add charter v1.0

[ashleygwilliams]

This is the 1.0 charter.

[jasnell]

Recommend dropping "and actually".

[ghost]

👍 it sounds weird

[nebrius]

Realized I posted this in a less-visible location first, so I'm reposting here:

The way I read it, and correct me if my interpretation is wrong, that this says "We've tried to do this before, but haven't really put the right effort into it, and so those previous efforts failed. We're going to do this right, and actually succeed this time". This is a message I agree with 1000%. I can see how not knowing the previous history could leave the previous wording feeling confusing though.

Perhaps something like "Increasing diversity seeks to actively and effectively focus on onboarding people from diverse backgrounds to the Node.js project and maintain their participation". I don't love it, it doesn't feel as pointed as the previous wording to me. Maybe we can spin on this wording some more, as I think this message is really important.

[thefourtheye]

I thought these both are the same in this context.

[addaleax]

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “in this context”, but maybe @ashleygwilliams’ first intuition to include something explanatory here was a good idea – Perhaps a link to e.g. http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender could be inserted here? There are (imho) better glossaries of terms related to this topic out there, but this one’s probably well-suited for people who are just looking for a short overview.

[ashleygwilliams]

yar @addaleax this is perfect. this is exactly what i was trying to say. @thefourtheye does this resource help make the distinction clearer?

[thefourtheye]

@addaleax I am not a native English speaker. I may be wrong, but what I actually meant by "in this context" was, when sex is not treated as a verb, it is the same as gender, right?

[thefourtheye]

@ashleygwilliams Yes, the linked page has a lot of information about this (few of the words are totally new to me). Thanks for sharing @addaleax :-)

[addaleax]

Ok, good to know the link really is helpful :) You can @mention me when something related to trans/non-binary topics comes up, btw.

[addaleax]

Also btw and somewhat off-topic: I’m not a native English speaker, either, and I love you all for doing this project and making me proud to call myself a Node.js developer. <3

[nebrius]

<3 @addaleax, and thank you for the offer of support!

[andrewdeandrade]

Per #19 I would like to see suggestions/solutions for:

(1) how those with a history of actually making contributions (to NodeJS and related projects) will be protected or supported by other contributors in the event of a controversial issue or misunderstanding. As it stands now, no one who knows better has shown themselves willing to stand up against an angry mob to support a fellow contributor who accidentally finds themselves at the center of some imagined or real controversy. For example, how could we as a community diffused the libuv incident involving BN and made sure that NodeJS and libuv had remained a space where he felt included instead of ostracized.

(2) how we include those who actually have a real intent to contribute to NodeJS and exclude those who merely want to use NodeJS to further an agenda unrelated to NodeJS, since those who use NodeJS as a venue for furthering an unrelated agenda make the community less welcome (and by proxy less inclusive) to those who want to participate constructively in an apolitical atmosphere free of agendas unrelated or at best tangentially related to software engineering.

The expectation of tolerance from existing contributors and newcomers looking to contribute is a prerequisite for an environment that is actually inclusive and inviting.

[junosuarez]

@malandrew re (1):

This is demonstrably untrue. For reference, the issue I think you refer to is https://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun . In the wake of the pull request where the exchange took place, @isaacs offered a bounty on twitter for tools to effectively lock issue and PR threads to prevent this "angry mob" behavior, helping raise visibility for this necessary feature. GitHub implemented the locking feature natively a few months later.

Part of having clear, prescribed policy around expectations of contributors is to prevent the anything-goes frontier atmosphere that leaves legitimate issues with no channel for relief other than twitter and github +1s.

[andrewdeandrade]

@jden Yes, that's the incident to which I was referring. However, the blog post you linked two presents only one of the many viewpoints surrounding what happened. Brian Cantrill's blog post is far from being representative of the many opinions voiced, and doesn't at all try to get BN's side of the facts.

If that incident happened today, besides locking the thread, how would that have been handled? I'm genuinely curious here. This is a legitimate thought experiment. That could happen again and it would be controversial today as it was then.

If you want to be balanced, be sure to include BN's final response to that thread:
joyent/libuv#1015 (comment)

Any community where the following post can be penned is not an inclusive community. In fact its exclusive of the most valuable members (the lone contributor that spends countless hours building the first viable version of a project and then interacting with other contributors until it becomes self-sustaining). The current atmosphere is one where you can no longer steward an open source project of significant important and remain apolitical without suffering consequences because any attempts to remain apolitical are painted as opposition of their cause by those wielding pitchforks.
https://nodejs.org/en/blog/uncategorized/bnoordhuis-departure/

[juliepagano]

Typo here: s/harrassment/harassment

[juliepagano]

I think concerns about incident response (e.g. concerns about preventing pile-ons on github issues) are covered by the line in quotes below. The charter is a high-level overview of what the group will work on, not the detailed end result of that work. We have repeatedly heard concerns about public pile-ons. The WG will keep those concerns in mind when working on recommendations for incident response.

"Serve as a resource for the development and enforcement of workflows that protect community members and projects from harassment and abuse"

[juliepagano]

Maybe include a link to the issue working on the CoC here and then replace it with a link to the CoC itself when it finalizes.

[ashleygwilliams]

👍

[ashleygwilliams]

keep the comments coming! i keyboarded this (read: wrote from memory did not read before pushing)- so if you see weird grammar and such, you are very likely on point ;)

[thefourtheye]

Overall. LGTM 👍

[jasnell]

This is definitely an improvement on the membership coverage

[jasnell]

Overall this is a significant improvement over previous drafts.

To be clear, however, that doesn't mean that I agree or sign off in any way (i.e. this is not a LGTM). As part of the bootstrapping of this WG, I'd prefer to see far more restraint and consideration of action on the part of WG members with regards to aggressive moderation and what comes across as stifling or discouraging opposing points of view. If you do not agree with this sentiment, I ask only that you stop for a moment to consider why someone else may feel that way -- in my experience, I've always learned the most through careful and honest consideration of the points of view I disagree with.

This working group is facing an uphill battle. People in general do not enjoy being told that what they are doing may be wrong and typically will not agree with your reasons for telling them they are. Being too aggressive will serve only to make achieving this WGs goals that more difficult in the long run. Not everyone on the WG may agree with that, but they don't have to, I don't presume to have all the answers nor do I presume to speak for anyone except myself. However, one thing I have come to learn is that, in my experience, aggressive action begets an aggressive response, considered action begets a considered response. I would caution the members of this WG to consider that they could very well end up undermining their own goals.

[jasnell]

BTW, just a random thought -- I would note with no small amount of irony that the thumbs up symbol 👍 is considered a pejorative in several parts of the world -- not many but still... I'm not aware if Github changes the image to a more appropriate symbol in those locations and it's use to indicate "Like" is fairly ubiquitous thanks to Facebook... but it is interesting to consider. In any case, random though over.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumbs_signal

[zkat]

@jasnell the commentary on 👍 seems out of place and, frankly, offtopic to this discussion. If you feel strongly about this, I suggest you create an agenda item so we can discuss it in future meetings.

As you highlight, there are moderation issues with this working group, and we have taken into account the recent discussions in the various threads on this repo and decided it is best for us to hang back with such discussions, and any decisions surrounding them, until we first have a concrete process for working through these that involves more than offhand comments/random thoughts. This will allow us to document both the issue itself, and the decision-making processes behind making them. Your disagreement with current methodology is noted, and there's a variety of process-related agenda items that have been put up related to this, including #41, #40, #44, #43, and #38 (which I think mostly cover the concerns you've expressed repeatedly in our discussions).

As mentioned in #37, it is a priority for us to find a healthy process for this, and the method for figuring it out will be a facilitated working group meeting so we can better understand the process requirements of the Foundation, as well as discussing reasonable, effective strategies for ensuring discussions remain functional and satisfactory (ideally for all involved). If you find this process of meetings-only distasteful, I urge you to be patient for another week or two, while we hash out a way that we can go back to including asynchronous discussions in Working Group decisions. For now, they will most likely be ignored. I hope you'll have some empathy in understanding the chaotic nature of the past week, and at least give us the benefit of the doubt in understanding that this WG presents unique community-related challenges from very early on that most other WGs may very well not have to face until later, if ever. We want to make sure we are deterministic, transparent, and consistent, both in fact, and in the eyes of the community.

[jasnell]

Well, it was quite clearly marked as "random thought" and presented in a rather tongue-in-cheek manner ;-). More context for those who may happen to be curious about said random thought can be found here: http://bernd.wechner.info/Hitchhiking/Thumb/ .

[zkat]

Thanks for the clarification. I guess there was a misunderstanding. ;p

[andrewdeandrade]

+1 @jasnell Thank you so much for this comment above: #21 (comment)

One of the things I'm terribly worried about that I haven't yet seen mentioned is actions taken against individuals for anything said in any forum unrelated to NodeJS.

Inappropriate speech and behavior on NodeJS github pages, events hosted by NodeJS, in official channels like those on freenode and any thing inappropriate directed at specific members of the NodeJS community in unofficial forum are unacceptable. What I'm especially worried about is the aggressive policing/sanctioning/etc of viewpoints voiced in forums unrelated to NodeJS and not directed at anyone specific in the community.

Not everyone comes from a conservative background and not everyone comes from a liberal background and not everyone comes from somewhere in between or something not covered by either. All people from all backgrounds with all viewpoints should feel comfortable participating and being included in the NodeJS community so long as they check their politics and platform at the door and don't bring it into this house.

I'm especially worried about efforts to deprive people in the tech community employment and professional opportunities to participate based on things not said in any forum related to NodeJS. One example of this is what happened to Curtis Yarvin at Strangeloop this year. If you're unfamiliar with that indicident, here's a good summary:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/curtis_yarvin_booted_from_strange_loop_it_s_a_big_big_problem.html

Like the author of the Slate article, I don't agree with Curtis' political views, but I and I know manyother consider it dreadfully important for him to have the right to hold whatever views he wants to hold outside of this community and another other engineering community that wishes to foster inclusivity. Allowing something to happen like what happened at StrangeLoop is greatly unwelcoming to anyone not part of the very liberal majority of software engineers in Open Source. I'm part of this liberal majority myself, but I'm shocked by the chilling effects on free speech that is descending upon anyone in all fora who wishes to participate in this forum.

Meredith Patterson** (a well known biohacker) had the most reasonable suggestion to how it should have been handled in this tweetstorm.
https://twitter.com/maradydd/status/606799534983770112

For anyone who hasn't already read it, I also recommend reading her excellent post, When Nerds Collide:
https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-collide-31895b01e68c

If you don't know who she is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_L._Patterson

[ghost]

in case you need additional +1's, here's mine :)

[Fishrock123]

In this case, wouldn't we just invite them to the Org?

[ashleygwilliams]

I'm not actually sure about this. But this statement is to deal with the fact that the previous statement (directly from @jasnell) sounds a bit exclusionary

[jasnell]

I imagine not all would be. We already have a handful of "outside collaborators" configured in the system.

As I clearly indicated earlier, there's no intent to exclude anyone so this paragraph is fine IMO.

We should, at least make an effort to invite them to the org if their intent is to contribute on an ongoing basis.

[Fishrock123]

Sounds fine to me then

[Fishrock123]

Overall LGTM!

[ashleygwilliams]

hey @Fishrock123 ! made those final changes. merge?

[ashleygwilliams]

ok! lemme know if this looks good to you @Fishrock123 and i'll squash and you can merge.

[Fishrock123]

LGTM

[ghost]

[Fishrock123]

🐑

[ashleygwilliams]

rebased! merge away