Benjamin, 1. It's not a zero-tolerance policy, and it never has been. So all of your arguments based on that idea are null and void.
2. The only instance of "abuse" of the policy relates to behavior that was inappropriate even given cultural differences. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's okay to ridicule it. If Americans were to display similar behavior towards personal identities in other countries, I would hope that the CoC would be applied there as well. 3. The *very first link* that I provided you (to the timeline of incidents) [1] provided plenty of proof that Django needs a code of conduct. I still don't know if you bothered to look at it before complaining that nobody had offered you proof. Yes, these events are not specifically in the Django sphere. But Django does not exist in a vacuum. It will continue to not exist in a vacuum. The issues of the tech world at large will affect us, and it's useful to have a document stating our position to let people know that this sphere *is* different. If you want more information / proof / reasoning / whatever, I *again* highly recommend reading the rest of the geek feminism wiki (that the timeline of incidents is in). There is plenty of information there, and I don't feel like repeating it. 4. *Write the policy you want to see. Submit a pull request. Scratch your itch.* If this really bothers you so much, and you really think that an affirmative policy would be better, and you have enough free time to keep responding at such length to this thread, then you have enough time to actually write a policy down and share it with everyone, to actually try to convince people to switch to it. Multiple people have asked you to do this. Your response? To complain that nobody is listening to your pleas to have an affirmative policy, and to repeat how much better an affirmative policy would be. This kind of talk is cheap. And it's impossible to respond to. Because even if affirmative policies were strictly better – which I would dispute, and which other people have disputed, for various reasons which they have given – even then, there would be no way for people to evaluate whether that was the case. *Because the main person who's arguing that point refuses to provide a concrete example.* ------ I don't really care whether you respond to the first two points. I'm more including them as information for you regarding my positions. I don't expect you to convince me (given your arguments so far) and I don't expect me to convince you (given your responses to people so far). And I'm fine with that. I almost don't want to include them, but I don't want you to accuse me of ignoring your arguments. *But please do take the time to actually consider points 3 & 4.* And by consider I mean that I hope you'll actually read through geek feminism and that you'll actually write up the PR for an "affirmative" CoC so that people can actually have something to review. And if you have to pick one, read the geek feminism wiki. Best, Stephen [1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Benjamin Scherrey <proteus...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Josh, > > I agree with and understand your sentiments. However, you are > basically arguing that since we cannot count on the common sense of the > user community to behave professionally in professional environments, we > must therefore count on the commonsense of TPTB who will enforce a speech > and behavior code. This, in real life, never works out that way in my > experience however well intended and the risks from consequences of a > mistake of enforcement are far greater than a mistake of violation. I > believe strongly that an affirmative policy is more than enough to inject a > good bit of common sense and to provide a referral point to remind someone > who seems to be crossing the line on how to better cooperate with the > community. The potential for abuse is too high for a speech and behavior > code as I believe I have already demonstrated in the one real life example > of its invocation. Not sure what your justification for forgetting this > instance is but I think it's critical evidence against a speech/behavior > code - especially then opening its scope to non-Django related contexts. > > Whenever there is any doubt, always side with freedom. If, as you > suggest, these are intended to be guidelines then people who make a simple > mistake can be reminded and act accordingly which benefits everyone with a > simple affirmative policy. If, instead, these are intended as zero > tolerance principles then a small mistake gets overblown into something way > more than it is and the entire community is damaged by it. This is exactly > what a speech and behavior code ends up producing. We have one in place > now. It's been abused once already. I'm not yet arguing for its elimination > but let's certainly not expand it. Finally, I would also point out that the > language of the existing code does not fit my understanding of your > interpretation so am I correct in assuming you would want it clarified and > perhaps softened? > > thanx, > > -- Ben > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Josh Smeaton <josh.smea...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Ben, >> >> I know you haven't advocated the removal of the CoC (or #84 for that >> matter), but you've questioned speech and behaviour limitations upthread, >> so I thought I would include my thougths of a CoC in general. >> >> Just because the code of conduct hasn't been used for intervention >> (forgetting the one instance you've mentioned for now), it doesn't mean >> that it's not a useful tool to have. I would like to think that common >> sense would prevail, but we've seen instances in similar communities where >> it has not. You should not (IMO) need a CoC to tell you not to tell sexual >> jokes at a conference. The organisers should not need (IMO) a CoC to >> justify intervention. >> >> But certain groups of people feel safer or more included attending events >> where they feel like professional behaviour is encouraged and enforced >> where necessary. Some attendees that may not have a complete idea of what >> constitutes professional behaviour can learn from the CoC. And organisers >> have clear direction (authority) of what constitutes desirable behaviour. >> I, personally, feel that calling out specific negative behaviour is useful >> for the educational aspect. It is clear that some people have, at other >> conferences, not been aware that their behaviour was inappropriate. >> Codifying certain examples of undesirable behaviour seems like a good thing >> to me. >> >> The language of #86 does not introduce new "examples" of positive or >> negative behaviour though. It specifically tries to apply the existing code >> to non-django spaces, so I think that debating the merits of inclusive or >> exclusive behaviour should probably belong to a separate discussion. >> >> Regards, >> >> Josh >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Django developers" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/25aa3758-b4ba-4570-8498-a9bb8e333f33%40googlegroups.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/25aa3758-b4ba-4570-8498-a9bb8e333f33%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > Chief Systems Architect Proteus Technologies <http://proteus-tech.com> > Chief Fan Biggest Fan Productions <http://biggestfan.net> > Personal blog where I am not your demographic > <http://notyourdemographic.com>. > > This email intended solely for those who have received it. If you have > received this email by accident - well lucky you!! > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAHN%3D9D4JT-a60JDPaPR2M1T5y98b_v1Lh255UEKrxZqhEwtdBw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAHN%3D9D4JT-a60JDPaPR2M1T5y98b_v1Lh255UEKrxZqhEwtdBw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAMv_%2B6WozFGCrFcgh-GvZWtQDjJ2fBM50yjMwk817rNGX1a4Xw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
