Gregor, Thanks for your comments! Here are our responses:
In 'What happens after you file a report?' there still is > A public gentle reminder of the Code of Conduct. > A public reprimand. which still is (by definition) application of public shaming. Given the, according to Wikipedia, possible side effects of > Public shaming can result in negative psychological effects and devastating > consequences, regardless of the punishment being justifiable or not. It could > cause depression, suicidal thoughts and other severe mental problems. The > humiliated individuals may develop a variety of symptoms including apathy, > paranoia, anxiety, PTSD, or others. The rage and fury may arise in the > persecuted individual, themselves lashing out against innocent victims, as > they seek revenge or as a means of release. the *spirit** *of the Code of Conduct seems quite questionable while this is inside it. KR / WG> We agree that a public reprimand is something that should happen rarely and that great care should be taken before deciding to take that course of action. Any reprimand -- either private or public -- will be in keeping of the spirit of the CoC and will focus on the actions and their impact rather than criticizing the individual. This part of the CoC has not changed from the initial version that went into effect, and this has not been an issue to date. Now the addition to 'Code of Conduct Reporting Guide' of > As a member of this community, you are empowered to remind other members when > their > behavior is not in line with the Code of Conduct. basically declares open season on witch hunting for everyone interested in weaponizing the CoC, through allowing the official open communication channels to be abused to shame and shitstorm. You should thoroughly rethink *both* stances. KR / WG> We definitely understand the concern you and some others have about the CoC being "weaponized." As Matt said, the goal is for everyone to be part of improving the community and its interactions without having to file a report with the Working Group. We see this today when someone adds an aside in their message that is equivalent of "Let's keep the conversation civil." Any CoC reminders sent by community members should be in keeping with the spirit of the CoC. Apart from that, while looking at the Overview of the CoC that (new version) states > Some individuals face more systemic challenges to their participation than > others, and we strive to > create a space that encourages participation regardless of race, ethnicity, > culture, *national origin*, > color, immigration status, socio-economic status, educational level, level of > experience, > neurodiversity, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, body > size, physical > appearance, political belief, religion, and mental and physical ability. > > Like the technical community as a whole, the OpenZFS team and community is > made up of a > mixture of professionals and volunteers *from all over the world*, working on > every aspect of the > mission - including mentorship, teaching, and connecting people. Hide quoted text <https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/T91ab128e3e20cf25/code-of-conduct-updates> (suggested version, emphasis mine - the current 'in-production' version uses *regardless of ... nationality*) KR / WG> This is a great suggestion, thanks! We'll make these changes. brought me to realize the following issue: both Slack and Github ban users from participating because these are (or have been, or suspected to have been) located in or have (or had, or are suspected of having) ties to certain countries. Relying on these services for communication and hosting of repositories effectively discriminates against humans (currently or past) within these countries. The logic conclusion when combined with the stated goal of *strive to create a space that encourages participation regardless* *of [list] *can only be discontinuing these services and instead employ (preferably self-hosted, to avoid such problems in the future) methods that don't discriminate based on lines on a map. KR / WG> We share this concern, but think that the benefits of using GitHub (e.g. ubiquity, convenience, low effort to implement and maintain, cost) outweigh the downsides (not everyone can use it). Having said that, we would be open to receiving more information on this subject, especially if someone wants to put in the effort to mitigate any downsides of an alternative. As for Slack, there are alternative forms of communication for the community (email list and IRC), and those appear to be very active. Slack is just another communication channel. Thanks again, Karyn, Matt & Brian Gregor Show quoted text <https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/T91ab128e3e20cf25/code-of-conduct-updates> > > > > > > * > * > * > * > > > > > > Reply to all group members BoldItalicUnderlineStrikethroughFont FaceFont SizeText ColorText HighlightLinkUnordered ListOrdered ListQuoteUnquoteLeftCenterRightJustifyPreformatted TextClear Formatting ------------------------------------------ openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/T91ab128e3e20cf25-M65e9e9e96838063af3abb6b4 Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/subscription
