Noah, may I propose a rule and consequences not listed in any of the CoCs so-far:
Rule: No profanity Consequence: private email from $somebody asking to stop (i.e. I propose that this is the most minor transgression possible, but it's still frowned-upon) Background: Sorry if this is bike shedding, but I wish there was less profanity in the community. In private I am very profane. Just the other day, my own mother told me how disappointed she was! And I've done it in this community too. But I have resolved to try to use zero profanity in my professional life. Casual profanity is characteristically Western. Not every society tolerates profanity in educated circles. Where I live, Thailand, and across Asia, profanity in the workplace is exclusively for the crass uneducated class. It is unthinkable in an office setting. When westerners casually drop F-bombs, they are unknowingly embarrassing themselves before a great untapped software resource: non-Western programmers. Secondly, this is only a suspicion, but I think profanity (and also cocky faux hatred), is a shibboleth indicating manhood and that we are in a men-only club. It's like a loud fart or belch, or scratching your groin. Men generally curb that behavior in mixed company. It reminds me of bulls locking horns to impress a mate. Maybe F-bombs and the anger it stands for are scaring some women away from software. Could be wrong, though. On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Jason Smith <[email protected]>wrote: > TL;DR = Is immediate removal from the project really worth thinking about? > > Noah, can you think of an example infraction that could plausibly trigger > an immediate removal from the project, for a first offense? Yes we can all > think of hypothetical examples, but something plausible from this community? > > (Am I diving into too much specifics too soon?) > > I feel like a time-out (of many months or a year) is a pretty harsh > consequence. I can't think of something (within expectation or project > experience) that would merit much worse. Multiple offenses, or ignoring a > time-out, sure: basically to me the only "major infraction" is "repeated or > multiple willful normal infractions" if you get my meaning. > > Imagine a good person who is usually fine but happens to have a very very, > very, bad day. And they cross the line badly on that one day. I shouldn't > think they'd be removed for a first offense even if it is grave. Again, I > am talking about expected or historical real-world behavior, not something > hypothetical like, say, something criminal. The most egregious behavior I > can think of (that we should spend time planning for) is severe > intentional, hurtful, harassment or insult for no productive purpose. Even > that, as a first offense from someone otherwise in good standing, I do not > think merits expulsion. Suspension, but not expulsion. > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > >> A requirement for me for our CoC is that we have a well defined >> response procedure. This is a commonly done for conferences, but is >> usually kept private to conference organisers. Obviously, ours will be >> public. >> >> To give you an idea of what I'm thinking: >> >> - Minor infractions vs. major infractions >> - A warning system for minor infractions (as is common in most >> employment situations) >> - "Time outs" to let people cool off from IRC, the mailing list, etc >> - An escalation procedure in case warnings and cool-offs are ignored >> or ineffectual >> - Immediate removal from the project in the case of major infractions >> >> I know this all seems like depressing serious business. But >> documenting this stuff so that everyone is on the same page, and we've >> all pre-agreed to it will massively cut down on drama while allowing >> the project to take swift action when needed. >> >> On 28 April 2014 21:48, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Benoit said: >> >> This one looks really good. What's your plan about the social contract? >> >> Take something adapted? >> > >> > In the context of this CoC it only refers to: >> > >> > "We will not hide problems >> > >> > We will keep our entire bug report database open for public >> > view at all times. Reports that people file online will >> > promptly become visible to others." >> > >> > so we can probably make this explicit, then point to the ASF Bylaws[1] >> > and ASF "How it works"[2] for the rest. >> > >> > -Joan >> > >> > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html >> > [2] https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html >> >> >> >> -- >> Noah Slater >> https://twitter.com/nslater >> > >
