Re: NEWS for 0.10.0

[taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer)]

John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 01:02:15PM +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
>
> There is nothing in the current coc which I particularly disagree with - 
> all the examples of unacceptable conduct I personally consider unacceptable
> in all walks of life.  
>      
>      Unfortunately, ???be excellent to each other??? is not a CoC, and it's
>      often an excuse not to have one.
>
> I can think of two much  better "excuses" :
>
>
> The first is:
>
> What hurts me when somebody shoves  a "code-of-conduct" in my face, is the veiled 
> suggestion that lies behind it.  Viz:  "You might be a person who habitually uses
> sexually explicit language, insults people, harrasses others,  assaults people, 
> ... murders them ..."

The COC is there for everyone; I don't see why anybody should take it
personally and feel accused of anything.

> Of course, on a literal level this suggestion is correct, for a person who has never
> met me, for all they know I might be a person who does those things.  But why 
> accuse a person of those things on the first introduction?
>
> The second is:
>
> By having an explicit coc, the explicit message is "Examples of unacceptable 
> behavior by participants include ..." The implicit message which is a logical 
> consequence is: "... and we anticipate or have already experienced such 
> behaviour by participants."

Sure.  We're on the Internet. :-)

> When I invite someone to my home for coffee, I do have a "code of conduct"  I 
> expect my guests to be resonably polite, not to insult me, not to vandalise my 
> home, fart in my face and lots of other things.  But I this "code of conduct" is
> implicit.  I don't write it down.  I don't ask my guests to agree to it before 
> they enter my home - if I did I would not be suprised if the very suggestion 
> would cause them to be extremely offended.   I would not blame them if they 
> excused themselves and departed without delay.  Likewise I think these "codes of
> conduct" in community projects do not have the effect of welcoming people.  They
> have the opposite effect.  

There's the point that things are different on the Internet, and then
there's a point to be made about one-to-one or small-group meetings
where bad behavior will stick out immediately vs. large conventions
where bad behavior might remain undetected.  Having a COC gives a
guarantee to participants that if they personally have a bad experience,
they can bring it up to the organizers and action *will* be taken.  The
same principle applies to a large online community.

> So lets HAVE a code of conduct.  But let's not have a written one.  Let's be open
> and inviting.  If somebody does come in and start harassing/insulting/sexually 
> assaulting/ people (which I think unlikely) we'll uninvite them.
>
> J'

Taylan