Am 21.10.2019 um 21:07 schrieb garr...@damore.org: > I happen to have the (perhaps unpopular) opinion that CoC enforcement should > tend towards a light hand, and in most cases where an issue arises it is > usually not the intent of the offending part to offend -- and more often than > not no actual offense is taken. Public correction is often more harmful to > the community harmony than the actual incident. I also have the (perhaps > unpopular) opinion that vigorous CoC enforcement has the distinct potential > to do irreparable harm to a community -- as in all things balance is better. > > I think it therefore makes sense to limit corrective actions (including those > reprimands or reminders) *and* enforcement to a conduct team, which should be > made up of folks who are broadly trusted not to create a police state around > thought control and expression, and who have an interest in ensuring that the > community is welcoming for everyone. Strongly judgmental persons or those or > who are likely to take offense at minor slights are probably not the best > suited to the role. It should be persons who themselves are thick skinned, > while reasonably sensitive to the feelings of others -- and persons who have > demonstrated an ability to communicate without giving or taking offense > themselves. It's also important, I think, that it be a committee, and ideally > should itself be diverse if possible. > > All that said, it is *sometimes* (rarely!) appropriate that a public reply > made -- for example in egregious cases, where one party clearly and willfully > steps over the bounds. Or is a repeat offender, and disruptive to the > harmony of the community or is creating an unwelcoming environment. In those > cases, I think it is *especially* important that the correction *not* come > from random community members, but from someone acting in some sort of > official capacity. It's important that nobody becomes, or is perceived to > become, some sort of vigilante. This is particularly true if conduct > violations may lead to other more serious consequences. You're not alone with that view, except the part of the public reprimand. Being able to ban someone that repeatedly dosn't get a memo should be plenty enough.
Am 21.10.2019 um 23:07 schrieb Matthew Ahrens: > On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 8:20 AM > <mailfrom-openzfs.topicbox....@kopka.net > <mailto:mailfrom-openzfs.topicbox....@kopka.net>> wrote: > > > 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. > > > Gregor, thanks for your feedback. Karyn, Brian and I are working on > responding to all of the points you raised, but in the meantime I > wanted to share my thoughts on this specific issue. > > Regardless of what's in the CoC, personally I want to work in a > community where everyone can give thoughtful, polite, constructive > feedback on my communication. If I write a code review code review > that attacks someone personally, it's good for others to point that > out so that I can improve. I think the same goes for other community > members. That what PMs should be used for, no? And in case these wouldn't help there is the official channel through the working group. IMHO there's no real point in dragging this into the normal channels. Am 22.10.2019 um 01:11 schrieb karyn.ritter: > 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. A spirit that is questionable, as long as the mentioned parts are in the CoC. I have seen what the result of a community (empowered through similar to what the proposed change introduces here) 'correcting' a member can be: a person in their twenties hanging on a tree in the family garden, helped toward that decision with (granted, a load of) polite reminders from other members. No, thank you, I don't want any more of that. I believing that you're operating on good intentions... so please don't open that path, it's completely unneeded and the side effects can be too severe. We don't need a 3rd party being-offended mob, the existing mechanics are already plenty (or realisticly already too much, see my critique on the public reprimant). > > 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. That was no suggestion but just the result of verbatim application of the changes highlighted in the posted PDF. I would prefer we do not turn /nationality/ into /national origin/, simply because this opens a loophole that shouldn't be there in case the aim is to have a positive /spirit/. > > 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). With a tad of cynicism one could argue that keeping the status quo (of using services that discriminate) makes the /we strive/ moot and using the argument of /inconvenience/ to create second class humans effectively turning the CoC into not being worth the electrons it's stored with. But luckily we're not at the end here: > 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. This should start with defining what an alternative /could/ be, or (in case of no obvious ones being at hand) what that /needs/ to be able to do to generate as less inconvenience as possible. > 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. Slack holds messages of the users hostage to extort (IMHO excessive) monthly payments. There are discussions I had with other members that are no longer accessible, containing information that I (and everyone else) can no longer access unless someone opens the wallet so information that might well be interesting, helpful or even significant for others that think about working on the issues or features discussed is lost to corporate greed. This IMHO isn't even tolerable with it being 'just another' communication channel, using a service with such a behaviour isn't suitable for an open source project as it removes the ability for (new and old) members to search the past (to learn, to reference, to get up to speed or to remember) so it shouldn't be listed or used as an /official/ communication channel for OpenZFS. A while back I offered to setup, host and maintain a matrix/riot (or another system that might work better) server to replace slack with, that offer still stands. Matt should still have the details of that proposal, unless Slack ate that too. Gregor ------------------------------------------ openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/T91ab128e3e20cf25-Mcef52e3b781a6a06eb26c077 Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/subscription
