From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Sassmannshausen Subject: Re: Promoting the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines? Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:08:56 +0100 Message-ID: <87pnvt9fhz.fsf@gmail.com> References: <11169507.O9o76ZdvQC@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> Reply-To: alex.sassmannshausen@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44189) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gH5Pp-00083t-Lf for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:09:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gH5Po-00072v-9U for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:09:01 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x534.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::534]:39847) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gH5Pn-00072H-Um for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:09:00 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-x534.google.com with SMTP id e5-v6so6877853eds.6 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 04:08:59 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: <11169507.O9o76ZdvQC@aleksandar-ixtreme-m5740> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: HiPhish Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org 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 th= ings > 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 ple= ase > 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 t= akes > two sides, the offender and the offended. Part of social competence is kn= owing > 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 entr=C3=A9e; 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, n= ot 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 o= wn >> 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 especial= ly >> 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 att= ack >> on you. If you feel that someone has attacked you, or offended your pers= onal >> dignity, please don't =E2=80=9Chit back=E2=80=9D with another personal a= ttack. That tends to >> start a vicious circle of escalating verbal aggression. A private respon= se, >> politely stating your feelings as feelings, and asking for peace, may ca= lm >> things down. Write it, set it aside for hours or a day, revise it to rem= ove >> 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 respon= se >> that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. The proje= ct >> team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporte= r of >> an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be pos= ted >> 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 oth= er >> members of the project=E2=80=99s 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 ev= en > 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 attenti= on > or >> advances >> * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political att= acks >> * Public or private harassment >> * Publishing others=E2=80=99 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 remain= ing > 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 se= xual > 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 wh= ich > no > one will read, you will never have a sufficient definition. Truly money w= ell > 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 co= uld > kiss you", but also no informalities, no emotion, and the project maintai= ner > will have to sign all his mails not with "Ludo'" or "Ludovic", but as "Mr > Court=C3=A8s", RMS becomes "Dr. Stallman", Guix becomes "The GNU Guix pro= ject", no > Hacker culture jokes and quips the manual, and so on. If this what you wa= nt? > > As a closing thought, I wish to address my opening statement that CoCs ar= e 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 soci= ally > 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 o= f 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 non= e of > those people end up contributing to the projects they disrupt. Is the dam= age > 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