On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Juan Nunez-Iglesias <[email protected]> wrote: > Matthew, > >> I think we could have avoided a lot of bad feeling by gently pointing >> everyone to that (positive) document, > > Are you suggesting a CoC for using the CoC? ;) > > More seriously, do you have an example of what you are talking about? From > where I'm sitting, the CoC is completely non-threatening unless you have > plans to engage in unprofessional behaviour. Vigorous discussion and > insulting others' work are very different things.
I guess I don't want to go into detail about the CoC wording, because it just gets people upset. I would only say that it's difficult to read the CoC without noticing the legal and formal wording. I can find you references, but I think most people find legal and formal wording threatening and unfriendly. There's a place for that, and that is in the definitions of procedure for what to do when things go wrong. The formal wording there is useful so it is clear to the person accused and the accuser(s) what will happen. So, what I'm suggesting is that the main document should be something like "About our community" - saying what SWC wants to be like as a community (open, welcoming, diverse, thoughtful, direct, and so on). Then link to something a bit more like the CoC to read for "When things go wrong". Last - just an appeal. It might be tempting to think that anyone who doesn't like the CoC actually wants to harass or bully or stalk, but the two people with the strongest feelings on this that I have come across are women. Please, please, don't assume that if I / we think there is something worth changing, it is because we have dark desires of abuse. As far as I can see that is very rarely the source of disagreement. Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
