Thanks for your careful observations. First, the CoC was actually coined by Mike, and I saw it as a proposal to bring LilyPond into the next decade. A CoC is a pretty normal concept these days. If having a CoC is required to be taken seriously by developers at large, we should consider it. I concede that CoCs haven't yet reached this level of ubiquity, though.
For full disclosure, David has ticked me off in the past, and reacquainting myself with the community means that I have to reacquaint myself with David's way of communicating. One of the recent emails (about the development process), contained a passage that felt like a blow in my stomach and upset me to the point of considering to leave again. (When I say this, I am not asking for adulation). If that happens to me, imagine what happens when a new contributor is on the receiving end of that. So I am happy to see that David is trying new ways to address this problem. I have no personal stake in being a CoC committee member, and was actually volunteered into it by Janek. I am happy to not be part of such a committee (Elaine, would you be interested?), because my time is limited, and is probably best spent in mentoring coders and explaining the code base. For the record, I think Werner is an excellent candidate. On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 2:28 AM Flaming Hakama by Elaine < [email protected]> wrote: > Regarding the CoC. > > If there is no enforcement, then it is not clear what is the point. > > In the abstract, such a document could help to set expectations of > behavior, including clarifying types of behavior that is considered > unacceptable. Such that everyone/anyone in the community would be able to > have something to point to to say, "see this type of behavior is considered > unacceptable". > > However, even with a clear CoC, any accusations of violation could be > disputed. Reasonable people can disagree on many things, especially human > feelings, actions, and intentions. Without an offiical enforcement > mechanism, we only really have peer pressure. Which is exactly what we > have now. And I don't think any of us need a CoC to identify uncivil > behavior. > > > The main issues with the original enforcement proposal is that it delegates > authority to the people most likely to have a conflict of interest: the > core contributors. > > If we want such a committee to be effective, it should be populated by > people who have fewer conflict of interest. Ideally, it would include > people who primarily have good standing among the community with track > records of being helpful and diplomatic--coding chops should not be the > main criteria. Likewise, I think we should consider recruiting at least > one person from outside the community who has experience with such things > (mediators, facilitiators, open source mentors, diversity trainers). This > should be clear by considering the one suggested use case (sexual > harassment), since we would want a committee that is able to understand and > handle such complaints, and to which community members will feel > comfortable bringing forward such complaints. That is not an easy thing to > construct entirely in-house. > > Any such proposal should also make it clear how this committee gets > elected, have some mechanisms for limiting terms, and how to handle > appeals. > > In my opinion, in the abstract a CoC with enforcement is useful, but only > once the community is large enough, and if the enforcement mechanism is > transparent, democratic, and constructed to actually handle well the task > it is charged with. > > I don't think either the lilypond community nor this specific proposal > comes anywhere close to this. > > > > There are two things that have been said in this discussion so far that I > would like to point out as being un-collaborative and in violation of any > CoC worth its salt: > > 1) "Adopt this CoC or I will leave the community" Such threats amount to a > my-way-or-the-highway attitude, which is an attempt to enforce veto power > in what is supposed to be a collaborative / concensus / democratic > approach. Also difficult to disentangle the degree to which this is > intentionally or unintentionally an unprofessional attempt to elicit > praise, with the expected reactions of "oh no, don't leave, you're too > valuable". To me, this is toxic behavior and I would welcome their > self-removal from the community if this is their idea of how to conduct > themselves in an exemplary manner. > > 2) Being disingenuous regarding the point of the CoC. While it may be a > bit overboard for DK to assume that removing him is the sole point of the > proposal, it is equally disingenuous for the proposers of the CoC to > suggest that any such consequences would be unintended, since that is the > *only* actionalble part of the proposal, and DK is the most obvious target > for such concerns. What has become clear to me is that there is a > disharmony between the original BDFL and the incumbent BDFL. This specific > proposal for a CoC seems to me to be an attempt to provide the *appearance* > of some kind of consensus-based or otherwise democratic process, in an > effort to reinstate the original BDFL and dethrone the incumbent BDFL, when > in fact there is nothing consensus-based or democratic about the proposal > at all. So, it has a taste of insencerity and disguised motives, which is > exactly the opposite of what a CoC should be engendering. > > For both sides of this kerfuffle, I'd offer the following reality check: > > * The current process relies too heavily on one contributor, and any > improvements to the process will inherently invovle untangling the many > hats being worn by the current BDFL, such that others can wear them--and > probably also reconstituting the hat wardrobe. > > * Those wanting more input and responsibility should be frank about their > aims, and not disguise them behind a lofty CoC proposal. They should > recognize that such a proposal is, in part, difficult to distinguish from a > personal attack, since it does essentially target one individual, even if > that is not the intention and eventual scope of the proposal when applied > to a future 'pond that does operate among a larger number of contributors. > > * Those who currently have oversized roles should be willing to help > transform the workflow and workload such that collaboration is expanded, > such that they can focus on their areas of genius. Also, recognize that, > while the desire to disentangle the workflows of the incumbent BDFL, it is > not intended as a personal attack, despite the fact that it is being > carried out in a way that does not make this clear. > > > > Elaine Alt > 415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is > highly underrated*" > [email protected] > Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist ~ Educator > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [email protected] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
