Code of Conduct. #11
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ | ||
| ## Code of Conduct | ||
|
|
||
| This Code of Conduct is adapted from [Rust's wonderful CoC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/wiki/Note-development-policy#conduct). | ||
|
|
||
| * We are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for | ||
| all, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, religion, | ||
| or similar personal characteristic. | ||
| * Please avoid using overtly sexual nicknames or other nicknames that might | ||
| detract from a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all. | ||
| * Please be kind and courteous. There's no need to be mean or rude. | ||
| * Respect that people have differences of opinion and that every design or | ||
| implementation choice carries a trade-off and numerous costs. There is seldom | ||
| a right answer. | ||
| * Please keep unstructured critique to a minimum. If you have solid ideas you | ||
| want to experiment with, make a fork and see how it works. | ||
| * We will exclude you from interaction if you insult, demean or harass anyone. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Suggestion: s/if you insult/if you intentionally insult/ The current wording lacks any notion of intent, but I think few people are aware of misconduct and would care if someone politely asks not to do something a certain way that's against this CoC. We'd be in for more melodrama if at the slightest hint of any misconduct this file is harpooned at the prime suspect. That itself isn't friendly and welcome, so that's why I consider the intent of any misconduct at least as important as the misconduct itself. There was a problem hiding this comment. Intent isn't magic. If someone unintentionally insults, demeans, and harasses, we reserve the right to exclude them from participation. There was a problem hiding this comment. Me? But yes, of course it's not magic. I bet those with bad intentions will always deny exactly those intentions. Including wording that takes intention into account in no way diminishes your right to exclude anyone, but rather hints at newcomers that any sanctions are ruled by careful consideration rather than emotional or instinctual responsive manoeuvres. This adds to a friendly, safe and welcoming environment, imho. I'm aware that I may be biased because @maxogden and (to a lesser extent) @droppedoncaprica have already demonstrated such behaviour. However, I don't see how their contributions to this issue can objectively be considered constructive (up to this point). There was a problem hiding this comment. Sorry, mixed up second/third-person pronoun usage, fixed in an edit. I was not talking about you personally. This is a code of conduct. Not a code of intent. For the purposes of inclusion in this project, a person's conduct matters, and a reasonable prediction of their future conduct. Intent is a variable in the prediction of action, but demonstrable actions screen off intent; if they intend well but continue act badly, then they get banned, and their lack of intent is not a defense. In other words, your suggestion weakens this code of conduct, and I disagree with it in principle. Projects with a clear code of conduct such as this one attract a broader diversity of input. There was a problem hiding this comment. I wouldn't argue that intent is inconsequential but the burden of proof with regard to intent should be on the person who has offended and not the victim who is reporting abuse or the person in power enforcing the code of conduct. Perhaps language regarding intent belongs in the enforcement documentation @othiym23 is writing as part of some sort of appeals process for the rare case that someone is unintentionally offensive without being willfully ignorant. There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's all about presumption of innocence. If you think the person offended you, you have to prove that. If you think the person intentionally offended you, that's a more strong claim which have to be proven as well. That's basic law principle people acknowledge for thousands of years now. Why are you dividing people into "marginalized groups" and "privileged"? All people should be treated without any regard to their nationality, gender and whatever personal characteristics they have. Yes, it is a fact that as of now women are in minority here, but calling them a "marginalized group" is offensive by itself. Everyone should feel they are a part of the community, not a "marginalized group", and this CoC just undermines that. There was a problem hiding this comment.
Killing someone is a crime. The difference between homicide and manslaughter is intent. What we're saying is that someone reporting an offense is the report of the crime and while intent might mitigate punishment it doesn't mean it didn't happen and that action doesn't need to be taken to resolve it. Forrest can let you know how many emails he moderates on a monthly basis but I'll guarantee that nobody intended to get their email moderated and that they thought at the time it was well within the rules for acceptable discourse. There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you comparing an email offense with a crime? I wonder if someone died from being offended over the internet. Well okay, there are offenses that could be compared to that (like threats in real life). But you don't need CoC to protect from them, since any moderator would kick the offender instantly and have a community support while doing that. We aren't talking about that kind of offenses here. Most of them more like technical violations. You say something, and after a week/month/year somebody comes and happily takes offense. That's where intent matters, because if there isn't any, the harm of the offense would be too low to be considered one. It's better to be compared to a speeding ticket. It's an offense all right. If you are trying to set a new speed record in a street race, you could end up in jail, but if you're driving people to the hospital, a police officer could even apologize for stopping you. Intent matters. There was a problem hiding this comment. Please, everyone involved, let's remain entirely reasonable and calm here. Someone starts to post emotionally and before you know it this whole thing blows up into a huge episode of melodrama, exactly the sort of thing we're trying to prevent from happening (is it not?). I might have struck upon this box of matches, but I certainly don't wish to ignite it.* I had no idea I was being mocked on Twitter, looking at the tweets I can't help but gasp at how easy it is with social networks to form a bubble of like-minded peers. It's perfectly understandable though, because you can't choose your family but you can choose your friends. However, it appears these users are trying to set an example. We are adult human beings; If we disagree with one another, we can discuss it and try to establish a common middle ground. So why are we engaging in this sort of naming and shaming behaviour that I thought society had left behind in the middle ages? The social bubble fosters behaviour where people want to present themselves favourable to their self-selected peers. No one likes to be considered a bad apple, or feel (dare I say) excluded from their comfort zone that is (or becomes) their social bubble. Problem arise when these bubbles start to exhibit nationalist behaviour, where "our camp" is considered superior to "their camp". See how we're back at irrational hierarchies again? This is the same thing, but in a more socially accepted atmosphere. I would like to highlight a particular point by @malandrew about how depressing this all is. That struck a chord with me and for those of you who have been spared of depression (and hopefully will continue to be spared for the rest of their lives), it kinda works like this: while (true);It constantly drains energy and accomplishes nothing. It gets a lot darker from there. So far, this post has taken 8 hours to write and doesn't quite cover the concerns I'm having with various comments posted in this issue. But I guess the main thing I'd like to add before I send in this post, is to please accept that there are different viewpoints; Try to remain collaborative and (without being judgemental towards anyone at all) allow yourself to be open minded rather than narrow minded in the interest of our shared goal. *: More considerate (less emotionally driven) posts have appeared since writing this paragraph, thanks for that. There was a problem hiding this comment. Anyways, I've deleted my comments. Those involved with this issue and subscribed to it thus far have seen them and really that's all that matters. Continued participation on this explosive issue is a high-risk activity, especially when I'm trying to raise legitimate concerns and being treated like I'm one of the truly horrible people the CoC is supposed to address. I will see myself out. Bye. |
||
| That is not welcome behaviour. We interpret the term "harassment" as including | ||
| the definition in the [Citizen Code of Conduct](http://citizencodeofconduct.org/); | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Not sure if this is the right place to discuss this, but I don't see a clear-cut definition in that document. Also, as someone who once lived under an oppressive regime, I find the notion of "good citizenship" or "being a good citizen" bad taste. There was a problem hiding this comment. I don't see where "good citizenship"/"being a good citizen" appears in this doc or in the CCoC? Is it the word "citizen" that you object to? It is simply used in this sense as one who resides or participates in a particular community. There was a problem hiding this comment. Sure, it's probably not intentionally written in bad taste but in the interest of staying constructive: I still don't see a definition of harassment in this text. As for the particular word "citizen", the Wiktionary definition does indicate a more narrow sociological meaning. A more generic word that conveys a more level (as opposed to hierarchical) relationship in a community would be better, but this discussion may be out of scope here since this document merely references an external resource. There was a problem hiding this comment. @gramergrater Please see section 4 of the CCoC. To re-iterate (for, hopefully, the last time), this is the same language used by many open source projects and conferences, and is well understood in context. Your concern about the definition is noted, and I don't believe there is any more to say on that point. There was a problem hiding this comment. Ack. |
||
| if you have any lack of clarity about what might be included in that concept, | ||
| please read their definition. In particular, we don't tolerate behavior that | ||
| excludes people in socially marginalized groups. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Suggestion: replace with "we don't tolerate discrimination of any kind". This way it's not weasel-worded and gets the point across. There was a problem hiding this comment. This is not a weasel word, in my opinion. It specifically addresses the concerns of people who are traditionally excluded from OSS participation. Diversity of input is our goal, and these words help people feel more comfortable providing that. There was a problem hiding this comment. I'm going to back up with @isaacs said here, that exact language has persisted through most conference CoC's I've and I suspect it is for this exact reason. There was a problem hiding this comment. I find this peculiar because I thought the goal from the outset was fostering "a friendly, safe and welcoming environment". Diversity isn't something you create, it's something that happens naturally in precisely such an environment as previously outlined. In other words, is diversity a means to an end or an end in itself? There may be contexts in which diversity is indeed a goal in and of itself, but we're talking software projects. Yes, I understand there have been issues in the past and I'm not in any way downplaying any of them. On the contrary, when looking at the underpinnings a bigger concern unfolds. It is my understanding that discrimination is about creating hierarchies based on prejudice, a false sense of dominance that's not rational or neutral towards entities identifiable by a given trait. With this in mind, it becomes almost trivial to see where it occurs. In writing "socially marginalized groups" to mean "women", you perpetuate the beliefs that women are "socially marginalized". Whether or not diversity is the goal, this doesn't help to end the status quo at all. It takes anyone who currently feels marginalised and enforces the dominance of the majority all whilst saying "don't do that". Why do these people feel that way? It may have to do with how documents like this mention it, somewhat covertly as to not be too insensitive, but anyone with half a brain can still distil what it really says. There was a problem hiding this comment. @gramergrater - at this point, I'm convinced you're trolling. Women are socially marginalized, the reason women are socially marginalized has nothing to do with establishing CoCs that expressly state the community will not tolerate the harassment or exclusion of women. On the off chance you're not trolling, ask yourself why a simple, generic CoC that essentially states, "don't be a jerk" seems to bother you so much. There was a problem hiding this comment. @tstaton56 You're doing the same thing, saying "Women are socially marginalized" as if we're just going to have to accept that. If we want to be friendly, safe and welcoming, we should stop addressing any demographic as "socially marginalised group" even though it seems innocuous on itself. I would have no issues with a CoC that simply reads "don't be a jerk". This clearly isn't that. It bothers me because I very frequently ask myself questions of a social nature and have an intuitive interest in social dynamics. It would be sad to see a CoC that either falls short or overthrows, as in both cases it will miss the intended goal. There was a problem hiding this comment. @gramergrater the statement "Women are socially marginalized" is, in the context of the technology industry and open source, a matter of statistical fact and not a matter of opinion or conjecture. In order to fix a problem you must admit that it exists, pretending it doesn't allows the structural barriers to entry that created this problem to persist. The TLDR of the CoC is "don't be a jerk" but as a matter of enforceable policy it is far too subjective to be effective all by itself. There was a problem hiding this comment. To chime in: Diversity is created. I won't attend a conference without a code of conduct; I specifically care about marginalized groups; I'm a member of more than one, and being at the intersection of those can be really difficult. If you don't do this, you end up with conferences and organizations full of men, and run by white men. This is what happens, and it's a problem. If you want to assume the CoC reads "don't be a jerk", do. But you will have to not be a jerk, including not doing things that people different than you consider jerky. This is what this CoC encodes: The concerns of the people not otherwise represented in the structure of the organizations we deal with. |
||
| * Private harassment is also unacceptable. No matter who you are, if you feel | ||
| you have been or are being harassed or made uncomfortable by a community | ||
| member, please contact one of the channel ops or any of the TC members | ||
| immediately with a capture (log, photo, email) of the harassment if possible. | ||
| Whether you're a regular contributor or a newcomer, we care about making this | ||
| community a safe place for you and we've got your back. | ||
| * Likewise any spamming, trolling, flaming, baiting or other attention-stealing | ||
| behaviour is not welcome. | ||
| * Avoid the use of personal pronouns in code comments or documentation. There | ||
| is no need to address persons when explaining code (e.g. "When the developer") | ||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ | ||
| ## Contribution Policy | ||
|
|
||
| Individuals making significant and valuable contributions are given | ||
| commit-access to the project. These individuals are identified by the TC and | ||
| discussed during the weekly TC meeting. | ||
|
|
||
| If you make a significant contribution and are not considered for commit-access | ||
| log an issue and it will be brought up in the next TC meeting. | ||
|
|
||
| Internal pull-requests to solicit feedback are required for any other | ||
| non-trivial contribution but left to the discretion of the contributor. | ||
|
|
||
| For significant changes wait a full 48 hours (72 hours if it spans a weekend) | ||
| before merging so that active contributors who are distributed throughout the | ||
| world have a chance to weigh in. | ||
|
|
||
| Controversial changes and **very** significant changes should not be merged | ||
| until they have been discussed by the TC which will make any final decisions. | ||
|
|
||
| TC members nominate contributors to be added to the TC which the TC will vote | ||
| on. They can nominate any individual during any meeting. |
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ | ||
| # Governance | ||
|
|
||
| This repository is jointly governed by a technical | ||
| committee, commonly referred to as the "TC." | ||
|
|
||
| Initial membership invitations to the TC were given to individuals who had | ||
| been active contributors to Node. Current membership is: | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| Fedor Indutny (@indutny) | ||
| Trevor Norris (@trevnorris) | ||
| Ben Noordhuis (@bnoordhuis) | ||
| Isaac Z. Schlueter (@isaacs) | ||
| Nathan Rajlich (@TooTallNate) | ||
| Bert Belder (@piscisaureus) | ||
| TJ Fontaine (@tjfontaine) | ||
| Alexis Campailla (@orangemocha) | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| Additionally the TC may invite persons or representatives from certain projects | ||
| to participate in a non-voting capacity. These invitees currently are: | ||
|
|
||
| * A representative from [build](https://github.com/node-forward/build) chosen | ||
| by that project. | ||
|
|
||
| The TC has final authority over this project including: | ||
|
|
||
| * Project governance and process | ||
| * Contribution policy | ||
| * GitHub repository hosting | ||
|
|
||
| The TC can change its governance model if they deem it necessary. The current | ||
| governance rules are: | ||
|
|
||
| * [Consensus Seeking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus-seeking_decision-making) | ||
| * Motions with voting when consensus cannot be reached. | ||
| * Quorum of 2/3 (66%), simple definite majority wins. | ||
| * No more than 1/3 (34%) of the TC membership can be affiliated with the same | ||
| employer. | ||
|
|
||
| ## TC Meetings | ||
|
|
||
| The TC meets weekly on a Google hangout. The meeting is run by a designated | ||
| moderator, currently `Mikeal Rogers (@mikeal)`. Each meeting should be | ||
| published to Youtube. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
suggestion: s/similar personal characteristic/any other trait/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"any other" is a bit open ended and actually leans more towards the kinds of personal belief issues you previously were concerned with.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well that's an interesting viewpoint, this is about extending inclusiveness to everyone. Is it not the goal to reach out as far as possible? I chose the most generic wording I could come up with because of that.