[fdo] Code of Conduct questions

[Jacob Lifshay]

Here's Luke's response (sorry it's so long). I think the message at the end
is the point of Luke's reasoning, so, for those who don't have the time to
read the whole thing, they can read the last 20-30 lines of this message.

Jacob Lifshay

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 03:37 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net>
wrote:

> (thanks for forwarding these, jacob, and hello daniel).
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 9:54 AM Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > From: Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>
> > Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 01:48
> > Subject: Re: Code of Conduct questions
> > To: <programmerjake at gmail.com>
> > Cc: <freedesktop at lists.freedesktop.org>
> >
> >
> > 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'?
>
>  if i am honest, i was so disgusted and so repelled by the "proscribed
> list" that i saw that i actually genuinely do not wish to do so.  i
> *genuinely* do not wish to be exposed to the toxic list of behaviours
> of the FreeBSD project (no matter how genuinely unacceptable they
> are).  in that, is a hint of the issue that is really quite hard to
> get across to people who believe that "proscribed examples of
> unacceptable behaviour" are themselves acceptable.
>
> > [...]
> > I don't see this as unreasonable: it's something which can make people
> > extremely uncomfortable.
>
>  indeed it can, and as such we are in agreement that the proscribed
> behaviour [which i deleted as i do not wish to be mentally exposed to
> such examples] is unacceptable.  yet the list itself makes people
> deeply uncomfortable, operating in a climate of repulsion - suppressed
> or otherwise - and fear (justified or otherwise).
>
> > Was there something else I missed?
>
>  it is not that the behaviours are unacceptable: far from it.  of
> *course* any behaviour that makes people feel unwelcome or that they
> do not belong is unacceptable.  it is the fact that the lists
> themselves are so repellant, so disgusting, so repulsive, so anathemic
> and so toxic *DESPITE* being woefully inadequately incomplete, that
> they poison a project even before members have considered joining.
>
>  this appears to be a subtle point that a massive number of people
> find extremely hard to appreciate and accept.
>
>  i have tried many times to give people the example of mother theresa,
> who was invited to an "anti-war rally".  she declined, saying "if
> however you have a *PEACE* rally, i will be delighted to attend."
>
>  our subconscious minds, on presented with words or images, remove the
> "negative" - the words "don't" and "not" - and focus on the word or
> the image.
>
>  "don't think of a pink elephant", of course people think of "a pink
> elephant".
>
>  this is what those horribly toxic lists do to people.  they place
> into peoples' minds the very thoughts that the lists are supposed to
> prevent!  an *entire project's membership* now operates under a
> subconscious threat and fear of hate, racism, sexism, and worse!
>
>
> > >>  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.
>
>  so, why not simply say that? everyone understands what it means.  if
> they don't understand that doing something which makes someone else
> unwelcome is not acceptable, it means one of two things:
>
>  (1) they did not *realise* they were doing harm to another human being
>  (2) they do not understand what "harm" actually is.
>
> if the former, that's quick and easy to deal with.  you give an
> extremely good example, below.
>
> if they are of the latter, you have a bit of a problem, which, with a
> little prompting and coaching (activation of the procedures for
> dealing with issues), things can be spelled out to them in a
> respectful and loving way, and if they genuinely don't understand,
> even after it's been spelled out to them, that's the point at which
> they get the push out the door.
>
>  i've had to deal with this a number of times (i've run software libre
> projects for over two decades now).  they were nowhere near as
> "clear-cut" as a "code of conduct" proscribes.  behaviours that were
> down to a complex combination of misunderstandings, expectations, and
> lack of thought for the consequences of their actions and behaviour
> for others, even when that was spelled out to them.
>
>  in essence, the charter that i wrote has at its heart the clear
> message that everyone is trusted to know the difference between "good"
> and "bad", is trusted to focus on the goals of the project, is made to
> feel welcome, and is expected to take responsibility for their role,
> their actions, and for encouraging and teaching others.  [also,
> importantly, not to take other peoples' guilt OR credit, which is
> something that is absolutely critically important and yet COMPLETELY
> missing from software libre "codes of conduct"].
>
>  even *having* proscribed "don't think of an elephant" behaviours
> *actively* distracts from that, focussing peoples' time and energy on
> "avoidance" of the eggshells that *might* be there, but people are so
> disgusted by the list that they don't even feel comfortable asking for
> clarification, and, in some cases, rather than risk running into
> "problems", do not approach the project to ask to join *at all*.
>
>
> > >>  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.
>
>  i believe i cover this above, from several angles.  the thing is that
> it's actually very hard to describe, as there is *not* a "specific
> one-issue answer".   this is one of those things where there are
> actually multiple partial answers, all pointing towards the same
> thing.
>
>  unfortunately that makes it extremely easy to dismiss ["Give Me One
> Good Reason"] - i can't.  nobody can.  with enough time, it will be
> possible to describe and hint at *multiple* partial answers, all
> saying the same thing... yet not a single one of them can ever be
> "definitive" or "categorical".
>
> i make some effort to provide as many insights as i believe that you
> might find acceptable... if however you press me for that "one
> definitive categorical answer", i am sorry, it is genuinely not
> possible to do.  it is too complex, and too multi-faceted.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>  and that's absolutely fine, and to be expected.  is it complete?
> would you feel threatened by "virtual murder?"  why is *that* not on
> the list??
>
>  would you feel uncomfortable if an actual convicted murderer,
> released from prison having served their time, was on the project?
> (there was actually a contributor to the linux kernel who was
> convicted of murdering his wife: this is not a hypothetical scenario
> at all).
>
>  i expanded on this in an "engineering" style, using macros and formal
> logic, at one point, as an illustration to the linux kernel mailing
> list.  at 64 bits of proscribed behaviours it became impossible to
> express them explicitly...
>
>  ... yet all that was *actually* needed was:
>
>  #define UNACCEPTABLE(BAD_BEHAVIOUR)
>
> where "UNACCEPTABLE" is #defined to ((behaviour & 0xfffffffff) !=
> 0xfffffff) rather than just "behaviour == 0"
>
> ... i may not have the macros exactly right, you can probably see
> where that leads.
>
> > 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?
>
>  it's the enumeration itself that poisons people.  we *know* what's
> right and what's wrong.  we don't need it "shoved at us", if i can put
> it coarsely.
>
> > 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!')
>
>  that fear is *precisely* the problem.  if the proscribed toxic list
> were replaced with "everyone is welcome, everyone belongs: if you make
> people unwelcome, you do not belong", that is *real* easy for people
> to understand.
>
>  whilst i do not like to "challenge" people.... i *invite* you to find
> a single person who does not understand that making people feel
> unwelcome, makes someone else feel like they do not belong, is
> acceptable in a group context.
>
>  think of what you hear stereotyped white supermacist racists say on
> american TV and films.  you always here them say, "you're not welcome
> heerrrre booooiiiyh: you duhn't belawwwwwwnggg".
>
> > But as with almost anything, the problem arises when it's intentional
> > or at least grossly negligent.
>
>  absolutely... because that indicates that someone *intentionally*
> wishes to make someone else unwelcome, or feel that that person does
> not belong in the group.
>
>  the actual behaviour is just an excuse.
>
>  and yet, also, at the same time, it masks a more fundamental and
> subtle issue, namely that people can believe that certain "acceptable"
> words and behaviours are also acceptable in all circumstances.  i
> won't go into detail on this, the message here is already too long.
>
>
> > particular details. Just gentle correction and everyone moving on with
> > their lives.
>
>  indeed.  i am pleased to hear that it was correctly identified as a
> genuine mistake.
>
> .... and yet, i bet you, for a minute, everyone absolutely freaked
> out.  privately, if you admit it to yourself or talk to other people
> about the incident, i bet you that for a few horrifying
> stomach-churning seconds, they thought that someone had actually
> deliberately hit one of the "proscribed toxic behaviours".
>
>  it's this constant fear of intolerance that, in a hugely ironic
> "own-goal", actually *introduces* the very idea of intolerance and
> separation - the witch-hunt or the possibility of a witch-hunt - into
> a group that's trying "desperately to MAKE its members feel
> welcome"... i am obviously over-exaggerating and going completely over
> the top on that one, i trust that's clear that it's entirely hyperbole
> and hypothetical.
>
> hope that helps, and apologies for the length.
>
> l.
>

Since Luke didn't provide a link to the FreeBSD fiasco I asked him to
provide one:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 13:32 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net>
wrote:

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:32 PM Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Despite how much you dislike it, I would ask you to share a link to the
FreeBSD fiasco as both Daniel and I probably won't completely understand
your objections unless we can see the results.

 i didn't actually look: i didn't want to.  as in, *at the time* i was
so repulsed that i did not look.  the coverage from slashdot alone was
enough to sicken me and have me deeply concerned.

 so i googled "slashdot freebsd", first link that came up was a
suggestion auto-completion "slashdot freebsd".

 however this also came up (or the llvm slashdot article did)
 http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/122922.html
https://developers.slashdot.org/story/18/05/03/1639245/one-of-llvms-top-contributors-quits-development-over-code-of-conduct-outreach-program

note what he says,

" When I joined llvm no one asked or cared about my religion or
political view. We all seemed committed to just writing a good
compiler framework."

 and then,

"Somewhat recently a code of conduct was adopted. It says that the
community tries to welcome people of all "political belief". Except
those whose political belief mean that they don't agree with the code
of conduct. Since agreement is required to take part in the
conferences, I am no longer able to attend."

so *without consulting* him, they imposed a change that FORCES people
who have been demonstrated years of loyal service to a project to
suddenly be treated like paraiahs.

the very thing that these toxic documents CLAIM not to desire are in
fact being forced at and onto people.

this really is an extremely complex multi-faceted issue where there is
not the "one definitive answer".  it's a combination of really quite
insidious psychologically-damaging issues, all of which add up to
"trouble".

l.



On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 13:49 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net>
wrote:

have you ever seen the immigration cards for foreigners entering the
united states, before the introduction of the electronic visas?  it's
not a joke, they quite literally (with very little "translation"),
asked the following questions:

* are you a nazi? (please tick yes or no)

* are you a drug dealer? (please tick yes or no)

* are you a child kidnapper? (please tick yes or no)

* are you a criminal? (please ttick yes or no)

* are you a money launderer? (please tick yes or no).

if you answered "no", welcome to the united states!!!

now.  think how that makes visitors feel..

let's take it a step further.  examine the "contributor convenant" (or
the fdo equivalent which is based on the CC)  make a web app out of
it.  place each of the proscribed unacceptable behaviours, one by one,
all twenty to thirty of them, on their own separate page, with a
checkbox REQUIRING that people read, accept and agree to each and
every single one of them, individually.

take your time.  spend 30 seconds on each. dwell on them.  take it
seriously.  think seriously, "do i have the intention to commit this
particular atrocious behaviour against anyone?"

at the end of the list, have a page that says, "congratulations!  you
are now welcome!".

now tell me how you feel about contributing to the project after being
forced to go through that list.

does that promise of being "welcome" really feel true?

l.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/freedesktop/attachments/20181022/6effcf1c/attachment-0001.html>