Code of conduct

[matthew-dean]

As a matter of professionalism, many open source projects (like Node, IO.js) are adding a code of conduct in the root of their repos to help weed out abusive people. I recommend we add this to Less repos:

http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/1/0/code_of_conduct.md

[SomMeri]

Who was abusive so that he needs to be weeded out from here and how would formal code of conduct change anything?

If we want to have formal rules about how and when kick people off, "other unprofessional conduct" is overly broad definition - especially when combined with "project maintainers who do not follow the Code of Conduct may be removed from the project team". I get that there might be someday a conflict between us so much that we will have to kick him/her someone out, but I do not think this code of conduct would help.

Broadly defined rules on who gets to be kick out tend to be abused in times of conflict and not necessary by the "good" side (whatever is your definition of good). They get abused by the side most willing to abuse them.

[lukeapage]

Who was abusive so that he needs to be weeded out from here and how would formal code of conduct change anything?

I think a focus on negativity is not the intention. I read about this first from github,

https://github.com/blog/2039-adopting-the-open-code-of-conduct
who use...
http://todogroup.org/opencodeofconduct/

Which I think is clearer, nicer with less focus on kicking people out.

I would be OK with someone adding the todogroup code of contact, but I haven't seen a need for it.

[SomMeri]

I think it would be better to keep the repository apolitical. Explicit "We will not act on complaints regarding [...] Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts" pushes it strongly into political. Is there any reason to singling out that specific movement?

Second half of this CoC reads more like open invitation for anyone including trolls to argue about:

• whether there can be such a thing as "cisphobia" and "reverse sexism/racism" or not,
• whether following on github constitue harassment (?),
• whether simulated physical contact (eg, textual descriptions like hug or backrub) without consent should count as harassment,
• whether "technical ability" should be in the list of things we will not discriminate against (?).

I am all for outlawing parenting discussions, but I think it would be better to call it general off-topic rather then harassment. Harassment is something serious in my mind, counting "unwelcome comments regarding [...] parenting" as one is overly broad. Every playground in the world is full of harassers if we define it that way.

"We will not act on" section contains also "Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions". Criticizing such things is perfectly fine by me as long as certain lines are not crossed. Repeatedly falsely accusing someone of sexism or racism or other ism can be a form of harassment itself - with very real life consequences for target. Criticism can be done in both acceptable and dishonest or abusive way. It is completely opposite approach to the one this CoC took in its anti-doxxing rule which allows outing if "necessary to protect others from intentional abuse". It is also odd that CoC ties its adopter hands in these specific situations while going into very broad definition of harassment in stuff like unwelcommed food comments.

The last paragraph is not merely theoretical, something of the sort happened in python-cuba community lately and I still remember not liking arguments in node.js lengthy pronoun thread - the way the issue was blown out of proportion pushed me away from node.js back then.

[matthew-dean]

@jart Um...

[FreaKzero]

many thanks from my side guys that atleast you show that politics shouldnt be in codecommunites.