* Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) <936-846-2...@kylheku.com> [2021-04-29 10:30]: > A code of conduct document is little more than a condensed set > of corporate or governmental HR policies, disguised as some > sort of "organically grown" community document.
Code of conduct is used in an organization with employees is fundamentally different to organizations with arbitrary volunteers. Corporate policy is to exchange with employees, here is the salary, and in exchange we need the work, and work has to be conducted by specific manner, for example, don't spit on the floor. Those corporate Code of conducts are not politics focused, neither majority of such promote issues like feminism, gender problems, etc. They are mostly focused on business and how organization conducts its business matters. There exist very clear agreement, legal agreement named employment agreement between the employer and employee. In our voluntary organizations contributors they do not have any formal legal agreement with any employee, often there is no employee and no legal entity. There is no salary for contributors in free software projects. There is no direct dependency. Sometimes there are donations. Those who promote code of conduct speak of wanting diversity. But in the same time they also speak of not tolerating diversity. It is contradiction in itself. If I want diversity, I want diversity. I will then tolerate well behaved people and bad mannered people. That is diversity for me. I can immediately think of carnevals, Mardi Grass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mardi_Gras, open air concerts, and similar public gatherings. There is special feeling coming with it. On such public gatherings there are all kinds of people, some will be drunk, some will be funny, there will be abusive and sexist people. Nobody likes worst happening, but that is true diversity. Tolerance is key word. Not assuming bad faith just because somebody is upset or made some sex related joke. Code of conduct is strictly a document authorizing thought police to exclude people out of "their diversity", example from Guix code of conduct: https://github.com/pjotrp/guix/blob/master/CODE-OF-CONDUCT "We are committed to making participation in this project a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of level of experience, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, or nationality." The above statement is obviously not true, as it is impossible for a project maintainer to know what is "harassment free" experience for everyone. By the way one of them D.T. tried harassing me online from his farm, behind computer, and beyond the GNU project but declined meeting me in person to solve the issue. It is very easy to appear brave behind the keyboard. Why would I need any "Code of Conduct" to help me with the harasser? I don't. I can solve issue myself, there is legal system, there is police, there is recourse for that. I need no gang of bullies to protect me from bullies. If bully comes along, I know how to deal with one. It is very fine to tell people to stop with harassment. What is not fine is the open interpretation on what harassment is, and that a small group is allowed to do basically anything they wish and want by justifying their actions by Code of conduct. Of course, in anonymous way. Somebody complained, you said something wrong, we kick you out. No expectedhearing, no expected confrontation with accuser, thus open to misinterpretations on what happened. More quotes from Guix code of conduct: "Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:" The above statement only lists "examples" which means that interpretation on what is wrong and right is left to project maintainers. We already had Terms of Service for every website, in general private websites can simply kick out any person for whatever reason. I find that better, not necessarily just, but better to say "this is ours and we will do what we want" rather than giving appearance of some just and public cause. To say these are "examples" makes it open for vague misinterpretations and thus injustices. > * The use of sexualized language or imagery Humans are sexual. We love sex. At least majority of us loves sex. I cannot possibly imagine why any kind of mentioning of sex or sexualized language would be "breach" of behavior. There are vulgar expressions, every decent conference should warn people who express themselves vulgary. But to prohibit any use of sexualized language or imagery would IMHO also obstruct freedom zero. It becomes practically impossible to create programs that recognize coppulation on pictures and in websites, as the sole mentioning of those programs would be in violation of the so called code of conduct. It becomes practically impossible in such projects with vague codes of conducts to make software vibrators, and other sex toys, sexual chat, and dating sites become out of domain of such projects. Though millions of people use sex products, software in sex toys, and services for sexual conversations and interactions, anything like that could be banned by such code of conduct veiled organizations. I don' find it proper, as I love sex. The definition is thus vague, left to misinterpretations and would disallow inclusion of various sex related software. > * Personal attacks I can understand personal attacks, but because they are personal, it is best personally handled. Interesting is to observe that when I mentioned their leader's name, oh, that was immediately construed as "personal attack" -- how it can be personal when I have not personally contacted him at the time? When public figure like Ludo, publishes a statement then I am commenting on such statement and say it is defamatory, because that is in my understanding. I consult Wordnet: 1. calumniatory, calumnious, defamatory, denigrative, denigrating, denigratory, libellous, libelous, slanderous -- ((used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign) and I use my present mind to arrive to conclusions. That is far from any hate, I don't hate neither Ludo neither any of them. Statements, conclusions, are not hate. I have many people around me, not necessarily I need to agree on everything with them, disagreement is not a hate. But when it comes to something that disgruntled individual does not like, then within his comprehension capacity it will be either intentionally or maliciously called as "hate". I truly have no emotion of intense dislike, quite contrary, I am Guix user, liked Guix but could not use it in countries where Internet is expensive. The concept is great, I like Ludo and all developers. 1. (9) hate, hatred -- (the emotion of intense dislike; a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action) But that does not mean I have to agree on each of their actions, and if I don't agree, that it is hate. That is a good example of wrong interpretation and how actions of codeofconducts foster rather exlusiveness than inclusiveness. It is example how A is equal to B which is equal to C, and if you don't agree with me, even though you don't know what I agree with, if you disagree, you are personally attacking me. No my friends, those are not personal attacks. They probably don't know what is personal attack. > * Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments Trolling is term used rather online for people who annoy others, usually beyond the topic. Would I be now writing this message on the AntiGNU Assembly, they would probably feel highly annoyed. GNU mailing lists, and also Libreplanet mailing list are very tolerant. That is to be acknowledged. That fosters inclusiveness, diversity. They are tolerant even to its own dissidents and apostates. This is because their purpose is to foster distribution of free software, not to be thought police. There are several criminals behind free software. What is important is if that free software can be used and if other human may get use of it. We shall not judge software by people who make it. > * Public or private harassment This is open to misinterpretation. Thus anything one says could be construed as public or private harassment, within or without the "space". Codeofconducts, I mean those people who feel authorized thought police, they will spy around Internet and look on the websites that are not within their code of conduct jurisdiction, but will nevertheless feel free to punish the accused. Kick him out of chat for reason of making a question. Process goes like this: - hello, nice project, I would like to know what is this accusation of person X? - thanks, but no. - I am sorry, you published accusation against X on your website, is there any evidence to it? - not space to talk about it. - I feel upset that this nice project I love publishes accusations of X, is there any evidence for havens sake? - watch your language, we will kick you out. KICK. That is how it works. Codeofconducts will or may initiate public and private harassment and then dictate that nobody should speak about it, followed by exclusion. This creates atmosphere of fear, nobody will then raise the voice and good children remain silent. In general, online harassment is in many countries illegal. Sometimes it may be in favor of the accused to kick him out, as if legal system would be involved the accused could end up in jail. This is also one good reason that few individuals should not judge about that. Instead, if they feel that there is victim of online harassment, project maintainers should help the victim report it to authorities, so that case may be followed up, brought to court for justice. Eventual removing of online harassment evidences may be construed as obstruction of justice as well. > * Publishing other's private information, such as physical or > electronic addresses, without explicit permission This is also open to misinterpretations. Some people publish their addresses on websites, many are in telephone books, such information may not be private, people register their domains, email addresses are not private once in public. It is open to misinterpretations and injust punishments. > * Other unethical or unprofessional conduct Here we can see that just anything that codeofconducts deem unethical will be a reason to reject, ban, and so they say: > Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, > edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and > other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or > to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other > behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or > harmful. They have rights sure, because rights are given by the project ownership. But that does not necessarily deem their actions moral, rather capricious. * Overview of adj capricious The adj capricious has 2 senses (no senses from tagged texts) 1. capricious, freakish -- (changeable; "a capricious summer breeze"; "freakish weather") 2. capricious, impulsive, whimsical -- (determined by chance or impulse or whim rather than by necessity or reason; "a capricious refusal"; "authoritarian rulers are frequently capricious"; "the victim of whimsical persecutions") Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/ https://rms-support-letter.github.io/