[fdo] Code of Conduct questions

[Jacob Lifshay]

Thank you for a detailed response. I'll check with the rest of the
community, however, from what I can tell, it appears as though there is a
fundamental difference of opinion, so we will probably have to look
elsewhere.

Sincerely,
Jacob Lifshay

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:17 AM Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> I've cross-posted this to freedesktop@, as the xdg@ list is only used
> for actual specification development.
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 00:36, Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi, we were thinking of asking if freedesktop would host Kazan (
> https://github.com/kazan-3d/kazan) for us, however some of our community
> members have objections with how freedesktop's Code of Conduct is currently
> written. Would it be acceptable for a project on freedesktop to have a
> different code of conduct as long as it has similar intent? The code of
> conduct that we would like to use is similar to
> https://libre-riscv.org/charter/
>
> Unfortunately, this is not something we're willing to do. If there are
> particular properties of the libre-riscv charter you'd like to see
> included in the fd.o Code of Conduct, or specific concerns you have
> with it, we (myself, Keith and Tollef) would be happy to hear it.
>
> The biggest divide is between 'enumerating badness' vs. 'Bill & Ted',
> to be glib.
>
> Enumerating badness (e.g. the fd.o CoC, based on the Contributor
> Covenant) specifically elaborates _examples_ of unacceptable
> behaviour, in order to make expectations clear. It sets very clear
> bright lines on unacceptable behaviour, whilst allowing the scope to
> be larger.
>
> Bill & Ted (from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure) follows the film's
> mantra of 'be excellent to each other', and is often quite vague in
> what this specifically means. Usually this takes the form of
> self-encouraging platitudes: we're all adults, we're all
> professionals, we all want to be nice, we all want great software.
> These are all good sentiments.
>
> The reason we chose a CoC which specifically enumerates badness, is
> that it makes expectations clear, especially for newcomers. If the
> community's norms are 'good not bad', and everyone always observes
> those norms, then by definition no behaviour can be bad: if you feel
> you're being excluded in a way which violates the code, you aren't.
> Specific enumerated counter-examples help make it clear what is and
> isn't acceptable, and prevents bad behaviour from being accidentally
> but irreversably entrenched. (Anyone who attempted to play rules
> lawyer and use technicalities to work their way out of the spirit of
> the CoC would not get a welcoming reception.)
>
> Personally, I'm also extremely uncomfortable with the parts making
> clear that 'roles and seniority' are paramount and must be
> acknowledged for everyone. The combination of the two is an excellent
> way to entrench abuse and hostility to newcomers: senior people are
> good not bad, senior people define what is good and bad, and you as a
> newcomer effectively have no recourse to complaint. Regardless of what
> the intent of the authors was, the effect is sadly the same.
>
> Some more background on the different styles is written up here:
>
> https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-new-normal-codes-of-conduct-in-2015-and-beyond
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/freedesktop/attachments/20181022/76fc5359/attachment.html>