What this email seems to suggest to me is that our guidelines assume good faith, and yet some participants act in bad faith. I agree this is not well accounted-for in the guidelines. (However, the guidelines were designed with the GHC Steering Committee in mind, where members join by way of a nomination and selection process and can be removed -- quite unlike the broader Haskell community.)
Before thinking about specific words / documents that solve the problem, I want to be sure I understand the problem you're highlighting. Is it the presence of bad faith actors, specifically? Thanks for coming forward with these concerns. Richard > On Dec 6, 2018, at 4:59 PM, Philippa Cowderoy <fli...@flippac.org> wrote: > > I lack the energy to contribute to GHC directly, but these guidelines are far > too easy to abuse by someone acting in bad faith and we know that bad faith > actors have been adjacent to our community and acted on things that have > taken place within it. > > From where I'm sitting, guidelines like this risk doing even more damage than > not having any. Not only do they lack the means to handle incidents that have > already occurred, they actively discourage the community from finding those > means. > > As someone these guidelines have been drafted to help include, I fear they > increase the burden on my participation and that of others like me. For a > community to hold together without sinking to the worst of behaviour, there > needs to be some acceptance that we will all fail to act in good fatih on > occasion, that some people will act in bad faith and that behaviour in bad > faith may take a great deal of explaining to anyone who is not the target of > it or familiar with its mechanisms. > > I have spent a great deal of time running spaces within the wider community > and I have witnessed these things repeatedly. I also lack the resources some > people here have available to mitigate the risks others have openly posed to > members of the community including myself and Simon. > > One solution - whether GHC itself needs it or not - might be to pair > guidelines for respectful communication with guidelines for when respectful > communication is failing to occur. > > Simon, I appreciate both the work you've put in and your love for the > communty. I hope you can appreciate that where I appear to be cynical or even > sowing discord here, I am acting out of love and care for a community that at > its best has done a great deal for me. I apologise for being the one to open > up what I see as a somewhat inevitable discussion. > > On 06/12/2018 10:35, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell wrote: >> Friends >> As many of you will know, I have been concerned for several years about the >> standards of discourse in the Haskell community. I think things have >> improved since the period that drove me to write my Respect >> email<https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2016-September/024995.html> >> <https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2016-September/024995.html>, but >> it's far from secure. >> We discussed this at a meeting of the GHC Steering >> Committee<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals> >> <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals> at ICFP in September, and >> many of us have had related discussions since. Arising out of that >> conversation, the GHC Steering Committee has decided to adopt these >> Guidelines for respectful >> communication<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/GRC.rst> >> <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/GRC.rst> >> >> We are not trying to impose these guidelines on members of the Haskell >> community generally. Rather, we are adopting them for ourselves, as a signal >> that we seek high standards of discourse in the Haskell community, and are >> willing to publicly hold ourselves to that standard, in the hope that others >> may choose to follow suit. >> We are calling them "guidelines for respectful communication" rather than a >> "code of conduct", because we want to encourage good communication, rather >> than focus on bad behaviour. Richard Stallman's recent >> post<https://lwn.net/Articles/769167/> <https://lwn.net/Articles/769167/> >> about the new GNU Kind Communication >> Guidelines<https://gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html> >> <https://gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html> expresses the same idea. >> Meanwhile, the Stack community is taking a similar >> approach<https://www.snoyman.com/blog/2018/11/proposal-stack-coc> >> <https://www.snoyman.com/blog/2018/11/proposal-stack-coc>. >> Our guidelines are not set in stone; you can comment >> here<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/commit/373044b5a78519071b9a24b3681cfd1af06e57e0> >> >> <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/commit/373044b5a78519071b9a24b3681cfd1af06e57e0>. >> Perhaps they can evolve so that other Haskell committees (or even >> individuals) feel able to adopt them. >> The Haskell community is such a rich collection of intelligent, passionate, >> and committed people. Thank you -- I love you all! >> Simon >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Haskell mailing list >> Haskell@haskell.org <mailto:Haskell@haskell.org> >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell >> <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell> > _______________________________________________ > Haskell mailing list > Haskell@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell
