Hi, On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Ashwin Trikuta Srinath <[email protected]> wrote: > Just my 2c: > > Any discussion about the code of conduct (and even about changing it), in my > view, is welcome. But that discussion would itself have to follow the CoC as > it is. I think it's rather backward to put the CoC in question *after* its > violation. > > It's deeply upsetting for me to see the CoC, which I have upheld and > respected throughout my involvement with Software Carpentry, being called "a > theoretical piece of shit". I interpret that as more than just > "conversational use", and at the very least "inappropriate for professional > audiences", if not outright insulting to contributors to the code, and to > the community as a whole.
I didn't realize I needed to say this - but I would not myself have said either "asshole teaching statements" or "theoretical piece of shit". I think it would be perfectly fair then to say to Spaced Girl something like this: "Hey - we think you've overstepped the mark twice now - for the following specific reasons [...]. It's great to have you as part of the community, but please be very careful with your language. You may have read in the CoC that we insist on measured language for everyone, because it is very easy to cause offense over email. Please do feel free to contribute, but, if you do go over the line again (as we feel you did these last two times) then we will give you a final warning (with explanation), and if it happens once more, I'm afraid we will unsubscribe you from the mailing list." I believe she would accept that as fair - and if she could reply on this thread, she could tell us. My objection was to what actually happened, which was one non-specific shot across the bows, followed by removing her from the mailing list, for something that was very far from ordinary definitions of "harassment" or "bullying". That strikes me as dangerously heavy-handed, and I think it lacks transparency. It's quite a severe penalty, formally excluding someone like that. My suggestion was that it would be very reassuring to have a proper and transparent procedure for doing this, rather than the present system, which appears to be "if the committee thinks it's bad, you're off". That may not be fascist, but it does invite resistance and suspicion, and there's no need to do that, as far as I can see. Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
