[fdo] Code of Conduct questions

[Daniel Stone]

Hi Jacob (and lkcl by proxy),

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 09:24, Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake at gmail.com> wrote:
> So, it appears as though if we can all reach a compromise on the issue of explicitly listing bad behaviors, we could end up with a CoC that we can all agree on.
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 00:57 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:38 AM Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>>  what they've missed is quite common in these binary (polarised)
>> proscribed lists: the list of "examples" is unfortunately a slippery
>> slope, which, at the extreme end results in the FreeBSD fiasco.

Can you please link me to 'the FreeBSD fiasco'? I was aware of a bunch
of online controversy from this point:
    Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual
descriptions like "*hug*" or "*backrub*") without consent or after a
request to stop.

I don't see this as unreasonable: it's something which can make people
extremely uncomfortable. Was there something else I missed?

>>  the much more important part of the charter is the part that's based
>> on the systemic laws of organisations, as it's the *interactions* and
>> the roles that people play, and the contributions that they bring,
>> that need to be respected, appreciated, and honoured.
>>
>>  once that is understood, it's quite simple to "re-derive" the
>> principles on which the "proscribed lists" are based, with the
>> following simple sentence:
>>
>>  the purpose of the systemic laws is to reassure people that they are
>> welcome, and that they have a place in the community, that they
>> belong; thus if a person makes anyone else feel unwelcome, they do not
>> belong, and if a person makes anyone else feel like they do not
>> belong, they are not welcome.

Yes, I think we all agree on this.

>>  that's as strong and as clear as it ever needs to be, without needing
>> to list horrible lists of "example" behaviours.  *anyone* that feels
>> belittled or unwelcome by someone else's words or behaviour, there's
>> something wrong, plain and simple.

But here's where we disagree. Maybe there's something in FreeBSD I
haven't seen, but I don't really understand how specifically listing
examples of unacceptable conduct creates a 'slippery slope' issue.
Having a look at FreeBSD's CoC, all of it seems to fit perfectly as
things I'd not want to experience as a contributor, nor accept as a
community leader.

Maybe you/lkcl could help me understand the objections a bit better.
Is it about the things which are enumerated, or that enumerating them
creates some kind of problems, or?

By way of anecdote, here are two points on the FreeBSD CoC I've seen a
fair bit of online hysteria (and I do mean hysteria, along the lines
of 'I could accidentally do this one day later and then be fired and
blacklisted from the industry by an angry SJW!') about these two
points:
    Deliberate misgendering.
    Deliberate use of "dead" or rejected names.

But as with almost anything, the problem arises when it's intentional
or at least grossly negligent. The last time I saw something like
these two come up, someone referred to a former member of our
community, who was at that time identifying with a different name and
gender identity to what they do now. Someone mentioned their work
using their former name and pronoun. The response was 'BTW, they are
now known as [name] and uses [pronoun]'. The person who made the
mistake said 'oh OK, thanks for letting me know, sorry for any
offence', to which the response was 'sure, no problem'. There was no
witch-hunt, no-one got fired for a mistake or not having known
particular details. Just gentle correction and everyone moving on with
their lives.

Cheers,
Daniel