Even if that's all it does (which I think it probably is), it is enough to make it worth doing in most cases. (Which reminds me that I don't have a code of conduct on any of the open source projects or communities I work on, but I'll make it a project for the first quarter of this year.)
If a COC becomes a baseline requirement for people to run projects and attract contributors, ISTM the people who don't care will just add COC's, and never enforce them.
You say "But, it does say, "We will excise toxic people. We will try to make you feel welcome here, even if you have been made to feel unwelcome elsewhere.""
It does not actually do that. It's one level removed from that. It's "we say we will excise toxic people.". It in fact, may be the case that you go to ask them to enforce it, and they say "sorry, don't care", even with a COC.
Then you are back to square 1. You essentially are trying to use the COC as a proxy for "communities that will care enough to put a stop to things" and i'm pretty much 100% it will not achieve this goal.
You're alleging that a CoC is meaningless, but why implement a CoC, as a community, if you don't actually want more women and people of color becoming involved in your projects? The CoC is the signal saying, "We, as a community, want you to feel welcome here."
That's all I'm saying it does, and all I'm suggesting it can do, and I say that's sufficient cause to implement a CoC, if you want more women and people of color in your community.
So, to repeat, a CoC is a signal of desire to be inclusive. It is not a law, it is not a guarantee, it won't make assholes stop being assholes. It is a sign on the door saying, "We're gonna try to be welcoming. Come on in."
This is an odd assumption to make.
It may seem that way to a white dude (I'm a white dude, and I suffered from the delusion that tech communities were inclusive for decades), surrounded by white dudes. You're not alone...lots of people think tech is inclusive. I always assumed that our communities were more welcoming than usual, despite the evidence to the contrary in the form of such low historic participation by women and people of color in tech.
But, I've been told it is true from enough women and people of color that I believe it to be true. It's been discussed at great lengths by women and people of color on blogs, on mailing lists, on twitter, etc. I'm not sure what it would take to convince you, but I probably don't have the words to do it, so I'm not gonna try.
For people who acknowledge that our communities do not have a history of being inclusive, it is probably useful to post a CoC in order to signal that we are aware of that history of sexism and racism and acknowledge our willingness to take responsibility for it when it happens in communities we manage, if even in a small way.
Communities can be healthy without a CoC, or unhealthy with one. But having a CoC sends a big, clear message to women and other groups frequently marginalized in the tech scene that your project is healthy and welcoming.
Here's why that's a big deal: joining an open source project is an investment. If you are a woman, or black, or trans, or god forbid, some combination thereof in tech, you really don't want to become invested in a community that will at some point treat you like shit. And let's be real guys, many, many communities do treat women and minorities like shit.
A CoC, and just as importantly, the discussion surrounding one, is a simple sign that a community is a place where you can be a woman or a minority and contribute to open source without fear of harassment, abuse, marginalization, and other dangers faced by non-white-dudes in tech.
https://www.freelists.org/post/nanomsg/Adopting-a-CoC,11
Now, me personally, I couldn’t give a crap whether a project has a CoC or not.
Frankly, if someone acts irredeemably toxically in this project, I won’t feel like I need to have a CoC to justify taking corrective action — I’ll just take the action
So, I’m definitely not going to “require” a CoC; if someone acts like an ass then they can expect me to take some kind of action.
But then comes out with:
I’m pretty disheartened by the intensely negative response this suggestion has drawn;
I'm at a loss as to why he didn't just let the discussion roll for a bit without expressing his "disheartened" feelings and if the outcome from active members is "we don't think this is a good idea" then let it go. He's already stated that thus far the project has no known issues regarding conduct and that anyone being an asshat dickhead would be dealt with anyway.
Odd.
On the other-hand, once you have rules, there are some people who for some reason or another go out of their way to argue that a behavior violates/does not violate the rules and completely ignore whether the behavior was benign or malignant, which is what one should really care about.
Maybe projects can adopt CoCs that address that too, and cover both sides of the coin.
The previous owner says it all himself pretty clearly:
> The current attempts to adopt CoC in various FOSS projects are IMO doomed for similar reasons. It has zero effect on abusers (no abuser thinks of himself as an abuser) and the message it sends to decent folks is: "There's an elite in the community that will decide what's good and what's bad and enforce it by censoring your emails/posts/contributions." Which in turn erodes trust within the community and, consequently, its ability to spontaneously deal with abuse.
---
* The use of sexualized language or imagery
* Personal attacks
* Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments
* Public or private harassment
* Publishing other's private information, such as physical or electronic addresses, without explicit permission
* Other unethical or unprofessional conduct
---
As a maintainer they should have just said "There is a CoC now. Check it out: <link>. Happy new year everyone".
This game has always been a troll magnet of milfan boys with too much testosterone. I was one of them, except I had a girl's name.
By kick/banning appropriately with clear reasons we (as a team), we made even women and teens feel welcome (shit happens). I kicked/banned consistently people for personal reasons (I don't like discriminating people). I also kicked/banned other people because they were not enjoyable. So were the others doing. We never asked permission to have a server we would enjoy ourselves playing, we were paying for it. And it was bringing people. And it was fun for everybody, even women and kids.
CoC is just an excuse for failure and lacking balls and that thinking just being "the owner of a digital place" makes you a leader.
Money, title, even skills don't make you a leader. Just succeeding in leading.
If it isn't enforced by the letter - why does any of this bullshit need to be mentioned? If someone's being a dick, they'll be addressed and dealt with for being a dick. No CoC needed.
What is the difference between the following two statements?
"We've received a complaint that could be construed as violating Section 3 Subsection B of the CoC. So I'm going to have to ask you to quit it or leave."
"You're being an ass. Quit it or leave."
Nothing, I like the second. And the second one will be used anyway. But I was talking here more about the people who gave it a -1. Maintainer spent his personal time and put some work into creating a guide. So let the guide be.
If it is not enforced, it is not enforced. It will just stay there. If it is enforced I might help people kick abusers off a mailing list or IRC channel.
Perhaps I would understand if it was a question of well we don't have a guide, how wants to come up with one, or let's go write one. Then perhaps discussion its value vs time it takes to get it edited and committed might be in order. But if it is already done, just adopt it. There is nothing onerous or crazy in there.
If it doesn't work or causes terrible problem down the road -- throw it away.
Folks with agency or autonomy will personally act to eliminate harassment, without need for rules, for example. Troll on my turf, I will ban you. Not some set of rules taking action, a human (that being me) will exert authority (that being the mighty banhammer) and that's how it will be. There are no abstract rules or rule lawyering involved.
The CoC view is passively sugar coating some abstract set of rules which will enforce itself, kinda. Its very weird because the person applying the CoC is too passive and has too little agency to, say, wield the banhammer and eliminate the threat without need of formal rules and regulations. Yet, has enough agency to force everyone else to work under a CoC, which simultaneously implies the same people that can't autonomously be trusted to exhibit common sense will none the less be forced by the rules to apply the rules they were too timid to apply by themselves without the CoC. Its very weird logic twisting.
If you trust individual leaders, the CoC is useless because the have the agency to wield the banhammer with no need for rules. If you don't trust the leaders, the CoC is useless because they won't enforce it.
So what is the use of a CoC? Well, for one thing instead of banhammer swinging we can raise awareness and have a debating party about what violates the abstract rules. No one can be kicked out without a long painful debate. Its a rule's lawyer's paradise rather than a developers paradise.
CoC's are very passive, someone else will enforce the rules. That paradoxically leads to worse behavior. Pretending you're not in a benign despotism merely confuses and slows down necessary responses by all concerned.
Its sort of a generic opposition to all that is Dilbertian, along the lines of not requiring casual IRC / SMS message conversations to be conducted as per "Robert's Rules of Order" Its not that the rules are in themselves bad, its that if you think you need Roberts Rules of Order for IRC something is hopelessly off the tracks and you can only hope you don't show up as a satire in a Dilbert or xkcd cartoon.
Maybe a bad bar analogy is the bartender tosses out obnoxious drunks. Installing a set of formal rules that drunkards must be formally recognized by the chair of the meeting before speaking as per Roberts Rules and if you don't then an abstract someone should toss you out implies you're probably in one messed up bar.
In this case the use is that the maintainer took the time to create it. You can argue that it is useless. Even the maintainer seem to largely agree. So why not have it? It is already there. Why show negativity.
A CoC is a bit like a trademark. To be useful it has to be enforced. So it can just sit there, and if nobody bothers to look at, it will just occupy some extra bytes on some server (Github).
> That paradoxically leads to worse behavior.
Yeah, it might be right. But it is a hypothetical. Let's think of a positive hypothetical upside -- for example the first thing comes to mind is it sends a message to minorities, women, those who are shy, beginners that this project is approachable. We are attempting to be sensitive and welcoming by at least spending time to create a CoC. It is a general message perhaps as well "We are aware these kind bad things happen in the programming community so we did something about". That's it.
Just because they don't agree with having CoC doesn't mean they do anything CoC disallows. The same with people fighting for free speech or freedom of association - at least one of them is not a hate speech using KKK member.
Nice passive-aggressive personal attack though. Maybe CoC isn't that bad idea after all.
That's what I am thinking. Why not signal that "yeah these issues exist, we took 10 minutes to create some guide and put it on Github or some place". I understand if it wasn't already done, and its usefulness has to be weighed against the time it takes to do it. But it was already done. Just approve it and move on. Why drive-by and throw -1's out of the window at it.
Anybody who has lived for long enough knows at least one person who can be unkind out of obliviousness, not knowing better, or not being aware of social cues.
Also, people in disagreements get mad or passionate, and that tends to incite people to cross the line of professional respect. Passion is good, hostility is not. I've had to remind normally kind people that I manage to "not do ____ again" on multiple occasions, with the implicit threat of firing them.
My conclusion from my own experiences is that "don't be a dick" is not universally understood, and people will make mistakes, often unintentionally. So I think a CoC is useful as one of many different ways any organization has to remind its members to be kind. It's still up to the administrators to enforce things, but a CoC is a useful reminder especially to incoming members to be aware of their conduct.
because of lawsuit-happy culture, not due to lack of common sense.
Rachel Nabor's article is interesting, but not sure how a CoC fixes dealing with a boorish weirdo outside the conference.
As we see in this thread, whether CoC "mean something" or "are needed" aren't absolutes — clearly they are to some, and aren't to others. The key for me is that they're not important to people who don't need them to feel safe, and vice-versa.
CoC is a proof of failure in leadership, respect is earned.
Which one do you think is more poisonous? Making a fuss over the maintainer wanting to impose one or just accepting that someone else sees value in something you don't and agreeing to the CoC.
The other person should have the same approach, accept that others do not see it as a worthwhile and not have it.
