Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

[Pjotr Prins]

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.

Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

[Leo Famulari]

[-- 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 --]

Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

[Ludovic Courtès]

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’.

Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

[Alex Griffin]

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

Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

[Mark H Weaver]

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

Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

[Mark H Weaver]

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

Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

[HiPhish]

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

Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

[Thorsten Wilms]

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/

Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

[Jeremiah]

Perhaps, it is human nature to think in terms of conflict; right and wrong.

Absolutes are naturally attractive, especially to those of us who
program. It just feels so natural because what we work with the most is
in many ways exactly like that.

But one needs not get stuck on such a perspective.

The Code of Conduct is an entirely rational and correct solution to a
population of only cognitively normative individuals.

But that is not the argument being made by both sides.

But rather we as a community have those who fall outside of bounds of
what is considered Cognitively Normal in our set of productive members
and for them the Code of Conduct is a point of contention.

It is entirely counter productive for that population and it isn't what
historically been effective at growing productive software development
communities in the past.

But we need not think in such limited terms as have or not have in
regards to the Code of Conduct but rather; can we carve out a zone of
exclusion where those who are productive members of the community can
act and interact without fear of the Code of Conduct or other normative
pressure placed upon them?

I propose we institute a Tony Stark <-> Pepper Pots mechanism.

We create channels for people who can't or will not conform to the Code
of Conduct are free to collaborate and contribute to the project through
a few designated individuals who have thick skin and are willing to put
up with Flaming assholes in private for the good of the project.

There are multiple details we will need to hammer out over time but the
general idea is we stop trying to force people who are different from
contributing in a positive manner.

-Jeremiah

Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

[Ludovic Courtès]

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’.

Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

[Marius Bakke]

[-- 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 --]

Re: Stop it. Formerly - Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines?

[HiPhish]

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.