subject:"\[Development\] QUIP 12\: Code of Conduct"

On Monday, 29 October 2018 13:36:30 PDT Sune Vuorela wrote:
> I feel you are using your position as chan op to kick him far too rare.
> But I'm not sure where to bring that up.

The 15-day ban expired yesterday, so he's back today.

Next one will be 45 days.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-29 Thread Sune Vuorela

On 2018-10-28, Thiago Macieira  wrote:
> But if it isn't spam, what gives the list moderator the right to intervene in 
> something that he/she believes is abusive behaviour? Same thing about IRC: we 
> do have one annoying person who does come along every now and then, but most 
> of his messages are just that: annoyance. It's only when he uses profanity 
> that I feel justified in kicking him out of the channel.
>
> Am I the one abusing my position as channel op to kick him? Am I being 
> arbitrary?

I feel you are using your position as chan op to kick him far too rare.
But I'm not sure where to bring that up.

/Sune
 - also these days in favour of a CoC, but has also protested against
   such things in the past.

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Monday, 29 October 2018 13:18:53 PDT André Pönitz wrote:
> Currently the Qt Project defines itself as "meritocratic,
> consensus-based community interested in Qt".
> 
> After the suggested I fail to see how it can be called either.

We'd have to amend to say that unprofessional behaviour (as defined by the 
CoC) will not be welcome, regardless of how much merit the particular person 
may have accumulated.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

Hello! I've tried to provide Code of Conduct based on Arch Linux CoC,
pasted here: https://paste.kde.org/pzdmvyi3t

Will try to send it to codereview later, feel free to do it instead of me
if it will be easier for you,
I'm going to spend some time to learn how to do it correctly

пн, 29 окт. 2018 г. в 22:19, André Pönitz :

> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 02:25:20PM +, Ulf Hermann wrote:
> > > But then you make a statement in your post script that demonstrates
> > > exactly what I'm talking about.  You stated  "some emails in this
> > > thread sadly make me see part of the project in a different light. I
> > > fear I'm not the only one."? Would you say the project has created
> > > fear in you and this has somehow "harmed" the project in some way?
> > > Who were these people that changed your mind? We need to identify
> > > these people and ban them because they are not casting the widest
> > > inclusive and protective audience and anything less than that is
> > > harm... Let the witch hunt begin... right?
> >
> > All the proposals for codes of conduct that I have seen so far mention
> > banning only as a last resort and have several less drastic measures
> > that should be applied before.
>
> That's exactly the way the Project has operated before, without the
> suggested burocratic overhead and without giving some committee
> super-powers ranking over all other mechanisms in the project.
>
> Sure, each time when action has to be taken on IRC or by mailing
> list moderation, people taking that decision feel somewhat uneasy,
> lest they be accused of censorship or similar. But that is *good*,
> as it makes people exercise any extra powers very consciously.
>
> > Also, the point of having a neutral third
> > party decide on the issue, rather than people directly involved in the
> > conflict should result in that third party deciding on the measurements
> > to be taken, not any victims of harassment, harm, or whatever.
>
> Currently the Qt Project defines itself as "meritocratic,
> consensus-based community interested in Qt".
>
> After the suggested I fail to see how it can be called either.
>
> Andre'
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-29 Thread André Pönitz

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 02:25:20PM +, Ulf Hermann wrote:
> > But then you make a statement in your post script that demonstrates
> > exactly what I'm talking about.  You stated  "some emails in this
> > thread sadly make me see part of the project in a different light. I
> > fear I'm not the only one."? Would you say the project has created
> > fear in you and this has somehow "harmed" the project in some way?
> > Who were these people that changed your mind? We need to identify
> > these people and ban them because they are not casting the widest
> > inclusive and protective audience and anything less than that is
> > harm... Let the witch hunt begin... right?
> 
> All the proposals for codes of conduct that I have seen so far mention 
> banning only as a last resort and have several less drastic measures 
> that should be applied before.

That's exactly the way the Project has operated before, without the
suggested burocratic overhead and without giving some committee 
super-powers ranking over all other mechanisms in the project.

Sure, each time when action has to be taken on IRC or by mailing
list moderation, people taking that decision feel somewhat uneasy,
lest they be accused of censorship or similar. But that is *good*,
as it makes people exercise any extra powers very consciously.

> Also, the point of having a neutral third 
> party decide on the issue, rather than people directly involved in the 
> conflict should result in that third party deciding on the measurements 
> to be taken, not any victims of harassment, harm, or whatever.

Currently the Qt Project defines itself as "meritocratic,
consensus-based community interested in Qt".

After the suggested I fail to see how it can be called either.

Andre'

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-29 Thread Edward Welbourne

In a context of witch-hunts against even allegations of minimal harm,
NIkolai Marchenko (26 October 2018 20:17) wrote
>> And we already see the budding sentiments to that exact tune:

>> (quote from Edward Welbourne)
>>> That sometimes folk have felt so intimidated that they give up on
>>> trying to make a contribution; and that, were potential worse
>>> conduct to cause distress to a contributor, we have no process in
>>> place that could give them confidence that their distress will be
>>> respected and honest efforts will be made to relieve it.  Various
>>> variations and permutations on these themes may also be relevant;
>>> see Simon's mail.

>> Note: I understand that he means well, but Within the context of
>> Contributor Covenant the punishability of the potential harm of
>> people not contributing can escalate to stupid proportions.  I have
>> nothing against KDE's code. It strives to add positivity.  I am very
>> much against Qt's CoC being drafted from Covenant. Covenant is
>> focused on oppression and excluding ppl.

Just to be clear: I was speaking of the case for having *a* code of
conduct and a publicly-described process around coaxing folk into
honouring it.  In particular, I'm not particularly attached to the
present wording, nor do I know more than the present discussion has
(since I wrote the above) told me about the Contributors' Covenant on
which it is based.

What I asked for was a process that a contributor can turn to, with
reasonable hopes of being heard and getting help, if they feel
persecuted.  If their feelings of persecution are not anchored in any
actual conduct by a community member that actually persecutes them I am
all for the process (politely and respectfully) teaching them to not
feel persecuted when they aren't being persecuted.  I am firmly in
favour of the code of conduct's associated processes being
proportionate, precisely so that they avoid any objection to an alleged
or potential harm escalating "to stupid proportions".

I do, indeed, find the Covenant-derived wording and process somewhat
heavy-handed and hope I shall soon find the time to read the KDE CoC, of
which several voices here have spoken favourably.  I'm in favour of *a*
code of conduct, and associated processes, precisely if it assures folk
who deal with this community of reasonable and respectful treatment.  It
rather sounds as if the Contributors' Covenant (or, at least, the
history of how it's been used) undermines your confidence that you'll be
treated reasonably and respectfully, if what we adopt is based on it.
Please make the case for that, rather than imputing that I am a
preparing the way (however unwittingly) for witch-finders ;^>

Jason H (29 October 2018 17:42) ended a recent missive with:
> I've asked repeatedly for very specific definitions and standards of
> things to be considered. This would go along way to getting my
> approval. I will always resist an ambiguous judgements on ambiguous
> standards. The process should be transparent to those involved in it,
> such that you should know how it will turn out before entering into
> the process. I don't think ambiguity serves anyone justly.

Specifics are exactly what the code review is for.  Come join us at:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/243623

I assure you, you are not alone in wanting this thing nailed down tidily
enough that there aren't loose flaps under which Aliens with Agendas
(whether of the left or the right, whether progressive or reactionary)
can slip in and work mischief for our community,

Eddy.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-29 Thread Frederik Gladhorn

Hi all,

I would like to thank the people who have started this discussion. For me this 
is a very positive thing and a step forward for the Qt community.
I really enjoy being part of the community. I want it to continue to be the 
great group of people that it is today. And hopefully bigger, more diverse and 
inclusive going forward.
I am very sure that a big silent majority does support this initiative. Again, 
thank you!

Reading through the mails (an impressive amount), I feel there is consensus 
towards the KDE CoC. I also appreciate the positive wording.

Maybe we don't need many more mails in this thread, I have the feeling we will 
not discover a whole lot of new information at this point. I'd like us to move 
on to the next constructive phase of this process. Let's adopt the more 
positively phrased CoC from KDE. It is under a license that allows us to use 
it and is clearly meant to be picked up by others.

I am happy that so many people have strong opinions on our culture and value 
it. For me this is about culture, how we treat each other. That is what being 
a community is all about. We have a common goal - making Qt the best it can 
be, and nobody is able to do that alone. We will always have some style of 
communication in the project. I am happy when I see positive reviews. In my 
opinion that can be a -1 with good comments which problems to address. Let's 
set ourselves a high standard, on the communication side as well as on the 
technical one.
I hope we use this as an opportunity to remind ourselves that in reviews we 
should give ideas what to improve (and how). Reviews are important to share 
knowledge, which is important to us as community. In emails we should be 
respectful, on the forums sensible and so on. I think we mostly succeed 
nowadays.

Moving on... we should find out how to deal with the occasional problems that 
might arise. I do think that we want to establish some form of enforcement. I 
firmly believe that the first means of action in all cases will be an email or 
two, just to clarify the situation. Maybe a phone call. Often enough conflicts 
turn out to be small misunderstandings and we want a reasonable small group of 
people that keeps things confidential and just nudges people to talk to each 
other and move on.

Only when everything goes wrong should stronger measures ever be considered. 
Thus we want a group we can trust with making sensible decisions in how to 
uphold the CoC. I would want them to have some diplomatic skills, respect 
privacy and be sensitive to different cultures - good communicators.

Cheers,
Frederik



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-29 Thread Jason H

Hi Volker,

I think you ask a very good question.  "If someone like Coraline were to direct 
her energy to the Qt Project, how much in the open would you want their efforts 
to be? Or would you rather simply trust that there are not enough maintainers 
in the Qt project that would fall for their chain of arguments and backdoor 
schemings?"

Let's break that down.
"If someone like Coraline were to direct her energy to the Qt Project" - 
1) If by energy you mean, she wants to contribute, I would not have a problem 
with her participation despite me not agreeing with her previous behavior. 
Contributions would be judged on technical merits alone.
2) If by energy you mean a witch hunt, then it should be done publicly as to 
add to her existing history.
3) If by energy you mean a "legitimate complaint" then I guess it would depend 
on the nature of her claims. If the items of transgression are Qt community 
items, then it's already in public. If things were done in private then it 
would be debatable what influence the Qt community resolution process would 
have.

So I don't have a clear answer for you, but that should set up some kind of 
framework. The agreement on venue is difficult. I could both see wanting public 
resolution or private resolution, and I can't even typify that based on 
scenario.

Admittedly, I don't understand the last part of your question. "simply trust 
that there are not enough maintainers in the Qt project that would fall for 
their chain of arguments and backdoor schemings". Previously I suggested that 
the people selected to judge the process be entirely at random to prevent 
politicisation of the decision makers. And also evidence should only be 
considered if on a Qt community property.  At the same time, these incidents 
may have confidential information, which should be protected from public 
disclosure. I think all of that fell on deaf ears?

I've asked repeatedly for very specific definitions and standards of things to 
be considered. This would go along way to getting my approval. I will always 
resist an ambiguous judgements on ambiguous standards. The process should be 
transparent to those involved in it, such that you should know how it will turn 
out before entering into the process. I don't think ambiguity serves anyone 
justly.

> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 at 11:33 AM
> From: "Volker Hilsheimer" 
> To: "Jason H" 
> Cc: "Lydia Pintscher" , "Qt development mailing list" 
> 
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> Hey Jason,
> 
> 
> You seem to assume that without a code of conduct there is no way that people 
> can get banned. That is not the case. In practice, people can be kicked out 
> of the Qt Project by the folks that control the respective systems. And by 
> extension by those who have some influence over those people.
> 
> You call that “self-policing”, but in fact it’s about us trusting that the 
> folks that have those privileges do not abuse their power. That’s great as 
> long as it works, but if the project somehow does become “more political”, 
> then I do think this lack of transparency is not in the interest of the 
> project.
> 
> A CoC tries to formulate what environment we want our behaviors to create, 
> and it establishes a less opaque process for managing situations where an 
> individual seems to do more harm than good to the project.
> 
> That doesn’t mean that there won’t be mistakes. It doesn’t take much to cause 
> someone distress through an email or a quick comment to their code, esp when 
> we want to include people that are regularly exposed to all sorts of 
> harassment, and are not quite as thick-skinned and self-assured as you and I 
> might be. But I think that, by simply establishing a CoC that community 
> members agree to, we can create an atmosphere where even a rough piece of 
> language is received in the spirit of collaboration.
> 
> And that also doens’t mean that there won’t be abuse. I’m sure there are 
> people that have made it a way of life to be offended. However, they do not 
> need a Code of Conduct (which is not a legal document anyway). I’d rather 
> have them raise their voice in the open, and direct them towards a 
> transparent process, than to have them use backdoor tactics to get influence 
> over the project.
> 
> The question to you is then: If someone like Coraline were to direct her 
> energy to the Qt Project, how much in the open would you want their efforts 
> to be? Or would you rather simply trust that there are not enough maintainers 
> in the Qt project that would fall for their chain of arguments and backdoor 
> schemings?
> 
> 
> Volker
> 
> 
> > On 29 Oct 2018, at 15:10, Jason H  wrote:
> > 
> > Lydia,
> > 
> > First, l

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

I've got your idea. My personal position for now is probably more like do
not promise things you can't keep.
I still have no doubts about Qt and KDE people professionalism.
I agree discrimination solving is very important idea. But I guess it
probably should be solved via some additional international organization.
Such organization could be focused specifically on that, while technical
communities like KDE and Qt project could follow it.

I want to thank Lydia too for sharing details about approximate number of
the situations. I could not interpret it as "good or bad" for the community
with current details, but I guess it could be helpful for future
comparition.

пн, 29 окт. 2018 г. в 18:40, Thiago Macieira :

> On Monday, 29 October 2018 00:52:49 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote:
> > Talking about CC and KDE's CoC, it's not obvious for me how to perform
> > politics, religion, race, etc -- harassment protection correctly at
> > international digital community with provided rules.
> > I'm not saying we don't need rules. You said KDE's version looks better
> > comparing to CC. Archlinux version looks even better for me.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm not a professional at such social tasks and want to step
> back.
> > I do not want to look like annoying person, just wanted to help with
> > controversial subjects.
> > I have no doubts about Qt people professionalism and happy do be a part
> of
> > the community.
>
> For me, the fact that it doesn't say we'll try to address those problems
> that
> are currently extant in many communities (though, hopefully, not ours),
> ArchLinux's CoC is inferior to KDE's. I'd like a text that says states the
> goals we'll strive for, not just what we can be sure of.
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
>
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

> I think we have two camps:
> We want a CoC as a feel-good statement of inclusion and tolerance (I
think everyone is > committed to this)
> AND
> 1) We want to use existing situation of laws/self-policing OR
> 2) We want a CoC that contains a framework that can get people banned or
more

Hello, Jason!

What do you say about Archlinux CoC? [1]
For me it's probably an option to explicitly say at new CoC that "witch
hunt" questions from your terminology is not a task for a technical project
itself.
See part 2.3.3 among others.

[1]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct

пн, 29 окт. 2018 г. в 17:11, Jason H :

> Lydia,
>
> First, let me say I've stated my support of the KDE CoC. Thank you for
> your effort in it.
>
> But then you make a statement in your post script that demonstrates
> exactly what I'm talking about.  You stated  "some emails in this thread
> sadly make me see part of the project in a different light. I fear I'm not
> the only one."? Would you say the project has created fear in you and this
> has somehow "harmed" the project in some way? Who were these people that
> changed your mind? We need to identify these people and ban them because
> they are not casting the widest inclusive and protective audience and
> anything less than that is harm... Let the witch hunt begin... right?
>
> Everyone,
> This is the slippery slope that I'm talking about accusations start in
> wide-abstractions like your statement and devolve into direct accusations.
> While no one yet here has the motivation to conduct a witch hunt, we cannot
> assume that will be the case. So far common sense has prevailed, but common
> sense is, well, uncommon. It may be that Cone day oraline et. al. go on a
> witch hunt for those the opposed her Covenant.
>
> I've spent some time thinking about this this weekend. Here's what I don't
> get. Coraline authored the CC. She then goes into projects attacking them
> with it, but fortunately(?) it hasn't worked. But to put it a different
> way, if I design an instrument, publish the plans, and try to use it in a
> community, if it doesn't work, is it the instrument or the user that is at
> fault? If that instrument is intended to be destructive (say like a bomb),
> then can we see how she really means for this to be used? To my knowledge
> none of the people singled out in the witch hunts actually did anything
> offensive in the projects they were participating in.
>
> It could be that eventually those who opposed the CoC in some way get
> labeled as "intolerant" by the larger community. Lydia's statement has
> already given me pause in this regard and I'm not being hyperbolic.
> Political views, and things we don't consider as political today, can
> eventually become political.
>
> I think we have two camps:
> We want a CoC as a feel-good statement of inclusion and tolerance (I think
> everyone is committed to this)
> AND
> 1) We want to use existing situation of laws/self-policing OR
> 2) We want a CoC that contains a framework that can get people banned or
> more
>
> I've always assumed that there was some line that could be crossed that
> would get your accounts shut down and removed from the community. If
> someone makes it so that the community cannot function, in whole or in
> part, then removal is warranted. These Codes of Conducts lower the barrier
> to an incredibly low bar and don't say what lower threshold of "harm" is
> needed to run afoul. I haven't even had a response as to if it is perceived
> or demonstrable harm that is required.
>
> So far cooler heads and common sense have prevailed, but I don't trust
> that will always be the case. This is why if we go with a CoC that can
> prescribe punishments, that it be explicit both in determination and
> punishment stages.
>
>
> *Not that I have anything against witches. I have several wiccan friends.
> Is the term "witch hunt" offensive? Can I get banned for using that term
> now or in the future?
>
>
> > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:53 PM
> > From: "Lydia Pintscher" 
> > To: development@qt-project.org
> > Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:45 PM Thiago Macieira
> >  wrote:
> > > And I'm pretty sure the KDE Community WG can easily compile a list of
> times
> > > that they were maliciously asked to look into situations and how much
> time it
> > > took them to give it the attention it was due.
> >
> > I don't have an exact number but less than 10. And we could always
> > deal with it very quickly thanks to some common sense and good
> > knowledge of the situation and peop

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Monday, 29 October 2018 08:48:53 PDT Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> Asking? Maybe 1 or 2 times. (Sorry for not being super specific. There
> might be things I'm simply forgetting since it's been 10 years and
> there might be things that were not brought up to the whole committee
> but simply mentioned in a chat with one member of the group to get
> some input and guidance about how to handle a situation that was not
> further escalated because the problem was solved with that.)

Thank you, Lydia. That's heartening.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-29 Thread Lydia Pintscher

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:11 PM Jason H  wrote:
> Lydia,
>
> First, let me say I've stated my support of the KDE CoC. Thank you for your 
> effort in it.
>
> But then you make a statement in your post script that demonstrates exactly 
> what I'm talking about.  You stated  "some emails in this thread sadly make 
> me see part of the project in a different light. I fear I'm not the only 
> one."? Would you say the project has created fear in you and this has somehow 
> "harmed" the project in some way? Who were these people that changed your 
> mind? We need to identify these people and ban them because they are not 
> casting the widest inclusive and protective audience and anything less than 
> that is harm... Let the witch hunt begin... right?

Sorry. I seem to have been misunderstood here. As others have said at
the core a Code of Conduct should not be about banning anyone. That's
a measure of very last resort. A lot of work should be put in before
that happens. Talking, making aware of an issue, mediation, bringing
in a neutral third party, separating the parties and a lot of other
things are possible before that to address a problem. A Code of
Conduct should be as much about stating what a community wants to be
as about what it doesn't want. I think about it as a statement of
intent that broadcasts values to the rest of the world and gets shared
understanding in a community. Some communities then decide to add
rules and punishments for violations. Other decide to hand that over
to a committee or something similar.  There are pros and cons to
either.

Cheers
Lydia

-- 
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
KDE e.V. Board of Directors
http://kde.org - http://open-advice.org
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-29 Thread Lydia Pintscher

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:53 AM Thiago Macieira
 wrote:
> Hi Lydia
>
> Thanks for chiming in.
>
> Note I asked about malicious request to the CWG, not legitimate ones. I mean
> baseless accusations, based on no actual fact, just attempts to smear someone
> or generate useless expediture of people's time. Has that happened, at all? If
> so, how long did the committee spend addressing it? How much effort was put
> into it?

Maybe 2 or 3 times by people not part of the broadly construed core
community on forums like reddit etc. Nothing that I'm aware of ever
ended up in any official channel or took any noteworthy amount of time
from anyone.

> Maybe we can also expand to accusations that, though not malicious, were found
> not to be under the CoC's purview, like asking someone to be removed due to
> some action on their personal time.

Asking? Maybe 1 or 2 times. (Sorry for not being super specific. There
might be things I'm simply forgetting since it's been 10 years and
there might be things that were not brought up to the whole committee
but simply mentioned in a chat with one member of the group to get
some input and guidance about how to handle a situation that was not
further escalated because the problem was solved with that.)

Cheers
Lydia

-- 
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
KDE e.V. Board of Directors
http://kde.org - http://open-advice.org
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Monday, 29 October 2018 00:52:49 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote:
> Talking about CC and KDE's CoC, it's not obvious for me how to perform
> politics, religion, race, etc -- harassment protection correctly at
> international digital community with provided rules.
> I'm not saying we don't need rules. You said KDE's version looks better
> comparing to CC. Archlinux version looks even better for me.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not a professional at such social tasks and want to step back.
> I do not want to look like annoying person, just wanted to help with
> controversial subjects.
> I have no doubts about Qt people professionalism and happy do be a part of
> the community.

For me, the fact that it doesn't say we'll try to address those problems that 
are currently extant in many communities (though, hopefully, not ours), 
ArchLinux's CoC is inferior to KDE's. I'd like a text that says states the 
goals we'll strive for, not just what we can be sure of.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-29 Thread Volker Hilsheimer

rranted. These Codes of Conducts lower the barrier to an incredibly low 
> bar and don't say what lower threshold of "harm" is needed to run afoul. I 
> haven't even had a response as to if it is perceived or demonstrable harm 
> that is required.
> 
> So far cooler heads and common sense have prevailed, but I don't trust that 
> will always be the case. This is why if we go with a CoC that can prescribe 
> punishments, that it be explicit both in determination and punishment stages.
> 
> 
> *Not that I have anything against witches. I have several wiccan friends. Is 
> the term "witch hunt" offensive? Can I get banned for using that term now or 
> in the future?
> 
> 
>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:53 PM
>> From: "Lydia Pintscher" 
>> To: development@qt-project.org
>> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>> 
>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:45 PM Thiago Macieira
>>  wrote:
>>> And I'm pretty sure the KDE Community WG can easily compile a list of times
>>> that they were maliciously asked to look into situations and how much time 
>>> it
>>> took them to give it the attention it was due.
>> 
>> I don't have an exact number but less than 10. And we could always
>> deal with it very quickly thanks to some common sense and good
>> knowledge of the situation and people involved. No big deal.
>> 
>> (For those who don't know me: I'm one of the people who wrote KDE's
>> CoC and has been a member of it's community working group since then.
>> I'm also the current president of the non-profit behind KDE.)
>> If you have further questions about KDE's Code of Conduct please let
>> me know. I'm happy to answer them.
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Lydia
>> 
>> PS: As someone on the fringes of the Qt Project some emails in this
>> thread sadly make me see part of the project in a different light. I
>> fear I'm not the only one.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
>> KDE e.V. Board of Directors
>> http://kde.org - http://open-advice.org
>> ___
>> Development mailing list
>> Development@qt-project.org
>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>> 
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-29 Thread Ulf Hermann

> But then you make a statement in your post script that demonstrates
> exactly what I'm talking about.  You stated  "some emails in this
> thread sadly make me see part of the project in a different light. I
> fear I'm not the only one."? Would you say the project has created
> fear in you and this has somehow "harmed" the project in some way?
> Who were these people that changed your mind? We need to identify
> these people and ban them because they are not casting the widest
> inclusive and protective audience and anything less than that is
> harm... Let the witch hunt begin... right?

All the proposals for codes of conduct that I have seen so far mention 
banning only as a last resort and have several less drastic measures 
that should be applied before. Also, the point of having a neutral third 
party decide on the issue, rather than people directly involved in the 
conflict should result in that third party deciding on the measurements 
to be taken, not any victims of harassment, harm, or whatever.

Ulf
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-29 Thread Jason H

Lydia,

First, let me say I've stated my support of the KDE CoC. Thank you for your 
effort in it.

But then you make a statement in your post script that demonstrates exactly 
what I'm talking about.  You stated  "some emails in this thread sadly make me 
see part of the project in a different light. I fear I'm not the only one."? 
Would you say the project has created fear in you and this has somehow "harmed" 
the project in some way? Who were these people that changed your mind? We need 
to identify these people and ban them because they are not casting the widest 
inclusive and protective audience and anything less than that is harm... Let 
the witch hunt begin... right? 

Everyone,
This is the slippery slope that I'm talking about accusations start in 
wide-abstractions like your statement and devolve into direct accusations.  
While no one yet here has the motivation to conduct a witch hunt, we cannot 
assume that will be the case. So far common sense has prevailed, but common 
sense is, well, uncommon. It may be that Cone day oraline et. al. go on a witch 
hunt for those the opposed her Covenant.

I've spent some time thinking about this this weekend. Here's what I don't get. 
Coraline authored the CC. She then goes into projects attacking them with it, 
but fortunately(?) it hasn't worked. But to put it a different way, if I design 
an instrument, publish the plans, and try to use it in a community, if it 
doesn't work, is it the instrument or the user that is at fault? If that 
instrument is intended to be destructive (say like a bomb), then can we see how 
she really means for this to be used? To my knowledge none of the people 
singled out in the witch hunts actually did anything offensive in the projects 
they were participating in. 

It could be that eventually those who opposed the CoC in some way get labeled 
as "intolerant" by the larger community. Lydia's statement has already given me 
pause in this regard and I'm not being hyperbolic. Political views, and things 
we don't consider as political today, can eventually become political.

I think we have two camps:
We want a CoC as a feel-good statement of inclusion and tolerance (I think 
everyone is committed to this)
AND
1) We want to use existing situation of laws/self-policing OR
2) We want a CoC that contains a framework that can get people banned or more

I've always assumed that there was some line that could be crossed that would 
get your accounts shut down and removed from the community. If someone makes it 
so that the community cannot function, in whole or in part, then removal is 
warranted. These Codes of Conducts lower the barrier to an incredibly low bar 
and don't say what lower threshold of "harm" is needed to run afoul. I haven't 
even had a response as to if it is perceived or demonstrable harm that is 
required.

So far cooler heads and common sense have prevailed, but I don't trust that 
will always be the case. This is why if we go with a CoC that can prescribe 
punishments, that it be explicit both in determination and punishment stages.

*Not that I have anything against witches. I have several wiccan friends. Is 
the term "witch hunt" offensive? Can I get banned for using that term now or in 
the future?

> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:53 PM
> From: "Lydia Pintscher" 
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:45 PM Thiago Macieira
>  wrote:
> > And I'm pretty sure the KDE Community WG can easily compile a list of times
> > that they were maliciously asked to look into situations and how much time 
> > it
> > took them to give it the attention it was due.
> 
> I don't have an exact number but less than 10. And we could always
> deal with it very quickly thanks to some common sense and good
> knowledge of the situation and people involved. No big deal.
> 
> (For those who don't know me: I'm one of the people who wrote KDE's
> CoC and has been a member of it's community working group since then.
> I'm also the current president of the non-profit behind KDE.)
> If you have further questions about KDE's Code of Conduct please let
> me know. I'm happy to answer them.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Lydia
> 
> PS: As someone on the fringes of the Qt Project some emails in this
> thread sadly make me see part of the project in a different light. I
> fear I'm not the only one.
> 
> -- 
> Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
> KDE e.V. Board of Directors
> http://kde.org - http://open-advice.org
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
> 
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-29 Thread Uwe Rathmann

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:53:01 +0100, Lydia Pintscher wrote:

> PS: As someone on the fringes of the Qt Project some emails in this
> thread sadly make me see part of the project in a different light.

I'm not too much interested in the topic of an CoC - not even in the 
discussion about it - but that doesn't mean, that it should not be 
allowed to have it here.

But in this whole thread there is indeed one posting, that annoys me - 
and this is yours. I will never understand, why someone feels entitled to 
judge others so easily - and in your case without even giving any 
indication about what you are referring to.

> I fear I'm not the only one.

I guess you are.

Nothing for ungood,
Uwe

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

> If they want to be malicious, they'll find a way.
Opposite extreme is "who cares, let's accept something and sort it out on
the go later"

> Which promises in other CoCs do you find vulnerable?
Talking about CC and KDE's CoC, it's not obvious for me how to perform
politics, religion, race, etc -- harassment protection correctly at
international digital community with provided rules.
I'm not saying we don't need rules. You said KDE's version looks better
comparing to CC. Archlinux version looks even better for me.

Anyway, I'm not a professional at such social tasks and want to step back.
I do not want to look like annoying person, just wanted to help with
controversial subjects.
I have no doubts about Qt people professionalism and happy do be a part of
the community.

пн, 29 окт. 2018 г. в 7:08, Thiago Macieira :

> On Sunday, 28 October 2018 17:20:04 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote:
> > > Sure, but again that's why we have a committee behind who will evaluate
> > the
> > > charges and decide what the proper action to be taken is. If the
> charges
> > are
> > > fake, then the accused would of course not be affected in any way. And
> if
> > the
> > > accuser keeps making false accusations, that's the one who could face
> > > sanctions.
> >
> > Sanctions like ban with additional false accusations about harassment
> could
> > be sent to mass media to create negative image of the community.
>
> And if the mass media does buy into the fake story, what can we do? The
> attacker can seize on any particular point of our community, whether
> there's a
> CoC or not. They could attack us for *not* having one in the first place
> and
> having no method to address their fake injutsice. They could attack us for
> having a security mailing list that judged a particular issue they
> reported
> not to be a security problem, etc.
>
> If they want to be malicious, they'll find a way.
>
> And if the media sides with them, not giving us a chance to explain, what
> are
> we going to do?
>
> > Let's take a look at archlinux CoC for example:
> > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct
> >
> > Literally no vulnerable promises about protecting from harassment that
> > could be hard to keep. Additional mention at archwiki not to play with
> > controvertial non-related subjects at technical place:
>
> Which promises in other CoCs do you find vulnerable?
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
>
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Sunday, 28 October 2018 17:20:04 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote:
> > Sure, but again that's why we have a committee behind who will evaluate
> the
> > charges and decide what the proper action to be taken is. If the charges
> are
> > fake, then the accused would of course not be affected in any way. And if
> the
> > accuser keeps making false accusations, that's the one who could face
> > sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions like ban with additional false accusations about harassment could
> be sent to mass media to create negative image of the community.

And if the mass media does buy into the fake story, what can we do? The 
attacker can seize on any particular point of our community, whether there's a 
CoC or not. They could attack us for *not* having one in the first place and 
having no method to address their fake injutsice. They could attack us for 
having a security mailing list that judged a particular issue they reported 
not to be a security problem, etc.

If they want to be malicious, they'll find a way.

And if the media sides with them, not giving us a chance to explain, what are 
we going to do?

> Let's take a look at archlinux CoC for example:
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct
> 
> Literally no vulnerable promises about protecting from harassment that
> could be hard to keep. Additional mention at archwiki not to play with
> controvertial non-related subjects at technical place:

Which promises in other CoCs do you find vulnerable?

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Sunday, 28 October 2018 16:53:01 PDT Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:45 PM Thiago Macieira
> 
>  wrote:
> > And I'm pretty sure the KDE Community WG can easily compile a list of
> > times
> > that they were maliciously asked to look into situations and how much time
> > it took them to give it the attention it was due.
> 
> I don't have an exact number but less than 10. And we could always
> deal with it very quickly thanks to some common sense and good
> knowledge of the situation and people involved. No big deal.

Hi Lydia

Thanks for chiming in.

Note I asked about malicious request to the CWG, not legitimate ones. I mean 
baseless accusations, based on no actual fact, just attempts to smear someone 
or generate useless expediture of people's time. Has that happened, at all? If 
so, how long did the committee spend addressing it? How much effort was put 
into it?

Maybe we can also expand to accusations that, though not malicious, were found 
not to be under the CoC's purview, like asking someone to be removed due to 
some action on their personal time.

> PS: As someone on the fringes of the Qt Project some emails in this
> thread sadly make me see part of the project in a different light. I
> fear I'm not the only one.

You must remember we discussion we had in KDE 10 years ago. As I wrote in my 
email here, I was one of those not convinced of the need to have a text at 
all, and I do think several other proeminent community members were like me. 
But the discussion went through and we were won out. Now I see the value of it 
that I didn't then.

Almost all the emails in this thread have been civil and willing to engage in 
discussion, though not without some language barriers sometimes. I'm not 
seeing anyone in a different light as I did a week ago.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Sunday, 28 October 2018 14:57:42 PDT Konstantin Shegunov wrote:
> Note: I continue to think that KDE's CoC's text is written better and more
> clearly.

me too.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

Thank you, Lydia and everyone!

I hope I'm not upsetting anyone. I could accept I'm taking too much
attention to the subject.

Qt project is very valuable for me as a user and a developer.

пн, 29 окт. 2018 г. в 2:53, Lydia Pintscher :

> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:45 PM Thiago Macieira
>  wrote:
> > And I'm pretty sure the KDE Community WG can easily compile a list of
> times
> > that they were maliciously asked to look into situations and how much
> time it
> > took them to give it the attention it was due.
>
> I don't have an exact number but less than 10. And we could always
> deal with it very quickly thanks to some common sense and good
> knowledge of the situation and people involved. No big deal.
>
> (For those who don't know me: I'm one of the people who wrote KDE's
> CoC and has been a member of it's community working group since then.
> I'm also the current president of the non-profit behind KDE.)
> If you have further questions about KDE's Code of Conduct please let
> me know. I'm happy to answer them.
>
>
> Cheers
> Lydia
>
> PS: As someone on the fringes of the Qt Project some emails in this
> thread sadly make me see part of the project in a different light. I
> fear I'm not the only one.
>
> --
> Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
> KDE e.V. Board of Directors
> http://kde.org - http://open-advice.org
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

> Sure, but again that's why we have a committee behind who will evaluate
the
> charges and decide what the proper action to be taken is. If the charges
are
> fake, then the accused would of course not be affected in any way. And if
the
> accuser keeps making false accusations, that's the one who could face
> sanctions.

Sanctions like ban with additional false accusations about harassment could
be sent to mass media to create negative image of the community.

> No one said that keeping a
> community welcoming is free. It requires all of us to look after one
another
> and our shared values.
> But I think it's a price we're willing to pay.

I'm not saying we should not work on shared values. As I said earlier many
times, I agree we need rules.

Let's take a look at archlinux CoC for example:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct

Literally no vulnerable promises about protecting from harassment that
could be hard to keep. Additional mention at archwiki not to play with
controvertial non-related subjects at technical place:

"The staff certainly realize that such issues are deeply ingrained human
realities. However, this is a technical community and is not intended nor
able to effectively facilitate such commentary nor the resulting unrest."

> And I'm pretty sure the KDE Community WG can easily compile a list of
times
> that they were maliciously asked to look into situations and how much
time it
> took them to give it the attention it was due.

Thank you! It would be nice to see with general numbers, to make a
comparison, but I agree it is very hard to research

> Tell us how to measure the benefit compared to not having a CoC.

I never said we don't need a CoC. I've said that not any CoC is healthy.


пн, 29 окт. 2018 г. в 0:44, Thiago Macieira :

> On Sunday, 28 October 2018 13:18:02 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote:
> > > The text is clear - actions will be taken to stop the discrimination.
> > > That involves technical means (kick / ban) but also more social means
> >
> > It is not clear. Intruder could ask to ban some person pretending it's
> > discrimination problem.
>
> Sure, but again that's why we have a committee behind who will evaluate
> the
> charges and decide what the proper action to be taken is. If the charges
> are
> fake, then the accused would of course not be affected in any way. And if
> the
> accuser keeps making false accusations, that's the one who could face
> sanctions.
>
> > intruder could ask to accept vulnerable changes.
>
> And why would you or an approver accept technically inferior solutions? No
> one
> is saying that we should do that. All that is required is to be civil and
> harassment-free when discussing such a solution.
>
> > All the described situations requires resources from the community.
> > It also could be used to something could be called denial-of-community
> > situation.
>
> Yes, it does require resources from the community. No one said that
> keeping a
> community welcoming is free. It requires all of us to look after one
> another
> and our shared values.
>
> But I think it's a price we're willing to pay.
>
> And I'm pretty sure the KDE Community WG can easily compile a list of
> times
> that they were maliciously asked to look into situations and how much time
> it
> took them to give it the attention it was due.
>
> > In general, it could be used to change the image of the community to made
> > it less popular
> > and decrease the number of new members.
>
> How could it be used to do that?
>
> > Anyway, I guess there's still no scientific research and social survey
> > about the number of the situations that could be called conflicts.
> > So I don't see what problem should be solved right now.
>
> First of all, there are enough situations handled by multiple CoC
> committees
> in several communities to prove that it's worth it. There have been
> situations
> when they've been called to act and they have. I'd like to know about
> situations that were resolved peacefully and the person who was found to
> be
> doing harassing changed their behaviour.
>
> As for a scientific research, it's pretty hard with social situations,
> like
> almost anything related to people's behaviour: communities are different
> from
> one another and you can't have a control group to see what happens if you
> don't adopt a CoC.
>
> > I could not accept an answer like "let's try and see" since we didn't
> even
> > proposed metrics how to check new CoC is helping.
>
> Tell us how to measure the benefit compared to not having a CoC.
>
> I'll be very satisfied even if we have a total of zero times the CoC acts
> in
> the next 5 years and that no new contributor mentions reading the CoC
> before
> joining the community.
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
>
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
>

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-28 Thread Lydia Pintscher

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:45 PM Thiago Macieira
 wrote:
> And I'm pretty sure the KDE Community WG can easily compile a list of times
> that they were maliciously asked to look into situations and how much time it
> took them to give it the attention it was due.

I don't have an exact number but less than 10. And we could always
deal with it very quickly thanks to some common sense and good
knowledge of the situation and people involved. No big deal.

(For those who don't know me: I'm one of the people who wrote KDE's
CoC and has been a member of it's community working group since then.
I'm also the current president of the non-profit behind KDE.)
If you have further questions about KDE's Code of Conduct please let
me know. I'm happy to answer them.

Cheers
Lydia

PS: As someone on the fringes of the Qt Project some emails in this
thread sadly make me see part of the project in a different light. I
fear I'm not the only one.

-- 
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
KDE e.V. Board of Directors
http://kde.org - http://open-advice.org
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Sunday, 28 October 2018 13:18:02 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote:
> > The text is clear - actions will be taken to stop the discrimination.
> > That involves technical means (kick / ban) but also more social means
> 
> It is not clear. Intruder could ask to ban some person pretending it's
> discrimination problem.

Sure, but again that's why we have a committee behind who will evaluate the 
charges and decide what the proper action to be taken is. If the charges are 
fake, then the accused would of course not be affected in any way. And if the 
accuser keeps making false accusations, that's the one who could face 
sanctions.

> intruder could ask to accept vulnerable changes.

And why would you or an approver accept technically inferior solutions? No one 
is saying that we should do that. All that is required is to be civil and 
harassment-free when discussing such a solution.

> All the described situations requires resources from the community.
> It also could be used to something could be called denial-of-community
> situation.

Yes, it does require resources from the community. No one said that keeping a 
community welcoming is free. It requires all of us to look after one another 
and our shared values.

But I think it's a price we're willing to pay.

And I'm pretty sure the KDE Community WG can easily compile a list of times 
that they were maliciously asked to look into situations and how much time it 
took them to give it the attention it was due.

> In general, it could be used to change the image of the community to made
> it less popular
> and decrease the number of new members.

How could it be used to do that?

> Anyway, I guess there's still no scientific research and social survey
> about the number of the situations that could be called conflicts.
> So I don't see what problem should be solved right now.

First of all, there are enough situations handled by multiple CoC committees 
in several communities to prove that it's worth it. There have been situations 
when they've been called to act and they have. I'd like to know about 
situations that were resolved peacefully and the person who was found to be 
doing harassing changed their behaviour.

As for a scientific research, it's pretty hard with social situations, like 
almost anything related to people's behaviour: communities are different from 
one another and you can't have a control group to see what happens if you 
don't adopt a CoC.

> I could not accept an answer like "let's try and see" since we didn't even
> proposed metrics how to check new CoC is helping.

Tell us how to measure the benefit compared to not having a CoC.

I'll be very satisfied even if we have a total of zero times the CoC acts in 
the next 5 years and that no new contributor mentions reading the CoC before 
joining the community.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-28 Thread Konstantin Shegunov

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 9:51 PM Thiago Macieira 
wrote:

> I'm pretty sure their company HR would want to have a chat anyway.
>

Well, I'm not as sure as you, but I am hopeful.

> That's also a good reason to choose the KDE CoC, as both TQtC and KDAB
> recruit
> heavily from the KDE community and its CoC is basically a statement of
> shared
> values.
>

A very good point.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-28 Thread Konstantin Shegunov

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 2:08 PM Martin Smith  wrote:

> No, it isn't a resolution. Not reacting to a complaint is no resolution.

Given the (current) structure of the community I take that as the offence
not carrying merit.

But even if "the community" does react to the alleged offense, how is that
> different from mob rule?
>

It is not. Note that having a committee doesn't exclude mob rule either. In
all fairness, though, it makes it less likely, as I can easily imagine the
people voted in are going to be of significant integrity.

>Not only can I, I pretty much have to.
>
> No. You don't. You used the word "heinous." It has a meaning. You used it
> deliberately to draw attention away from the problems the CoC is meant to
> resolve.
>

I did no such thing, and I resent the accusation.

I'm not defending the CoC text and premise. I'm defending the goal of
> establishing a CoC.
>

Then I have no idea why we are arguing. I was just responding in good faith
to a question that was put forth. From the very beginning of this thread I
have operated under the assumption that a CoC is going to be adopted in
some form or another.

My turn to bite. What is a heinous act that is not a criminal act?
>

 Personal attacks, baseless accusations, mean-spirited comments, a
combination thereof. Anything that's beyond distasteful, but still doesn't
constitute a crime.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

> So, as far as I see you have not identified any controversial
> sentences either
I've defined controversial sentences previously about proposed
harassment-free pledge part and KDE's protection from discrimination part.

> see people reporting on successes of KDE CoC and
> problems with kernel one

Could you provide the link with research or any other details about
successes of the KDE CoC?

> The text is clear - actions will be taken to stop the discrimination.
> That involves technical means (kick / ban) but also more social means

It is not clear. Intruder could ask to ban some person pretending it's
discrimination problem.
intruder could ask to accept vulnerable changes.
All the described situations requires resources from the community.
It also could be used to something could be called denial-of-community
situation.

In general, it could be used to change the image of the community to made
it less popular
and decrease the number of new members.

Anyway, I guess there's still no scientific research and social survey
about the number of the situations that could be called conflicts.
So I don't see what problem should be solved right now.

I could not accept an answer like "let's try and see" since we didn't even
proposed metrics how to check new CoC is helping.


вс, 28 окт. 2018 г. в 22:29, Tomasz Siekierda :

> > > вс, 28 окт. 2018 г. в 10:47, Tomasz Siekierda :
> > > Hi Alexey, I've just read the QUIP proposal and couldn't find any
> > > controversial sentences. Could you elaborate? Which points shall be
> > > discussed?
> > >
> > > > The controversial discrimination protection sentences at least
> should be carefully discussed. It's not some thing that we could accept as
> easy as rewrite.
>
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 at 11:34, Alexey Andreyev
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hello, Tomasz! :)
> > Thank you for the question!
> >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Do we have any research about effects it leading?
> >
> > How many discrimination suspicions do we have right now?
> >
> > How could it be resolved successfully at digital community?
> >
> > How many misuse examples do we have at open projects since accepting
> similar rules?
> >
> > How CoC board are going to protect community from discrimination and
> harassment?
> >
> > Are CoC committee ready for "affirmative action"?
> >
> > [...]
>
> So, as far as I see you have not identified any controversial
> sentences either, your questions are more general and have been
> answered already (see people reporting on successes of KDE CoC and
> problems with kernel one).
>
> Regarding:
>
> > How CoC board are going to protect community from discrimination and
> harassment?
>
> The text is clear - actions will be taken to stop the discrimination.
> That involves technical means (kick / ban) but also more social means
> (talking with both parties, trying to mediate, trying to understand
> what is going on etc. - all this is mentioned in CoC draft).
>
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Saturday, 27 October 2018 13:40:42 PDT Konstantin Shegunov wrote:
> > Note also it applies to any company. If you're not welcome anymore in the
> > community where your employer is asking you to do work, that is going to
> > affect your employment.
> 
> I agree. However my argument was that the QtC being a major contributor to
> the codebase is going to have to abide by the ruling of the proposed
> committee, which is a significant commitment (and a major nitpick I admit).

Correct, they would have to, but given that it looks like the majority of them 
are in agreement, it doesn't look problematic.

And besides, if any of them or the KDABians started being obnoxious and 
hostile, given how many of their coworkers are working on this project, I'm 
pretty sure their company HR would want to have a chat anyway.

That's also a good reason to choose the KDE CoC, as both TQtC and KDAB recruit 
heavily from the KDE community and its CoC is basically a statement of shared 
values.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-28 Thread Tomasz Siekierda

> > вс, 28 окт. 2018 г. в 10:47, Tomasz Siekierda :
> > Hi Alexey, I've just read the QUIP proposal and couldn't find any
> > controversial sentences. Could you elaborate? Which points shall be
> > discussed?
> >
> > > The controversial discrimination protection sentences at least should be 
> > > carefully discussed. It's not some thing that we could accept as easy as 
> > > rewrite.

On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 at 11:34, Alexey Andreyev
 wrote:
>
> Hello, Tomasz! :)
> Thank you for the question!
>
>
> [...]
>
> Do we have any research about effects it leading?
>
> How many discrimination suspicions do we have right now?
>
> How could it be resolved successfully at digital community?
>
> How many misuse examples do we have at open projects since accepting similar 
> rules?
>
> How CoC board are going to protect community from discrimination and 
> harassment?
>
> Are CoC committee ready for "affirmative action"?
>
> [...]

So, as far as I see you have not identified any controversial
sentences either, your questions are more general and have been
answered already (see people reporting on successes of KDE CoC and
problems with kernel one).

Regarding:

> How CoC board are going to protect community from discrimination and 
> harassment?

The text is clear - actions will be taken to stop the discrimination.
That involves technical means (kick / ban) but also more social means
(talking with both parties, trying to mediate, trying to understand
what is going on etc. - all this is mentioned in CoC draft).
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Sunday, 28 October 2018 08:36:17 PDT André Pönitz wrote:
> That would be a valid reason in case there had been or we would
> expect to be unstoppable abusive behaviour.
> 
> Most abusive behaviour on the mailing lists and IRC can be
> stopped by technical means, in exceptional cases like the recent
> spam attack on FreeNode also a coc won't help.

Spam is pretty obvious, since spammy messages are off-topic and the spammer is 
not going to bother contesting the filter.

But if it isn't spam, what gives the list moderator the right to intervene in 
something that he/she believes is abusive behaviour? Same thing about IRC: we 
do have one annoying person who does come along every now and then, but most 
of his messages are just that: annoyance. It's only when he uses profanity 
that I feel justified in kicking him out of the channel.

Am I the one abusing my position as channel op to kick him? Am I being 
arbitrary?

> > We need a formal procedure to enable that, and the CoC is that
> > procedure.
> 
> This "we" needs qualification. It apparently does not include me.

Of course it does. Why do you feel excluded? Or did you mean you feel you 
don't need a procedure?

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

I agree my example is extremely contrived right now,
I just tried to show the idea.

Thank you, Elvis, for your answers.

> getting your patches rejected is not harassment
I agree that getting some patches rejected without any additional info is
not a harassment by default

I'm saying something like "water wears away a stone".
What could you say about public conflicts at
Opal, Github, Django, Ruby, PHP, Nodejs, Drupal, Linux after accepting
similar CoC?

> The patches can be respectfully rejected with e.g. "this is not in
> line with the Qt vision", or "could you please revise this part
> first?".

It easily could be misused as blocking due to discrimination
with existing CoC
and the question of resources and time on both sides

> See the difference?

Yes, of course. But I'm not talking about where CoC could be helpful right
now,
I agree we need rules.
I'm trying to pay attention on the current implementation.

We (me too) spend literally 0 minutes to scientifically research
social state of the Qt community,
didn't research influence and the trends of the accepted CoC at other
projects.

Nobody held even one social survey
about the nubmer of the conflicts at Qt project before,
anything like that.
Nobody tried to predict the consequences after accepting current CoC.

We just trying to provide some rules and to treat something blindly
without even specifying the problem.

вс, 28 окт. 2018 г. в 17:35, Elvis Stansvik :

> Den sön 28 okt. 2018 kl 14:29 skrev Alexey Andreyev
> :
> >
> > > [...]  or the shorter list in the KDE CoC, so we instinctively
> > > want to trim the fat - we want to optimize.
> >
> > I've provided both (CC and from KDE) not to show some version is better,
> > but to show both have same problems.
> >
> > For me it's not about optimization right now. Is it possible to follow
> provided versions?
> > And receive more positive for the commuity than negative.
> >
> > > the purpose of this enumeration is to list those very large
> > > groups of people in society who are currently experiencing harassment
> > > and mistreatment for who they are
> >
> > Is that obvious that provided document will help not made things worse
> for everyone?
> > Are we going to treat something at the commuity just blindly without
> diagnosis and research?
> >
> > >  We tell a large part of the population who are currently
> > > being oppressed/mistreated that, at least in our community, you can
> > > feel safe
> >
> > How are we going to provide safety?
> >
> > > The enumeration is not supposed to cover everything, but I
> > > think it fulfills a purpose by covering a lot.
> >
> > As far as I can see the reasoning is based on the hypothesis that any
> rules will not be able to aggravate the situation. It's not obvious.
> >
> > > I don't agree with some earlier poster who thought of the enumeration
> > > as setting some kind of bar, I don't think that is the purpose of it.
> >
> > > The concluding "[...] or any other characteristics that are
> > > not relevant to a person's ability to contribute to the Qt Project."
> > > is of course very important *as well*, to cover our bases.
> >
> > How the committee is going to determine that someone has violated these
> "guidelines not bars"?
> > What is the purpose of the guidelines without additional information how
> to protect them?
> >
> > > I can't really see how this list could be misused. If people have an
> > > issue with a particular item on the list, they should say so.
> >
> > For example, let's say some person (person or legal entity, organization
> or groups of organizations) have projects, competing with Qt somehow (or
> linux, or KDE).
> > That "person/groups" will get more profit if Qt community will became
> unhealthy or will cease to exist.
> > That person could sponsor, support or pay money somehow to other persons
> to support some vulnerable ideas.
> > Persons who accept that ideas and have interests, conflicting with the
> community, could say something like
> > "hey, we are actually feeling harassment, please accept our
> ideas/patches/anything too".
> > It is a space for accepting non-obvious security or architectural
> changes.
> >
> > In 50, 10 or 5 years :) if attackers will be lucky enough, Qt community
> could lost their image of as awesome commuity as it is right now.
>
> I honestly think this is an extremely contrived example, and I think
> you're worrying way too much, but OK let's play along.
>
> You're suggesting that someone would submit bad patches, hoping to get
> harassed and thereby somehow get the patches in, as some sort of
> compensation for the harassment, and would use this in order to
> sabotage the Qt project?
>
> Looking past the ridiculousness of that idea for the moment, getting
> your patches rejected is not harassment. Not under any definition of
> harassment that I know of, and certainly not according to the
> suggested CoC.
>
> The patches can be respectfully rejected with e.g. "this is not in
> line with the Qt vision", or

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-28 Thread André Pönitz

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 08:34:40AM +, Martin Smith wrote:
> And because we are online and spread all around the world, there is
> currently no way for us to stop and prevent abusive behavior.

That would be a valid reason in case there had been or we would
expect to be unstoppable abusive behaviour.

Most abusive behaviour on the mailing lists and IRC can be
stopped by technical means, in exceptional cases like the recent
spam attack on FreeNode also a coc won't help.

> We need a formal procedure to enable that, and the CoC is that
> procedure.

This "we" needs qualification. It apparently does not include me.

Andre'
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-28 Thread Elvis Stansvik

Den sön 28 okt. 2018 kl 14:29 skrev Alexey Andreyev
:
>
> > [...]  or the shorter list in the KDE CoC, so we instinctively
> > want to trim the fat - we want to optimize.
>
> I've provided both (CC and from KDE) not to show some version is better,
> but to show both have same problems.
>
> For me it's not about optimization right now. Is it possible to follow 
> provided versions?
> And receive more positive for the commuity than negative.
>
> > the purpose of this enumeration is to list those very large
> > groups of people in society who are currently experiencing harassment
> > and mistreatment for who they are
>
> Is that obvious that provided document will help not made things worse for 
> everyone?
> Are we going to treat something at the commuity just blindly without 
> diagnosis and research?
>
> >  We tell a large part of the population who are currently
> > being oppressed/mistreated that, at least in our community, you can
> > feel safe
>
> How are we going to provide safety?
>
> > The enumeration is not supposed to cover everything, but I
> > think it fulfills a purpose by covering a lot.
>
> As far as I can see the reasoning is based on the hypothesis that any rules 
> will not be able to aggravate the situation. It's not obvious.
>
> > I don't agree with some earlier poster who thought of the enumeration
> > as setting some kind of bar, I don't think that is the purpose of it.
>
> > The concluding "[...] or any other characteristics that are
> > not relevant to a person's ability to contribute to the Qt Project."
> > is of course very important *as well*, to cover our bases.
>
> How the committee is going to determine that someone has violated these 
> "guidelines not bars"?
> What is the purpose of the guidelines without additional information how to 
> protect them?
>
> > I can't really see how this list could be misused. If people have an
> > issue with a particular item on the list, they should say so.
>
> For example, let's say some person (person or legal entity, organization or 
> groups of organizations) have projects, competing with Qt somehow (or linux, 
> or KDE).
> That "person/groups" will get more profit if Qt community will became 
> unhealthy or will cease to exist.
> That person could sponsor, support or pay money somehow to other persons to 
> support some vulnerable ideas.
> Persons who accept that ideas and have interests, conflicting with the 
> community, could say something like
> "hey, we are actually feeling harassment, please accept our 
> ideas/patches/anything too".
> It is a space for accepting non-obvious security or architectural changes.
>
> In 50, 10 or 5 years :) if attackers will be lucky enough, Qt community could 
> lost their image of as awesome commuity as it is right now.

I honestly think this is an extremely contrived example, and I think
you're worrying way too much, but OK let's play along.

You're suggesting that someone would submit bad patches, hoping to get
harassed and thereby somehow get the patches in, as some sort of
compensation for the harassment, and would use this in order to
sabotage the Qt project?

Looking past the ridiculousness of that idea for the moment, getting
your patches rejected is not harassment. Not under any definition of
harassment that I know of, and certainly not according to the
suggested CoC.

The patches can be respectfully rejected with e.g. "this is not in
line with the Qt vision", or "could you please revise this part
first?".

The patches can also be rejected with "please don't submit crap like
this, you fat dyke".

See the difference?

The first is not a matter for the CoC. If the party would still file a
complaint, it would be dealt with and the council would find that no
harassment took place. The second would most certainly be cause for
some kind of action (I guess to begin with, tell the offender to not
do that again and point them to the CoC).

Elvis

>
> ..???
>
> PROFIT! Young generation not interested, no support, commuity is dying, 
> profit for competing projects.
>
>
> It's just one example that could sound like a joke since I'm not a 
> professional with this kind of tricky social questions,
> but I hope I showed the danger as a caricature at least.
>
> I don't want my arguments be adressed to someone personally, and I'm not 
> saying there's some conspiracy here.
> I just want to help to save and develop the community for the future.
>
> I agree we need rules. My problem is not any rules are healthy.
>
> вс, 28 окт. 2018 г. в 14:37, Elvis Stansvik :
>>
>> Den sön 28 okt. 2018 kl 11:34 skrev Alexey Andreyev
>> :
>> >
>> > Hello, Tomasz! :)
>> > Thank you for the question!
>> >
>> > Current draft based on CoC:
>> >
>> > > Our Pledge
>> > > ==
>> > > In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we
>> > > as contributors to and maintainers of the Qt Project pledge to make
>> > > participation in our project and our community a harassment-free
>> > > experience for everyone,

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

> [...]  or the shorter list in the KDE CoC, so we instinctively
> want to trim the fat - we want to optimize.

I've provided both (CC and from KDE) not to show some version is better,
but to show both have same problems.

For me it's not about optimization right now. Is it possible to follow
provided versions?
And receive more positive for the commuity than negative.

> the purpose of this enumeration is to list those very large
> groups of people in society who are currently experiencing harassment
> and mistreatment for who they are

Is that obvious that provided document will help not made things worse for
everyone?
Are we going to treat something at the commuity just blindly without
diagnosis and research?

>  We tell a large part of the population who are currently
> being oppressed/mistreated that, at least in our community, you can
> feel safe

How are we going to provide safety?

> The enumeration is not supposed to cover everything, but I
> think it fulfills a purpose by covering a lot.

As far as I can see the reasoning is based on the hypothesis that any rules
will not be able to aggravate the situation. It's not obvious.

> I don't agree with some earlier poster who thought of the enumeration
> as setting some kind of bar, I don't think that is the purpose of it.

> The concluding "[...] or any other characteristics that are
> not relevant to a person's ability to contribute to the Qt Project."
> is of course very important *as well*, to cover our bases.

How the committee is going to determine that someone has violated these
"guidelines not bars"?
What is the purpose of the guidelines without additional information how to
protect them?

> I can't really see how this list could be misused. If people have an
> issue with a particular item on the list, they should say so.

For example, let's say some person (person or legal entity, organization or
groups of organizations) have projects, competing with Qt somehow (or
linux, or KDE).
That "person/groups" will get more profit if Qt community will became
unhealthy or will cease to exist.
That person could sponsor, support or pay money somehow to other persons to
support some vulnerable ideas.
Persons who accept that ideas and have interests, conflicting with the
community, could say something like
"hey, we are actually feeling harassment, please accept our
ideas/patches/anything too".
It is a space for accepting non-obvious security or architectural changes.

In 50, 10 or 5 years :) if attackers will be lucky enough, Qt community
could lost their image of as awesome commuity as it is right now.

..???

PROFIT! Young generation not interested, no support, commuity is dying,
profit for competing projects.


It's just one example that could sound like a joke since I'm not a
professional with this kind of tricky social questions,
but I hope I showed the danger as a caricature at least.

I don't want my arguments be adressed to someone personally, and I'm not
saying there's some conspiracy here.
I just want to help to save and develop the community for the future.

I agree we need rules. My problem is not any rules are healthy.

вс, 28 окт. 2018 г. в 14:37, Elvis Stansvik :

> Den sön 28 okt. 2018 kl 11:34 skrev Alexey Andreyev
> :
> >
> > Hello, Tomasz! :)
> > Thank you for the question!
> >
> > Current draft based on CoC:
> >
> > > Our Pledge
> > > ==
> > > In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we
> > > as contributors to and maintainers of the Qt Project pledge to make
> > > participation in our project and our community a harassment-free
> > > experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability,
> > > ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level
> > > of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal
> > > appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation,
> > > or any other characteristics that are not relevant to a person's
> > > ability to contribute to the Qt Project.
>
> A lot of people seem to have a problem with this long enumeration.
>
> I think this is because we're programmers, and we think of it as
> redundant given the concluding "[...] or any other characteristics
> that are not relevant to a person's ability to contribute to the Qt
> Project.", or the shorter list in the KDE CoC, so we instinctively
> want to trim the fat - we want to optimize.
>
> But, and this is of course just my personal opinion/interpretation, I
> think the purpose of this enumeration is to list those very large
> groups of people in society who are currently experiencing harassment
> and mistreatment for who they are. The pledge is supposed to be a set
> of guidelines for how the community operates, but *also* a message to
> potential contributors. Thought of that way, I think the enumeration
> makes sense: We tell a large part of the population who are currently
> being oppressed/mistreated that, at least in our community, you can
> feel safe. The

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-28 Thread Martin Smith

>In any case, the current status quo, which is what I described, ends in either 
>the
>community reacting or not reacting to the alleged offence (i.e. isolating the
>offensive party for example). That is A resolution, be it a good one or bad.

No, it isn't a resolution. Not reacting to a complaint is no resolution. But 
even if "the community" does react to the alleged offense, how is that 
different from mob rule?

>Not only can I, I pretty much have to.

No. You don't. You used the word "heinous." It has a meaning. You used it 
deliberately to draw attention away from the problems the CoC is meant to 
resolve. We don't need a CoC to deal with heinous offenses because heinous 
offenses are dealt with by the police.

>You can't defend the CoC's text and premise on the basis that my argument is
>unlikely, or extreme.

I'm not defending the CoC text and premise. I'm defending the goal of 
establishing a CoC.

>Not if they don't elevate to a criminal act.

My turn to bite. What is a heinous act that is not a criminal act?

From: Konstantin Shegunov 
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 11:35:42 AM
To: Martin Smith
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Martin Smith 
mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io>> wrote:
>Oh, it is going to end in A resolution, it may not end the way the offended 
>party
>may feel just, but that's true also for the proposed text.

HA! You are not Konstantin Shegunov! A software engineer would imediately see 
that your 3 step CoC might not terminate. You are an imposter!

That's actually amusing, but I'll bite. Formally speaking, I'm not a software 
engineer, never had any formal training in the field. I'm a physicist who 
moonlights as a programmer. In any case, the current status quo, which is what 
I described, ends in either the community reacting or not reacting to the 
alleged offence (i.e. isolating the offensive party for example). That is A 
resolution, be it a good one or bad.

>imagine that the abusive party is an employee of the QtC and has committed
>heinous acts against a community member.

You can't immediately jump to the worst case scenario to discredit the code of 
conduct. In fact, the CoC can deal with "heinous acts" by stating that such 
acts will be referred to the appropriate legal authority.

Not only can I, I pretty much have to. Minor infringements can already be 
handled internally without the need for CoC, major ones is where it would 
actually matter if we have one and which one we chose. Also it's a perfectly 
valid logic to push an argument to the extreme to see if holds, we do it on 
every day basis. In math you can assume something, operate on the presumption 
and see if contradicts itself when pushed (reductio ad impossibilem). If I were 
to design a safety net for a nuclear power plant am I to just ignore the 
extreme or unlikely case? Surely not. You compared the CoC to a "local law" of 
sorts, but does the local law forgo the unlikely case that from the whole 
population one person would be a murderer? I shouldn't think so.
You can't defend the CoC's text and premise on the basis that my argument is 
unlikely, or extreme. It has to able to withstand exactly those extremes!

In fact, the CoC can deal with "heinous acts" by stating that such acts will be 
referred to the appropriate legal authority.

Not if they don't elevate to a criminal act.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-28 Thread Elvis Stansvik

Den sön 28 okt. 2018 kl 11:34 skrev Alexey Andreyev
:
>
> Hello, Tomasz! :)
> Thank you for the question!
>
> Current draft based on CoC:
>
> > Our Pledge
> > ==
> > In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we
> > as contributors to and maintainers of the Qt Project pledge to make
> > participation in our project and our community a harassment-free
> > experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability,
> > ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level
> > of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal
> > appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation,
> > or any other characteristics that are not relevant to a person's
> > ability to contribute to the Qt Project.

A lot of people seem to have a problem with this long enumeration.

I think this is because we're programmers, and we think of it as
redundant given the concluding "[...] or any other characteristics
that are not relevant to a person's ability to contribute to the Qt
Project.", or the shorter list in the KDE CoC, so we instinctively
want to trim the fat - we want to optimize.

But, and this is of course just my personal opinion/interpretation, I
think the purpose of this enumeration is to list those very large
groups of people in society who are currently experiencing harassment
and mistreatment for who they are. The pledge is supposed to be a set
of guidelines for how the community operates, but *also* a message to
potential contributors. Thought of that way, I think the enumeration
makes sense: We tell a large part of the population who are currently
being oppressed/mistreated that, at least in our community, you can
feel safe. The enumeration is not supposed to cover everything, but I
think it fulfills a purpose by covering a lot.

I don't agree with some earlier poster who thought of the enumeration
as setting some kind of bar, I don't think that is the purpose of it.
It is meant as a message, and to drive that message home with the
groups of people we want to reach, I think it makes sense to be
explicit. The concluding "[...] or any other characteristics that are
not relevant to a person's ability to contribute to the Qt Project."
is of course very important *as well*, to cover our bases.

If in 5, 10 or 50 years (I know, I'm a pessimist), there is no longer
widespread discrimination and mistreatment of people for their race,
religion or sexual identity/orientation, but some other groups are
being mistreated (again, sorry for the pessimism), then I think it's
perfectly fine to revise this list.

I can't really see how this list could be misused. If people have an
issue with a particular item on the list, they should say so.

That's just my 2 cents on the enumeration, which seems to bug people,
and I completely understand if others see it differently.

Elvis

>
> and KDE version:
>
> > We do not tolerate personal attacks, racism, sexism or any other form of 
> > discrimination.
>
> Do we have any research about effects it leading?
>
> How many discrimination suspicions do we have right now?
>
> How could it be resolved successfully at digital community?
>
> How many misuse examples do we have at open projects since accepting similar 
> rules?
>
> How CoC board are going to protect community from discrimination and 
> harassment?
>
> Are CoC committee ready for "affirmative action"?
>
> I'm not against the rules as a concept, I agree we need it,
> but I totally against perverted or undefined rules that could help to destroy 
> the community.
>
> I could not accept argument like "let's accept just anything and see how it 
> goes and fix something later".
> "Don't code today what you can't debug tomorrow" :)
>
> I'm just saying we should think twice befoce accepting something.
>
> P.S.: I'm ready to change my mind if I've made a mistake, feel free to 
> criticize, correct and ignore me :)
>
> вс, 28 окт. 2018 г. в 10:47, Tomasz Siekierda :
>>
>> > The controversial discrimination protection sentences at least should be 
>> > carefully discussed. It's not some thing that we could accept as easy as 
>> > rewrite.
>>
>> Hi Alexey, I've just read the QUIP proposal and couldn't find any
>> controversial sentences. Could you elaborate? Which points shall be
>> discussed?
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 22:41, Konstantin Shegunov  
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 11:20 PM Thiago Macieira 
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The answer to all of those questions needs to be "yes". Anything short of 
>> >> that
>> >> means the CoC is powerless and just for show.
>> >
>> >
>> > Which was my point exactly.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Whether there's a termination of employment or not is out of scope, since 
>> >> the
>> >> CoC does not rule TQtC employment and what other work there is inside that
>> >> company.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Note also it applies to any company. If you're not welcome anymore in the
>> >> community where your employer is asking you to do work,

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

I agree with you, Konstantin

вс, 28 окт. 2018 г. в 13:36, Konstantin Shegunov :

>
>
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Martin Smith  wrote:
>
>> >Oh, it is going to end in A resolution, it may not end the way the
>> offended party
>> >may feel just, but that's true also for the proposed text.
>>
>> HA! You are not Konstantin Shegunov! A software engineer would imediately
>> see that your 3 step CoC might not terminate. You are an imposter!
>>
>
> That's actually amusing, but I'll bite. Formally speaking, I'm not a
> software engineer, never had any formal training in the field. I'm a
> physicist who moonlights as a programmer. In any case, the current status
> quo, which is what I described, ends in either the community reacting or
> not reacting to the alleged offence (i.e. isolating the offensive party for
> example). That is A resolution, be it a good one or bad.
>
> >imagine that the abusive party is an employee of the QtC and has committed
>> >heinous acts against a community member.
>>
>> You can't immediately jump to the worst case scenario to discredit the
>> code of conduct. In fact, the CoC can deal with "heinous acts" by stating
>> that such acts will be referred to the appropriate legal authority.
>>
>
> Not only can I, I pretty much have to. Minor infringements can already be
> handled internally without the need for CoC, major ones is where it would
> actually matter if we have one and which one we chose. Also it's a
> perfectly valid logic to push an argument to the extreme to see if holds,
> we do it on every day basis. In math you can assume something, operate on
> the presumption and see if contradicts itself when pushed (reductio ad
> impossibilem). If I were to design a safety net for a nuclear power plant
> am I to just ignore the extreme or unlikely case? Surely not. You compared
> the CoC to a "local law" of sorts, but does the local law forgo the
> unlikely case that from the whole population one person would be a
> murderer? I shouldn't think so.
> You can't defend the CoC's text and premise on the basis that my argument
> is unlikely, or extreme. It has to able to withstand exactly those extremes!
>
> In fact, the CoC can deal with "heinous acts" by stating that such acts
>> will be referred to the appropriate legal authority.
>
>
> Not if they don't elevate to a criminal act.
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-28 Thread Konstantin Shegunov

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Martin Smith  wrote:

> >Oh, it is going to end in A resolution, it may not end the way the
> offended party
> >may feel just, but that's true also for the proposed text.
>
> HA! You are not Konstantin Shegunov! A software engineer would imediately
> see that your 3 step CoC might not terminate. You are an imposter!
>

That's actually amusing, but I'll bite. Formally speaking, I'm not a
software engineer, never had any formal training in the field. I'm a
physicist who moonlights as a programmer. In any case, the current status
quo, which is what I described, ends in either the community reacting or
not reacting to the alleged offence (i.e. isolating the offensive party for
example). That is A resolution, be it a good one or bad.

>imagine that the abusive party is an employee of the QtC and has committed
> >heinous acts against a community member.
>
> You can't immediately jump to the worst case scenario to discredit the
> code of conduct. In fact, the CoC can deal with "heinous acts" by stating
> that such acts will be referred to the appropriate legal authority.
>

Not only can I, I pretty much have to. Minor infringements can already be
handled internally without the need for CoC, major ones is where it would
actually matter if we have one and which one we chose. Also it's a
perfectly valid logic to push an argument to the extreme to see if holds,
we do it on every day basis. In math you can assume something, operate on
the presumption and see if contradicts itself when pushed (reductio ad
impossibilem). If I were to design a safety net for a nuclear power plant
am I to just ignore the extreme or unlikely case? Surely not. You compared
the CoC to a "local law" of sorts, but does the local law forgo the
unlikely case that from the whole population one person would be a
murderer? I shouldn't think so.
You can't defend the CoC's text and premise on the basis that my argument
is unlikely, or extreme. It has to able to withstand exactly those extremes!

In fact, the CoC can deal with "heinous acts" by stating that such acts
> will be referred to the appropriate legal authority.

Not if they don't elevate to a criminal act.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

Hello, Tomasz! :)
Thank you for the question!

Current draft based on CoC:

> Our Pledge
> ==
> In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we
> as contributors to and maintainers of the Qt Project pledge to make
> participation in our project and our community a harassment-free
> experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability,
> ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level
> of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal
> appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation,
> or any other characteristics that are not relevant to a person's
> ability to contribute to the Qt Project.

and KDE version:

> We do not tolerate personal attacks, racism, sexism or any other form of
discrimination.

Do we have any research about effects it leading?

How many discrimination suspicions do we have right now?

How could it be resolved successfully at digital community?

How many misuse examples do we have at open projects since accepting
similar rules?

How CoC board are going to protect community from discrimination and
harassment?

Are CoC committee ready for "affirmative action"?

I'm not against the rules as a concept, I agree we need it,
but I totally against perverted or undefined rules that could help to
destroy the community.

I could not accept argument like "let's accept just anything and see how it
goes and fix something later".
"Don't code today what you can't debug tomorrow" :)

I'm just saying we should think twice befoce accepting something.

P.S.: I'm ready to change my mind if I've made a mistake, feel free to
criticize, correct and ignore me :)

вс, 28 окт. 2018 г. в 10:47, Tomasz Siekierda :

> > The controversial discrimination protection sentences at least should be
> carefully discussed. It's not some thing that we could accept as easy as
> rewrite.
>
> Hi Alexey, I've just read the QUIP proposal and couldn't find any
> controversial sentences. Could you elaborate? Which points shall be
> discussed?
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 22:41, Konstantin Shegunov 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 11:20 PM Thiago Macieira <
> thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The answer to all of those questions needs to be "yes". Anything short
> of that
> >> means the CoC is powerless and just for show.
> >
> >
> > Which was my point exactly.
> >
> >>
> >> Whether there's a termination of employment or not is out of scope,
> since the
> >> CoC does not rule TQtC employment and what other work there is inside
> that
> >> company.
> >>
> >>
> >> Note also it applies to any company. If you're not welcome anymore in
> the
> >> community where your employer is asking you to do work, that is going to
> >> affect your employment.
> >
> >
> > I agree. However my argument was that the QtC being a major contributor
> to the codebase is going to have to abide by the ruling of the proposed
> committee, which is a significant commitment (and a major nitpick I admit).
> > ___
> > Development mailing list
> > Development@qt-project.org
> > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-28 Thread Martin Smith

>Oh, it is going to end in A resolution, it may not end the way the offended 
>party
>may feel just, but that's true also for the proposed text.

HA! You are not Konstantin Shegunov! A software engineer would imediately see 
that your 3 step CoC might not terminate. You are an imposter!

>imagine that the abusive party is an employee of the QtC and has committed
>heinous acts against a community member.

You can't immediately jump to the worst case scenario to discredit the code of 
conduct. In fact, the CoC can deal with "heinous acts" by stating that such 
acts will be referred to the appropriate legal authority.

From: Konstantin Shegunov 
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 9:04:12 PM
To: Martin Smith
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:56 PM Martin Smith 
mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io>> wrote:
You just specified a code of conduct. The problem with your code of conduct is 
that it isn't guaranteed to end in resolution.

Oh, it is going to end in A resolution, it may not end the way the offended 
party may feel just, but that's true also for the proposed text.

But that isn't the implication.

Then I apologize, this is how I interpreted it.

The implication is that a mistreated person can take the actions you have 
specified, and the result can be that the mistreatment, real or not, is not 
resolved.

The proposed text can't guarantee resolution either (see below for a reductio 
ad absurdum).

Active contributors who abuse others should be treated the same as inactive 
contributors who abuse others. What would be done would of course depend on 
what the abuser did. I suppose the abuser (active contributor or not) would be 
informed as to what he/she did wrong and would be told to stop doing it.

Say we adopt the CC (basically the proposed text) and imagine that the abusive 
party is an employee of the QtC and has committed heinous acts against a 
community member. As far as I can tell this is very unlikely, but humor me for 
a second. As QtC employees' main work is on the Qt project, i.e. writing 
patches, committing features, writing docs and such, how would is this proposed 
committee to enforce the CoC? Are they going to plead that the person is taken 
out of the project, and wouldn't that mean that, basically, he/she can't be an 
employee for the QtC anymore? And to drive it home, say the head troll had a 
mental breakdown or something what is the committee to do? Take over the QtC?

Just as I said before, I'm not against a CoC in principle. I'm against the CC's 
text which is quite invasive and badly written. To me KDE's CoC is much more 
practical in the case of the Qt project.

Exactly. Without a CoC, we have no laws, so the implication is we don't 
consider any behavior an offense.

Laws are bit more complicated than a statement of how people *should* behave. 
There's also separation of power, mandates, enforcement and laws that control 
how laws are made. Also there's hierarchy between the laws themselves in case 
they are in conflict. I suggest we don't venture into that. It's not what binds 
us to this community to begin with.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-28 Thread Martin Smith

>I am not aware of a single country without laws.
>Over here e.g. "insult" is an offense.

First, most of us aren't in Germany and don't have the German legal system to 
protect us. But more to the point, A CoC need not be adequate to deal with 
actual crimes nor even violations of civil law, because, as you point out, 
every country has laws to deal with incidents that rise to that level. For 
dealing with these problems, our CoC can simply state that the committee will 
refer such incidents to the appropriate legal authority.

The forums where our CoC is needed are like meetings, but they are online. 
Imagine a group of contributors attending a meeting in a room. Abusive behavior 
would not be allowed there, and it probably wouldn't happen anyway, because 
people generally remain civil in a face to face context. But the same set of 
behaviors that would not be allowed in that face to face meeting should not be 
allowed in our online interactions, whether synchronous in an actual online 
meeting or asynchronous via code reviews and email list discussions.

And because we are online and spread all around the world, there is currently 
no way for us to stop and prevent abusive behavior.We need a formal procedure 
to enable that, and the CoC is that procedure.

From: André Pönitz 
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 8:37:12 PM
To: Martin Smith
Cc: Bernhard Lindner; development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 05:34:30PM +, Martin Smith wrote:
> >Actions that are considered offenses by a society are typically mentioned
> >in its laws. If something is not forbidden by law it usually means that
> >there is no majority, let alone consensus in that society that this action
> >is an offense.
>
> Exactly. Without a CoC, we have no laws, so the implication
> is we don't consider any behavior an offense.

I am not aware of a single country without laws.

Over here e.g. "insult" is an offense.

Andre'
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-28 Thread Tomasz Siekierda

> The controversial discrimination protection sentences at least should be 
> carefully discussed. It's not some thing that we could accept as easy as 
> rewrite.

Hi Alexey, I've just read the QUIP proposal and couldn't find any
controversial sentences. Could you elaborate? Which points shall be
discussed?
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 22:41, Konstantin Shegunov  wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 11:20 PM Thiago Macieira  
> wrote:
>>
>> The answer to all of those questions needs to be "yes". Anything short of 
>> that
>> means the CoC is powerless and just for show.
>
>
> Which was my point exactly.
>
>>
>> Whether there's a termination of employment or not is out of scope, since the
>> CoC does not rule TQtC employment and what other work there is inside that
>> company.
>>
>>
>> Note also it applies to any company. If you're not welcome anymore in the
>> community where your employer is asking you to do work, that is going to
>> affect your employment.
>
>
> I agree. However my argument was that the QtC being a major contributor to 
> the codebase is going to have to abide by the ruling of the proposed 
> committee, which is a significant commitment (and a major nitpick I admit).
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-27 Thread Konstantin Shegunov

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 11:20 PM Thiago Macieira 
wrote:

> The answer to all of those questions needs to be "yes". Anything short of
> that
> means the CoC is powerless and just for show.
>

Which was my point exactly.

> Whether there's a termination of employment or not is out of scope, since
> the
> CoC does not rule TQtC employment and what other work there is inside that
> company.

> Note also it applies to any company. If you're not welcome anymore in the
> community where your employer is asking you to do work, that is going to
> affect your employment.
>

I agree. However my argument was that the QtC being a major contributor to
the codebase is going to have to abide by the ruling of the proposed
committee, which is a significant commitment (and a major nitpick I admit).
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-27 Thread Thiago Macieira

On Saturday, 27 October 2018 12:04:12 PDT Konstantin Shegunov wrote:
> Say we adopt the CC (basically the proposed text) and imagine that the
> abusive party is an employee of the QtC and has committed heinous acts
> against a community member. As far as I can tell this is very unlikely, but
> humor me for a second. As QtC employees' main work is on the Qt project,
> i.e. writing patches, committing features, writing docs and such, how would
> is this proposed committee to enforce the CoC? Are they going to plead that
> the person is taken out of the project, and wouldn't that mean that,
> basically, he/she can't be an employee for the QtC anymore? And to drive it
> home, say the head troll had a mental breakdown or something what is the
> committee to do? Take over the QtC?

The answer to all of those questions needs to be "yes". Anything short of that 
means the CoC is powerless and just for show.

Whether there's a termination of employment or not is out of scope, since the 
CoC does not rule TQtC employment and what other work there is inside that 
company.

Note also it applies to any company. If you're not welcome anymore in the 
community where your employer is asking you to do work, that is going to 
affect your employment.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-27 Thread Konstantin Shegunov

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:56 PM Martin Smith  wrote:

> You just specified a code of conduct. The problem with your code of
> conduct is that it isn't guaranteed to end in resolution.
>

Oh, it is going to end in A resolution, it may not end the way the offended
party may feel just, but that's true also for the proposed text.

> But that isn't the implication.
>

Then I apologize, this is how I interpreted it.

The implication is that a mistreated person can take the actions you have
> specified, and the result can be that the mistreatment, real or not, is not
> resolved.

The proposed text can't guarantee resolution either (see below for a
reductio ad absurdum).

Active contributors who abuse others should be treated the same as inactive
> contributors who abuse others. What would be done would of course depend on
> what the abuser did. I suppose the abuser (active contributor or not) would
> be informed as to what he/she did wrong and would be told to stop doing it.

Say we adopt the CC (basically the proposed text) and imagine that the
abusive party is an employee of the QtC and has committed heinous acts
against a community member. As far as I can tell this is very unlikely, but
humor me for a second. As QtC employees' main work is on the Qt project,
i.e. writing patches, committing features, writing docs and such, how would
is this proposed committee to enforce the CoC? Are they going to plead that
the person is taken out of the project, and wouldn't that mean that,
basically, he/she can't be an employee for the QtC anymore? And to drive it
home, say the head troll had a mental breakdown or something what is the
committee to do? Take over the QtC?

Just as I said before, I'm not against a CoC in principle. I'm against the
CC's text which is quite invasive and badly written. To me KDE's CoC is
much more practical in the case of the Qt project.

Exactly. Without a CoC, we have no laws, so the implication is we don't
> consider any behavior an offense.

Laws are bit more complicated than a statement of how people *should*
behave. There's also separation of power, mandates, enforcement and laws
that control how laws are made. Also there's hierarchy between the laws
themselves in case they are in conflict. I suggest we don't venture into
that. It's not what binds us to this community to begin with.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-27 Thread André Pönitz

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 05:34:30PM +, Martin Smith wrote:
> >Actions that are considered offenses by a society are typically mentioned
> >in its laws. If something is not forbidden by law it usually means that
> >there is no majority, let alone consensus in that society that this action
> >is an offense.
> 
> Exactly. Without a CoC, we have no laws, so the implication
> is we don't consider any behavior an offense.

I am not aware of a single country without laws.

Over here e.g. "insult" is an offense.

Andre'
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

>Actions that are considered offenses by a society are typically mentioned
>in its laws. If something is not forbidden by law it usually means that
>there is no majority, let alone consensus in that society that this action
>is an offense.

Exactly. Without a CoC, we have no laws, so the implication is we don't 
consider any behavior an offense.

From: André Pönitz 
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 7:25:39 PM
To: Martin Smith
Cc: Bernhard Lindner; development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 01:09:45PM +, Martin Smith wrote:
> >Well, then let me give you my simple minded opinion on this topic, an 
> >engineers
> >opinion:
> >Do not introduce a CoC.
>
> In that case, if a contributor is mistreated by another contributor,
> what recourse does the victim have?

File charges with the relevant authorities.

Why should "being a contributor" make a difference?

Actions that are considered offenses by a society are typically mentioned
in its laws. If something is not forbidden by law it usually means that
there is no majority, let alone consensus in that society that this action
is an offense.

Andre'
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-27 Thread André Pönitz

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 01:09:45PM +, Martin Smith wrote:
> >Well, then let me give you my simple minded opinion on this topic, an 
> >engineers
> >opinion:
> >Do not introduce a CoC.
> 
> In that case, if a contributor is mistreated by another contributor,
> what recourse does the victim have?

File charges with the relevant authorities.

Why should "being a contributor" make a difference?

Actions that are considered offenses by a society are typically mentioned
in its laws. If something is not forbidden by law it usually means that
there is no majority, let alone consensus in that society that this action
is an offense.

Andre'
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-27 Thread Alexey Andreyev

Want to add that CoC implementation matters.
It's hard to accept and change or revert some rules than.

The controversial discrimination protection sentences at least should be
carefully discussed. It's not some thing that we could accept as easy as
rewrite.

сб, 27 окт. 2018 г., 18:51 Martin Smith :

> Having observed this discussion since the beginning...
>
> Apparently there are cases where contributors are being abused by other
> contributors. Currently, there is no formal procedure for resolving these
> cases of alleged abuse.
>
> Those objecting to establishing a CoC the purpose of which will be to
> establish that formal procedure to resolve cases of alleged dispute, are
> objecting because the CoC might abuse someone accused of abuse.
>
> Those objecting claim we are all able to resolve these abuse problems
> without a code of conduct, but those of us empowered, under a CoC, to
> resolve cases of abuse, would suddenly lose their ability to resolve abuse
> problems and would instead use the CoC to abuse alleged abusers.
>
> That's what it looks like to me.
>
> 
> From: Alexey Andreyev 
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 5:21:10 PM
> To: Martin Smith
> Cc: NIkolai “Zeks” Marchenko; Qt development mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> I agree not interacting is probably not a solution and your contribution
> without other details is not an excuse.
>
> But I think existing CoC have problems.
> There are statements everywhere about discrimination protection for
> example which are very controversial.
>
> The problem with that in other communities was already mentioned.
> I disagree it's not a big deal and have more benefits than negative aspect.
> We provided a lot of problematic real-life examples, since it's still hard
> to prove positive impact.
>
> I guess we should try to develop better version, I don't see real-life
> benefits from existing CoC at other communities.
>
>
> сб, 27 окт. 2018 г., 17:53 Martin Smith  martin.sm...@qt.io>>:
> >I am yet to hear an answer about what is going to be done in case the
> person
> >mistreating is an active contributor.
> >Will you chose potential harm, over actual benefit of having such a
> person on the
> >project?
>
> Active contributors who abuse others should be treated the same as
> inactive contributors who abuse others. What would be done would of course
> depend on what the abuser did. I suppose the abuser (active contributor or
> not) would be informed as to what he/she did wrong and would be told to
> stop doing it.
>
> Your remarks seem to mean you would rather ignore harm to get the benefit.
> I hope that's not what you mean. Being a super contributor doesn't buy one
> the privilege of being an asshole to others.
>
> ____
> From: NIkolai Marchenko  enmarantis...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 4:03:41 PM
> To: Martin Smith
> Cc: Konstantin Shegunov; Qt development mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> I am yet to hear an answer about what is going to be done in case the
> person mistreating is an active contributor.
> Will you chose potential harm, over actual benefit of having such a person
> on the project?
>
> The edge case being, for example, if a module maintainer is mistreating
> someone for whatever reason.
> The other person can just stop trying to interact with that maintainer,
> but I fail to see how removing a maintainer over a potential benefit of
> someone not being mistreated actually benefits the project.
>
> I've heard from people in this thread that it _is_ a problem you are
> trying to sovle and there _have _ been mistreatment.
> Now, I am not asking for dirty laundry, but isn't community supposed to
> know at least in broad strokes, the kind of problems yo uare even tring to
> solve before actually voting on anything?
> Maybe the community have a better answer for these specific problems?
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:56 PM Martin Smith  martin.sm...@qt.io><mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io<mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io>>>
> wrote:
>
> >1) To contact the contributor first and try to resolve the issue civilly.
> >2) To seek help with a third party (another contributor) who is known to
> the
> >alleged victim and who can act as mediator to try an resolve it.
> >3) If 1) and 2) don't work he/she may also bring it to the attention of
> the
> >community (e.g. the mailing list). The community is then free to react or
> not to
> >react.
>
> You just specified a code of conduct. The problem with your code of
> conduct is that it isn't guaranteed to

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

Having observed this discussion since the beginning...

Apparently there are cases where contributors are being abused by other 
contributors. Currently, there is no formal procedure for resolving these cases 
of alleged abuse.

Those objecting to establishing a CoC the purpose of which will be to establish 
that formal procedure to resolve cases of alleged dispute, are objecting 
because the CoC might abuse someone accused of abuse.

Those objecting claim we are all able to resolve these abuse problems without a 
code of conduct, but those of us empowered, under a CoC, to resolve cases of 
abuse, would suddenly lose their ability to resolve abuse problems and would 
instead use the CoC to abuse alleged abusers.

That's what it looks like to me.

From: Alexey Andreyev 
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 5:21:10 PM
To: Martin Smith
Cc: NIkolai “Zeks” Marchenko; Qt development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

I agree not interacting is probably not a solution and your contribution 
without other details is not an excuse.

But I think existing CoC have problems.
There are statements everywhere about discrimination protection for example 
which are very controversial.

The problem with that in other communities was already mentioned.
I disagree it's not a big deal and have more benefits than negative aspect.
We provided a lot of problematic real-life examples, since it's still hard to 
prove positive impact.

I guess we should try to develop better version, I don't see real-life benefits 
from existing CoC at other communities.

сб, 27 окт. 2018 г., 17:53 Martin Smith 
mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io>>:
>I am yet to hear an answer about what is going to be done in case the person
>mistreating is an active contributor.
>Will you chose potential harm, over actual benefit of having such a person on 
>the
>project?

Active contributors who abuse others should be treated the same as inactive 
contributors who abuse others. What would be done would of course depend on 
what the abuser did. I suppose the abuser (active contributor or not) would be 
informed as to what he/she did wrong and would be told to stop doing it.

Your remarks seem to mean you would rather ignore harm to get the benefit. I 
hope that's not what you mean. Being a super contributor doesn't buy one the 
privilege of being an asshole to others.

From: NIkolai Marchenko 
mailto:enmarantis...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 4:03:41 PM
To: Martin Smith
Cc: Konstantin Shegunov; Qt development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

I am yet to hear an answer about what is going to be done in case the person 
mistreating is an active contributor.
Will you chose potential harm, over actual benefit of having such a person on 
the project?

The edge case being, for example, if a module maintainer is mistreating someone 
for whatever reason.
The other person can just stop trying to interact with that maintainer, but I 
fail to see how removing a maintainer over a potential benefit of someone not 
being mistreated actually benefits the project.

I've heard from people in this thread that it _is_ a problem you are trying to 
sovle and there _have _ been mistreatment.
Now, I am not asking for dirty laundry, but isn't community supposed to know at 
least in broad strokes, the kind of problems yo uare even tring to solve before 
actually voting on anything?
Maybe the community have a better answer for these specific problems?

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:56 PM Martin Smith 
mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io><mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io<mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io>>>
 wrote:

>1) To contact the contributor first and try to resolve the issue civilly.
>2) To seek help with a third party (another contributor) who is known to the
>alleged victim and who can act as mediator to try an resolve it.
>3) If 1) and 2) don't work he/she may also bring it to the attention of the
>community (e.g. the mailing list). The community is then free to react or not 
>to
>react.

You just specified a code of conduct. The problem with your code of conduct is 
that it isn't guaranteed to end in resolution.

>The implication that currently, if you're feeling mistreated, it's impossible 
>to act
>(respectfully) against harassment seems rather far-fetched to me.

But that isn't the implication. The implication is that a mistreated person can 
take the actions you have specified, and the result can be that the 
mistreatment, real or not, is not resolved.

From: Konstantin Shegunov 
mailto:kshegu...@gmail.com><mailto:kshegu...@gmail.com<mailto:kshegu...@gmail.com>>>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 3:48:49 PM
To: Martin Smith
Cc: 
development@qt-project.org<mailto:development@qt-project.org><mailto:development@qt-proje

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-27 Thread Alexey Andreyev

I agree not interacting is probably not a solution and your contribution
without other details is not an excuse.

But I think existing CoC have problems.
There are statements everywhere about discrimination protection for example
which are very controversial.

The problem with that in other communities was already mentioned.
I disagree it's not a big deal and have more benefits than negative aspect.
We provided a lot of problematic real-life examples, since it's still hard
to prove positive impact.

I guess we should try to develop better version, I don't see real-life
benefits from existing CoC at other communities.


сб, 27 окт. 2018 г., 17:53 Martin Smith :

> >I am yet to hear an answer about what is going to be done in case the
> person
> >mistreating is an active contributor.
> >Will you chose potential harm, over actual benefit of having such a
> person on the
> >project?
>
> Active contributors who abuse others should be treated the same as
> inactive contributors who abuse others. What would be done would of course
> depend on what the abuser did. I suppose the abuser (active contributor or
> not) would be informed as to what he/she did wrong and would be told to
> stop doing it.
>
> Your remarks seem to mean you would rather ignore harm to get the benefit.
> I hope that's not what you mean. Being a super contributor doesn't buy one
> the privilege of being an asshole to others.
>
> 
> From: NIkolai Marchenko 
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 4:03:41 PM
> To: Martin Smith
> Cc: Konstantin Shegunov; Qt development mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> I am yet to hear an answer about what is going to be done in case the
> person mistreating is an active contributor.
> Will you chose potential harm, over actual benefit of having such a person
> on the project?
>
> The edge case being, for example, if a module maintainer is mistreating
> someone for whatever reason.
> The other person can just stop trying to interact with that maintainer,
> but I fail to see how removing a maintainer over a potential benefit of
> someone not being mistreated actually benefits the project.
>
> I've heard from people in this thread that it _is_ a problem you are
> trying to sovle and there _have _ been mistreatment.
> Now, I am not asking for dirty laundry, but isn't community supposed to
> know at least in broad strokes, the kind of problems yo uare even tring to
> solve before actually voting on anything?
> Maybe the community have a better answer for these specific problems?
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:56 PM Martin Smith  martin.sm...@qt.io>> wrote:
>
> >1) To contact the contributor first and try to resolve the issue civilly.
> >2) To seek help with a third party (another contributor) who is known to
> the
> >alleged victim and who can act as mediator to try an resolve it.
> >3) If 1) and 2) don't work he/she may also bring it to the attention of
> the
> >community (e.g. the mailing list). The community is then free to react or
> not to
> >react.
>
> You just specified a code of conduct. The problem with your code of
> conduct is that it isn't guaranteed to end in resolution.
>
> >The implication that currently, if you're feeling mistreated, it's
> impossible to act
> >(respectfully) against harassment seems rather far-fetched to me.
>
> But that isn't the implication. The implication is that a mistreated
> person can take the actions you have specified, and the result can be that
> the mistreatment, real or not, is not resolved.
>
> ____________
> From: Konstantin Shegunov mailto:kshegu...@gmail.com
> >>
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 3:48:49 PM
> To: Martin Smith
> Cc: development@qt-project.org<mailto:development@qt-project.org>
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:09 PM Martin Smith  martin.sm...@qt.io><mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io<mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io>>>
> wrote:
> In that case, if a contributor is mistreated by another contributor, what
> recourse does the victim have?
>
> 1) To contact the contributor first and try to resolve the issue civilly.
> 2) To seek help with a third party (another contributor) who is known to
> the alleged victim and who can act as mediator to try an resolve it.
> 3) If 1) and 2) don't work he/she may also bring it to the attention of
> the community (e.g. the mailing list). The community is then free to react
> or not to react.
>
> The implication that currently, if you're feeling mistreated, it's
> impossible to act (respectfully) against harassment seems rather
> far-fetched to me.
> __

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

>I am yet to hear an answer about what is going to be done in case the person
>mistreating is an active contributor.
>Will you chose potential harm, over actual benefit of having such a person on 
>the
>project?

Active contributors who abuse others should be treated the same as inactive 
contributors who abuse others. What would be done would of course depend on 
what the abuser did. I suppose the abuser (active contributor or not) would be 
informed as to what he/she did wrong and would be told to stop doing it.

Your remarks seem to mean you would rather ignore harm to get the benefit. I 
hope that's not what you mean. Being a super contributor doesn't buy one the 
privilege of being an asshole to others.

From: NIkolai Marchenko 
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 4:03:41 PM
To: Martin Smith
Cc: Konstantin Shegunov; Qt development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

I am yet to hear an answer about what is going to be done in case the person 
mistreating is an active contributor.
Will you chose potential harm, over actual benefit of having such a person on 
the project?

The edge case being, for example, if a module maintainer is mistreating someone 
for whatever reason.
The other person can just stop trying to interact with that maintainer, but I 
fail to see how removing a maintainer over a potential benefit of someone not 
being mistreated actually benefits the project.

I've heard from people in this thread that it _is_ a problem you are trying to 
sovle and there _have _ been mistreatment.
Now, I am not asking for dirty laundry, but isn't community supposed to know at 
least in broad strokes, the kind of problems yo uare even tring to solve before 
actually voting on anything?
Maybe the community have a better answer for these specific problems?

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:56 PM Martin Smith 
mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io>> wrote:

>1) To contact the contributor first and try to resolve the issue civilly.
>2) To seek help with a third party (another contributor) who is known to the
>alleged victim and who can act as mediator to try an resolve it.
>3) If 1) and 2) don't work he/she may also bring it to the attention of the
>community (e.g. the mailing list). The community is then free to react or not 
>to
>react.

You just specified a code of conduct. The problem with your code of conduct is 
that it isn't guaranteed to end in resolution.

>The implication that currently, if you're feeling mistreated, it's impossible 
>to act
>(respectfully) against harassment seems rather far-fetched to me.

But that isn't the implication. The implication is that a mistreated person can 
take the actions you have specified, and the result can be that the 
mistreatment, real or not, is not resolved.

From: Konstantin Shegunov mailto:kshegu...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 3:48:49 PM
To: Martin Smith
Cc: development@qt-project.org<mailto:development@qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:09 PM Martin Smith 
mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io><mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io<mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io>>>
 wrote:
In that case, if a contributor is mistreated by another contributor, what 
recourse does the victim have?

1) To contact the contributor first and try to resolve the issue civilly.
2) To seek help with a third party (another contributor) who is known to the 
alleged victim and who can act as mediator to try an resolve it.
3) If 1) and 2) don't work he/she may also bring it to the attention of the 
community (e.g. the mailing list). The community is then free to react or not 
to react.

The implication that currently, if you're feeling mistreated, it's impossible 
to act (respectfully) against harassment seems rather far-fetched to me.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org<mailto:Development@qt-project.org>
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-27 Thread NIkolai Marchenko

I am yet to hear an answer about what is going to be done in case the
person mistreating is an active contributor.
Will you chose potential harm, over actual benefit of having such a person
on the project?

The edge case being, for example, if a module maintainer is mistreating
someone for whatever reason.
The other person can just stop trying to interact with that maintainer, but
I fail to see how removing a maintainer over a potential benefit of someone
not being mistreated actually benefits the project.

I've heard from people in this thread that it _is_ a problem you are trying
to sovle and there _have _ been mistreatment.
Now, I am not asking for dirty laundry, but isn't community supposed to
know at least in broad strokes, the kind of problems yo uare even tring to
solve before actually voting on anything?
Maybe the community have a better answer for these specific problems?

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:56 PM Martin Smith  wrote:

>
> >1) To contact the contributor first and try to resolve the issue civilly.
> >2) To seek help with a third party (another contributor) who is known to
> the
> >alleged victim and who can act as mediator to try an resolve it.
> >3) If 1) and 2) don't work he/she may also bring it to the attention of
> the
> >community (e.g. the mailing list). The community is then free to react or
> not to
> >react.
>
> You just specified a code of conduct. The problem with your code of
> conduct is that it isn't guaranteed to end in resolution.
>
> >The implication that currently, if you're feeling mistreated, it's
> impossible to act
> >(respectfully) against harassment seems rather far-fetched to me.
>
> But that isn't the implication. The implication is that a mistreated
> person can take the actions you have specified, and the result can be that
> the mistreatment, real or not, is not resolved.
>
> 
> From: Konstantin Shegunov 
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 3:48:49 PM
> To: Martin Smith
> Cc: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:09 PM Martin Smith  martin.sm...@qt.io>> wrote:
> In that case, if a contributor is mistreated by another contributor, what
> recourse does the victim have?
>
> 1) To contact the contributor first and try to resolve the issue civilly.
> 2) To seek help with a third party (another contributor) who is known to
> the alleged victim and who can act as mediator to try an resolve it.
> 3) If 1) and 2) don't work he/she may also bring it to the attention of
> the community (e.g. the mailing list). The community is then free to react
> or not to react.
>
> The implication that currently, if you're feeling mistreated, it's
> impossible to act (respectfully) against harassment seems rather
> far-fetched to me.
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

>1) To contact the contributor first and try to resolve the issue civilly.
>2) To seek help with a third party (another contributor) who is known to the
>alleged victim and who can act as mediator to try an resolve it.
>3) If 1) and 2) don't work he/she may also bring it to the attention of the
>community (e.g. the mailing list). The community is then free to react or not 
>to
>react.

You just specified a code of conduct. The problem with your code of conduct is 
that it isn't guaranteed to end in resolution.

>The implication that currently, if you're feeling mistreated, it's impossible 
>to act
>(respectfully) against harassment seems rather far-fetched to me.

But that isn't the implication. The implication is that a mistreated person can 
take the actions you have specified, and the result can be that the 
mistreatment, real or not, is not resolved.

From: Konstantin Shegunov 
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 3:48:49 PM
To: Martin Smith
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:09 PM Martin Smith 
mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io>> wrote:
In that case, if a contributor is mistreated by another contributor, what 
recourse does the victim have?

1) To contact the contributor first and try to resolve the issue civilly.
2) To seek help with a third party (another contributor) who is known to the 
alleged victim and who can act as mediator to try an resolve it.
3) If 1) and 2) don't work he/she may also bring it to the attention of the 
community (e.g. the mailing list). The community is then free to react or not 
to react.

The implication that currently, if you're feeling mistreated, it's impossible 
to act (respectfully) against harassment seems rather far-fetched to me.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-27 Thread Konstantin Shegunov

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:09 PM Martin Smith  wrote:

> In that case, if a contributor is mistreated by another contributor, what
> recourse does the victim have?
>

1) To contact the contributor first and try to resolve the issue civilly.
2) To seek help with a third party (another contributor) who is known to
the alleged victim and who can act as mediator to try an resolve it.
3) If 1) and 2) don't work he/she may also bring it to the attention of the
community (e.g. the mailing list). The community is then free to react or
not to react.

The implication that currently, if you're feeling mistreated, it's
impossible to act (respectfully) against harassment seems rather
far-fetched to me.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

>Note that installing a conflict resolution authority doesn't need installing a
>controversial CoC and formalizing every thing a contributor can or cannot do..

But it does require specifying how to lodge a complaint, which specifies 
conduct, and it then ought to say something about the kinds of complaints that 
will be resolved by the resolution authority and the kinds of complaints that 
will not. That also specifies conduct.

>but aren't people in this project sensible enough, in general, to have the
>common sense to reach an adequate solution?

That's what we're doing now.

From: NIkolai Marchenko 
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 3:17:09 PM
To: Martin Smith
Cc: priv...@bernhard-lindner.de; Qt development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

Note that installing a conflict resolution authority doesn't need installing a 
controversial CoC and formalizing every thing a contributor can or cannot do..
True, there won't be formalized and standadized rules for resolution, but 
aren't people in this project sensible enough, in general, to have the common 
sense to reach an adequate solution?

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:10 PM Martin Smith 
mailto:martin.sm...@qt.io>> wrote:
>Well, then let me give you my simple minded opinion on this topic, an engineers
>opinion:
>Do not introduce a CoC.

In that case, if a contributor is mistreated by another contributor, what 
recourse does the victim have?

martin

From: Development 
mailto:qt...@qt-project.org>>
 on behalf of Bernhard Lindner 
mailto:priv...@bernhard-lindner.de>>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 12:39:40 AM
To: development@qt-project.org<mailto:development@qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

> But the only mailing list with sufficient representation of the community is
> this one. We don't have to like discussing this, but it seems necessary that
> we do.

Well, then let me give you my simple minded opinion on this topic, an engineers 
opinion:
Do not introduce a CoC.

Resisting to have anything and everything in black and white is hard and is not 
popular
and surely not zeitgeist but sometimes the better way.

Please do not make me discuss about that as well, I prefer to wrangle with item 
delegate
code ;)

--
Best regards,
Bernhard Lindner

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org<mailto:Development@qt-project.org>
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org<mailto:Development@qt-project.org>
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-27 Thread NIkolai Marchenko

Note that installing a conflict resolution authority doesn't need
installing a controversial CoC and formalizing every thing a contributor
can or cannot do..
True, there won't be formalized and standadized rules for resolution, but
aren't people in this project sensible enough, in general, to have the
common sense to reach an adequate solution?

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:10 PM Martin Smith  wrote:

> >Well, then let me give you my simple minded opinion on this topic, an
> engineers
> >opinion:
> >Do not introduce a CoC.
>
> In that case, if a contributor is mistreated by another contributor, what
> recourse does the victim have?
>
> martin
>
> 
> From: Development 
> on behalf of Bernhard Lindner 
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 12:39:40 AM
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> > But the only mailing list with sufficient representation of the
> community is
> > this one. We don't have to like discussing this, but it seems necessary
> that
> > we do.
>
> Well, then let me give you my simple minded opinion on this topic, an
> engineers opinion:
> Do not introduce a CoC.
>
> Resisting to have anything and everything in black and white is hard and
> is not popular
> and surely not zeitgeist but sometimes the better way.
>
> Please do not make me discuss about that as well, I prefer to wrangle with
> item delegate
> code ;)
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Bernhard Lindner
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

>Well, then let me give you my simple minded opinion on this topic, an engineers
>opinion:
>Do not introduce a CoC.

In that case, if a contributor is mistreated by another contributor, what 
recourse does the victim have?

martin


From: Development  on 
behalf of Bernhard Lindner 
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 12:39:40 AM
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

> But the only mailing list with sufficient representation of the community is
> this one. We don't have to like discussing this, but it seems necessary that
> we do.

Well, then let me give you my simple minded opinion on this topic, an engineers 
opinion:
Do not introduce a CoC.

Resisting to have anything and everything in black and white is hard and is not 
popular
and surely not zeitgeist but sometimes the better way.

Please do not make me discuss about that as well, I prefer to wrangle with item 
delegate
code ;)

--
Best regards,
Bernhard Lindner

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Friday, 26 October 2018 15:39:40 PDT Bernhard Lindner wrote:
> > But the only mailing list with sufficient representation of the community
> > is this one. We don't have to like discussing this, but it seems
> > necessary that we do.
> 
> Well, then let me give you my simple minded opinion on this topic, an
> engineers opinion: Do not introduce a CoC.
> 
> Resisting to have anything and everything in black and white is hard and is
> not popular and surely not zeitgeist but sometimes the better way.

Thanks Bernhard

Your opinion is noted and is no less important than anyone else's.

> Please do not make me discuss about that as well, I prefer to wrangle with
> item delegate code ;)

:-)

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-26 Thread Alexey Andreyev

Thank you for your answers, Thiago!

> If we took your argument to the extreme, then why would we need a
Constitution
> if we have judges?

As I said, I'm not against any CoC by default. I just tried to express that
professional judges is not an excuse to not work on a better constitution.
Not sure it is appropriate analogy though. Is CoC is just a light welcome
recommendations that is not going to be used by CoC board at making
desicions? Or is it definite rules that we need to follow?
If it's light enough in terms of CoC board possible actions, why bother
adding controvertial details about discrimination for example?
It's not clear about the stringency of the document for me and how to use
it for now.

> Do you trust our Security mailing list?

Yes, I do. And I'm going to trust CoC board, but I do not want to
legitimate things that could easily be misused against community members
and against CoC board too

> I would rather we not write a text ourselves, but find something we're
comfortable with. That would be an extreme effort whose resources could be
best used elsewhere.
> If the CC is such a hot topic, a magnet because of its author's actions,
let's look at others.

I agree about reusing some working CoC is good idea. Not sure that there's
one yet.

сб, 27 окт. 2018 г. в 0:35, Thiago Macieira :

> On Friday, 26 October 2018 12:28:42 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote:
> > > I personally think those situations explain why we need a CoC in the
> >
> > first place and why the judgment on such situations is very subjective,
> > best left to humans, not to a script. And the deliberations should not be
> > in a public forum, like a GitHub issue.
> >
> > If mentioned situations best left to humans, what is current CoC for? If
> > deliberations should be limited, who could have access to it?
>
> The deliberation is left to humans, but the ground rules are written so
> that
> all participants know what is expected of them and to give them the
> reassurance that their grievances will be heard (not that there'll be
> action
> taken).
>
> If we took your argument to the extreme, then why would we need a
> Constitution
> if we have judges?
>
> As for who can have access to it or any other methods of checking their
> power,
> I don't know. Do you trust our Security mailing list? Why wouldn't you
> trust
> the CoC board? How can we add those?
>
> > > Isn't it showing that it's *working*?
> >
> > I guess not, not the current version of the CoC at least. Communities are
> > spending resources instead of working on other tasks. If discussed
> > situations be left to humans in the end with current document, we could
> > just state simple one-liner instead: "be conscious and think about future
> > consequences", -- to minimize CoC problems at least.
> >
> > As I said previously, I agree we should work together on a better
> version.
> > I guess Qt people could do it.
>
> I would rather we not write a text ourselves, but find something we're
> comfortable with. That would be an extreme effort whose resources could be
> best used elsewhere.
>
> If the CC is such a hot topic, a magnet because of its author's actions,
> let's
> look at others.
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
>
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-26 Thread Bernhard Lindner

> But the only mailing list with sufficient representation of the community is 
> this one. We don't have to like discussing this, but it seems necessary that 
> we do.

Well, then let me give you my simple minded opinion on this topic, an engineers 
opinion:
Do not introduce a CoC.

Resisting to have anything and everything in black and white is hard and is not 
popular
and surely not zeitgeist but sometimes the better way.

Please do not make me discuss about that as well, I prefer to wrangle with item 
delegate
code ;)

-- 
Best regards, 
Bernhard Lindner

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Friday, 26 October 2018 15:02:09 PDT Bernhard Lindner wrote:
> Anyway I think engineering and politics should be separated. On any level.
> Politics is extremly harmful to engineering. CoCs are always political.

You are correct.

But the only mailing list with sufficient representation of the community is 
this one. We don't have to like discussing this, but it seems necessary that 
we do.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-26 Thread Bernhard Lindner



> > I wish any one discussion about Qt software quality would have attracted so
> > much attention, passion and effort as this CoC topic.
> 
> There are plenty of technical threads that have had more emails sent than 
> this. Look at the ones about the buildsystem, for a recent example.

I didn't say "technical". Also I didn't say "number of e-mails".

Anyway I think engineering and politics should be separated. On any level. 
Politics is
extremly harmful to engineering. CoCs are always political.

-- 
Best Regards, 
Bernhard Lindner

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Friday, 26 October 2018 12:28:42 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote:
> > I personally think those situations explain why we need a CoC in the
> 
> first place and why the judgment on such situations is very subjective,
> best left to humans, not to a script. And the deliberations should not be
> in a public forum, like a GitHub issue.
> 
> If mentioned situations best left to humans, what is current CoC for? If
> deliberations should be limited, who could have access to it?

The deliberation is left to humans, but the ground rules are written so that 
all participants know what is expected of them and to give them the 
reassurance that their grievances will be heard (not that there'll be action 
taken).

If we took your argument to the extreme, then why would we need a Constitution 
if we have judges?

As for who can have access to it or any other methods of checking their power, 
I don't know. Do you trust our Security mailing list? Why wouldn't you trust 
the CoC board? How can we add those?

> > Isn't it showing that it's *working*?
> 
> I guess not, not the current version of the CoC at least. Communities are
> spending resources instead of working on other tasks. If discussed
> situations be left to humans in the end with current document, we could
> just state simple one-liner instead: "be conscious and think about future
> consequences", -- to minimize CoC problems at least.
> 
> As I said previously, I agree we should work together on a better version.
> I guess Qt people could do it.

I would rather we not write a text ourselves, but find something we're 
comfortable with. That would be an extreme effort whose resources could be 
best used elsewhere.

If the CC is such a hot topic, a magnet because of its author's actions, let's 
look at others.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Friday, 26 October 2018 12:25:50 PDT Jason H wrote:
> Thiago,
> 
> Here's a link that kinda puts it together:
> https://lulz.com/linux-devs-threaten-killswitch-coc-controversy-1252/
> (Scroll to  "The Controversy" and the "rape apologist" Sage Sharp tweet)

I know of the controversy and find Sage's tweet to be of extremely poor 
judgment, given the situation that originally caused them to find Ted Ts'o an 
apologist. I know both and I fail to see how the actions could have led to 
such an escalation. This is very unfortunate.

I agree with the tweet replies quoted in the article: the Sage's tweet was out 
of bounds and a violation of the CoC. Fortunately, they are not part of the 
kernel community anymore, so the Linux TAB does not have to do anything.

The post says:
"1. Insertion of the CoC into other projects has heralded witch hunts where 
good contributors are removed over trivial matters or even events that 
happened a long time ago."

There's a difference between triggering witch hunts and successful removal of 
contributors. The fact that the CoC and a reporting mechanism exist can lead 
to their being abused. But I stand by my argument that the final decision is 
left to existing, trusted members of the project's community and that stops 
the abuse from getting out of hand.

> I didn't realize this was a thing of "defeat". I have concerns, based on
> actual events, that I want resolved.

That's fine. I was reacting to your "my mind is made up", which it makes you 
sound like you will not change your position and no compromise is possible, 
short of not adopting a CoC at all.

> I do respectfully disagree on whether or not an author is relevant to
> considering a work. In this case the author has a track record of attacking
> members in open source projects and arguing against meritocracy. Is the
> text good? There is a lot I agree with, but there are things in it that
> cross the line for me. I think we can come to an agreement, but not with
> invoking the Covenant in its current form.

Please also note that the attack against meritocracy is more nuanced than it 
appears at first sight. I don't have more information on this -- I will go 
inform myself about it -- so until then I will not comment.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

> Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the text was written with
ill-
intent and let's ignore the taint that it would cause us just by adopting
it:
what's the worst that could happen? The interpretation of the CoC is left
to
the community that *is* part of the project, not the text's author.

Very simple.
Once someone like her tries to exploit the vulnerabilities community have
created by adopting this document,
the Qt project will likely shut them down with a simple "no, you are not
being reasonable".

But being unreasonable, this person will immediately blast Qt Community for
not adhering to code of conduct and doubts will arise both inside and
outside.
Depending on how persistent they are, it could become a full blown media
storm tarnishing the community's image.

This could all have been avoided by just not letting those people assume Qt
picked _their_ Code.
And whatever Qt Community thinks, they _will_ assume that it is their code
that has been picked and will hold Qt liable to that.



On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 12:13 AM Thiago Macieira 
wrote:

> On Friday, 26 October 2018 11:40:14 PDT NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
> > I have to disagree. As I see it: she has spent considerable amount of
> time
> > drafting the exact text to allow her to bully projects.
> > Have you spent as much time analyzing all of the potential pitfalls she
> may
> > or may not have inserted into this document?
>
> I have read the text assuming it was written and adopted in good faith,
> which
> is also how the people in the Linux kernel's TAB as well as whomever we
> empower in the Qt Project would. That's why the decisions are left to
> humans,
> not a script.
>
> > She's a malicious person and not second guessign her Code is a mistake.
>
> Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the text was written with
> ill-
> intent and let's ignore the taint that it would cause us just by adopting
> it:
> what's the worst that could happen? The interpretation of the CoC is left
> to
> the community that *is* part of the project, not the text's author.
>
> I believe the worst that could happen is an argument on the original
> spirit of
> the text versus our interpretation of it. But the Qt Project makes the
> decision, not the original author, so our opinion of what it is meant to
> say
> has more weight.
>
> So I don't think this is a danger.
>
> > Yes, indeed, is the text good? This has to be analyzed: in depth. And I
> > would still probably avoid using hers.
>
> And personally I'm leaning in favour of KDE's.
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
>
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Friday, 26 October 2018 11:40:14 PDT NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
> I have to disagree. As I see it: she has spent considerable amount of time
> drafting the exact text to allow her to bully projects.
> Have you spent as much time analyzing all of the potential pitfalls she may
> or may not have inserted into this document?

I have read the text assuming it was written and adopted in good faith, which 
is also how the people in the Linux kernel's TAB as well as whomever we 
empower in the Qt Project would. That's why the decisions are left to humans, 
not a script.

> She's a malicious person and not second guessign her Code is a mistake.

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the text was written with ill-
intent and let's ignore the taint that it would cause us just by adopting it: 
what's the worst that could happen? The interpretation of the CoC is left to 
the community that *is* part of the project, not the text's author.

I believe the worst that could happen is an argument on the original spirit of 
the text versus our interpretation of it. But the Qt Project makes the 
decision, not the original author, so our opinion of what it is meant to say 
has more weight.

So I don't think this is a danger.

> Yes, indeed, is the text good? This has to be analyzed: in depth. And I
> would still probably avoid using hers.

And personally I'm leaning in favour of KDE's.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Friday, 26 October 2018 11:39:52 PDT Jason H wrote:
> How do we prevent that scenario, what is essentially a social
> Denial-of-Service (denial of community?) attack? If we adopt a
> Conenant-based language we have to consider this attack vector. It has
> already happened in other projects - it is not a hypothetical.

We prevent this scenario by having sensible people in the CoC Committee, who 
will address the problem appropriately.

And will remind the person posting the complaint of the story of the boy who 
cried "wolf".

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-26 Thread Alexey Andreyev

> I personally think those situations explain why we need a CoC in the
first place and why the judgment on such situations is very subjective,
best left to humans, not to a script. And the deliberations should not be
in a public forum, like a GitHub issue.

If mentioned situations best left to humans, what is current CoC for? If
deliberations should be limited, who could have access to it?

> Isn't it showing that it's *working*?

I guess not, not the current version of the CoC at least. Communities are
spending resources instead of working on other tasks. If discussed
situations be left to humans in the end with current document, we could
just state simple one-liner instead: "be conscious and think about future
consequences", -- to minimize CoC problems at least.

As I said previously, I agree we should work together on a better version.
I guess Qt people could do it.

пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 21:35, Thiago Macieira :

> On Friday, 26 October 2018 09:48:11 PDT Jason H wrote:
> > My fundamental problem about the Contributor Covenant[1] was initially
> and
> > solely the fallout from the Linux Kernel fiasco. But then I learned that
> it
> > was drafted by Coraline Ada Ehmke, who sought to have a contributor
> removed
> > [2] from a project preemptively. The contributor did nothing wrong with
> > respect to the project or the project's community.  She constructed a
> claim
> > of "transphobia" based on a tweet the contributor wrote in no way
> relating
> > to the project at hand, and slandered the project for not expunging them.
> > My mind is made up: the Contributor Covenant is a tool of oppression.
>
> First of all, the kernel adoption of CoC was not a fiasco. All the
> negative
> emails you may have seen came from people who are not contributors, often
> their first and only email to the mailing list. Despite what Eric Raymond
> has
> said, revoking the copyright licence for GPL just cannot be done -- it
> would
> be against GPL's spirit.
>
> Coraline's intentions are irrelevant. What matters is the text: is it good?
>
> But if your mind is made up, kindly refrain from trying to convince others
> to
> change their minds too. This is a two-way street and you're only welcome
> to
> argue your point if you're willing to admit defeat too.
>
> > The specific sentence in the Covenant is:
> > "This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public
> > spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community."
> >
> > However, despite being the author of the Covenant (2014), she found it
> > appropriate to attack someone who was clearly not operating in a project
> > space or representing the project community (2015). We now have two
> > examples - the linux Kernel and Opal project, that after CC was enacted
> > that calls for removal of members based on past unrelated tweets went
> out.
> > One of the problems its politics and political climates change over time.
> > Expressing what is not political at one point in time may become
> political
> > in subsequent years. People's minds also change over time.
>
> What is the kernel example? Who was forced out, or attempted to?
>
> > I urge you to read link[3] below and see if we want that kind of
> attention.
> > It summarizes what happens when the CC has been adopted by other
> projects.
> >
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_Covenant
> > [2] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
> > [3]
> https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/974038-why-the-linux-coc-is-bad/
>
> I have.
>
> The proponents of the removal were arguing that having such a person as a
> project leader is poisonous to the project, *regardless* of the fact that
> it
> was done in private time, because it would turn away potential new
> contributors as they didn't want to associate with such a person. This is
> an
> extreme situation, indeed, and one that the CoC committee should be able
> to
> make a judgement on: which way is the project best served?
>
> Anyway, given that the request to get the maintainer removed was not
> accepted,
> how is that a failure of the CoC? Isn't it showing that it's *working*?
>
> I personally think those situations explain why we need a CoC in the first
> place and why the judgment on such situations is very subjective, best
> left to
> humans, not to a script. And the deliberations should not be in a public
> forum, like a GitHub issue.
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
>
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

Thiago,

Here's a link that kinda puts it together: 
https://lulz.com/linux-devs-threaten-killswitch-coc-controversy-1252/ (Scroll 
to  "The Controversy" and the "rape apologist" Sage Sharp tweet)

I didn't realize this was a thing of "defeat". I have concerns, based on actual 
events, that I want resolved. 

I do respectfully disagree on whether or not an author is relevant to 
considering a work. In this case the author has a track record of attacking 
members in open source projects and arguing against meritocracy. Is the text 
good? There is a lot I agree with, but there are things in it that cross the 
line for me. I think we can come to an agreement, but not with invoking the 
Covenant in its current form. 


> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM
> From: "Thiago Macieira" 
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> On Friday, 26 October 2018 09:48:11 PDT Jason H wrote:
> > My fundamental problem about the Contributor Covenant[1] was initially and
> > solely the fallout from the Linux Kernel fiasco. But then I learned that it
> > was drafted by Coraline Ada Ehmke, who sought to have a contributor removed
> > [2] from a project preemptively. The contributor did nothing wrong with
> > respect to the project or the project's community.  She constructed a claim
> > of "transphobia" based on a tweet the contributor wrote in no way relating
> > to the project at hand, and slandered the project for not expunging them.
> > My mind is made up: the Contributor Covenant is a tool of oppression.
> 
> First of all, the kernel adoption of CoC was not a fiasco. All the negative 
> emails you may have seen came from people who are not contributors, often 
> their first and only email to the mailing list. Despite what Eric Raymond has 
> said, revoking the copyright licence for GPL just cannot be done -- it would 
> be against GPL's spirit.
> 
> Coraline's intentions are irrelevant. What matters is the text: is it good?
> 
> But if your mind is made up, kindly refrain from trying to convince others to 
> change their minds too. This is a two-way street and you're only welcome to 
> argue your point if you're willing to admit defeat too.
> 
> > The specific sentence in the Covenant is:
> > "This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public
> > spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community."
> > 
> > However, despite being the author of the Covenant (2014), she found it
> > appropriate to attack someone who was clearly not operating in a project
> > space or representing the project community (2015). We now have two
> > examples - the linux Kernel and Opal project, that after CC was enacted
> > that calls for removal of members based on past unrelated tweets went out.
> > One of the problems its politics and political climates change over time.
> > Expressing what is not political at one point in time may become political
> > in subsequent years. People's minds also change over time.
> 
> What is the kernel example? Who was forced out, or attempted to?
> 
> > I urge you to read link[3] below and see if we want that kind of attention.
> > It summarizes what happens when the CC has been adopted by other projects.
> > 
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_Covenant
> > [2] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
> > [3] https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/974038-why-the-linux-coc-is-bad/
> 
> I have.
> 
> The proponents of the removal were arguing that having such a person as a 
> project leader is poisonous to the project, *regardless* of the fact that it 
> was done in private time, because it would turn away potential new 
> contributors as they didn't want to associate with such a person. This is an 
> extreme situation, indeed, and one that the CoC committee should be able to 
> make a judgement on: which way is the project best served?
> 
> Anyway, given that the request to get the maintainer removed was not 
> accepted, 
> how is that a failure of the CoC? Isn't it showing that it's *working*?
> 
> I personally think those situations explain why we need a CoC in the first 
> place and why the judgment on such situations is very subjective, best left 
> to 
> humans, not to a script. And the deliberations should not be in a public 
> forum, like a GitHub issue.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Friday, 26 October 2018 10:53:18 PDT Bernhard Lindner wrote:
> I wish any one discussion about Qt software quality would have attracted so
> much attention, passion and effort as this CoC topic.

There are plenty of technical threads that have had more emails sent than 
this. Look at the ones about the buildsystem, for a recent example.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

>  Coraline's intentions are irrelevant. What matters is the text: is it
good?

I have to disagree. As I see it: she has spent considerable amount of time
drafting the exact text to allow her to bully projects.
Have you spent as much time analyzing all of the potential pitfalls she may
or may not have inserted into this document?
She's a malicious person and not second guessign her Code is a mistake.

Yes, indeed, is the text good? This has to be analyzed: in depth. And I
would still probably avoid using hers.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:35 PM Thiago Macieira 
wrote:

> On Friday, 26 October 2018 09:48:11 PDT Jason H wrote:
> > My fundamental problem about the Contributor Covenant[1] was initially
> and
> > solely the fallout from the Linux Kernel fiasco. But then I learned that
> it
> > was drafted by Coraline Ada Ehmke, who sought to have a contributor
> removed
> > [2] from a project preemptively. The contributor did nothing wrong with
> > respect to the project or the project's community.  She constructed a
> claim
> > of "transphobia" based on a tweet the contributor wrote in no way
> relating
> > to the project at hand, and slandered the project for not expunging them.
> > My mind is made up: the Contributor Covenant is a tool of oppression.
>
> First of all, the kernel adoption of CoC was not a fiasco. All the
> negative
> emails you may have seen came from people who are not contributors, often
> their first and only email to the mailing list. Despite what Eric Raymond
> has
> said, revoking the copyright licence for GPL just cannot be done -- it
> would
> be against GPL's spirit.
>
> Coraline's intentions are irrelevant. What matters is the text: is it good?
>
> But if your mind is made up, kindly refrain from trying to convince others
> to
> change their minds too. This is a two-way street and you're only welcome
> to
> argue your point if you're willing to admit defeat too.
>
> > The specific sentence in the Covenant is:
> > "This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public
> > spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community."
> >
> > However, despite being the author of the Covenant (2014), she found it
> > appropriate to attack someone who was clearly not operating in a project
> > space or representing the project community (2015). We now have two
> > examples - the linux Kernel and Opal project, that after CC was enacted
> > that calls for removal of members based on past unrelated tweets went
> out.
> > One of the problems its politics and political climates change over time.
> > Expressing what is not political at one point in time may become
> political
> > in subsequent years. People's minds also change over time.
>
> What is the kernel example? Who was forced out, or attempted to?
>
> > I urge you to read link[3] below and see if we want that kind of
> attention.
> > It summarizes what happens when the CC has been adopted by other
> projects.
> >
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_Covenant
> > [2] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
> > [3]
> https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/974038-why-the-linux-coc-is-bad/
>
> I have.
>
> The proponents of the removal were arguing that having such a person as a
> project leader is poisonous to the project, *regardless* of the fact that
> it
> was done in private time, because it would turn away potential new
> contributors as they didn't want to associate with such a person. This is
> an
> extreme situation, indeed, and one that the CoC committee should be able
> to
> make a judgement on: which way is the project best served?
>
> Anyway, given that the request to get the maintainer removed was not
> accepted,
> how is that a failure of the CoC? Isn't it showing that it's *working*?
>
> I personally think those situations explain why we need a CoC in the first
> place and why the judgment on such situations is very subjective, best
> left to
> humans, not to a script. And the deliberations should not be in a public
> forum, like a GitHub issue.
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
>
>
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

Putting my "red team" hat on for a moment (not a political color thing - a pen. test thing) this is how it will play out - maybe not for me personally - but someone in the community will express something that some (for lack of a better term) social justice warrior will take offense with to the degree that they are intent on really messing up the poster's life and will dox them and realize they are are a part of this community, and since the community is under the Covenant, can initiate a complaint with the Qt community that the poster, by merely being a member of this community, is harming the community, and seeks/gets the community member removed?

How do we prevent that scenario, what is essentially a social Denial-of-Service (denial of community?) attack? If we adopt a Conenant-based language we have to consider this attack vector. It has already happened in other projects - it is not a hypothetical.

Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 at 2:17 PM
From: "NIkolai Marchenko"
To: jh...@gmx.com
Cc: "Christian Kandeler" , "Qt development mailing list"
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

And we already see the budding sentiments to that exact tune:

(quote from Edward Welbourne)

>That sometimes folk have felt so intimidated that they give up on trying
> to make a contribution; and that, were potential worse conduct to cause
> distress to a contributor, we have no process in place that could give
> them confidence that their distress will be respected and honest efforts
vwill be made to relieve it. Various variations and permutations on
> these themes may also be relevant; see Simon's mail.

Note: I understand that he means well, but Within the context of Contributor Covenant the punishability of the potential harm of people not contributing can escalate to stupid proportions.

I have nothing against KDE's code. It strives to add positivity.

I am very much against Qt's CoC being drafted from Covenant. Covenant is focused on oppression and excluding ppl.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:06 PM Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote:

I don't really care that their role, though that move takes gravitas.

I will never endorse a measure that encourages (and the CC does encourage) a witchhunt on the members of the community. It encourages by creating a metric of "maximum comfort" (or "least harmful") and that anything else is somehow a violation. She did it herself with these words[2]: "Is this what the other maintainers want to be reflected in the project? Will any transgender developers feel comfortable contributing?" With those words she created a metric of "maximum comfort". So now the question moves from not just having not offended someone, but to be maximally comforting to every possible person. Not that there's anything wrong with *wanting* to be maximally comfortable for everyone. It's a great goal. But now every interaction is to be judged by this metric, and anything less than the maximal comfort is somehow potentially alienating to a population and can be construed to be a cause for removal.

In the CC itself it encourages a witchhunt with these words:

"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."

That last word, "harmful" significantly alters the statement. Don't let your eyes glaze over. Now anything that happens is potentially harmful. (Ironically C++, or its constructs is even "considered harmful". Just google "C++ considered harmful", lol). I probably would have let this whole issue slide but that last word _really_ changes the character of the covenant. I beleive that is *the* word that allows the witchhunting. It's not just direct harm but potential harm. From [2]: "As a queer person this sort of argument from a maintainer makes me feel unwelcome. The ignorance which @elia shows by claiming that transfolk are "not accepting reality" is actively harmful. I will not contribute to this project or any other project which @elia maintains." - strand

Not that strand was participating, but states that there will be no future contribution by strand. This is an appeal to percieved harm - that now strand will not ever contribute, the project is potentially harmed by missing out on a contributor. So now this issue can fall under the Covenant.

How can we avoid witchhunts?

Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 at 1:24 PM
From: "NIkolai Marchenko" <enmarantis...@gmail.com>
To: jh...@gmx.com
Cc: "Christian Kandeler" <christian.kande...@qt.io>, "Qt development mailing list&quo

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Friday, 26 October 2018 09:48:11 PDT Jason H wrote:
> My fundamental problem about the Contributor Covenant[1] was initially and
> solely the fallout from the Linux Kernel fiasco. But then I learned that it
> was drafted by Coraline Ada Ehmke, who sought to have a contributor removed
> [2] from a project preemptively. The contributor did nothing wrong with
> respect to the project or the project's community.  She constructed a claim
> of "transphobia" based on a tweet the contributor wrote in no way relating
> to the project at hand, and slandered the project for not expunging them.
> My mind is made up: the Contributor Covenant is a tool of oppression.

First of all, the kernel adoption of CoC was not a fiasco. All the negative 
emails you may have seen came from people who are not contributors, often 
their first and only email to the mailing list. Despite what Eric Raymond has 
said, revoking the copyright licence for GPL just cannot be done -- it would 
be against GPL's spirit.

Coraline's intentions are irrelevant. What matters is the text: is it good?

But if your mind is made up, kindly refrain from trying to convince others to 
change their minds too. This is a two-way street and you're only welcome to 
argue your point if you're willing to admit defeat too.

> The specific sentence in the Covenant is:
> "This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public
> spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community."
> 
> However, despite being the author of the Covenant (2014), she found it
> appropriate to attack someone who was clearly not operating in a project
> space or representing the project community (2015). We now have two
> examples - the linux Kernel and Opal project, that after CC was enacted
> that calls for removal of members based on past unrelated tweets went out.
> One of the problems its politics and political climates change over time.
> Expressing what is not political at one point in time may become political
> in subsequent years. People's minds also change over time.

What is the kernel example? Who was forced out, or attempted to?

> I urge you to read link[3] below and see if we want that kind of attention.
> It summarizes what happens when the CC has been adopted by other projects.
> 
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_Covenant
> [2] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
> [3] https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/974038-why-the-linux-coc-is-bad/

I have.

The proponents of the removal were arguing that having such a person as a 
project leader is poisonous to the project, *regardless* of the fact that it 
was done in private time, because it would turn away potential new 
contributors as they didn't want to associate with such a person. This is an 
extreme situation, indeed, and one that the CoC committee should be able to 
make a judgement on: which way is the project best served?

Anyway, given that the request to get the maintainer removed was not accepted, 
how is that a failure of the CoC? Isn't it showing that it's *working*?

I personally think those situations explain why we need a CoC in the first 
place and why the judgment on such situations is very subjective, best left to 
humans, not to a script. And the deliberations should not be in a public 
forum, like a GitHub issue.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

And we already see the budding sentiments to that exact tune:

(quote from Edward Welbourne)
>That sometimes folk have felt so intimidated that they give up on trying
>  to make a contribution; and that, were potential worse conduct to cause
>  distress to a contributor, we have no process in place that could give
>  them confidence that their distress will be respected and honest efforts
vwill be made to relieve it.  Various variations and permutations on
>  these themes may also be relevant; see Simon's mail.

Note: I understand that he means well, but Within the context of
Contributor Covenant the punishability of the potential harm of people not
contributing can escalate to stupid proportions.
I have nothing against KDE's code. It strives to add positivity.
I am very much against Qt's CoC being drafted from Covenant. Covenant is
focused on oppression and excluding ppl.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:06 PM Jason H  wrote:

> I don't really care that their role, though that move takes gravitas.
>
> I will never endorse a measure that encourages (and the CC does
> encourage) a witchhunt on the members of the community. It encourages by
> creating a metric of "maximum comfort" (or "least harmful") and that
> anything else is somehow a violation. She did it herself with these
> words[2]: "Is this what the other maintainers want to be reflected in the
> project? Will any transgender developers feel comfortable contributing?"
> With those words she created a metric of "maximum comfort". So now the
> question moves from not just having not offended someone, but to be
> maximally comforting to every possible person. Not that there's anything
> wrong with *wanting* to be maximally comfortable for everyone. It's a great
> goal. But now every interaction is to be judged by this metric, and
> anything less than the maximal comfort is somehow potentially alienating to
> a population and can be construed to be a cause for removal.
>
> In the CC itself it encourages a witchhunt with these words:
> "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."
>
> That last word, "harmful" significantly alters the statement. Don't let
> your eyes glaze over. Now anything that happens is potentially harmful.
> (Ironically C++, or its constructs is even "considered harmful". Just
> google "C++ considered harmful", lol). I probably would have let this whole
> issue slide but that last word _really_ changes the character of the
> covenant. I beleive that is *the* word that allows the witchhunting. It's
> not just direct harm but potential harm. From [2]: "As a queer person
> this sort of argument from a maintainer makes me feel unwelcome. The
> ignorance which @elia <https://github.com/elia> shows by claiming that
> transfolk are "not accepting reality" is actively harmful. I will not
> contribute to this project or any other project which @elia
> <https://github.com/elia> maintains." - strand
>
> Not that strand was participating, but states that there will be no future
> contribution by strand.  This is an appeal to percieved harm - that now
> strand will not ever contribute, the project is potentially harmed by
> missing out on a contributor. So now this issue can fall under the
> Covenant.
>
>
> How can we avoid witchhunts?
>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 26, 2018 at 1:24 PM
> *From:* "NIkolai Marchenko" 
> *To:* jh...@gmx.com
> *Cc:* "Christian Kandeler" , "Qt development
> mailing list" 
> *Subject:* Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
> Just to clarify: she sought to remove _maintainer_ of the project :) At
> that point the guy was doing most of the work.
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:48 PM Jason H  wrote:
>
>> My fundamental problem about the Contributor Covenant[1] was initially
>> and solely the fallout from the Linux Kernel fiasco. But then I learned
>> that it was drafted by Coraline Ada Ehmke, who sought to have a contributor
>> removed [2] from a project preemptively. The contributor did nothing wrong
>> with respect to the project or the project's community.  She constructed a
>> claim of "transphobia" based on a tweet the contributor wrote in no way
>> relating to the project at hand, and slandered the project for not
>> expunging them. My mind is made up: the Contributor Covenant is a tool of
>> oppression.
>>
>> The specific s

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

I don't really care that their role, though that move takes gravitas.

I will never endorse a measure that encourages (and the CC does encourage) a witchhunt on the members of the community. It encourages by creating a metric of "maximum comfort" (or "least harmful") and that anything else is somehow a violation. She did it herself with these words[2]: "Is this what the other maintainers want to be reflected in the project? Will any transgender developers feel comfortable contributing?" With those words she created a metric of "maximum comfort". So now the question moves from not just having not offended someone, but to be maximally comforting to every possible person. Not that there's anything wrong with *wanting* to be maximally comfortable for everyone. It's a great goal. But now every interaction is to be judged by this metric, and anything less than the maximal comfort is somehow potentially alienating to a population and can be construed to be a cause for removal. 

In the CC itself it encourages a witchhunt with these words:

"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."

That last word, "harmful" significantly alters the statement. Don't let your eyes glaze over. Now anything that happens is potentially harmful. (Ironically C++, or its constructs is even "considered harmful". Just google "C++ considered harmful", lol). I probably would have let this whole issue slide but that last word _really_ changes the character of the covenant. I beleive that is *the* word that allows the witchhunting. It's not just direct harm but potential harm. From [2]: "As a queer person this sort of argument from a maintainer makes me feel unwelcome. The ignorance which @elia shows by claiming that transfolk are "not accepting reality" is actively harmful. I will not contribute to this project or any other project which @elia maintains." - strand

Not that strand was participating, but states that there will be no future contribution by strand.  This is an appeal to percieved harm - that now strand will not ever contribute, the project is potentially harmed by missing out on a contributor. So now this issue can fall under the Covenant. 

How can we avoid witchhunts?

Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 at 1:24 PM
From: "NIkolai Marchenko" 
To: jh...@gmx.com
Cc: "Christian Kandeler" , "Qt development mailing list" 
Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

Just to clarify: she sought to remove _maintainer_ of the project :) At that point the guy was doing most of the work.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:48 PM Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote:

My fundamental problem about the Contributor Covenant[1] was initially and solely the fallout from the Linux Kernel fiasco. But then I learned that it was drafted by Coraline Ada Ehmke, who sought to have a contributor removed [2] from a project preemptively. The contributor did nothing wrong with respect to the project or the project's community.  She constructed a claim of "transphobia" based on a tweet the contributor wrote in no way relating to the project at hand, and slandered the project for not expunging them. My mind is made up: the Contributor Covenant is a tool of oppression.

The specific sentence in the Covenant is:
"This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community."

However, despite being the author of the Covenant (2014), she found it appropriate to attack someone who was clearly not operating in a project space or representing the project community (2015). We now have two examples - the linux Kernel and Opal project, that after CC was enacted that calls for removal of members based on past unrelated tweets went out. One of the problems its politics and political climates change over time. Expressing what is not political at one point in time may become political in subsequent years. People's minds also change over time.

I urge you to read link[3] below and see if we want that kind of attention. It summarizes what happens when the CC has been adopted by other projects.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_Covenant
[2] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
[3] https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/974038-why-the-linux-coc-is-bad/

> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 at 3:50 AM
> From: "Christian Kandeler" <christian.kande...@qt.io>
> To: "development@qt-project.org" <development@qt-project.org>
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
>

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

2018-10-26 Thread Bernhard Lindner

I wish any one discussion about Qt software quality would have attracted so much
attention, passion and effort as this CoC topic.

-- 
Best Regards,
Bernhard Lindner

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

Just to clarify: she sought to remove _maintainer_ of the project :) At
that point the guy was doing most of the work.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:48 PM Jason H  wrote:

> My fundamental problem about the Contributor Covenant[1] was initially and
> solely the fallout from the Linux Kernel fiasco. But then I learned that it
> was drafted by Coraline Ada Ehmke, who sought to have a contributor removed
> [2] from a project preemptively. The contributor did nothing wrong with
> respect to the project or the project's community.  She constructed a claim
> of "transphobia" based on a tweet the contributor wrote in no way relating
> to the project at hand, and slandered the project for not expunging them.
> My mind is made up: the Contributor Covenant is a tool of oppression.
>
> The specific sentence in the Covenant is:
> "This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public
> spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community."
>
> However, despite being the author of the Covenant (2014), she found it
> appropriate to attack someone who was clearly not operating in a project
> space or representing the project community (2015). We now have two
> examples - the linux Kernel and Opal project, that after CC was enacted
> that calls for removal of members based on past unrelated tweets went out.
> One of the problems its politics and political climates change over time.
> Expressing what is not political at one point in time may become political
> in subsequent years. People's minds also change over time.
>
> I urge you to read link[3] below and see if we want that kind of
> attention. It summarizes what happens when the CC has been adopted by other
> projects.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_Covenant
> [2] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
> [3] https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/974038-why-the-linux-coc-is-bad/
>
> > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 at 3:50 AM
> > From: "Christian Kandeler" 
> > To: "development@qt-project.org" 
> > Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
> >
> > On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 19:39:45 +0200
> > André Pönitz  wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 09:51:00AM +0200, Volker Krause via
> Development wrote:
> > > > We do have a Code of Conduct at KDE for about 10 years now, and this
> hasn't
> > > > led to abuse of power, suppression of free speech, racism against
> white people
> > > > or whatever other nonsense people seem to attribute to CoCs
> nowadays.
> > >
> > > The KDE CoC is *friendly*. It contains words like "considerate",
> "pragmatic",
> > > "support". It doesn't push someone's personal political agenda.
> >
> > I agree. It reads as if it was written with the intention of creating a
> constructive environment, lacks the inquisition-y vibe and is free of
> jargon and weirdly over-specific lists.
> >
> >
> > Christian
> > ___
> > Development mailing list
> > Development@qt-project.org
> > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
> >
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

My fundamental problem about the Contributor Covenant[1] was initially and 
solely the fallout from the Linux Kernel fiasco. But then I learned that it was 
drafted by Coraline Ada Ehmke, who sought to have a contributor removed [2] 
from a project preemptively. The contributor did nothing wrong with respect to 
the project or the project's community.  She constructed a claim of 
"transphobia" based on a tweet the contributor wrote in no way relating to the 
project at hand, and slandered the project for not expunging them. My mind is 
made up: the Contributor Covenant is a tool of oppression.

The specific sentence in the Covenant is:
"This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces 
when an individual is representing the project or its community." 

However, despite being the author of the Covenant (2014), she found it 
appropriate to attack someone who was clearly not operating in a project space 
or representing the project community (2015). We now have two examples - the 
linux Kernel and Opal project, that after CC was enacted that calls for removal 
of members based on past unrelated tweets went out. One of the problems its 
politics and political climates change over time. Expressing what is not 
political at one point in time may become political in subsequent years. 
People's minds also change over time.

I urge you to read link[3] below and see if we want that kind of attention. It 
summarizes what happens when the CC has been adopted by other projects.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_Covenant
[2] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
[3] https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/974038-why-the-linux-coc-is-bad/

> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 at 3:50 AM
> From: "Christian Kandeler" 
> To: "development@qt-project.org" 
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 19:39:45 +0200
> André Pönitz  wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 09:51:00AM +0200, Volker Krause via Development 
> > wrote:
> > > We do have a Code of Conduct at KDE for about 10 years now, and this 
> > > hasn't 
> > > led to abuse of power, suppression of free speech, racism against white 
> > > people 
> > > or whatever other nonsense people seem to attribute to CoCs nowadays.  
> > 
> > The KDE CoC is *friendly*. It contains words like "considerate", 
> > "pragmatic",
> > "support". It doesn't push someone's personal political agenda.  
> 
> I agree. It reads as if it was written with the intention of creating a 
> constructive environment, lacks the inquisition-y vibe and is free of jargon 
> and weirdly over-specific lists.
> 
> 
> Christian
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Friday, 26 October 2018 01:12:35 PDT Andy Nichols wrote:
> The way trust works in the Qt project so far is through the meritocracy so
> maybe a solution to any trust issues with enforcement can be solved in a
> similar way?

And on this point: yes, but not the code decision-making structure. I agree 
that we can meritocratically select the CoC Board/Panel/Committee, but the 
merit qualifications necessarily imply it's a separate structure.

Lars is our Chief Maintainer, which means he's good at coding and knows Qt 
inside and out. That does not follow he's good at resolving CoC violations or 
that he has the time for it. (He probably is good, since he's also been a 
perople manager for 15+ years [was my manager even!], but that's not a logical 
conclusion from the original statements)

A better example is me: I am maintainer for QtCore, but I am not qualified to 
judge and address CoC violations.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Friday, 26 October 2018 01:12:35 PDT Andy Nichols wrote:
> The details of this are tricky though because it depends a lot on trust
> (similarly the security list).  Much of the concern with this proposal has
> to do with the potential for abuse, and rightly so.  I'm not super happy
> with the idea of a Conduct Cabal who has to the power to banish people from
> the community either.

One idea I've seen recently is to populate the panel members at random, on a 
need basis, much like jury duty. I don't know of project adopting this 
solution and whether they've been successful at it. Would be nice to research.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

On Friday, 26 October 2018 00:44:57 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote:
> I want to contribute: to accept that, we have to define "private time"
> meaning in a such public place as the web. Is personal blog page posting a
> private time?

The Mozilla text explains what it considers to be "Mozilla spaces", which 
defines by exclusion everything that is not.

Blogs are a good example: your blog is your own private time. You can write 
whatever you want, even in your own native language which most others can't 
read. But if you choose to aggregate it into Planet Qt, then all the content 
that gets shown there is now contribution to the Qt Community and under the 
CoC, just like the requirement to write in English.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct