating in it. > Furthermore, this project, like any other, has its license, its rules, > etc. Of course we can discuss these things together, it’s what makes a > project healthy. Agreed. > However, when joining the project, one agrees to follow these rules While I generally agree with the policies outlined in our CoC, and I support the practice of enforcing those policies through our control over our infrastructure and communications channels, I strongly oppose requiring or presuming that all participants "agree" with our policies, which I take to mean "declaring that they share the same opinions and goals". Some participants may disagree with our policies, and that's okay. We don't need their agreement to enforce our policies. Forcing people to declare their agreement with our policies as a prerequisite for participation, or worse, _presuming_ that they agree based on their having sent a patch or posted a message, is needlessly alienating to those who don't share our views. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why it's important for us to obtain "agreement" with our policies from all participants. It would be like a restaurant asking every customer to sign an agreement before entering, forcing them to agree in advance to a list of rules, e.g. that they won't harass the other customers. There's no need for it, and it's needlessly alienating. It's more than enough to simply have a list of rules posted in public view, and to enforce the rules as the need arises. Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-11-02 2:04 ` Mark H Weaver @ 2018-11-04 9:15 ` Mark H Weaver 2018-11-04 14:30 ` HiPhish 2018-11-04 21:01 ` Thorsten Wilms 2018-11-06 12:55 ` Ludovic Courtès 2018-11-06 17:23 ` Marius Bakke 2 siblings, 2 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Mark H Weaver @ 2018-11-04 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guix-devel, HiPhish Hi, I've decided to withdraw my objections to the policy of requiring that project participants agree to our CoC. I read the language of the CoC again more carefully, looking to produce a realistic scenario of a person with legitimate but unpopular political views being discriminated against by this requirement. Ultimately, I failed to find any realistic example that I wish to defend. I no longer believe that agreeing to our CoC implies declaring agreement with it. I think I jumped to conclusions too quickly here, partly based on an unusually strong interpretation of the word "agree". I've also been worrying about possible abuses that I now suspect (hope?) would be unlikely to hold up in a court. For example, I worried that if participation in the project is taken to imply agreement with our CoC, that by a natural extrapolation, someone who contributes a single fix but is otherwise uninvolved with the project could be legally held to be bound by our CoC. That's thinking like a mathematician, where I should have been trying to think like a lawyer. So, I'm withdrawing my objections. Sorry for the stress. Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-11-04 9:15 ` Mark H Weaver @ 2018-11-04 14:30 ` HiPhish 2018-11-04 21:01 ` Thorsten Wilms 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: HiPhish @ 2018-11-04 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark H Weaver; +Cc: guix-devel I think "agree" in this context means to agree to follow the rules of that setting, not necessarily that you endorse those rules in general. For example, if you are a smoker in a non-smoking area you agree not to smoke while in that area, but you do not agree not to smoke at all. Or if you are in a vegan restaurant you will agree to eat vegan, but that does not make you actually a vegan yourself. On Sunday, 4 November 2018 10:15:58 CET Mark H Weaver wrote: > Hi, > > I've decided to withdraw my objections to the policy of requiring that > project participants agree to our CoC. > > I read the language of the CoC again more carefully, looking to produce > a realistic scenario of a person with legitimate but unpopular political > views being discriminated against by this requirement. Ultimately, I > failed to find any realistic example that I wish to defend. > > I no longer believe that agreeing to our CoC implies declaring agreement > with it. I think I jumped to conclusions too quickly here, partly based > on an unusually strong interpretation of the word "agree". > > I've also been worrying about possible abuses that I now suspect (hope?) > would be unlikely to hold up in a court. For example, I worried that if > participation in the project is taken to imply agreement with our CoC, > that by a natural extrapolation, someone who contributes a single fix > but is otherwise uninvolved with the project could be legally held to be > bound by our CoC. That's thinking like a mathematician, where I should > have been trying to think like a lawyer. > > So, I'm withdrawing my objections. Sorry for the stress. > > Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-11-04 9:15 ` Mark H Weaver 2018-11-04 14:30 ` HiPhish @ 2018-11-04 21:01 ` Thorsten Wilms 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Thorsten Wilms @ 2018-11-04 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel On 04/11/2018 10.15, Mark H Weaver wrote: > I've decided to withdraw my objections to the policy of requiring that > project participants agree to our CoC. I though of Mark as the only "insider" who understood what my prime issue with the CoC is. Now it seems that wasn't the case and surely isn't now. Here's a pledge: This shall be my last email about this specific issue, on any Guix list, unless the text does get changed either in the Covenant project or here, or if I'm asked a question. Maybe someone here still has the patience to help me understand where my interpretation would be unreasonable: "In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation." Contains the statement that "contributors" make a "pledge", i.e. give a promise, as outlined in the rest of the sentence. I take "contributors" to be the group of people who ever contributed anything to the project. At the very least everyone who submitted code that is part of the current tree. Hence, I see included a claim that the very people who walked away because of the CoC still make that pledge. One may ask: who would object to pledging to not harass people, regardless of who and how they are? Sure, but as I see it, the "pledge" claim doesn't stop there. The first sentence establishes that "we" and "our" is supposed to mean "maintainers" and "contributors". Because of this, everything in "Our Standards" is an extension of the pledge. As is "Scope", quite literally being the scope of the pledge. I assume the core maintainers may update/edit the CoC as they see fit, which in principal might change standards and scope. The CoC would then include the claim that all past and current contributors now suddenly pledged according to those new standards, perhaps with a wider scope. It is their right to set the rules, but they should not imply that "we" chose the rules. Aside of that, a false statement about people is still a false statement, even if it says that the people promised to be nice. Off-list, I have been asked, more or less, to not take the word "pledge" so seriously. Well, if I don't, at the very least, the promise regarding a harassment-free environment falls out of the CoC, which surely is not what anyone meant. If one assumes, not without reason, that the "we" of the CoC doesn't actually exist", then what is left? Anyway, I may still opt to (try to) contribute, as nobody would gain anything from my withholding a package or whatever it may be. -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-11-02 2:04 ` Mark H Weaver 2018-11-04 9:15 ` Mark H Weaver @ 2018-11-06 12:55 ` Ludovic Courtès 2018-11-06 17:23 ` Marius Bakke 2 siblings, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2018-11-06 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark H Weaver; +Cc: guix-devel, HiPhish Hi Mark, Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis: > I'm unable to travel to FOSDEM this year, so moving the discussion there > would effectively exclude me from participating in it. In my view, in-person communication for free software projects can help understand each other better and build consensus, but on-line discussion with all those who could not be there physically is still necessary. No argument here. >> Furthermore, this project, like any other, has its license, its rules, >> etc. Of course we can discuss these things together, it’s what makes a >> project healthy. > > Agreed. > >> However, when joining the project, one agrees to follow these rules > > While I generally agree with the policies outlined in our CoC, […] Just to clarify: all I wanted to say is that, in general, you can’t join a group and right from the start ask for significant changes in the group rules. As for the code of conduct, we maintainers ask people to follow it on the project’s communication channels, which are primarily the mailing lists and IRC channel. Thanks, Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-11-02 2:04 ` Mark H Weaver 2018-11-04 9:15 ` Mark H Weaver 2018-11-06 12:55 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2018-11-06 17:23 ` Marius Bakke 2018-11-06 17:41 ` HiPhish 2 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Marius Bakke @ 2018-11-06 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark H Weaver, Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guix-devel, HiPhish [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1374 bytes --] Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes: > While I generally agree with the policies outlined in our CoC, and I > support the practice of enforcing those policies through our control > over our infrastructure and communications channels, I strongly oppose > requiring or presuming that all participants "agree" with our policies, > which I take to mean "declaring that they share the same opinions and > goals". > > Some participants may disagree with our policies, and that's okay. > We don't need their agreement to enforce our policies. > > Forcing people to declare their agreement with our policies as a > prerequisite for participation, or worse, _presuming_ that they agree > based on their having sent a patch or posted a message, is needlessly > alienating to those who don't share our views. Thank you Mark for succinctly pointing out these flaws in our current CoC. I agree that the language is overreaching, and think that these discussions will continue to crop up as long as this wording is included. Our usage of the Contributor Covenant have deterred at least three contributors. I hope it has attracted and retained more than that; in any case I think we can do better. Also thanks to Thorsten for filing <https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/624>. Getting this fixed upstream will benefit much more than the Guix project. [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-11-06 17:23 ` Marius Bakke @ 2018-11-06 17:41 ` HiPhish 0 siblings, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: HiPhish @ 2018-11-06 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marius Bakke; +Cc: guix-devel I think you are focusing too much on the "pledge" part. Submitting a patch is an informal process and I doubt anyone is going to hold it up against you in a court. This is just an instance of using fancy words to sound important. People's real grievances with the CC are that it polices people outside the project as well (simply abiding by the rules on the mailing list and IRC is not enough, according to the terms of the CC), its focus on punishment, presumption of malice and of course the author of the CC and the surrounding culture. Getting hung up on details like the word "pledge" is just going to burn people out, but will not resolve anything. On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 18:23:40 CET Marius Bakke wrote: > Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes: > > While I generally agree with the policies outlined in our CoC, and I > > support the practice of enforcing those policies through our control > > over our infrastructure and communications channels, I strongly oppose > > requiring or presuming that all participants "agree" with our policies, > > which I take to mean "declaring that they share the same opinions and > > goals". > > > > Some participants may disagree with our policies, and that's okay. > > We don't need their agreement to enforce our policies. > > > > Forcing people to declare their agreement with our policies as a > > prerequisite for participation, or worse, _presuming_ that they agree > > based on their having sent a patch or posted a message, is needlessly > > alienating to those who don't share our views. > > Thank you Mark for succinctly pointing out these flaws in our current > CoC. I agree that the language is overreaching, and think that these > discussions will continue to crop up as long as this wording is > included. > > Our usage of the Contributor Covenant have deterred at least three > contributors. I hope it has attracted and retained more than that; in > any case I think we can do better. > > Also thanks to Thorsten for filing > <https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/issues/624>. > Getting this fixed upstream will benefit much more than the Guix project. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 9:27 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 2018-10-31 12:29 ` HiPhish @ 2018-10-31 12:30 ` HiPhish 2018-10-31 13:48 ` Jelle Licht ` (2 more replies) 2018-11-01 8:40 ` Steffen Schulz 2 siblings, 3 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: HiPhish @ 2018-10-31 12:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel I am really trying to understand the other side here, so please help me out on this one. Let's say you have two people for the sake of simplicity, we can call them Alice and Bob. Alice and Bob hate each other's guts, Alice is unwilling to work on the team if Bob stays on the team, but Bob is willing to work on the team regardless of Alice. Furthermore, Bob has already worthwhile contributions under his belt, whereas Alice has done nothing yet, but she might if Bob were to be remove. And your choice would be to remove Bob from the team. Am I correct so far? What sense does it make to remove someone who 1) has already a proven track- record and 2) has shown that he is willing to control his emotions to focus on the task, all in the hopes that 3) the other person might perhaps fill in the void and 4) already has show to let emotions override work duty, and 5) has a track-record of wanting people remove from the project? Please explain to me how kicking Bob out of the team is supposed to improve the project. I am really trying hard to wrap my head around the issue, but this logic is entirely alien to me. Wouldn't it make more sense to just tell people to keep any personal grudges out of the workplace and carry on? It is not that the project management is preventing Alice from joining, she refuses out of her own volition. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 12:30 ` HiPhish @ 2018-10-31 13:48 ` Jelle Licht 2018-10-31 14:55 ` HiPhish 2018-10-31 13:48 ` Thomas Danckaert 2018-11-01 9:14 ` Mark H Weaver 2 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Jelle Licht @ 2018-10-31 13:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: HiPhish; +Cc: guix-devel Hello, HiPhish <hiphish@posteo.de> writes: > I am really trying to understand the other side here, so please help me out on Without attributing malice to your statement here, I think it is disingenuous to talk about "the other side". We are all part of communities we interact with, there is no need for any additional "othering" here :). > this one. Let's say you have two people for the sake of simplicity, we can > call them Alice and Bob. Alice and Bob hate each other's guts, Alice is > unwilling to work on the team if Bob stays on the team, but Bob is willing to > work on the team regardless of Alice. Furthermore, Bob has already worthwhile > contributions under his belt, whereas Alice has done nothing yet, but she > might if Bob were to be remove. > Again, while some people might be calling out for these cases to happen, this is not what the discussion is about; _any_ document that describes our norms and policies is intended to create a welcoming environment, where anyone can decide to become an active member of the community. That the means through which this can happen, at its most extreme, involves actively removing potentially harmful elements from the community is in that sense a means to achieve these goals. > And your choice would be to remove Bob from the team. Am I correct so far? You are correct in the sense that what you state is not really false, but at the same time also far removed from the actuality of any realistic social setting. To me it seems that you only consider what one might call the "worst-case", and I'd rather state that any community pledge/policy document is first of all intended to prevent these situations from arising in the first place, and give the often-powerless some semblance of equal opportunity to become active participants, while still offering a safety net if push comes to shove. > What sense does it make to remove someone who 1) has already a proven track- > record and 2) has shown that he is willing to control his emotions to > focus on Again, if part of this "proven track-record" includes something that could reasonably be seen as being in direct opposition of our norms as a community, it would make sense to have an honest and direct dialogue in order to resolve this situation. In extreme cases, it might still make sense to exclude harmful elements of the community, even if they are otherwise considered productive/effective/efficient. Nobody is above the rules we set ourselves as a community. > the task, all in the hopes that 3) the other person might perhaps fill in the > void and 4) already has show to let emotions override work duty, and 5) has a > track-record of wanting people remove from the project? If we are going to play an open hand here, number 3 is literally the goal of having this discussion in the first place: We want *anyone* to feel like they could fill a perceived void in our community, if they so choose. Number 4 seems a very weird point to make. We all have emotions, and some of us are more in touch with them then others, but somehow insinuating that having emotions influence you is a bad thing is confusing me. For me, most of the projects I undertake are labours of love. The rudest point I will make; number 5 comes across to me as an almost hostile way of viewing any critique. If "wanting people removed from the project" is done for legitimate reasons (after careful consideration), this is IMHO a good thing. If this does not apply, the people should not be removed in the first place, so I do not feel the problem for opening each of our own behaviour up to criticism. > > Please explain to me how kicking Bob out of the team is supposed to improve > the project. I am really trying hard to wrap my head around the issue, but > this logic is entirely alien to me. Wouldn't it make more sense to just tell > people to keep any personal grudges out of the workplace and carry on? It is > not that the project management is preventing Alice from joining, she refuses > out of her own volition. I appreciate you writing up your thoughts in a concise and clear manner. I would advise you to consider less of this a cold and reasoned logic, and look more into the community building aspects. * Collaboration is about community. * Communities are about people, so telling them to leave their "personal grudges" at the door is wholly unreasonable. * Fostering welcoming, productive and even fun environments to do work in is an active and on-going task. Just look at most of human history to see what happens if this is not an actively sough-after goal. Kind regards, Jelle ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 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 0 siblings, 2 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: HiPhish @ 2018-10-31 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jelle Licht; +Cc: guix-devel On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 14:48:18 CET you wrote: > Without attributing malice to your statement here, I think it is > disingenuous to talk about "the other side". We are all part of > communities we interact with, there is no need for any additional > "othering" here :). Sure, but communities can still be split on issues, like which CoC to adopt :) > Again, while some people might be calling out for these cases to happen, > this is not what the discussion is about; _any_ document that describes > our norms and policies is intended to create a welcoming environment, > where anyone can decide to become an active member of the community. > > That the means through which this can happen, at its most extreme, > involves actively removing potentially harmful elements from the > community is in that sense a means to achieve these goals. This is fine by me, and I don't think anyone here agrees that we would need someone around who just sits in the mailing list and throws around insults. But where do you draw the line? The CC, which is the issue at hand, allows for abuse by 1) being vary vague on what constitutes a break of rules, and 2) requiring punishment without offering any chance of clearing things up. If the maintainers fail to punish they themselves are open for punishment. This is why I made that example of Alice and Bob where one party wants the other to be removed. > You are correct in the sense that what you state is not really false, > but at the same time also far removed from the actuality of any > realistic social setting. > > To me it seems that you only consider what one might call the > "worst-case", and I'd rather state that any community pledge/policy > document is first of all intended to prevent these situations from > arising in the first place, and give the often-powerless some semblance > of equal opportunity to become active participants, while still offering > a safety net if push comes to shove. And in my opinion the GKCG is perfectly adequate for this purpose without any of the potential of abuse. The GNU project was started in 1984, it's over 30 years old, and it has produced fantastic results without the need for overbearing policing. The communities have been fairly good at keeping everyone on track, even if someone might slip from time to time. There was no need for the type of harsh policing that the CC mandates. Note that the CC mandates the formation of an judicative-executive branch which will both judge and carry out punishments. If the maintainers are unwilling to do the work (which would not be surprising if they are busy maintaining the project) they will have to appoint people for this role. And my fear is that the people they put into position will be of the worst kind. > Again, if part of this "proven track-record" includes something that > could reasonably be seen as being in direct opposition of our norms as a > community, it would make sense to have an honest and direct dialogue in > order to resolve this situation. In extreme cases, it might still make > sense to exclude harmful elements of the community, even if they are > otherwise considered productive/effective/efficient. Nobody is above the > rules we set ourselves as a community. The CC does not provide room for honest and direct dialogue. > If we are going to play an open hand here, number 3 is literally the > goal of having this discussion in the first place: We want *anyone* to > feel like they could fill a perceived void in our community, if they so > choose. Let's say I promise you that I have fifty patches in the pipeline, but person X makes me feel uncomfortable. So you kick out person X and I submit 50 individual typo fixes in the manual and then never come back. Don't you think that is a net loss for the project? See, this is the issue I am afraid of can happen. I mean, if Bob starts calling Alice a "dumb bitch" over the mailing list, yeah that is another issue, but Alice wanting Bob removed from the project because he re-tweeted pictures of bikini modesl should be a no-go, even if the CC allows for it. Can we agree on this one? > Number 4 seems a very weird point to make. We all have emotions, and > some of us are more in touch with them then others, but somehow > insinuating that having emotions influence you is a bad thing is > confusing me. For me, most of the projects I undertake are labours of > love. Of course we have emotions, but we also need to learn to control them. Example: you are with a client and the client starts making unreasonable demands, you cannot just tell the client "if you know so much, then do your shit yourself", you have to maintain composure and explain why that demand is unreasonable within the technical of financial framework. Because if you have an outburst you will drag down the entire project. The same goes for contributors in a FLOSS project, you cannot just demand that everyone drops everything because someone upset you outside the project. > The rudest point I will make; number 5 comes across to me as an almost > hostile way of viewing any critique. If "wanting people removed from the > project" is done for legitimate reasons (after careful consideration), > this is IMHO a good thing. If this does not apply, the people should not > be removed in the first place, so I do not feel the problem for opening > each of our own behaviour up to criticism. The issue of the CC is that it does not define clearly what a good reason is, it does not require the issue to be disclosed (because that might compromise the anonymity clause) and if the maintainers fail to remove the accused they themselves can be removed. > I appreciate you writing up your thoughts in a concise and clear > manner. I would advise you to consider less of this a cold and reasoned > logic, and look more into the community building aspects. > > > * Collaboration is about community. > > * Communities are about people, so telling them to leave their "personal > grudges" at the door is wholly unreasonable. > > * Fostering welcoming, productive and even fun environments to do work > in is an active and on-going task. Just look at most of human history > to see what happens if this is not an actively sough-after goal. We might have different priorities. To me GNU is about creating a Free operating system, the community aspect is something that exists only because you need somehow to coordinate the work, manage issues and so on. GNU is not a reason for socialising for me, so the community is just something that's along for a ride. If all the work could be done by moneys on a typewriter I couldn't care less. For this reason the survival of the project is the most important to me. If we can have a good time along the way that's just an added bonus. The computer does not care about the community, so neither does the end user of our software. I view the CC as harmful to the project, which is why I support switching to the GKCG. Now don't understand me wrong, having a community that goes along is great, but if I was given a choice between sacrificing the Guix community or the Guix project, I would pick the community. Maybe this is because I came here primarily because of Guix and not because I wanted to make friends, so my views might be different from someone who came here because of the people and found Guix to be nice as well. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 14:55 ` HiPhish @ 2018-10-31 17:17 ` Thorsten Wilms 2018-11-01 10:35 ` Mark H Weaver 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Thorsten Wilms @ 2018-10-31 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel On 31/10/2018 15.55, HiPhish wrote: > The CC does not provide room for honest and direct dialogue. Sheesh, you are so bad at arguing against this CoC that I, decidedly not a fan, feel compelled to counter ;) "Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior." Note "clarify", "appropriate" and "fair". The confidentiality clause may result in a conflict with fairness, but that's still a far cry from no "room ...". > but Alice wanting Bob removed from the > project because he re-tweeted pictures of bikini modesl should be a no-go, > even if the CC allows for it. Can we agree on this one? See "Scope". Personal Twitter is not a channel that belongs to this project and Bob is unlikely to represent the project or community within that act of retweeting. I have to give you that there is the somewhat weasely "Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers". Past acts of certain CoC advocates suggest that they would like to go beyond that, but here it's up to Ricardo and Ludovic. -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 14:55 ` HiPhish 2018-10-31 17:17 ` Thorsten Wilms @ 2018-11-01 10:35 ` Mark H Weaver 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Mark H Weaver @ 2018-11-01 10:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: HiPhish; +Cc: guix-devel HiPhish <hiphish@posteo.de> writes: > On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 14:48:18 CET you wrote: >> Without attributing malice to your statement here, I think it is >> disingenuous to talk about "the other side". We are all part of >> communities we interact with, there is no need for any additional >> "othering" here :). > Sure, but communities can still be split on issues, like which CoC to adopt :) > >> Again, while some people might be calling out for these cases to happen, >> this is not what the discussion is about; _any_ document that describes >> our norms and policies is intended to create a welcoming environment, >> where anyone can decide to become an active member of the community. >> >> That the means through which this can happen, at its most extreme, >> involves actively removing potentially harmful elements from the >> community is in that sense a means to achieve these goals. > This is fine by me, and I don't think anyone here agrees that we would need > someone around who just sits in the mailing list and throws around insults. > But where do you draw the line? The CC, which is the issue at hand, allows for > abuse by 1) being vary vague on what constitutes a break of rules, The CoC is not a legal document, and is not intended to be normative. If it were law, I would agree with you that the vagueness would be quite worrisome. A vague law is dangerous because laws enable authorities to make enforcement actions that they otherwise couldn't, and a vague law can be abused. The CoC is fundamentally different. The key difference is that the CoC does not grant any powers to the maintainers that they didn't already have. That's worth repeating. The CoC makes *no* change to their powers. The function of the CoC is to document the policies that the maintainers have chosen to enforce, for the sake of transparency. Roughly the same policies were enforced before we had a CoC, but they weren't documented. Also, it's a mistake to expect a CoC to cover every possible case and include all relevant factors. It would be a fools errand to try. Ultimately, every case will depend on the specific details, and on the maintainers' best judgement. > and 2) > requiring punishment without offering any chance of clearing things up. It would depend on the details, but I see nothing in the CoC to justify this claim. On the contrary, our maintainers have shown themselves to be quite explempary in their handling of conflicts without resort to punishment, and I see no reason why that should change. I have confidence that they will continue to exercise their powers judiciously, and only as a last resort after diplomatic efforts have been exhausted. Do you have reason to believe otherwise? Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 12:30 ` HiPhish 2018-10-31 13:48 ` Jelle Licht @ 2018-10-31 13:48 ` Thomas Danckaert 2018-10-31 14:06 ` Alex Griffin 2018-10-31 14:55 ` HiPhish 2018-11-01 9:14 ` Mark H Weaver 2 siblings, 2 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Thomas Danckaert @ 2018-10-31 13:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: hiphish; +Cc: guix-devel I may come as a surprise to some, but you *can* contribute to Guix without joining the queer or feminist movement (you can even get by without using singular they or zhe ;-) ). In practice, just send your patches, be civil and respect all other contributors. I can't remember any occasion where people were banned. One or two people left when they were asked to respect people's choice of pronouns, and decided they'd rather leave, but nobody told them to leave... For sure, this touches on many philosophical and political issues and while I respect your deep insight in these matters, and your concern for ethnic minorities, I don't think guix-devel is the place to discuss them. Thank you for your time, Thomas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 13:48 ` Thomas Danckaert @ 2018-10-31 14:06 ` Alex Griffin 2018-10-31 14:55 ` HiPhish 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-31 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, at 8:48 AM, Thomas Danckaert wrote: > In practice, just send > your patches, be civil and respect all other contributors. I can't > remember any occasion where people were banned. Yes, even feminists and anti-feminists should be able to get along despite their disagreements. > One or two people > left when they were asked to respect people's choice of pronouns, and > decided they'd rather leave, but nobody told them to leave... This case sounds trickier to me, because you may be asking them to say something they don't believe. I suspect that most of the world believes there is only male and female, and that it's fixed at birth. A simple correction or educational link is probably not going to be enough to convince many of them otherwise. If someone's insistence on the wrong pronoun is not accompanied by other harassing behavior then I hope there's another way to get along. -- Alex Griffin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 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 1 sibling, 2 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: HiPhish @ 2018-10-31 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Danckaert; +Cc: guix-devel Oh sure, I would have no issue working with people I disagree with, but the topic here is adopting the GKCG over the CC. The CC allows the maintainers to remove me from contributing, which is the part I and others are taking issue with. This can be abused to sabotage the project; even if I am not an important contributor right now, others are, and even I might grow over time to become one one day. If people can simply put their disagreements away and take arguments out of the mailing list, that would be fine by me. I mean, I agree on much of what Stallman says, but as long as he can keep it out of GNU I am fine by that. On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 14:48:49 CET you wrote: > I may come as a surprise to some, but you *can* contribute to Guix > without joining the queer or feminist movement (you can even get by > without using singular they or zhe ;-) ). In practice, just send > your patches, be civil and respect all other contributors. I can't > remember any occasion where people were banned. One or two people > left when they were asked to respect people's choice of pronouns, and > decided they'd rather leave, but nobody told them to leave... > > For sure, this touches on many philosophical and political issues and > while I respect your deep insight in these matters, and your concern > for ethnic minorities, I don't think guix-devel is the place to > discuss them. > > Thank you for your time, > > Thomas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 14:55 ` HiPhish @ 2018-10-31 16:41 ` Thorsten Wilms 2018-11-01 2:58 ` Mark H Weaver 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Thorsten Wilms @ 2018-10-31 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel On 31/10/2018 15.55, HiPhish wrote: > The CC allows the maintainers to > remove me from contributing The maintainers (in the sense of the project initiators and/or current owners) could reject any contribution and moderate and ban you as they see fit with no CoC in place. With this specific CoC they promise to apply some restrictions on doing so. (The one way where the CoC as pledge seems OK to me, being placed there by them). -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 14:55 ` HiPhish 2018-10-31 16:41 ` Thorsten Wilms @ 2018-11-01 2:58 ` Mark H Weaver 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Mark H Weaver @ 2018-11-01 2:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: HiPhish; +Cc: guix-devel, Thomas Danckaert HiPhish <hiphish@posteo.de> writes: > Oh sure, I would have no issue working with people I disagree with, but the > topic here is adopting the GKCG over the CC. The CC allows the maintainers to > remove me from contributing, which is the part I and others are taking issue > with. As has been mentioned elsewhere, this is nothing new, and in fact it's true of *every* free software project, whether it has a CoC or not. There's always someone who owns the domains and controls the infrastructure, and who will remove problematic participants if they cross a certain line. Where that line is depends on the project, but every project has one. I don't see any way to avoid this and still have a functional project when the trolls arrive. > This can be abused to sabotage the project Are you suggesting that Ludovic and Ricardo might sabotage Guix? Okay, let's think that through. If Ludovic and Ricardo started to abuse their power and become problematic, we could fork Guix and move to new infrastructure. That's the beauty of free software. Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 12:30 ` HiPhish 2018-10-31 13:48 ` Jelle Licht 2018-10-31 13:48 ` Thomas Danckaert @ 2018-11-01 9:14 ` Mark H Weaver 2 siblings, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Mark H Weaver @ 2018-11-01 9:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: HiPhish; +Cc: guix-devel HiPhish <hiphish@posteo.de> writes: > I am really trying to understand the other side here, so please help me out on > this one. Let's say you have two people for the sake of simplicity, we can > call them Alice and Bob. Alice and Bob hate each other's guts, Alice is > unwilling to work on the team if Bob stays on the team, but Bob is willing to > work on the team regardless of Alice. Furthermore, Bob has already worthwhile > contributions under his belt, whereas Alice has done nothing yet, but she > might if Bob were to be remove. > > And your choice would be to remove Bob from the team. Am I correct so far? Based on what you've written above, certainly not. I see no mention of any CoC violations by Bob in this hypothetical scenario, so I'm not sure why you think the CoC would apply here. Do you see anything in our CoC to suggest that Bob should be ejected from Guix simply because Alice hates Bob? If so, can you point out the relevant excerpts? Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-31 9:27 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 2018-10-31 12:29 ` HiPhish 2018-10-31 12:30 ` HiPhish @ 2018-11-01 8:40 ` Steffen Schulz 2 siblings, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Steffen Schulz @ 2018-11-01 8:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel One could also argue that there is a oversensible victim "culture" which leads to "stats" such as these, as people tend overexaggarate quite easily in those matters. I am sorry. I'm absolutely sick of these kinds of discussions in mailing lists like this. On 10/31/18 10:27 AM, Alex Sassmannshausen wrote: > Hello, > > I agree with Ricardo's email that really we should be discussing the CoC > in relation to specific patches against it, to avoid circular debate. > So I will only respond to the specific bit directly asking me to provide > evidence. > > HiPhish writes: > >> On Monday, 29 October 2018 12:08:56 CET you wrote: >>> I think you a have burden of proof here, given that our culture at large >>> has serious issues with harassment. Why would you think FLOSS community >>> is somehow different from the wider community? >> No, you have a burden of proof that "our" culture (whatever this "our" is >> supposed to mean, I have no idea where you live and you have no idea >> where I >> live) has a serious issue with harassment. > [I apologise for the narrow focus on sexual / gender / sex based focus > of the stats below; it's what I'm most familiar with.] > > "According to a TUC/Everyday Sexism study on sexual harassment, 52% of > women have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace and 80% did > not report it to their employer." > [https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=9127932a-455f-4d0c-909d-3563c17dc7c5, > available from > https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace] > > "In 2014, SSH commissioned a 2,000-person national survey in the USA with > surveying firm GfK. The survey found that 65% of all women had > experienced street harassment. Among all women, 23% had been sexually > touched, 20% had been followed, and 9% had been forced to do something > sexual. Among men, 25% had been street harassed (a higher percentage of > LGBT-identified men than heterosexual men reported this) and their most > common form of harassment was homophobic or transphobic slurs (9%)." > http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/statistics/ > > "Almost fully one third of the approximately 90,000 charges received by > EEOC in fiscal year 2015 included an allegation of workplace > harassment. This includes, among other things, charges of unlawful > harassment on the basis of sex (including sexual orientation, gender > identity, and pregnancy), race, disability, age, ethnicity/national > origin, color, and religion." and "Roughly three out of four individuals > who experienced harassment never even talked to a supervisor, manager, > or union representative about the harassing conduct." > [from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_force/harassment/report_summary.cfm] > > In 2012, in Belgium, the film Femme de la Rue directly influenced the > passing of legislation to make street harassment > illegal. > [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/03/belgium-film-street-harassment-sofie-peeters] > It also helped kick-start movements in Belgium and France where street > harassment is fairly common. In london, UK, 4 in 10 women between ages > of 18 and 34 experienced street harassment in 2011 alone > [https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/may/25/four-10-women-sexually-harassed]. > > "54% (272) had experienced some form of workplace sexual harassment." > This is from a 2008 study in Singapore > [http://www.aware.org.sg/training/wsh-site/14-statistics/]. > > The stats bear out 2 things: a) harassment is very prevalent; b) if > anything, harassment is underreported, not overreported. > > Of course the above are all related to a relatively narrow geographic > domain. I would be very surprised indeed if there was a place that > conducted similar studies, where the picture would not be roughly the > same or worse. > > You are correct that I don't know where you're from, but it kind of > doesn't matter, because harassment, especially that on the basis of > gender, sex or sexuality, is a global phenomenon. > > Best wishes, > > Alex > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? (-> convivenza) 2018-10-28 11:58 Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? HiPhish ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2018-10-29 11:08 ` Alex Sassmannshausen @ 2018-10-29 11:37 ` Nils Gillmann 2018-10-29 11:45 ` Nils Gillmann 2018-10-29 12:01 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 2018-10-29 12:48 ` Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Giovanni Biscuolo 4 siblings, 2 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Nils Gillmann @ 2018-10-29 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel I have followed most of the breaking threads, and I will keep my contribution to simply stating what a friend wrote: https://mobile.twitter.com/lynXintl/status/1055146900100390913 In essence this refers to convivenza, which in my opinion is a much better suited framework for this than what has been brought up so far: https://structure.pages.de/convivenza Interested groups can contract the structure work group (https://structure.pages.de/) and work out implementations. I don't want any follow-ups directed at myself, I don't have the time to deal with circular discussions wrt this. Take it as a statement of recommendation. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? (-> convivenza) 2018-10-29 11:37 ` Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? (-> convivenza) Nils Gillmann @ 2018-10-29 11:45 ` Nils Gillmann 2018-10-29 12:01 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Nils Gillmann @ 2018-10-29 11:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel Nils Gillmann transcribed 634 bytes: > I have followed most of the breaking threads, and I will keep > my contribution to simply stating what a friend wrote: > > https://mobile.twitter.com/lynXintl/status/1055146900100390913 > > In essence this refers to convivenza, which in my opinion > is a much better suited framework for this than what > has been brought up so far: > https://structure.pages.de/convivenza > > Interested groups can contract the structure work group Of course I meant "contact". Now I'm out of here. > (https://structure.pages.de/) and work out implementations. > > I don't want any follow-ups directed at myself, I don't > have the time to deal with circular discussions wrt this. > Take it as a statement of recommendation. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? (-> convivenza) 2018-10-29 11:37 ` Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? (-> convivenza) Nils Gillmann 2018-10-29 11:45 ` Nils Gillmann @ 2018-10-29 12:01 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Sassmannshausen @ 2018-10-29 12:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel Hello, Nils Gillmann writes: > I have followed most of the breaking threads, and I will keep > my contribution to simply stating what a friend wrote: > > https://mobile.twitter.com/lynXintl/status/1055146900100390913 > > In essence this refers to convivenza, which in my opinion > is a much better suited framework for this than what > has been brought up so far: > https://structure.pages.de/convivenza > > Interested groups can contract the structure work group > (https://structure.pages.de/) and work out implementations. > > I don't want any follow-ups directed at myself, I don't > have the time to deal with circular discussions wrt this. > Take it as a statement of recommendation. I found this a very interesting text, thanks for sharing. Personally I will be thinking about it for a while :-) Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-28 11:58 Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? HiPhish ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2018-10-29 11:37 ` Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? (-> convivenza) Nils Gillmann @ 2018-10-29 12:48 ` Giovanni Biscuolo [not found] ` <9066320.aHiQMI0tiE@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> 4 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Giovanni Biscuolo @ 2018-10-29 12:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: HiPhish, guix-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6429 bytes --] the *political* position from a *potential* future contributor about Contributor Covenant executive summary: CoCs should never be substitutes for laws, maintainers should never be substitutes for judges. There is no need to scare (potential) contributors stating their political positions could be judged unacceptable behaviour based on a vague statement. There is no need to assign maintainers the burden of pursuing social justice in the context of an (*informal*) software community. by informal I mean: contributors are not employed by a body nor signs a contract to be part of the community, except possible copyright assignment (or did I miss something)? HiPhish <hiphish@posteo.de> writes: > I have had two packages merged, which I guess that makes me technically a > contributor, so here is my takes on the issue. I'm just a sysadmin planning convert all my infrastructure - present and future - to GuixSD... and I hope I could contribute back **Q1** (first question): have the maintainers of Guix or GuixSD ever faced a situation that needed not even an enforcement but just a (private or public) discussion about an unaccepteble behaviour? *obviously* the decision about what kind of code of conduct to adopt is up to maintainers and if they decided they can afford to apply and enforce https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/CODE-OF-CONDUCT they have all the rights to do so 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" if I was to choose a code of conduct I'd rather choose GNU Kind Communication Guidelines since it "Please"s contributors and does not force maintainers to commit to hard to maintain promises, keeping the obvious rights associated with project maintainance [3] (IMHO non need to state the obvious), including contributors banning as an extreem consequence ...leaving all the civil and criminal investigations to a judge, if really needed [...] > 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) [...] >> * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political >> attacks the "political attacks" part it's what really scares me: I'd like not to be judged - as project contributor or even maintainer - based on my politically *uncorrect* positions [...] > 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) [...] > 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. plz do you have more examples of contributors being expelled? I need it for my research purposes I just know the story on Elia Schito from Opal project [4] back in June 2015 (Elia was _not_ removed prom project) about his tweets about transgenders [5] I absolutely do not agree with Elia's political ideas about transgenders, but propose to define his statements as "unacceptable behaviour" due to CC it's like denying freedom of speech in the project community (Opal in this specific case) ...and it's **not** with the Contributor Covenant or other similar _software_ project policies that we will contribute to solve social discrimination in our *social community* > 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? [...] > 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 > 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 [...] ciao Giovanni [1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/CODE-OF-CONDUCT#n43 [2] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/CODE-OF-CONDUCT#n69 [3] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/CODE-OF-CONDUCT#n47 [4] https://web.archive.org/web/20151208143727/https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 [5] https://web.archive.org/web/20151105174639/https://twitter.com/krainboltgreene/status/611569515315507200 -- Giovanni Biscuolo Xelera IT Infrastructures [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <9066320.aHiQMI0tiE@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740>]
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? [not found] ` <9066320.aHiQMI0tiE@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> @ 2018-10-29 18:49 ` HiPhish 0 siblings, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: HiPhish @ 2018-10-29 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Giovanni Biscuolo; +Cc: guix-devel (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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ 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; 84+ 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] 84+ 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, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-30 2:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tonton; +Cc: guix-devel On Mon, Oct 29, 2018, at 7:46 PM, Alex Griffin wrote: > 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. I know someone will argue this, so I'll get ahead of it. This is probably a confusing statement, because the literal meaning of the words is that you should treat people as individuals. The problem is that if that's what you really want then it's a bad idea to remind people of all the ways they're divided. -- Alex Griffin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? @ 2018-10-28 23:37 HiPhish 0 siblings, 0 replies; 84+ 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] 84+ messages in thread
* 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; 84+ 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] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-23 11:15 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 10:23 ` Ludovic Courtès 2 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice @ 2018-10-23 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Lirzin; +Cc: guix-devel Hullo Mathieu! Mathieu Lirzin wrote: > 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)? They seem reasonable (a tad reactionary, but hey, it's rms) but orthogonal to our 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]. I've (re-)read the links you've provided (thanks). I guess it's supposed to be obvious what you find disagreeable about them, but if one doesn't disagree, it's not that obvious. :-) (TBH that's the only reason I replied at all: I'd like to learn more about the different perspectives on this issue. The 'debate' dividing other projects is entirely unenlightening and tedious. I hope we can do better.) That said, I hope we can address any perceived lack of merit in (our copy of) the CoC without resorting to its original authors. The resulting irony blast would level multiple city blocks. Kind regards, T G-R > [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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-23 13:38 ` Tobias Geerinckx-Rice @ 2018-10-23 14:39 ` Mathieu Lirzin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Lirzin @ 2018-10-23 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice; +Cc: guix-devel Hello Tobias, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> writes: > I've (re-)read the links you've provided (thanks). I guess it's > supposed to be obvious what you find disagreeable about them, but if > one doesn't disagree, it's not that obvious. :-) IMO Discussing what I find disagreeable with the particular form of Feminism advocated by the links I have provided is off topic. Without direspecting those who agrees with those ideas, I think it is reasonably obvious that not everybody supporting Free Software, supports those unrelated political ideas. > That said, I hope we can address any perceived lack of merit in (our > copy of) the CoC without resorting to its original authors. The > resulting irony blast would level multiple city blocks. I don't understand the last sentence. Can you explain it with simpler words? >> [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 Thanks. -- Mathieu Lirzin GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-23 11:15 Mathieu Lirzin 2018-10-23 13:38 ` Tobias Geerinckx-Rice @ 2018-10-24 1:06 ` Alex Griffin 2018-10-24 3:02 ` Jack Hill 2018-10-24 10:23 ` Ludovic Courtès 2 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-24 1:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 01:15:23PM +0200, Mathieu Lirzin wrote: > 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]. FWIW once I noticed that Guix had adopted the Contributor Covenant, it factored strongly into my decision to stop contributing to the project last year. I can't say for sure that I would contribute again if the CoC were gone, but I would very much welcome this change. -- Alex Griffin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-24 1:06 ` Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-24 3:02 ` Jack Hill 2018-10-24 10:02 ` Ludovic Courtès 0 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Jack Hill @ 2018-10-24 3:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Griffin; +Cc: guix-devel Alex, On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, Alex Griffin wrote: > FWIW once I noticed that Guix had adopted the Contributor Covenant, it > factored strongly into my decision to stop contributing to the project > last year. Interesting. I too am eager understand your thinking on this. When thinking about this issue today, I remembered some of Sage Sharp's writings [0][1]. What struck me about those writings is that it is not just about the language in our policies, but about how we use the policies when conducting ourselves as a community. In particular, it is about more than just how we communicate. It is about who is included and empowered in the community, and how we handle problems that arise. Getting all of this right is hard work, and I am happy to take all the advice I can get from people who have done more thinking and had more real world experience in this area, whether that be the Contributor Covenant, the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines, or other writings about community building (even those not specific to software). When embarking on the hard work or community building (like the hard work of promoting software freedom), I find it helpful to see where we are heading. In Guix the Free Software Distribution Guidelines did this for the software freedom issues, and, while perhaps imperfect, the CoC did this for the community building issues. Regardless of how we sort out the details of implementation, I hope that we set, document, and communicate a high goal for our community building work. Best, Jack P.S. Apologies if guix-devel is not the right place to be having this conversation. I like Guix a lot and am interested in it being a just community. [0] http://sage.thesharps.us/2016/01/25/code-of-conducts-warning-signs/ [1] http://sage.thesharps.us/2015/10/06/what-makes-a-good-community/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-24 3:02 ` Jack Hill @ 2018-10-24 10:02 ` Ludovic Courtès 2018-10-24 14:21 ` Alex Griffin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2018-10-24 10:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jack Hill; +Cc: guix-devel Hello, Jack Hill <jackhill@jackhill.us> skribis: > On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, Alex Griffin wrote: > >> FWIW once I noticed that Guix had adopted the Contributor Covenant, it >> factored strongly into my decision to stop contributing to the project >> last year. > > Interesting. I too am eager understand your thinking on this. Same here. For the record, the code of conduct was adopted in Guix in Dec. 2015. Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-24 10:02 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2018-10-24 14:21 ` Alex Griffin 2018-10-26 21:36 ` Tonton 0 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-24 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guix-devel Jack Hill <jackhill@jackhill.us> skribis: > > Interesting. I too am eager understand your thinking on this. I am skeptical of codes of conduct in FLOSS projects because they often come bundled with a certain (non-software-related) political orthodoxy. The Contributor Covenant is the worst offender in this regard, having been created specifically for that purpose [1]. Although most of the offending text has now been removed from the document itself, the same spirit still follows behind it to projects that adopt the CC. (It is also baffling to me that programmers would want to recreate an imitation HR department in their time off from the corporate world, but I'll put that aside.) On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:02:37PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Same here. For the record, the code of conduct was adopted in Guix > in Dec. 2015. I hadn't noticed when I first started contributing. A bad code of conduct can still work out fine with good project leadership in place, which is why the Contributor Covenant was only one of several factors influencing my decision to move away from Guix. I hope it is evident that I don't oppose the CoC out of a desire to behave badly. Please forgive some vagueness as well; I tried very hard not to provoke unnecessary controversy. As a result much of this email was edited out before sending. -- Alex Griffin [1]: https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1041465346656530432 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-24 14:21 ` Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-26 21:36 ` Tonton 2018-10-26 22:37 ` Alex Griffin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Tonton @ 2018-10-26 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:21:16 -0500 Alex Griffin <a@ajgrf.com> wrote: > Jack Hill <jackhill@jackhill.us> skribis: > > > > Interesting. I too am eager understand your thinking on this. > > I am skeptical of codes of conduct in FLOSS projects because they often > come bundled with a certain (non-software-related) political orthodoxy. > > The Contributor Covenant is the worst offender in this regard, having > been created specifically for that purpose [1]. Although most of the > offending text has now been removed from the document itself, the same > spirit still follows behind it to projects that adopt the CC. CoC's are most definitely political, just like the GKCG. Orthodoxy in this context I think is mostly meaningless - as most sides of this debate are as orthodox as the others. There's also this: > "I don’t agree with Coraline Ada Ehmke’s politics. Should I avoid this code > of conduct? > > If you’re a meritocracy fan, you already abide by the principle of > separating the person from the contribution. And even if you’re not, > adopting the Contributor Covenant does not imply any political or social > orientation aside from the (unfortunately politicized) goal of making your > project welcoming and inclusive to people of all backgrounds." - https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq While I do agree that CoC's should be redundant and unneeded, our current culture in FLOSS is sadly not there yet. Harrasment is - at least as far as I have observed - way to common. An interesting element here is that many of the harrassers don't seem to understand that they are harrassing. This is the reason why, as has been discussed before on this list, I (I think we/Guix) try to tell people kindly. It is after all normal to make mistakes, it is also the way we learn. Usually nudging people to use inclusive language and reminding ourselves when we slip is enough - and it encourages a much nicer, and I'd argue productive, community. I see this in my day to day situation also. I have to admit I'm surprised at how good the GKCGs are. But, as has already bin pointed out, it is lacking some important elements like process and acceptable and unacceptable. As some have come up and stated they quit Guix because of the CoC; I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. I run Guix with or without the community, but I choose to participate in Guix because it has a good CoC that is held with kindness by many in the community. I look forward to winter, when I have more time for programming... :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-26 21:36 ` Tonton @ 2018-10-26 22:37 ` Alex Griffin 2018-10-28 18:42 ` Tonton 2018-10-29 18:16 ` Cook, Malcolm 0 siblings, 2 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-26 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel > An interesting element here is that many of the > harrassers don't seem to understand that they are harrassing. I'm so glad you brought this up, because it seems equally plausible to me that the other party could be reacting overly sensitively. This is precisely why it is a bad idea to set up an authority for people to appeal to. In many cases it's not clear which party is the unreasonable one, and it must be worked through with dialogue. If people don't have to work things out among themselves, and disputes are instead handled by a committee of project maintainers, contributors lose the opportunity to better understand each other. Oh, and that committee of maintainers have all agreed according to the Contributor Covenant that they have a responsibility to punish abusers, so they might find it difficult to avoid being biased towards punishing the accused. Software projects should focus on software. They are not equipped to administer justice. -- Alex Griffin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-26 22:37 ` Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-28 18:42 ` Tonton 2018-10-28 19:50 ` Alex Griffin 2018-10-29 18:16 ` Cook, Malcolm 1 sibling, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Tonton @ 2018-10-28 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Griffin; +Cc: guix-devel On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:37:32 -0500 Alex Griffin <a@ajgrf.com> wrote: > > An interesting element here is that many of the > > harrassers don't seem to understand that they are harrassing. > > I'm so glad you brought this up, because it seems equally plausible to me > that the other party could be reacting overly sensitively. > > This is precisely why it is a bad idea to set up an authority for people to > appeal to. In many cases it's not clear which party is the unreasonable > one, and it must be worked through with dialogue. > > If people don't have to work things out among themselves, and disputes are > instead handled by a committee of project maintainers, contributors lose > the opportunity to better understand each other. Oh, and that committee of > maintainers have all agreed according to the Contributor Covenant that they > have a responsibility to punish abusers, so they might find it difficult to > avoid being biased towards punishing the accused. It seems to me you are making punishment way bigger than it actually is. Great big lumps of shit has to hit someones fan before punishment is talked about. The harshest I've seen here has been once when a core maintainer asked a community member to take a break and rethink; in this case the person being asked to take a break was claiming to be a victim (the whole thing seemed to me a lot of grey scale and misunderstandings). Most of what I see and participate in are friendly, inclusive dialogues - including the ones where we work through grievances and misunderstandings. Now, for issues that are of a difficult character it makes sense to not have an open dialogue with all parties involved. There are many reasons for this and I encourage everyone interested to read up on trauma, anxiety, depression and other similar psycho-social issues, especially from the point of view of those affected. The process should not be a one sided - the decision makers should talk, and in these cases all parties should be reached out to for an explanation. But I don't know if this is the current Guix process. > > Software projects should focus on software. They are not equipped to > administer justice. > I think software projects should focus on building software, and to do that you need someone to build it. Programming is an incredibly social activity - even for me, here I sit alone and mostly work on stuff that only I will ever see or use. So we focus on building an inclusive awesome community, because that is one of the best ways to get awesome software. To build a community we need to build a culture. To build a culture you need to have some way of creating glue - cohesiveness. Either you auto-disassociate anyone not "tough enough" or you use something like a CoC and someone enforcing it (or you find other ways of reaching these goals; but AFAIK the two above are the main ones used in FLOSS today). Remember the CoC is only true for some communities/cultures, it does not influence your legal entity outside of your interactions with the community (unless the issues are severe enough to have broken an actual law where one of the parties are). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-28 18:42 ` Tonton @ 2018-10-28 19:50 ` Alex Griffin 2018-10-28 20:25 ` Alex Griffin ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-28 19:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tonton; +Cc: guix-devel On Sun, Oct 28, 2018, at 1:42 PM, Tonton wrote: > It seems to me you are making punishment way bigger than it actually is. The CoC actually says that maintainers have a responsibility to remove offenders or risk being removed themselves. In contrast the Debian Code of Conduct says: > While this code of conduct should be adhered to by participants, we > recognize that sometimes people may have a bad day, or be unaware of > some of the guidelines in this code of conduct. When that happens, you > may reply to them and point out this code of conduct. Such messages > may be in public or in private, whatever is most appropriate. However, > regardless of whether the message is public or not, it should still > adhere to the relevant parts of this code of conduct; in particular, > it should not be abusive or disrespectful. Assume good faith; it is > more likely that participants are unaware of their bad behaviour than > that they intentionally try to degrade the quality of the discussion. The difference is like night and day. > Remember the CoC is only true for some communities/cultures, it does not > influence your legal entity outside of your interactions with the community To enter into a covenant, or agree to be bound by a code, means to stake your word on it. The words themselves actually carry weight, and not just as rules to follow, which is why the tiniest details of these documents receive so much scrutiny. From sentence 1 of the Contributor Covenant: > In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as > contributors and maintainers pledge to [...] This snippet right here is a problem even before we get to the meat and potatoes. I don't appreciate the presumption that my mere participation indicates my agreement with this document. It rubs me the wrong way even when I'm only reporting a bug (which does fall under its scope, because 'issues', as found in an issue tracker, are explicitly mentioned further down). -- Alex Griffin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-28 19:50 ` Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-28 20:25 ` Alex Griffin 2018-10-28 21:12 ` Thorsten Wilms ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-28 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel 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. -- Alex Griffin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 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 ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Thorsten Wilms @ 2018-10-28 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel On 28/10/2018 20.50, Alex Griffin wrote: > From sentence 1 of the Contributor Covenant: >> In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as >> contributors and maintainers pledge to [...] > This snippet right here is a problem even before we get to the meat and > potatoes. I don't appreciate the presumption that my mere participation > indicates my agreement with this document. Especially as it's easily possible to contribute a patch without being aware of the CC. It says it's a pledge. How does it mean anything just sitting there? Must there not be an act of making/joining the pledge? Seems to me either that language must go, or in future, contributions (at least those ending up in the tree) can only be accepted from people who explicitly made/joined/signed the pledge (AKA read and sign this EULA before contributing even the tiniest bug-fix). -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 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 22:58 ` Tonton 4 siblings, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-28 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel On Sun, Oct 28, 2018, at 1:42 PM, Tonton wrote: > It seems to me you are making punishment way bigger than it actually is. Think about it this way. The Contributor Covenant goes on about the many different ways that a disagreement might escalate, while the Debian CoC spends almost all of its time modeling how to de-escalate a disagreement. -- Alex Griffin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-28 19:50 ` Alex Griffin ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2018-10-28 21:26 ` Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-29 8:59 ` Björn Höfling 2018-10-29 10:49 ` Thorsten Wilms 2018-10-29 22:58 ` Tonton 4 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Björn Höfling @ 2018-10-29 8:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Griffin; +Cc: guix-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1544 bytes --] On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 14:50:54 -0500 Alex Griffin <a@ajgrf.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018, at 1:42 PM, Tonton wrote: > >From sentence 1 of the Contributor Covenant: > > In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we > > as contributors and maintainers pledge to [...] > > This snippet right here is a problem even before we get to the meat > and potatoes. I don't appreciate the presumption that my mere > participation indicates my agreement with this document. It rubs me > the wrong way even when I'm only reporting a bug (which does fall > under its scope, because 'issues', as found in an issue tracker, are > explicitly mentioned further down). > You can harass in just one bug report: "Module foo does not work for me. [Normal bug report things here] This beast is written in such a bad way, the bug is more its contributor Bar, he/she/zhe is so [inappropriate phrase here], get rid of him/her/zhe immediately and the problem is resolved." Nobody asked about reporting, nobody asked to sign a CoC or anything, yet this is harassment and the project (maintainer) should take immediate steps to protect Bar. The same harassment can pretty well be packed in a patch. In law, there is the term of "conduct implying an intent". So even not signing anything you could argue that by sending a bug or a patch you silently agree with the community guidelines, CoC, etc. You enter the community be interacting the first time. And will be judged by their guidelines. Björn [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 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 0 siblings, 2 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Thorsten Wilms @ 2018-10-29 10:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel On 29/10/2018 09.59, Björn Höfling wrote: > In law, there is the term of "conduct implying an intent". So even not > signing anything you could argue that by sending a bug or a patch you > silently agree with the community guidelines, CoC, etc. You enter the > community be interacting the first time. And will be judged by their > guidelines. It used to be that you could pick a Free Software project and send a patch. Now sending a patch is supposed to imply agreeing to the equivalent of an EULA? Everyone is expected to welcome that as progress? Again "... we as contributors and maintainers pledge ..." is bullshit. I pledged nothing. More pragmatic and truthful would be: "The project owners expect everyone who contributes to the project by any means, or who communicates via any of the means that belong to the project, to stick to the rules below. Breaking the rules may lead to any of: a warning, rejection of contributions, a ban where and as far as possible." -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-29 10:49 ` Thorsten Wilms @ 2018-10-29 13:43 ` Alex Griffin 2018-10-29 17:48 ` Christopher Lemmer Webber 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-29 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thorsten Wilms; +Cc: guix-devel On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 11:49:23AM +0100, Thorsten Wilms wrote: > bullshit. I pledged nothing. More pragmatic and truthful would be: > > "The project owners expect everyone who contributes to [...] Exactly. I would actually have less of a problem with it if it were presented as moderation rules come down from on high. They still might be bad rules that I disagreed with (or not), but at least there would only be a problem if I broke a rule. When the CoC actually purports to speak for me, then there's a problem even if no one ever invokes the CoC. I view the Contributor Covenant in particular as pushing identity politics on the free software world and manufacturing consent for that agenda. That's why the website proudly lists all the projects that agreed to it, and why they go push newer projects to adopt it. I mean don't you think it's odd that the net effect of CoCs is to cause drama and divide communities, when they're supposed to be about welcoming everybody? Even if you can't understand why it shakes out like that, that alone should throw up red flags in your mind. -- Alex Griffin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-29 10:49 ` Thorsten Wilms 2018-10-29 13:43 ` Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-29 17:48 ` Christopher Lemmer Webber 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Christopher Lemmer Webber @ 2018-10-29 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: t_w_; +Cc: guix-devel Thorsten Wilms writes: > On 29/10/2018 09.59, Björn Höfling wrote: >> In law, there is the term of "conduct implying an intent". So even not >> signing anything you could argue that by sending a bug or a patch you >> silently agree with the community guidelines, CoC, etc. You enter the >> community be interacting the first time. And will be judged by their >> guidelines. > > It used to be that you could pick a Free Software project and send a patch. > > Now sending a patch is supposed to imply agreeing to the equivalent of > an EULA? Everyone is expected to welcome that as progress? Submitting code to a project under a copyleft license is also agreeing to policy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-28 19:50 ` Alex Griffin ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2018-10-29 8:59 ` Björn Höfling @ 2018-10-29 22:58 ` Tonton 4 siblings, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Tonton @ 2018-10-29 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Griffin; +Cc: guix-devel On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 14:50:54 -0500 Alex Griffin <a@ajgrf.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018, at 1:42 PM, Tonton wrote: > > It seems to me you are making punishment way bigger than it actually is. > > The CoC actually says that maintainers have a responsibility to remove > offenders or risk being removed themselves. ... I'm assuming you are referring to this passage: > 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 risk of maintainers being removed is slight, the text here talks about misconduct and other maintainers have to make a decision on a case by case basis - just like they would have to in relation to any other accusation of breach. As far as I understand this paragraf is explicitly saying that maintainers are within the scope of the CoC and they have some extra responsiblity to it. > > Remember the CoC is only true for some communities/cultures, it does not > > influence your legal entity outside of your interactions with the > > community > > To enter into a covenant, or agree to be bound by a code, means to stake > your word on it. The words themselves actually carry weight, and not > just as rules to follow, which is why the tiniest details of these > documents receive so much scrutiny. 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'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? :) > > From sentence 1 of the Contributor Covenant: > > In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as > > contributors and maintainers pledge to [...] > > This snippet right here is a problem even before we get to the meat and > potatoes. I don't appreciate the presumption that my mere participation > indicates my agreement with this document. It rubs me the wrong way even > when I'm only reporting a bug (which does fall under its scope, because > 'issues', as found in an issue tracker, are explicitly mentioned further > down). > This is kind of like the Law of Cardamom[1]. The CC and most other CoC's I've seen in FLOSS assume you are acting in good faith and that we are kind to each other. 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. So I skimmed over debians CoC[2] and find it to be mostly similar to the CC, though with a more positive and welcoming language (which also skips mention of negative behaviour). There's a few things I miss from it like process - which is alluded to, but not present as far as I could see. Looks good to me with a few additions. Let's see what comes of the discussion. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_Robbers_Came_to_Cardamom_Town#Law [2]: https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 16:26:58 -0500 Alex Griffin <a@ajgrf.com> wrote: > Think about it this way. The Contributor Covenant goes on about the many > different ways that a disagreement might escalate, while the Debian CoC > spends almost all of its time modeling how to de-escalate a disagreement. I wonder if we are reading the same document. I'm assuming it's this one: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct As far as I can see it spends equal time on positive and negative behaviour and then defines responsibilities, scope and process. Debians spend time encouraging positive behaviour, and alludes to process - it misses responsibility and properly talking about process. 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. On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 15:25:01 -0500 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* RE: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-26 22:37 ` Alex Griffin 2018-10-28 18:42 ` Tonton @ 2018-10-29 18:16 ` Cook, Malcolm 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Cook, Malcolm @ 2018-10-29 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Griffin, guix-devel@gnu.org This so very well said - thank you Alex - were there a vote to recast mine flows thusly: > I'm so glad you brought this up, because it seems equally plausible to me > that the other party could be reacting overly sensitively. > > This is precisely why it is a bad idea to set up an authority for people to > appeal to. In many cases it's not clear which party is the unreasonable one, > and it must be worked through with dialogue. > > If people don't have to work things out among themselves, and disputes are > instead handled by a committee of project maintainers, contributors lose > the opportunity to better understand each other. Oh, and that committee > of maintainers have all agreed according to the Contributor Covenant that > they have a responsibility to punish abusers, so they might find it difficult to > avoid being biased towards punishing the accused. > > Software projects should focus on software. They are not equipped to > administer justice. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-23 11:15 Mathieu Lirzin 2018-10-23 13:38 ` Tobias Geerinckx-Rice 2018-10-24 1:06 ` Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-24 10:23 ` Ludovic Courtès 2018-10-24 16:06 ` Mathieu Lirzin 2018-10-25 10:23 ` Ricardo Wurmus 2 siblings, 2 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2018-10-24 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Lirzin; +Cc: guix-devel Hello Mathieu, Good to see you here! Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> skribis: > 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)? Speaking for myself: no. I think the GKCG fails to address important issues, such as defining what’s acceptable and what’s not as well as clear processes to address this. > 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]. Codes of conduct codify acceptable behavior and formalize processes: what can I do as a contributor if I’m a victim bad behavior or harassment? What are the group communication rules? What if I knowingly break those rules? By adopting the code of conduct, we maintainers committed to spend our time as needed to so your experience contributing to Guix won’t be a source of stress or worse, as is too often the case in on-line communities. The GKCG do not do that. Problems will be dealt with in an ad hoc fashion (as they already are in groups that have not codified rules), if they are addressed at all. I hope this answers your question. Happy hacking! Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-24 10:23 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2018-10-24 16:06 ` Mathieu Lirzin 2018-10-25 10:23 ` Ricardo Wurmus 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Lirzin @ 2018-10-24 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: guix-devel Hello Ludo, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> skribis: > >> 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)? > > Speaking for myself: no. I think the GKCG fails to address important > issues, such as defining what’s acceptable and what’s not as well as > clear processes to address this. I am sad that you feels that the GKCG is not sufficient for defining the acceptable behavior of the members of a Free Software community. >> 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]. > > Codes of conduct codify acceptable behavior and formalize processes: > what can I do as a contributor if I’m a victim bad behavior or > harassment? What are the group communication rules? What if I > knowingly break those rules? > > By adopting the code of conduct, we maintainers committed to spend our > time as needed to so your experience contributing to Guix won’t be a > source of stress or worse, as is too often the case in on-line > communities. > > The GKCG do not do that. Problems will be dealt with in an ad hoc > fashion (as they already are in groups that have not codified rules), if > they are addressed at all. > > I hope this answers your question. Yes it does perfectly. I personnaly think dealing with such issues in an ad hoc fashion is the right approach when acceptable behaviors are the norm, which IME has been the case. Anyway I still hope that the Guix community will eventually accept the GKCG as an acceptable tradeoff in the CoC debate. Thanks. -- Mathieu Lirzin GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 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 1 sibling, 2 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Ricardo Wurmus @ 2018-10-25 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Lirzin; +Cc: guix-devel Hello Mathieu, > Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> skribis: > >> 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)? > > Speaking for myself: no. I think the GKCG fails to address important > issues, such as defining what’s acceptable and what’s not as well as > clear processes to address this. [Apologies for the delay; I’m currently traveling.] Adding to what Ludovic wrote, I also would not want to replace the current proven Contributor Covenant with the recently emerged GKCG. Using *both* of them would not be useful, I think, as I find our current CoC to be sufficient; using *only* the GKCG and dropping the existing CoC would be a mistake in my opinion, as our CoC describes a process which the GKCG does not. Committing to a process to deal with grievances is a very desirable feature of our current CoC that I don’t want to give up. As one of the people who shares responsibility for dealing with incidents of harassment or misunderstandings, this helps me do a better job. Even so, I encourage people to continue to engage in fostering kind communication in the channels of the Guix project, something that this community by and large does very well. >> 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]. To me the politics of the author(s) of the original or current version of the Contributor Covenant don’t play much of a role in prefering it as a practical guiding document for this community. (I don’t know the author.) I think I see how it could be seen as “punitive”, but I don’t share this assessment. We all want what’s best for the project and the people who currently work on or consider working on it — to me the emergence of the GKCG is more evidence that this is true. I hope that seeing these similarities in intent more than the differences in implementation will allow you to overcome your feeling of reluctance to contribute to Guix (and other projects that have decided to adopt a CoC). -- Ricardo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-25 10:23 ` Ricardo Wurmus @ 2018-10-25 15:25 ` Mathieu Lirzin 2018-10-25 23:03 ` George Clemmer 1 sibling, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Lirzin @ 2018-10-25 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ricardo Wurmus; +Cc: guix-devel Hello Ricardo, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes: >> Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> skribis: >> >>> 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)? >> >> Speaking for myself: no. I think the GKCG fails to address important >> issues, such as defining what’s acceptable and what’s not as well as >> clear processes to address this. > > [Apologies for the delay; I’m currently traveling.] No need to apology, your response is still prompt. :-) > Adding to what Ludovic wrote, I also would not want to replace the > current proven Contributor Covenant with the recently emerged GKCG. > Using *both* of them would not be useful, I think, as I find our current > CoC to be sufficient; using *only* the GKCG and dropping the existing > CoC would be a mistake in my opinion, as our CoC describes a process > which the GKCG does not. AIUI the GKCG is an attempt to reconcile people of the GNU hackers community which is has been fragmented by the CoC debate. In order to reconcile, each “camp” has to make some tradeoffs. Since you are a CoC proponent, it is normal that you feel that the GKCG is not as “good” as the CoC. However I would really appreciate if you (and Ludo) could seriously consider the GKCG “downsides” as an acceptable tradeoff to help uniting GNU Hackers and move the GNU project as a whole (not just the Guix project) towards what you consider the “right” direction in the “harassment free” path. >>> 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]. > > To me the politics of the author(s) of the original or current version > of the Contributor Covenant don’t play much of a role in prefering it as > a practical guiding document for this community. (I don’t know the > author.) Have you consider that it doesn't play a role because you basically share similar political ideas as the author(s) without knowing/caring? This is not intended as a critic, but just as an opportunity for you to consider that your own political bias (which we humans all have) is not universal and that maybe other “respectable” persons might not share it. > I think I see how it could be seen as “punitive”, but I don’t share this > assessment. We all want what’s best for the project and the people who > currently work on or consider working on it — to me the emergence of the > GKCG is more evidence that this is true. I hope that seeing these > similarities in intent more than the differences in implementation will > allow you to overcome your feeling of reluctance to contribute to Guix > (and other projects that have decided to adopt a CoC). As explain above, I don't think the CoC and GKCG has the same intent. If it were the case that Guix choose to ignore this opportunity to reconcile, I am sorry to say that my reluctance to contribute to Guix would not diminish. Thanks for you answer. -- Mathieu Lirzin GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 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 1 sibling, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: George Clemmer @ 2018-10-25 23:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ricardo Wurmus; +Cc: guix-devel, Mathieu Lirzin Hello Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes: > Hello Mathieu, > >> Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> skribis: >> >>> 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)? >> >> Speaking for myself: no. I think the GKCG fails to address important >> issues, such as defining what’s acceptable and what’s not as well as >> clear processes to address this. > > [Apologies for the delay; I’m currently traveling.] > > Adding to what Ludovic wrote, I also would not want to replace the > current proven Contributor Covenant with the recently emerged GKCG. > Using *both* of them would not be useful, I think, as I find our current > CoC to be sufficient; using *only* the GKCG and dropping the existing > CoC would be a mistake in my opinion, as our CoC describes a process > which the GKCG does not. > > Committing to a process to deal with grievances is a very desirable > feature of our current CoC that I don’t want to give up. As one of the > people who shares responsibility for dealing with incidents of > harassment or misunderstandings, this helps me do a better job. > > Even so, I encourage people to continue to engage in fostering kind > communication in the channels of the Guix project, something that this > community by and large does very well. > >>> 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]. > > To me the politics of the author(s) of the original or current version > of the Contributor Covenant don’t play much of a role in prefering it as > a practical guiding document for this community. (I don’t know the > author.) > > I think I see how it could be seen as “punitive”, but I don’t share this > assessment. We all want what’s best for the project and the people who > currently work on or consider working on it — to me the emergence of the > GKCG is more evidence that this is true. I hope that seeing these > similarities in intent more than the differences in implementation will > allow you to overcome your feeling of reluctance to contribute to Guix > (and other projects that have decided to adopt a CoC). The responses above seem consistent with why CoC mightq appeal to maintainers. But as a Guix user and occasional contributor, I find GKCG more welcoming and more useful. For me, RMS' rationale is compelling: The idea of the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines is to start guiding people towards kinder communication at a point well before one would even think of saying, "You are breaking the rules." The way we do this, rather than ordering people to be kind or else, is try to help people learn to make their communication more kind. It is really the either-or situation implied by the discussion above? What would be wrong with adding GKCG and keeping CoC? - George ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-25 23:03 ` George Clemmer @ 2018-10-26 2:43 ` Gábor Boskovits 2018-10-26 21:25 ` Alex Griffin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 84+ messages in thread From: Gábor Boskovits @ 2018-10-26 2:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: myglc2; +Cc: Guix-devel, mthl Hello George Clemmer <myglc2@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt. 26., P, 1:04): > > Hello > > Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes: > > > Hello Mathieu, > > > >> Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> skribis: > >> > >>> 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)? > >> > >> Speaking for myself: no. I think the GKCG fails to address important > >> issues, such as defining what’s acceptable and what’s not as well as > >> clear processes to address this. > > > > [Apologies for the delay; I’m currently traveling.] > > > > Adding to what Ludovic wrote, I also would not want to replace the > > current proven Contributor Covenant with the recently emerged GKCG. > > Using *both* of them would not be useful, I think, as I find our current > > CoC to be sufficient; using *only* the GKCG and dropping the existing > > CoC would be a mistake in my opinion, as our CoC describes a process > > which the GKCG does not. I belive that if there are voices who would like to have them both, there is actually no problem with using both. The current CoC is in fact sufficient, but if having the GKCG also makes people feel better I am not opposed to adopt it. > > > > Committing to a process to deal with grievances is a very desirable > > feature of our current CoC that I don’t want to give up. As one of the > > people who shares responsibility for dealing with incidents of > > harassment or misunderstandings, this helps me do a better job. > > > > Even so, I encourage people to continue to engage in fostering kind > > communication in the channels of the Guix project, something that this > > community by and large does very well. > > > >>> 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]. > > > > To me the politics of the author(s) of the original or current version > > of the Contributor Covenant don’t play much of a role in prefering it as > > a practical guiding document for this community. (I don’t know the > > author.) > > > > I think I see how it could be seen as “punitive”, but I don’t share this > > assessment. We all want what’s best for the project and the people who > > currently work on or consider working on it — to me the emergence of the > > GKCG is more evidence that this is true. I hope that seeing these > > similarities in intent more than the differences in implementation will > > allow you to overcome your feeling of reluctance to contribute to Guix > > (and other projects that have decided to adopt a CoC). > > The responses above seem consistent with why CoC mightq appeal to > maintainers. But as a Guix user and occasional contributor, I find GKCG > more welcoming and more useful. For me, RMS' rationale is compelling: > > The idea of the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines is to start > guiding people towards kinder communication at a point well before > one would even think of saying, "You are breaking the rules." The > way we do this, rather than ordering people to be kind or else, is > try to help people learn to make their communication more kind. > > It is really the either-or situation implied by the discussion above? > > What would be wrong with adding GKCG and keeping CoC? > I think this can be done, I feel nothing wrong with it. > - George > It is also quite obvious what the maintainers feel missing from GKCG, so it also might be possible to improve on the current GKCG and make some of the features of CoC available, like: 1. Explicitly defining acceptable and not acceptable behaviour (maybe by providing a liked document for that for flexibility and easier adoptation) 2. Explicitly define a process to deal with issues (this can also be a linked doument) One way to do this easily would be to provide the current CoC as the linked document defining these. Later we could improve on this. WDYT? Best regards, g_bor ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
* Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 2018-10-26 2:43 ` Gábor Boskovits @ 2018-10-26 21:25 ` Alex Griffin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 84+ messages in thread From: Alex Griffin @ 2018-10-26 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel Adopting both actually does nothing for those who take issue with the CoC, since between the 2 documents the stricter one must take precedence in order to mean anything at all. -- Alex Griffin On Thu, Oct 25, 2018, at 9:43 PM, Gábor Boskovits wrote: > Hello > > George Clemmer <myglc2@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt. 26., P, 1:04): > > > > Hello > > > > Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes: > > > > > Hello Mathieu, > > > > > >> Mathieu Lirzin <mthl@gnu.org> skribis: > > >> > > >>> 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)? > > >> > > >> Speaking for myself: no. I think the GKCG fails to address important > > >> issues, such as defining what’s acceptable and what’s not as well as > > >> clear processes to address this. > > > > > > [Apologies for the delay; I’m currently traveling.] > > > > > > Adding to what Ludovic wrote, I also would not want to replace the > > > current proven Contributor Covenant with the recently emerged GKCG. > > > Using *both* of them would not be useful, I think, as I find our current > > > CoC to be sufficient; using *only* the GKCG and dropping the existing > > > CoC would be a mistake in my opinion, as our CoC describes a process > > > which the GKCG does not. > > I belive that if there are voices who would like to have them both, there is > actually no problem with using both. The current CoC is in fact sufficient, but > if having the GKCG also makes people feel better I am not opposed to adopt it. > > > > > > > Committing to a process to deal with grievances is a very desirable > > > feature of our current CoC that I don’t want to give up. As one of the > > > people who shares responsibility for dealing with incidents of > > > harassment or misunderstandings, this helps me do a better job. > > > > > > Even so, I encourage people to continue to engage in fostering kind > > > communication in the channels of the Guix project, something that this > > > community by and large does very well. > > > > > >>> 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]. > > > > > > To me the politics of the author(s) of the original or current version > > > of the Contributor Covenant don’t play much of a role in prefering it as > > > a practical guiding document for this community. (I don’t know the > > > author.) > > > > > > I think I see how it could be seen as “punitive”, but I don’t share this > > > assessment. We all want what’s best for the project and the people who > > > currently work on or consider working on it — to me the emergence of the > > > GKCG is more evidence that this is true. I hope that seeing these > > > similarities in intent more than the differences in implementation will > > > allow you to overcome your feeling of reluctance to contribute to Guix > > > (and other projects that have decided to adopt a CoC). > > > > The responses above seem consistent with why CoC mightq appeal to > > maintainers. But as a Guix user and occasional contributor, I find GKCG > > more welcoming and more useful. For me, RMS' rationale is compelling: > > > > The idea of the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines is to start > > guiding people towards kinder communication at a point well before > > one would even think of saying, "You are breaking the rules." The > > way we do this, rather than ordering people to be kind or else, is > > try to help people learn to make their communication more kind. > > > > It is really the either-or situation implied by the discussion above? > > > > What would be wrong with adding GKCG and keeping CoC? > > > > I think this can be done, I feel nothing wrong with it. > > > - George > > > > It is also quite obvious what the maintainers feel missing from > GKCG, so it also might be possible to improve on the current > GKCG and make some of the features of CoC available, like: > 1. Explicitly defining acceptable and not acceptable behaviour > (maybe by providing a liked document for that for flexibility and > easier adoptation) > 2. Explicitly define a process to deal with issues > (this can also be a linked doument) > One way to do this easily would be to provide the current CoC as the > linked document > defining these. Later we could improve on this. > WDYT? > > Best regards, > g_bor > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 84+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-11-06 17:42 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 84+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2018-10-28 11:58 Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? 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 23:54 ` OF-TOPIC: " Tonton 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 15:41 ` Stop it. Formerly - " Pjotr Prins 2018-10-31 17:51 ` Leo Famulari 2018-11-01 14:40 ` Ludovic Courtès 2018-11-01 15:11 ` Alex Griffin 2018-11-02 2:04 ` Mark H Weaver 2018-11-04 9:15 ` Mark H Weaver 2018-11-04 14:30 ` HiPhish 2018-11-04 21:01 ` Thorsten Wilms 2018-11-06 12:55 ` Ludovic Courtès 2018-11-06 17:23 ` Marius Bakke 2018-11-06 17:41 ` 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 11:37 ` Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? (-> convivenza) Nils Gillmann 2018-10-29 11:45 ` Nils Gillmann 2018-10-29 12:01 ` Alex Sassmannshausen 2018-10-29 12:48 ` Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Giovanni Biscuolo [not found] ` <9066320.aHiQMI0tiE@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> 2018-10-29 18:49 ` HiPhish -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2018-10-30 0:46 Alex Griffin 2018-10-30 2:09 ` Alex Griffin 2018-10-28 23:37 HiPhish 2018-10-23 11:15 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 2018-10-29 22:58 ` 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
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).