Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Elena Williams]

Additional points:

Firstly #86 is probably *already happening informally*.

It is fair to be "explicit" (as Barbara suggested), for the people who this
may effect.

For example, I have been quietly told to steer clear of certain individuals
with known poor behavior and in turn passed such information on to others
(this may be prejudicial, but sorry, there's no way I wouldn't do
everything I can to protect younger females in the community).

Secondly, most harassment *does not get reported* -- *if you think
otherwise please ask around*. Personally I'm so jaded, I'd probably never
report anything that didn't require being reported to the cops (despite
there having been colourful incidences, even in this community). When I was
in my early 20s I had the scarring experience of having been forced to
report workplace harassment (someone else observed) and it driving *me* out
of the job. And the rest. Besides even if I wanted to report something I
wouldn't really know how to and I'd be embarrassed, shy and undoubtedly
play it down.

Finally in my extremely personal opinion I'm .. skeptical about how
effective CoCs are at handing individual incidents *BUT* strong evidence
suggests a *correlation between CoC use and female attendance* -- *better
than anything else that's ever been attempted* and that's good enough for
me (to fight for).

---
Elena :)
@elequ

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Russell Keith-Magee <
russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Andrew Pinkham 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I am not qualified enough to express an opinion on the matter of the
>> DCoC. However, I have a few questions:
>>
>> - Have we consulted a psychologist or a specialist on the topics of
>> community inclusion and protection? Their knowledge/research could be
>> instrumental in determining the best way to write and implement a code of
>> conduct.
>>
>
> Yes. The original draft text came from the "Speak Up" project; the Ada
> Initiative - a specialist group dealing with inclusivity and engagement of
> women in technical spaces - was consulted during the drafting process, and
> their suggestions (such as specifically enumerating infringing behaviours)
> were incorporated into the text.
>
> - Am I correct in assuming that the sole aforementioned invocation of the
>> DCoC was the following?
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/Y_Tq7w4PAeI/WurT7J3Rcd0J
>
>
>
>> - Would it be correct to state that, with or without this wording, the
>> results of breaking the DCoC would be identical? Is it correct to say that
>> the new wording is for the benefit of being clear and open, such that new
>> members better understand the rules?
>>
>
> I believe so. One of the issues that has been referred to the Code of
> Conduct committee was specifically about activities outside "official"
> Django spaces. These changes serve to clarify the fact that we don't turn a
> blind eye to infringing activities just because they weren't conducted "on
> our turf".
>
> - These rules have been referred to several times as guidelines to adhere
>> to. Would it be in the interest of the community to say as much on the DCoC
>> webpage (rather than or alongside "rules")?
>>
>
> The current text (https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/) does say
> something to this effect; specifically, Paragraph 3: "This isn’t an
> exhaustive list of things that you can’t do. Rather, take it in the spirit
> in which it’s intended - a guide to make it easier to enrich all of us and
> the technical communities in which we participate."
>
> Of course, P2 also refers to the document as being a set of "rules".
> Altering P2 (or the updated location as a result of PR#84) to say "This
> code" rather than "these rules" makes sense to me.
>
> Yours,
> Russ Magee %-)
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAJxq849RRirywtER1kvb8twstTif%2BQ59oWELgSBSnL7%3DuARDxA%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Russell Keith-Magee]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Andrew Pinkham  wrote:

> Hi,
> I am not qualified enough to express an opinion on the matter of the DCoC.
> However, I have a few questions:
>
> - Have we consulted a psychologist or a specialist on the topics of
> community inclusion and protection? Their knowledge/research could be
> instrumental in determining the best way to write and implement a code of
> conduct.
>

Yes. The original draft text came from the "Speak Up" project; the Ada
Initiative - a specialist group dealing with inclusivity and engagement of
women in technical spaces - was consulted during the drafting process, and
their suggestions (such as specifically enumerating infringing behaviours)
were incorporated into the text.

- Am I correct in assuming that the sole aforementioned invocation of the
> DCoC was the following?
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/Y_Tq7w4PAeI/WurT7J3Rcd0J



> - Would it be correct to state that, with or without this wording, the
> results of breaking the DCoC would be identical? Is it correct to say that
> the new wording is for the benefit of being clear and open, such that new
> members better understand the rules?
>

I believe so. One of the issues that has been referred to the Code of
Conduct committee was specifically about activities outside "official"
Django spaces. These changes serve to clarify the fact that we don't turn a
blind eye to infringing activities just because they weren't conducted "on
our turf".

- These rules have been referred to several times as guidelines to adhere
> to. Would it be in the interest of the community to say as much on the DCoC
> webpage (rather than or alongside "rules")?
>

The current text (https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/) does say
something to this effect; specifically, Paragraph 3: "This isn’t an
exhaustive list of things that you can’t do. Rather, take it in the spirit
in which it’s intended - a guide to make it easier to enrich all of us and
the technical communities in which we participate."

Of course, P2 also refers to the document as being a set of "rules".
Altering P2 (or the updated location as a result of PR#84) to say "This
code" rather than "these rules" makes sense to me.

Yours,
Russ Magee %-)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAJxq849RRirywtER1kvb8twstTif%2BQ59oWELgSBSnL7%3DuARDxA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Andrew Pinkham]

Hi,
I am not qualified enough to express an opinion on the matter of the DCoC. 
However, I have a few questions:

- Have we consulted a psychologist or a specialist on the topics of community 
inclusion and protection? Their knowledge/research could be instrumental in 
determining the best way to write and implement a code of conduct.

- Am I correct in assuming that the sole aforementioned invocation of the DCoC 
was the following?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/Y_Tq7w4PAeI/WurT7J3Rcd0J

- Would it be correct to state that, with or without this wording, the results 
of breaking the DCoC would be identical? Is it correct to say that the new 
wording is for the benefit of being clear and open, such that new members 
better understand the rules?

- These rules have been referred to several times as guidelines to adhere to. 
Would it be in the interest of the community to say as much on the DCoC webpage 
(rather than or alongside "rules")?

- The issue of Free Speech (I'm assuming the American definition), has been 
invoked a few times. In what way would this new clause inhibit Free Speech?

Thanks you,
Andrew

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/A00F1B78-3CCF-4079-8EAA-D52B18B9869D%40andrewsforge.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Kevin Daum]

On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:39:51 AM UTC-4, Josh Smeaton wrote:
>
> Kevin,
>
> > It simply says, in deliberately vague language, that if a member of the 
> Django community is treated abusively by another member of the Django 
> community _outside_ a Django forum and that abuse is reported to the 
> conduct committee, the committee will not reject the report outright simply 
> on the basis of where the alleged abuse occurred
>
> Perhaps the wording could then be closer to the intent. Something like "if 
> a member of the Django community is treated abusively by another member of 
> the Django community outside of a Django forum, and is reported, it will 
> warrant investigation and may result in action". I think that language is 
> more precise, and gets around the problems stated by Ben. If there is 
> agreement, I'll be happy to open a PR against #86.
>

I probably made that example too specific. I had Reinout's bar in mind when 
writing it. However, I agree with Daniele that the statement should allow 
the conduct committee to be responsive to a variety of abusive situations 
as those actors come into contact with the django community. 
 

>
> >  I expect you to quickly find problems with everything I've said.
>
> I don't think this is particularly fair. Ben has been very vocal (and 
> mostly solo), but he has been quite respectful to the people he is 
> discussing the topic with.
>

It *was* my expectation but was coming from frustration and I probably 
shouldn't have written it down. Benjamin, I apologize for making this 
public negative assumption about your approach. Thank you for surprising me 
on this one. 

>
>>>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/478bd30c-6c49-4409-8539-f8ede7538057%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Benjamin Scherrey]

Hi Josh,

I agree with and understand your sentiments. However, you are basically
arguing that since we cannot count on the common sense of the user
community to behave professionally in professional environments, we must
therefore count on the commonsense of TPTB who will enforce a speech and
behavior code. This, in real life, never works out that way in my
experience however well intended and the risks from consequences of a
mistake of enforcement are far greater than a mistake of violation. I
believe strongly that an affirmative policy is more than enough to inject a
good bit of common sense and to provide a referral point to remind someone
who seems to be crossing the line on how to better cooperate with the
community. The potential for abuse is too high for a speech and behavior
code as I believe I have already demonstrated in the one real life example
of its invocation. Not sure what your justification for forgetting this
instance is but I think it's critical evidence against a speech/behavior
code - especially then opening its scope to non-Django related contexts.

Whenever there is any doubt, always side with freedom. If, as you
suggest, these are intended to be guidelines then people who make a simple
mistake can be reminded and act accordingly which benefits everyone with a
simple affirmative policy. If, instead, these are intended as zero
tolerance principles then a small mistake gets overblown into something way
more than it is and the entire community is damaged by it. This is exactly
what a speech and behavior code ends up producing. We have one in place
now. It's been abused once already. I'm not yet arguing for its elimination
but let's certainly not expand it. Finally, I would also point out that the
language of the existing code does not fit my understanding of your
interpretation so am I correct in assuming you would want it clarified and
perhaps softened?

thanx,

  -- Ben

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Josh Smeaton 
wrote:

> Ben,
>
> I know you haven't advocated the removal of the CoC (or #84 for that
> matter), but you've questioned speech and behaviour limitations upthread,
> so I thought I would include my thougths of a CoC in general.
>
> Just because the code of conduct hasn't been used for intervention
> (forgetting the one instance you've mentioned for now), it doesn't mean
> that it's not a useful tool to have. I would like to think that common
> sense would prevail, but we've seen instances in similar communities where
> it has not. You should not (IMO) need a CoC to tell you not to tell sexual
> jokes at a conference. The organisers should not need (IMO) a CoC to
> justify intervention.
>
> But certain groups of people feel safer or more included attending events
> where they feel like professional behaviour is encouraged and enforced
> where necessary. Some attendees that may not have a complete idea of what
> constitutes professional behaviour can learn from the CoC. And organisers
> have clear direction (authority) of what constitutes desirable behaviour.
> I, personally, feel that calling out specific negative behaviour is useful
> for the educational aspect. It is clear that some people have, at other
> conferences, not been aware that their behaviour was inappropriate.
> Codifying certain examples of undesirable behaviour seems like a good thing
> to me.
>
> The language of #86 does not introduce new "examples" of positive or
> negative behaviour though. It specifically tries to apply the existing code
> to non-django spaces, so I think that debating the merits of inclusive or
> exclusive behaviour should probably belong to a separate discussion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Josh
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/25aa3758-b4ba-4570-8498-a9bb8e333f33%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Chief Systems Architect Proteus Technologies 
Chief Fan Biggest Fan Productions 
Personal blog where I am not your demographic
.

This email intended solely for those who have received it. If you have
received this email by accident - well lucky you!!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Daniele Procida]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014, Josh Smeaton  wrote:

>Perhaps the wording could then be closer to the intent. Something like "if 
>a member of the Django community is treated abusively by another member of 
>the Django community outside of a Django forum, and is reported, it will 
>warrant investigation and may result in action".

The problematic behaviour doesn't need to be reported, and it doesn't need to 
be either by a member of the community or towards a member of the community.

I know at least a couple of individuals whose behaviour in other spaces means 
that they would be watched very closely if they turned up at one of our events, 
even if they haven't yet caused any Django-related problems.

Of course it's true that reported problems will be investigated, but that 
process is described in some detail already elsewhere.

Daniele

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20140910145957.1841665562%40mail.wservices.ch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Josh Smeaton]

Kevin,

> It simply says, in deliberately vague language, that if a member of the 
Django community is treated abusively by another member of the Django 
community _outside_ a Django forum and that abuse is reported to the 
conduct committee, the committee will not reject the report outright simply 
on the basis of where the alleged abuse occurred

Perhaps the wording could then be closer to the intent. Something like "if 
a member of the Django community is treated abusively by another member of 
the Django community outside of a Django forum, and is reported, it will 
warrant investigation and may result in action". I think that language is 
more precise, and gets around the problems stated by Ben. If there is 
agreement, I'll be happy to open a PR against #86.

>  I expect you to quickly find problems with everything I've said.

I don't think this is particularly fair. Ben has been very vocal (and 
mostly solo), but he has been quite respectful to the people he is 
discussing the topic with.

Regards,

Josh

On Thursday, 11 September 2014 00:11:54 UTC+10, Kevin Daum wrote:
>
> Benjamin (and all others still paying attention),
>
> I love the Django code of conduct. It's not perfect but it's quite good. 
> How does a person who claims one or even many historically marginalized 
> identities know that the Django community is a safe place for them without 
> a published and enforced code of conduct? It can be scary enough to enter 
> into a field as white- (at least here in the U.S.) and male-dominated as 
> software development even with a code. Without one, you have no guarantee 
> that _safety_ is going to be given a higher priority than making sure those 
> with power and privilege have the freedom to say whatever they want, 
> whenever they want. 
>
> I'm glad that you're staff is comprised of 40% women. That is truly 
> something to be applauded. It's something I have never been able to achieve 
> myself and I'd be interested in hearing (elsewhere, not in this thread) how 
> you were able to do that. I hope that those women feel safe in their 
> working environment. I hope that when harassment does occur (let's be 
> honest, it's a matter of when, not if), they are not burdened with both the 
> pain of what they've experienced _and_ the difficulty of having to figure 
> out to whom to report it and how. I hope their complaints will be taken 
> seriously. 
>
> You want people to address your warning against unintended consequences. 
> Here goes. I think you're exaggerating this risk. We are not trying to 
> enforce an anti-social behavior code on the entire universe for all time. 
> What #86 does, as I noted in the commit message, is make an already 
> implicit policy explicit. It simply says, in deliberately vague language, 
> that if a member of the Django community is treated abusively by another 
> member of the Django community _outside_ a Django forum and that abuse is 
> reported to the conduct committee, the committee will not reject the report 
> outright simply on the basis of where the alleged abuse occurred. The 
> committee will take the report seriously and _may_ choose to act upon it. 
> As Daniele said early in this discussion, the language and the intent 
> provide plenty of room for a measured and proportionate response, which 
> may, as has been said, be no response. 
>
> You want people to address your conviction that affirmative language is 
> better. Here goes. I agree with you that affirmative language is most 
> helpful. It's certainly much more enjoyable to read and discuss since it 
> reflects the positive vision of where we _want_ to be. On the other hand I 
> also agree with the Ada initiative and others in this thread that the list 
> of don'ts is also necessary, for the reasons that have already been stated 
> ("I'm not touching you," rule lawyering, etc.). As wonderful and socially 
> advanced as you think the Django community is, surely even you can agree 
> that we cannot control who will be entering the community in the future. In 
> fact, that's what we all want, right? We want a community open to all. Some 
> of those people entering the community in the future _may_ need the don'ts 
> spelled out for them. It may not be their fault, either. They may simply 
> have never had helpful and constructive relationships with people very 
> different from themselves modeled for them. 
>
> Or consider presenters. Humor is an excellent method of holding an 
> audience's attention. It's handy for a presenter to have a published CoC so 
> they know which jokes are appropriate in this community and which to avoid. 
> Heck, _I_ need the CoC for that. 
>
> Ultimately what this comes down to is that those of use with power and 
> privilege are going to have to give some of that up in order to share it 
> with those who haven't historically had it. Just one example of this 
> playing out in practice is giving up some of my right to free speech in 
> order to ensure that others feel 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Kevin Daum]

Benjamin (and all others still paying attention),

I love the Django code of conduct. It's not perfect but it's quite good. 
How does a person who claims one or even many historically marginalized 
identities know that the Django community is a safe place for them without 
a published and enforced code of conduct? It can be scary enough to enter 
into a field as white- (at least here in the U.S.) and male-dominated as 
software development even with a code. Without one, you have no guarantee 
that _safety_ is going to be given a higher priority than making sure those 
with power and privilege have the freedom to say whatever they want, 
whenever they want. 

I'm glad that you're staff is comprised of 40% women. That is truly 
something to be applauded. It's something I have never been able to achieve 
myself and I'd be interested in hearing (elsewhere, not in this thread) how 
you were able to do that. I hope that those women feel safe in their 
working environment. I hope that when harassment does occur (let's be 
honest, it's a matter of when, not if), they are not burdened with both the 
pain of what they've experienced _and_ the difficulty of having to figure 
out to whom to report it and how. I hope their complaints will be taken 
seriously. 

You want people to address your warning against unintended consequences. 
Here goes. I think you're exaggerating this risk. We are not trying to 
enforce an anti-social behavior code on the entire universe for all time. 
What #86 does, as I noted in the commit message, is make an already 
implicit policy explicit. It simply says, in deliberately vague language, 
that if a member of the Django community is treated abusively by another 
member of the Django community _outside_ a Django forum and that abuse is 
reported to the conduct committee, the committee will not reject the report 
outright simply on the basis of where the alleged abuse occurred. The 
committee will take the report seriously and _may_ choose to act upon it. 
As Daniele said early in this discussion, the language and the intent 
provide plenty of room for a measured and proportionate response, which 
may, as has been said, be no response. 

You want people to address your conviction that affirmative language is 
better. Here goes. I agree with you that affirmative language is most 
helpful. It's certainly much more enjoyable to read and discuss since it 
reflects the positive vision of where we _want_ to be. On the other hand I 
also agree with the Ada initiative and others in this thread that the list 
of don'ts is also necessary, for the reasons that have already been stated 
("I'm not touching you," rule lawyering, etc.). As wonderful and socially 
advanced as you think the Django community is, surely even you can agree 
that we cannot control who will be entering the community in the future. In 
fact, that's what we all want, right? We want a community open to all. Some 
of those people entering the community in the future _may_ need the don'ts 
spelled out for them. It may not be their fault, either. They may simply 
have never had helpful and constructive relationships with people very 
different from themselves modeled for them. 

Or consider presenters. Humor is an excellent method of holding an 
audience's attention. It's handy for a presenter to have a published CoC so 
they know which jokes are appropriate in this community and which to avoid. 
Heck, _I_ need the CoC for that. 

Ultimately what this comes down to is that those of use with power and 
privilege are going to have to give some of that up in order to share it 
with those who haven't historically had it. Just one example of this 
playing out in practice is giving up some of my right to free speech in 
order to ensure that others feel welcome. For me, this looks like spending 
time  reflecting on the words I use and how they affect people very 
different than myself _and then changing my words_. Since that takes a lot 
of effort, I won't always be doing it; therefore I expect to be called out 
on using oppressive language, knowing I will be unlearning my conscious and 
unconscious prejudices all my life. I hope to respond to such corrections 
in a way that encourages folks to keep being honest about how they 
experience the community. This is the cost of creating and maintaining an 
inclusive community. 

I do not think need we need detailed records of reported abuse in order to 
justify this change. Even if zero abuse has ever happened in the Django 
community (which we all know not to be true, since we are humans and we're 
_all_ jerks sometimes), it's my position that this change is still valid 
and important. Why should we wait for something horrible to happen in order 
to put _the ability_ to offer protections in place? And, let's remember, 
the change is simply making explicit what is already policy. It's important 
to make it explicit because someone may not have known that they could 
report abuse that occurred 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Josh Smeaton]

Ben,

I know you haven't advocated the removal of the CoC (or #84 for that 
matter), but you've questioned speech and behaviour limitations upthread, 
so I thought I would include my thougths of a CoC in general.

Just because the code of conduct hasn't been used for intervention 
(forgetting the one instance you've mentioned for now), it doesn't mean 
that it's not a useful tool to have. I would like to think that common 
sense would prevail, but we've seen instances in similar communities where 
it has not. You should not (IMO) need a CoC to tell you not to tell sexual 
jokes at a conference. The organisers should not need (IMO) a CoC to 
justify intervention. 

But certain groups of people feel safer or more included attending events 
where they feel like professional behaviour is encouraged and enforced 
where necessary. Some attendees that may not have a complete idea of what 
constitutes professional behaviour can learn from the CoC. And organisers 
have clear direction (authority) of what constitutes desirable behaviour. 
I, personally, feel that calling out specific negative behaviour is useful 
for the educational aspect. It is clear that some people have, at other 
conferences, not been aware that their behaviour was inappropriate. 
Codifying certain examples of undesirable behaviour seems like a good thing 
to me.

The language of #86 does not introduce new "examples" of positive or 
negative behaviour though. It specifically tries to apply the existing code 
to non-django spaces, so I think that debating the merits of inclusive or 
exclusive behaviour should probably belong to a separate discussion.

Regards,

Josh

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/25aa3758-b4ba-4570-8498-a9bb8e333f33%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Josh Smeaton]

(I found I've said "correct me if I'm wrong" in nearly every paragraph I've 
written - so please, correct anything below that you don't agree with)

I've been wanting to stay out of this conversation because, as Aymeric put 
it, it is a very sensitive topic. But I've got a few things to say.

It seems like the main issue is that:

1) Portions of the django community would like the code of conduct to guide 
decision makers when particularly egregious actors outside of django spaces 
wish to participate within django spaces.

2) Different portions of the django community are worried that (some of) 
the code of conduct rules attempt to enforce professional behaviour in 
non-professional environments. (As an aside, I think some people are 
unaware that certain settings *are* professional environments, like 
after-work drinks with colleagues).

An example brought up previously showed a twitter feed with outright 
threats and abuse. I think that we can all agree that that particular 
person would not be welcome at a django event.

However, I don't think repeating a joke to a friend at lunch on a weekend, 
that is overheard, should preclude someone from participating at an event. 
I would hope that we'd all agree to this too.

I act in a professional manner when I'm at work, a workplace function, or 
any kind of industry event. I act in a respectful manner when I'm around 
family. I do not hold myself to those standards when I'm with friends in 
private or semi-private environments - and I would hope that the django 
community wouldn't either.

It's ok to say that "discretion" can be applied by the relevant organiser - 
but as others feel that a list of exclusions should apply to behaviour, I 
feel that a list of exclusions could be applied to "outside these spaces" 
if the rest of #86 was merged.

Is there language we could use that would allow organisers at a conference 
to effectively deny entry to someone that threatens and abuses via twitter, 
yet doesn't exclude someone that isn't behaving professionally outside of a 
professional environment? Would that even solve the problem being discussed?

Regards,

Josh

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/1e7655e6-34bf-4228-b3e5-ac99ab77e75a%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[holdenweb]

Just for the record, I've been running DjangoCon for five years now and 
we've had anti-harassment policies 
 in place for four of them in the 
shape of a publicized code of conduct.

I have no information to confirm your belief, but I can say with absolute 
truth that nobody has ever, despite the policy's including the telephone 
numbers of both a male and a female organizer, reported any issue of 
harassment at DjangoCon while I've been running it. Had such incidents been 
reported they would most certainly have ben actioned, though there is no 
"penal code" detailing specific punishments for specific offenses - each 
case must be treated on its circumstances.

regards
 Steve

On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 10:27:31 AM UTC-7, Stephen Burrows wrote:
>
> Benjamin,
>
> I believe there have been serious issues with harassment of women 
> specifically at previous DjangoCons (though there may not be mention of it 
> on the mailing lists.) It has definitely been a major issue at other tech 
> conferences and tech meetups. That was a major factor in the recent push in 
> the tech world to have better anti-harassment / code of conduct policies. 
> See also: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents (and 
> the rest of the wiki, really).
>
> Here is a short selection of other links that talk about this issue, with 
> various relations to Django / DjangoCon specifically.
>
>
> http://geekfeminism.org/2013/08/15/that-time-i-wasnt-harassed-at-a-conference/
>
> http://www.caktusgroup.com/blog/2012/05/24/narrowing-gender-gap-open-source-community/
> http://juliaelman.com/blog/2012/jun/3/lets-get-little-louder/
>
> I could just keep going, but I don't want to overwhelm people (slash you) 
> with too many links. If you want more, you can use google.
>
> If you think a policy like this doesn't need to exist, you are IMO, 
> frankly, very wrong. But if you think it just needs to be written 
> differently, stop talking about it and show us what that would look like!
>
> --Stephen
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Kevin Daum  > wrote:
>
>> I'm going to attempt to reach out to some folks who I think might be more 
>> likely than us to benefit from a code of conduct and ask if they have 
>> anything to add. I'm not mounting a public campaign, I just think we're 
>> missing some important perspectives. 
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 3:15:10 AM UTC-4, Robert Grant wrote:
>>>
>>> Good email. This one won't be that good.
>>>
>>> Boiling my verbose email down to two sentences: 
>>>
>>> We seem to already have a private group of people who make decisions in 
>>> secret and pronounce a verdict on issues, and who can to a large extent 
>>> control the community. If this is the case, and they already have total 
>>> control should they choose to exercise it, a Django ASBO won't give any 
>>> extra power over - and thus protection against - griefers/bullies/whatever.
>>>
>>> Just to hedge my bets, if the group does decide to create the ASBO, 
>>> could it be called the Anti-Social Django Act?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Benjamin Scherrey  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Kevin,

And thanx for responding to my question about the need for such a 
 policy with Django. Last night, as I had not yet had a response from 
 anyone 
 about this question I searched the archives of both django groups looking 
 for any events or circumstances in which the code of conduct was invoked 
 as 
 I had no personal recollection of any such thing. I found some innocuous 
 reference in the django-users group (wrongly suggesting that this coming 
 policy was going to increase female participation) and in 
 django-developers, one actual circumstance where its use was threatened - 
 not surprisingly as part of the one example you provided that actually has 
 anything to do at all with the Django community. Sadly, it's invocation 
 was 
 precisely used in the manner that I had feared - to stifle debate and 
 threaten a person who was making valid and reasonable arguments (no doubt 
 in the middle of a flame war but he/she wasn't the flamer). When I saw the 
 name of the person who invoked the code of conduct I was even more 
 disappointed as it was someone that I otherwise have a profound respect 
 for.

 Other than this I was not surprised to see zero evidence for the 
 need for such a policy as there don't seem to be any threatening events of 
 the like that your email raises. These problems may exist elsewhere but 
 not 
 amongst the general django community that I've ever seen. 

 Understand my background. I own a software development company that 
 was a VERY early adopter of Django way before the 1.0 days. I expect I was 
 certainly one of the first thousand developers to use Django in a 
 real-life 
 situation 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Benjamin Scherrey]

The lead in to that post was "I think a lot of recent changes in the
language are harmful. Many common, short, clear, and concise words and
phrases are being replaces with long, vague, sterile versions. Not only in
the IT field, but everywhere." and then the poster went on to demonstrate
her case with the example of the logically misapplied term "person of
color" that is now popular amongst some minorities in the USA and probably
other western countries. In the context of the debate and in truthful fact
the person was being empathetic and not biased in any way. In fact she was
pointing out how the term itself is biased and making a very good point as
well. It was entirely germane to the speech concerns she raised and did not
attack any race or person at all. Unfortunately she hit one of the
politically correct landmines and those with an American-bias immediately
jumped on her for it quite inappropriately. The person who called out the
attempt to misapply the CoC on her also made this point.

I'm American but have lived around the world and currently reside in
Thailand. I have had many (actually almost every once they learn I'm
American) mixed and white S. Africans ask me if they lived in America could
they be considered African Americans as well. Interesting question. My
friends from Liberia, West Africa wonder in amazement at the terms
Americans use to describe black people who have clearly never been to
Africa. If one leaves their bias behind they will discover why many people
find these terms absurd and misapplied. None of this makes them racist.

So, yes, in the context of the debate that was going on the CoC was invoked
to kill speech neither intended to insult anyone and was clearly making a
point germane to the core issue of the discussion of concerns about
imposing American political correctness on the group. Turns out she was
right.

Could TPTB directed the conversation another way? Yes. But rather than use
reason, this person elected to use the threat of force against this person
who was espousing a concern in the interest of the community and making a
genuine attempt to make the community a better place.

-- Ben

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 6:36 AM, James Bennett 
wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Benjamin Scherrey 
> wrote:
>
>> I really appreciate you for being the first person to directly
>> respond to this most critical issue in this debate. You are correct, this
>> incident is quite central to my point and concern. However, I have again
>> reviewed the group thread under discussion where the incident occurred and
>> found absolutely nothing that comes close to violating the CoC from the
>> person who was quite directly threatened to either shut up or be banned. It
>> doesn't get much clearer than that.
>>
>
> I went back and took a look at the thread. The comments were heated, but
> specifically I see things like referring to the terms "person of color" and
> "PoC" as "ridiculous", followed up by an example meant to mock the terms.
>
> Those are terms which are widely used by people both to self-identify and
> to talk about issues they face as a result of their racial background. If
> you believe that calling it "ridiculous" and mocking it is acceptable
> behavior, then I think the divide between your conception of "acceptable"
> and the community's definition of "acceptable" may be a bit too large for
> any meaningful discussion to take place.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAL13Cg8waRb5Nfq-1Nj1e%3DQbMwL7_VWfbpvNOtR-ap1jOk%3DCrQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Chief Systems Architect Proteus Technologies 
Chief Fan Biggest Fan Productions 
Personal blog where I am not your demographic
.

This email intended solely for those who have received it. If you have
received this email by accident - well lucky you!!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Shai Berger]

Ben,

Two points:

A) Your description of the threat-of-use-of-CoC incident, which appears to be 
quite central to your argument (as a piece of evidence), is, as far as I can 
see, inaccurate. The person who was threatened had started out reasonable, but 
later made several disrespectful and prejudicial statements; it was only then 
that the CoC was raised. Your repeated comments that the CoC was used to 
silence legitimate opposition reflect quite badly on the people who brought the 
CoC up in that discussion; I suggest that you reconsider those.

B) I think you are misinterpreting the intentions and functions of the CoC. 
First, it is not formal law but a set of guidelines. It is not comprehensive 
in any way, and not expected to be applied by machines; you made a logical 
jump from "bad behavior outside Django fora may have consequences within" to 
"telling a dirty joke to your friends will get you banned from conferences". 
That is a serious leap of (lack of) faith. Second, the CoC is not intended to 
transform the community -- rather, it expresses and explicates the standards 
already in force. The same is true for the addition in PR 86, as has been 
noted in its description.

Shai.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/201409100157.54391.shai%40platonix.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Audrey Roy Greenfeld]

On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 3:07:57 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Scherrey wrote:
>
> James,
>
> I'm completely aware of the kind of situation you're describing in 
> some technical communities. I also don't find any evidence of it whatsoever 
> in ours, as I've pointed out repeatedly and have repeatedly asked for 
> evidence of by those who think a speech and behavior code is justifiable. 
> So far none has been forthcoming. You then ask "if you don't trust the 
> leaders of this community to handle things fairly and responsibly" well my 
> friend, that has already happened as I described before in this community. 
> So you seem focused on the theoretical while I'm far more interested in 
> what has actually happened.
>
>I'm curious to know - exactly what are the goals that people expect 
> from a speech and conduct code? Does anyone for this actually think that 
> such a policy is going to achieve these goals and do so without causing 
> more harm than good?
>

I actually do think that more good than harm can come from this :)

I checked the diff of #86. It is no different other than adding the DSF's 
opinion a bit more explicitly. It says "may affect," which is an opinion. 
There might be better ways to word it, and the CoC might need a bit of 
refactoring because #86 brings in some overlapping opinion, but the overall 
intent is good. 

As a longtime free speech advocate, I also see no formal restrictions 
imposed upon my rights by the specific words in #86.
 

> I believe, when thoughtfully considered and viewing the evidence that is 
> publicly available to all, that they must fail. Is that not a very simple 
> burden of evidence that any such policy should have to over come before 
> being adopted?
>

There is enough evidence. There have sadly been serious incidents in our 
community that have not been reported formally out of fear. Improving the 
CoC to better address the problem is certainly worthwhile. It may be 
impossible to eliminate serious incidents entirely, but at least we can try 
our best.

Audrey

 

>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:51 AM, James Bennett  > wrote:
>
>> I have been involved in building and participating in and running 
>> technically-oriented groups for fifteen years. I've seen a lot of stuff.
>>
>> The most common problem pattern I have seen is the "I'm not touching you" 
>> game. To understand what this means, imagine parents driving a car, with 
>> two children in the back seat. Child A keeps poking Child B, so the parents 
>> instruct Child A to stop touching Child B. A few moments later, things 
>> resume, but now Child A says "I didn't touch him, the sleeve of my shirt 
>> touched him, you didn't say the sleeve of my shirt couldn't touch him". And 
>> away we go as Child A comes up with ever more convoluted technicalities to 
>> try to keep harassing Child B while still claiming it "wasn't against the 
>> rules".
>>
>> The "I'm not touching you" game is also a favorite of many types of 
>> people on the internet. Avoiding it requires policies which contain both 
>> affirmative and negative statements (i.e., lists of things 
>> encouraged/expected, lists of things forbidden) as well as a certain amount 
>> of discretion -- even, dare I say, a vague but probably large amount -- to 
>> be left in the hands of whichever person or persons will be responsible for 
>> enforcement, so that we don't end up playing "I'm not touching you" until 
>> the end of time. That little bit of discretion to step outside the stark 
>> technicalities and just bluntly deal with such people makes, in my 
>> experience at least, all the difference between a workable and an 
>> unworkable policy.
>>
>> So those are things that need to be in our CoC. If they make you 
>> uncomfortable, if you don't trust the leaders of this community to handle 
>> things fairly and responsibly, if you are chilled, silenced and terrified 
>> byt the idea that harassing behavior would result in ostracism from the 
>> Django community, then perhaps the Django community is simply not the place 
>> for you, because the kind of community we want to have and the kind of 
>> community you want to have may not be compatible.
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Django developers" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAL13Cg9k1U6QA8dD3crFh%3D4JvpiDv19WLCUnOJ997DywAdjdCg%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>> For more options, visit 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Brenda W]

Looks like this community reached consensus several posts ago -- unless 
Benjamin is boss of codes of conduct, it should be merged now.

On Wednesday, 10 September 2014 09:49:15 UTC+12, Benjamin Scherrey wrote:
>
> Aymeric,
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand your protest about my reply to you. You 
> very clearly took a position that the policy was effective because of how 
> rarely it has had to have been invoked. You didn't make any case whatsoever 
> to justify your belief that this was a causation relationship - in fact 
> there is no evidence to support this, and you neglected to consider the 
> dangers of a policy that enumerates banned speech and actions, which I have 
> provided evidence to support a concern. Your message was a direct reply to 
> mine, contrary to my argument, and so I replied. This is not painting you 
> as clueless (at least not my language, anyway) but simply replying to the 
> point you made.
>
>Next you then make the personal judgement, again without any basis, 
> that I am irrational and not reading what other people have written on this 
> topic. Well I reject that completely. Not only have I read every posting on 
> this topic carefully, you'll see I've also researched the history of both 
> django group archives and scoured the internet for information supporting 
> both sides of this debate. Your reply, however, seems to suggest you really 
> haven't bothered to read the concerns about a speech code that I have 
> posted because it, as do almost all the other replies, completely ignores 
> these concerns despite actual evidence supporting them. I suggest you 
> follow your own advice.
>
> -- Ben
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Aymeric Augustin <
> aymeric@polytechnique.org > wrote:
>
>> Benjamin,
>>
>> Please read my email again. I did not take a side in the debate.
>>
>> I didn’t say anything about the two PRs or your arguments.
>>
>> I didn’t support your position but I didn’t reject it either.
>>
>> Please realize that your answer expresses prejudice about my beliefs and 
>> that it paints me as a clueless person for no good reason. It attempts to 
>> force me to pick a side, and rather aggressively, while I’m not ready to do 
>> so in public.
>>
>> Please consider that I’m unfamiliar with the American cultural standards 
>> that underlie this entire debate and uncomfortable with participating as a 
>> non-native speaker, as the topic is too sensitive to allow for 
>> approximative vocabulary.
>>
>> That said, may I suggest kindly that you cool down a bit and read what 
>> others write?
>>
>> -- 
>> Aymeric.
>>
>>
>>  
>> On 9 sept. 2014, at 21:28, Benjamin Scherrey > > wrote:
>>
>> Aymeric,
>>
>> You don't believe that one should also consider how it is used? I 
>> have already documented that the single ever documented threatened use of 
>> the existing code of conduct was not to protect anyone from harassment but, 
>> in fact, was used to stifle someone's thoughtful and reasoned argument and 
>> end debate on a point. Exactly the kind of thing that I commonly see in the 
>> rest of the world where such speech and conduct codes are applied. They 
>> inevitably lead to this and I find that coercive and destructive. Evil in 
>> the name of good is twice as evil.
>>
>> I will also note that I have made several direct assertions about the 
>> positive aspects and negative aspects of certain policies. The sudden 
>> influx of people speaking in support for a speech and conduct code that 
>> enumerates forbidden activities have all chosen not to respond to any of 
>> these assertions with reasoned arguments or provide any assertions of their 
>> own backed up by evidence. None. Zero. I think that speaks very much 
>> towards the quality of their arguments and the resulting policies if their 
>> preferences are chosen. Sadly, I also anticipated this when I replied to 
>> Kevin's latest post asking for those who supported the speech code to 
>> respond to my concerns directly because the usual tactic by people wishing 
>> to impose such things is to argue around the subject rather than address 
>> the real documented problems with it. Alex gets partial credit for at least 
>> giving some specific support (the Ada group's recommendation) for why he 
>> wants it but no one has bothered to address the clear and present 
>> documented dangers of such a thing as I have argued.
>>
>> Again, getting back to the subject of the two PRs, 84 is fine but 86 
>> is way out of line because you've then imposed a speech and conduct code on 
>> the entire universe without any context of having anything to do with 
>> Django. Nothing good can come of this.
>>
>> -- Ben
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Aymeric Augustin <
>> aymeric@polytechnique.org > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9 sept. 2014, at 19:54, Benjamin Scherrey >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> > So far we have exactly one documented example and TPTB took it 
>>> seriously 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Benjamin Scherrey]

Kate,

What you did there is a perfect example of how to enforce an
affirmative inclusive conduct policy. My reply was not intended (and
hopefully not perceived as such) to belittle him but rather to clarify the
record of what my position was and the facts of my effort to support them.
I will attempt to do so more generally going forward and hope that we can
all concentrate on the points raised rather than personalities involved.

Thanx,

 -- Ben

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:54 AM, kate heddleston 
wrote:

> Ben,
>
> Aymeric has the right to opt out of this conversation at anytime if he is
> uncomfortable. You may continue to share your opinions on the topic to the
> group as a whole but there is no need to directly address him if he does
> not want that.
>
> Kate
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAHN%3D9D4NzPVkovVw3-U8pyNjNcb8kAXmusQhh-iMfoSUBmFKAQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Benjamin Scherrey]

Reinout,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree with and understand the
intent. Unfortunately those with said intent seem to have elected to ignore
the law of unintended consequences which I have attempted to spell out and
demonstrate. Such policies and intentions aren't always practical to
enforce and do more harm than good - making bad law. My experience is that
a policy of affirmative inclusion accomplishes everything that can be
accomplished without the negative side effects.

best,

  -- Ben

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:56 AM, Reinout van Rees 
wrote:

> On 08-09-14 09:16, Benjamin Scherrey wrote:
>
>>
>> So lets see... anyone who has done any of the following completely
>> outside the context of the Django community or forums is now not welcome
>> to participate:
>>
>
> You mention a number of things you aren't allowed to ever have done
> somewhere else in your life. "He who's innocent is allowed to throw the
> first stone", you might say.
>
> What is the intention of the change-in-wording? My guess is as follows. I
> remember reading some harrasment blog post two years ago. In which someone
> blatantly misbehaved in a bar during a conference. Nothing was done from
> the conference's side because it was after conference hours in a
> non-at-the-conference bar and not at a conference-sponsored event.
>
> To my eyes, the change of wording in the pull request only *intends* to
> put a stop to the 
> it-was-in-a-random-bar-and-not-at-the-official-django-conference
> excuses.
>
>
> Reading the entire thread, it doesn't seem like the intention is to start
> a full-out thought police. In your opinion, wouldn't this mailinglist
> thread be enough of a safeguard against unwanted use of the pull request?
>
>
> Reinout
>
> --
> Reinout van Rees  http://reinout.vanrees.org/
> rein...@vanrees.org   http://www.nelen-schuurmans.nl/
> "Learning history by destroying artifacts is a time-honored atrocity"
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> msgid/django-developers/lunt3a%24ipf%241%40ger.gmane.org.
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Chief Systems Architect Proteus Technologies 
Chief Fan Biggest Fan Productions 
Personal blog where I am not your demographic
.

This email intended solely for those who have received it. If you have
received this email by accident - well lucky you!!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAHN%3D9D6r8Rat9AKJUyE8E_uwLKJmQPLU%3Dwzuo2YmNVGjNOj26g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Benjamin Scherrey]

James,

I'm completely aware of the kind of situation you're describing in some
technical communities. I also don't find any evidence of it whatsoever in
ours, as I've pointed out repeatedly and have repeatedly asked for evidence
of by those who think a speech and behavior code is justifiable. So far
none has been forthcoming. You then ask "if you don't trust the leaders of
this community to handle things fairly and responsibly" well my friend,
that has already happened as I described before in this community. So you
seem focused on the theoretical while I'm far more interested in what has
actually happened.

   I'm curious to know - exactly what are the goals that people expect from
a speech and conduct code? Does anyone for this actually think that such a
policy is going to achieve these goals and do so without causing more harm
than good? I believe, when thoughtfully considered and viewing the evidence
that is publicly available to all, that they must fail. Is that not a very
simple burden of evidence that any such policy should have to over come
before being adopted? I should hope so and, thus far, all those supporting
have completely ignored the downside and have provided no evidence
supporting the need for one in our community. Other communities, perhaps,
but then I don't participate in those. I like the think that the Django
community, far before the existence of any such policy and continuing
today, is already beyond the "I'm not touching you game". Don't break what
doesn't need fixing. We really should apply a "first do no harm" test
against any such policies designed to control people's behavior and speech
- especially when we have the hubris to then attempt to impose such
policies outside the context of Django which is exactly what the 2nd PR
does.

   This last bit, however, "if you are chilled, silenced and terrified by
the idea that harassing behavior would result in ostracism from the Django
community" I'm afraid is personally insulting and distasteful. No one,
especially me, has made any argument of the sort and it's an attempt to say
"if you're against the code then you must be for that kind of behavior". My
position is, as I'm sure people are tired of by now, very well documented.
It's not the intention of the policy that concerns me, it is the (again
documented) abuse of such that I have a very big problem with. And you seem
to be perfectly willing to drop myself, and others who are very much
invested in Django from the community for disagreeing and I find that
rather sad. I expect you have no idea who I am but I have followed you for
some time and my opinion of you has, thus far, been much higher than that.

thanx,

  -- Ben Scherrey

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:51 AM, James Bennett 
wrote:

> I have been involved in building and participating in and running
> technically-oriented groups for fifteen years. I've seen a lot of stuff.
>
> The most common problem pattern I have seen is the "I'm not touching you"
> game. To understand what this means, imagine parents driving a car, with
> two children in the back seat. Child A keeps poking Child B, so the parents
> instruct Child A to stop touching Child B. A few moments later, things
> resume, but now Child A says "I didn't touch him, the sleeve of my shirt
> touched him, you didn't say the sleeve of my shirt couldn't touch him". And
> away we go as Child A comes up with ever more convoluted technicalities to
> try to keep harassing Child B while still claiming it "wasn't against the
> rules".
>
> The "I'm not touching you" game is also a favorite of many types of people
> on the internet. Avoiding it requires policies which contain both
> affirmative and negative statements (i.e., lists of things
> encouraged/expected, lists of things forbidden) as well as a certain amount
> of discretion -- even, dare I say, a vague but probably large amount -- to
> be left in the hands of whichever person or persons will be responsible for
> enforcement, so that we don't end up playing "I'm not touching you" until
> the end of time. That little bit of discretion to step outside the stark
> technicalities and just bluntly deal with such people makes, in my
> experience at least, all the difference between a workable and an
> unworkable policy.
>
> So those are things that need to be in our CoC. If they make you
> uncomfortable, if you don't trust the leaders of this community to handle
> things fairly and responsibly, if you are chilled, silenced and terrified
> byt the idea that harassing behavior would result in ostracism from the
> Django community, then perhaps the Django community is simply not the place
> for you, because the kind of community we want to have and the kind of
> community you want to have may not be compatible.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Reinout van Rees]

On 08-09-14 09:16, Benjamin Scherrey wrote:


So lets see... anyone who has done any of the following completely
outside the context of the Django community or forums is now not welcome
to participate:


You mention a number of things you aren't allowed to ever have done 
somewhere else in your life. "He who's innocent is allowed to throw the 
first stone", you might say.


What is the intention of the change-in-wording? My guess is as follows. 
I remember reading some harrasment blog post two years ago. In which 
someone blatantly misbehaved in a bar during a conference. Nothing was 
done from the conference's side because it was after conference hours in 
a non-at-the-conference bar and not at a conference-sponsored event.


To my eyes, the change of wording in the pull request only *intends* to 
put a stop to the 
it-was-in-a-random-bar-and-not-at-the-official-django-conference excuses.



Reading the entire thread, it doesn't seem like the intention is to 
start a full-out thought police. In your opinion, wouldn't this 
mailinglist thread be enough of a safeguard against unwanted use of the 
pull request?



Reinout

--
Reinout van Rees  http://reinout.vanrees.org/
rein...@vanrees.org   http://www.nelen-schuurmans.nl/
"Learning history by destroying artifacts is a time-honored atrocity"

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django 
developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/lunt3a%24ipf%241%40ger.gmane.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[kate heddleston]

Ben,

Aymeric has the right to opt out of this conversation at anytime if he is 
uncomfortable. You may continue to share your opinions on the topic to the 
group as a whole but there is no need to directly address him if he does 
not want that.

Kate

On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 5:49:15 PM UTC-4, Benjamin Scherrey wrote:
>
> Aymeric,
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand your protest about my reply to you. You 
> very clearly took a position that the policy was effective because of how 
> rarely it has had to have been invoked. You didn't make any case whatsoever 
> to justify your belief that this was a causation relationship - in fact 
> there is no evidence to support this, and you neglected to consider the 
> dangers of a policy that enumerates banned speech and actions, which I have 
> provided evidence to support a concern. Your message was a direct reply to 
> mine, contrary to my argument, and so I replied. This is not painting you 
> as clueless (at least not my language, anyway) but simply replying to the 
> point you made.
>
>Next you then make the personal judgement, again without any basis, 
> that I am irrational and not reading what other people have written on this 
> topic. Well I reject that completely. Not only have I read every posting on 
> this topic carefully, you'll see I've also researched the history of both 
> django group archives and scoured the internet for information supporting 
> both sides of this debate. Your reply, however, seems to suggest you really 
> haven't bothered to read the concerns about a speech code that I have 
> posted because it, as do almost all the other replies, completely ignores 
> these concerns despite actual evidence supporting them. I suggest you 
> follow your own advice.
>
> -- Ben
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Aymeric Augustin <
> aymeric@polytechnique.org > wrote:
>
>> Benjamin,
>>
>> Please read my email again. I did not take a side in the debate.
>>
>> I didn’t say anything about the two PRs or your arguments.
>>
>> I didn’t support your position but I didn’t reject it either.
>>
>> Please realize that your answer expresses prejudice about my beliefs and 
>> that it paints me as a clueless person for no good reason. It attempts to 
>> force me to pick a side, and rather aggressively, while I’m not ready to do 
>> so in public.
>>
>> Please consider that I’m unfamiliar with the American cultural standards 
>> that underlie this entire debate and uncomfortable with participating as a 
>> non-native speaker, as the topic is too sensitive to allow for 
>> approximative vocabulary.
>>
>> That said, may I suggest kindly that you cool down a bit and read what 
>> others write?
>>
>> -- 
>> Aymeric.
>>
>>
>>  
>> On 9 sept. 2014, at 21:28, Benjamin Scherrey > > wrote:
>>
>> Aymeric,
>>
>> You don't believe that one should also consider how it is used? I 
>> have already documented that the single ever documented threatened use of 
>> the existing code of conduct was not to protect anyone from harassment but, 
>> in fact, was used to stifle someone's thoughtful and reasoned argument and 
>> end debate on a point. Exactly the kind of thing that I commonly see in the 
>> rest of the world where such speech and conduct codes are applied. They 
>> inevitably lead to this and I find that coercive and destructive. Evil in 
>> the name of good is twice as evil.
>>
>> I will also note that I have made several direct assertions about the 
>> positive aspects and negative aspects of certain policies. The sudden 
>> influx of people speaking in support for a speech and conduct code that 
>> enumerates forbidden activities have all chosen not to respond to any of 
>> these assertions with reasoned arguments or provide any assertions of their 
>> own backed up by evidence. None. Zero. I think that speaks very much 
>> towards the quality of their arguments and the resulting policies if their 
>> preferences are chosen. Sadly, I also anticipated this when I replied to 
>> Kevin's latest post asking for those who supported the speech code to 
>> respond to my concerns directly because the usual tactic by people wishing 
>> to impose such things is to argue around the subject rather than address 
>> the real documented problems with it. Alex gets partial credit for at least 
>> giving some specific support (the Ada group's recommendation) for why he 
>> wants it but no one has bothered to address the clear and present 
>> documented dangers of such a thing as I have argued.
>>
>> Again, getting back to the subject of the two PRs, 84 is fine but 86 
>> is way out of line because you've then imposed a speech and conduct code on 
>> the entire universe without any context of having anything to do with 
>> Django. Nothing good can come of this.
>>
>> -- Ben
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Aymeric Augustin <
>> aymeric@polytechnique.org > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9 sept. 2014, at 19:54, Benjamin Scherrey 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Benjamin Scherrey]

Aymeric,

I'm afraid I don't understand your protest about my reply to you. You
very clearly took a position that the policy was effective because of how
rarely it has had to have been invoked. You didn't make any case whatsoever
to justify your belief that this was a causation relationship - in fact
there is no evidence to support this, and you neglected to consider the
dangers of a policy that enumerates banned speech and actions, which I have
provided evidence to support a concern. Your message was a direct reply to
mine, contrary to my argument, and so I replied. This is not painting you
as clueless (at least not my language, anyway) but simply replying to the
point you made.

   Next you then make the personal judgement, again without any basis, that
I am irrational and not reading what other people have written on this
topic. Well I reject that completely. Not only have I read every posting on
this topic carefully, you'll see I've also researched the history of both
django group archives and scoured the internet for information supporting
both sides of this debate. Your reply, however, seems to suggest you really
haven't bothered to read the concerns about a speech code that I have
posted because it, as do almost all the other replies, completely ignores
these concerns despite actual evidence supporting them. I suggest you
follow your own advice.

-- Ben

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Aymeric Augustin <
aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote:

> Benjamin,
>
> Please read my email again. I did not take a side in the debate.
>
> I didn’t say anything about the two PRs or your arguments.
>
> I didn’t support your position but I didn’t reject it either.
>
> Please realize that your answer expresses prejudice about my beliefs and
> that it paints me as a clueless person for no good reason. It attempts to
> force me to pick a side, and rather aggressively, while I’m not ready to do
> so in public.
>
> Please consider that I’m unfamiliar with the American cultural standards
> that underlie this entire debate and uncomfortable with participating as a
> non-native speaker, as the topic is too sensitive to allow for
> approximative vocabulary.
>
> That said, may I suggest kindly that you cool down a bit and read what
> others write?
>
> --
> Aymeric.
>
>
>
> On 9 sept. 2014, at 21:28, Benjamin Scherrey  wrote:
>
> Aymeric,
>
> You don't believe that one should also consider how it is used? I have
> already documented that the single ever documented threatened use of the
> existing code of conduct was not to protect anyone from harassment but, in
> fact, was used to stifle someone's thoughtful and reasoned argument and end
> debate on a point. Exactly the kind of thing that I commonly see in the
> rest of the world where such speech and conduct codes are applied. They
> inevitably lead to this and I find that coercive and destructive. Evil in
> the name of good is twice as evil.
>
> I will also note that I have made several direct assertions about the
> positive aspects and negative aspects of certain policies. The sudden
> influx of people speaking in support for a speech and conduct code that
> enumerates forbidden activities have all chosen not to respond to any of
> these assertions with reasoned arguments or provide any assertions of their
> own backed up by evidence. None. Zero. I think that speaks very much
> towards the quality of their arguments and the resulting policies if their
> preferences are chosen. Sadly, I also anticipated this when I replied to
> Kevin's latest post asking for those who supported the speech code to
> respond to my concerns directly because the usual tactic by people wishing
> to impose such things is to argue around the subject rather than address
> the real documented problems with it. Alex gets partial credit for at least
> giving some specific support (the Ada group's recommendation) for why he
> wants it but no one has bothered to address the clear and present
> documented dangers of such a thing as I have argued.
>
> Again, getting back to the subject of the two PRs, 84 is fine but 86
> is way out of line because you've then imposed a speech and conduct code on
> the entire universe without any context of having anything to do with
> Django. Nothing good can come of this.
>
> -- Ben
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Aymeric Augustin <
> aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9 sept. 2014, at 19:54, Benjamin Scherrey 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > So far we have exactly one documented example and TPTB took it
>> seriously right away. To me, this hardly justifies any need for an explicit
>> "anti-harassment" policy.
>>
>> I believe the success of the code of conduct is measured by how rarely it
>> is needed.
>>
>> If it never needs to be brought up, then it has achieved its goal.
>>
>> So thanks for confirming that it works well :-)
>>
>> --
>> Aymeric.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Aymeric Augustin]

Benjamin,

Please read my email again. I did not take a side in the debate.

I didn't say anything about the two PRs or your arguments.

I didn't support your position but I didn't reject it either.

Please realize that your answer expresses prejudice about my beliefs and that 
it paints me as a clueless person for no good reason. It attempts to force me 
to pick a side, and rather aggressively, while I'm not ready to do so in public.

Please consider that I'm unfamiliar with the American cultural standards that 
underlie this entire debate and uncomfortable with participating as a 
non-native speaker, as the topic is too sensitive to allow for approximative 
vocabulary.

That said, may I suggest kindly that you cool down a bit and read what others 
write?

-- 
Aymeric.



On 9 sept. 2014, at 21:28, Benjamin Scherrey  wrote:

> Aymeric,
> 
> You don't believe that one should also consider how it is used? I have 
> already documented that the single ever documented threatened use of the 
> existing code of conduct was not to protect anyone from harassment but, in 
> fact, was used to stifle someone's thoughtful and reasoned argument and end 
> debate on a point. Exactly the kind of thing that I commonly see in the rest 
> of the world where such speech and conduct codes are applied. They inevitably 
> lead to this and I find that coercive and destructive. Evil in the name of 
> good is twice as evil.
> 
> I will also note that I have made several direct assertions about the 
> positive aspects and negative aspects of certain policies. The sudden influx 
> of people speaking in support for a speech and conduct code that enumerates 
> forbidden activities have all chosen not to respond to any of these 
> assertions with reasoned arguments or provide any assertions of their own 
> backed up by evidence. None. Zero. I think that speaks very much towards the 
> quality of their arguments and the resulting policies if their preferences 
> are chosen. Sadly, I also anticipated this when I replied to Kevin's latest 
> post asking for those who supported the speech code to respond to my concerns 
> directly because the usual tactic by people wishing to impose such things is 
> to argue around the subject rather than address the real documented problems 
> with it. Alex gets partial credit for at least giving some specific support 
> (the Ada group's recommendation) for why he wants it but no one has bothered 
> to address the clear and present documented dangers of such a thing as I have 
> argued.
> 
> Again, getting back to the subject of the two PRs, 84 is fine but 86 is 
> way out of line because you've then imposed a speech and conduct code on the 
> entire universe without any context of having anything to do with Django. 
> Nothing good can come of this.
> 
> -- Ben
> 
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Aymeric Augustin 
>  wrote:
> On 9 sept. 2014, at 19:54, Benjamin Scherrey  wrote:
> 
> > So far we have exactly one documented example and TPTB took it seriously 
> > right away. To me, this hardly justifies any need for an explicit 
> > "anti-harassment" policy.
> 
> I believe the success of the code of conduct is measured by how rarely it is 
> needed.
> 
> If it never needs to be brought up, then it has achieved its goal.
> 
> So thanks for confirming that it works well :-)
> 
> --
> Aymeric.
> 
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/E4FAFFC8-DEA4-411D-9130-EA9BC74090B0%40polytechnique.org.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Chief Systems Architect Proteus Technologies
> Chief Fan Biggest Fan Productions
> Personal blog where I am not your demographic.
> 
> This email intended solely for those who have received it. If you have 
> received this email by accident - well lucky you!!
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAHN%3D9D79ZSdh_oHBNdu8kSkv6oeS4tS3Ekgw6Ygz_Ft_xqUh%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[James Bennett]

I have been involved in building and participating in and running
technically-oriented groups for fifteen years. I've seen a lot of stuff.

The most common problem pattern I have seen is the "I'm not touching you"
game. To understand what this means, imagine parents driving a car, with
two children in the back seat. Child A keeps poking Child B, so the parents
instruct Child A to stop touching Child B. A few moments later, things
resume, but now Child A says "I didn't touch him, the sleeve of my shirt
touched him, you didn't say the sleeve of my shirt couldn't touch him". And
away we go as Child A comes up with ever more convoluted technicalities to
try to keep harassing Child B while still claiming it "wasn't against the
rules".

The "I'm not touching you" game is also a favorite of many types of people
on the internet. Avoiding it requires policies which contain both
affirmative and negative statements (i.e., lists of things
encouraged/expected, lists of things forbidden) as well as a certain amount
of discretion -- even, dare I say, a vague but probably large amount -- to
be left in the hands of whichever person or persons will be responsible for
enforcement, so that we don't end up playing "I'm not touching you" until
the end of time. That little bit of discretion to step outside the stark
technicalities and just bluntly deal with such people makes, in my
experience at least, all the difference between a workable and an
unworkable policy.

So those are things that need to be in our CoC. If they make you
uncomfortable, if you don't trust the leaders of this community to handle
things fairly and responsibly, if you are chilled, silenced and terrified
byt the idea that harassing behavior would result in ostracism from the
Django community, then perhaps the Django community is simply not the place
for you, because the kind of community we want to have and the kind of
community you want to have may not be compatible.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAL13Cg9k1U6QA8dD3crFh%3D4JvpiDv19WLCUnOJ997DywAdjdCg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Benjamin Scherrey]

Aymeric,

You don't believe that one should also consider how it is used? I have
already documented that the single ever documented threatened use of the
existing code of conduct was not to protect anyone from harassment but, in
fact, was used to stifle someone's thoughtful and reasoned argument and end
debate on a point. Exactly the kind of thing that I commonly see in the
rest of the world where such speech and conduct codes are applied. They
inevitably lead to this and I find that coercive and destructive. Evil in
the name of good is twice as evil.

I will also note that I have made several direct assertions about the
positive aspects and negative aspects of certain policies. The sudden
influx of people speaking in support for a speech and conduct code that
enumerates forbidden activities have all chosen not to respond to any of
these assertions with reasoned arguments or provide any assertions of their
own backed up by evidence. None. Zero. I think that speaks very much
towards the quality of their arguments and the resulting policies if their
preferences are chosen. Sadly, I also anticipated this when I replied to
Kevin's latest post asking for those who supported the speech code to
respond to my concerns directly because the usual tactic by people wishing
to impose such things is to argue around the subject rather than address
the real documented problems with it. Alex gets partial credit for at least
giving some specific support (the Ada group's recommendation) for why he
wants it but no one has bothered to address the clear and present
documented dangers of such a thing as I have argued.

Again, getting back to the subject of the two PRs, 84 is fine but 86 is
way out of line because you've then imposed a speech and conduct code on
the entire universe without any context of having anything to do with
Django. Nothing good can come of this.

-- Ben

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Aymeric Augustin <
aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote:

> On 9 sept. 2014, at 19:54, Benjamin Scherrey  wrote:
>
> > So far we have exactly one documented example and TPTB took it seriously
> right away. To me, this hardly justifies any need for an explicit
> "anti-harassment" policy.
>
> I believe the success of the code of conduct is measured by how rarely it
> is needed.
>
> If it never needs to be brought up, then it has achieved its goal.
>
> So thanks for confirming that it works well :-)
>
> --
> Aymeric.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/E4FAFFC8-DEA4-411D-9130-EA9BC74090B0%40polytechnique.org
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Chief Systems Architect Proteus Technologies 
Chief Fan Biggest Fan Productions 
Personal blog where I am not your demographic
.

This email intended solely for those who have received it. If you have
received this email by accident - well lucky you!!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAHN%3D9D79ZSdh_oHBNdu8kSkv6oeS4tS3Ekgw6Ygz_Ft_xqUh%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Aymeric Augustin]

On 9 sept. 2014, at 19:54, Benjamin Scherrey  wrote:

> So far we have exactly one documented example and TPTB took it seriously 
> right away. To me, this hardly justifies any need for an explicit 
> "anti-harassment" policy. 

I believe the success of the code of conduct is measured by how rarely it is 
needed.

If it never needs to be brought up, then it has achieved its goal.

So thanks for confirming that it works well :-)

-- 
Aymeric.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/E4FAFFC8-DEA4-411D-9130-EA9BC74090B0%40polytechnique.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[kate heddleston]

I also agree with listing the things people shouldn't do at conferences. 
Listing lines that they should stay within is good. Listing lines they 
shouldn't cross is also good. A code of conduct can happily have both.

On Saturday, September 6, 2014 9:10:42 PM UTC-4, Kevin Daum wrote:
>
> I have submitted two pull requests for the code of conduct:
>
>- #84 , to let 
>folks who belong to a wide variety of social identities know that yes, 
> even 
>they are welcome here, and
>- #86 , to make 
>explicit the currently implicit policy that someone's abusive behavior 
>outside the django community *may* have an adverse effect on their 
>ability to participate within the django community.
>
> I welcome your feedback. 
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin Daum
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/e1eb3e8a-65c0-4380-b907-5d31e210cd17%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Stephen Burrows]

Benjamin,

Out of your three links only the 3rd describes an actual harassment
> occurring at a Django-related event.


Actually, even the third link doesn't describe harassment occuring at a
Django-related event. It described harassment by a Django community member
at a non-Django event. And it describes an organizer flailing to know what
to do because they *didn't* have a policy. I'm a little confused how the
takeaway is "everything about that was fine" rather than "they should maybe
have had a policy". I will certainly agree that it was better than the
alternative, which would have been the organizer ignoring or dismissing her
concerns.

The other two links do talk about how exceptional DjangoCon is. And *part
of that* was that DjangoCon has an explicit code of conduct. So again, I
feel like you've missed the point. Codes of conduct do work.

By my statement "stop just talking about it and show us what that would
look like" I mean that you should write down the actual *text* of the
"affirmative policy" that you keep talking about. Write down the policy. In
detail. So that we can actually review what you think would be good. It's
fine to talk about your principles, and I don't necessarily disagree with
an affirmative policy, but right now *all* I'm getting from you is
principles. So again, please stop just talking about it and show us what it
would look like. As in, again, to be entirely explicit, write the policy
you would like to see so that we can read it.

This is particularly important if you actually want constructive feedback.
I can't give you feedback on something I can't see.

And please keep in mind that you are also motivated by good intentions, and
we all know which road is paved with those. In other words, good intentions
are not enough on any side of any argument.

Best,
Stephen

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Alex Gaynor  wrote:

> When Jacob and I originally drafted the CoC, we specifically included an
> enumeration of some disallowed behaviors on the recommendation of the Ada
> Initiative -- it was their view that the list helped to minimize rules
> lawyering, whereby someone attempts to explain how they could not have
> known their behavior was disallowed.
>
> On reflection, I completely agree with their reasoning and am very glad we
> included it.
>
> Alex
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:43 AM, barbara.shaurette <
> barbara.shaure...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As someone who has been the target of harassment at conferences (I've
>> been lucky, only minor incidents for me, although the same can't be said
>> for other of my female colleagues), I prefer explicit over implicit. If
>> someone is a harasser outside the community, I won't feel safe encountering
>> them in a conference setting either.
>>
>> That said, I trust the discretion of the core team and the DSF membership
>> and I'll be interested to see how they decide on the matter.
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Django developers" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/9f89cb24-f572-444d-9723-386eb93e495a%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
> to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire)
> "The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero
> GPG Key fingerprint: 125F 5C67 DFE9 4084
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFRnB2XfgpLy-zrb%2BSF%3D2Cz9KzErEWANYmtwmDCLn1xb8wS8yQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Daniele Procida]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014, Alex Gaynor  wrote:

>When Jacob and I originally drafted the CoC, we specifically included an
>enumeration of some disallowed behaviors on the recommendation of the Ada
>Initiative -- it was their view that the list helped to minimize rules
>lawyering, whereby someone attempts to explain how they could not have
>known their behavior was disallowed.

It's important to list things like this. The fact that it's impossible to list 
every possible one is not a good reason not to list some.

No-one thinks that their behaviour is objectionable, otherwise they wouldn't be 
doing it. Explicitly mentioning particular examples of behaviour helps make it 
harder for someone to "not realise" that what they are doing is unwelcome.

Daniele

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20140909190303.287246106%40mail.wservices.ch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Jeremy Dunck]

As someone affected by an issue that would fall under the proposed change
[1], I still support an explicit guideline about external behavior
influencing internal acceptance.  The safety of all members is more
important than the risk of misapplication of the rule.

[1]
http://doubleunion.tumblr.com/post/77929475144/how-not-to-support-women-in-tech
On Sep 9, 2014 11:47 AM, "Alex Gaynor"  wrote:

> When Jacob and I originally drafted the CoC, we specifically included an
> enumeration of some disallowed behaviors on the recommendation of the Ada
> Initiative -- it was their view that the list helped to minimize rules
> lawyering, whereby someone attempts to explain how they could not have
> known their behavior was disallowed.
>
> On reflection, I completely agree with their reasoning and am very glad we
> included it.
>
> Alex
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:43 AM, barbara.shaurette <
> barbara.shaure...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As someone who has been the target of harassment at conferences (I've
>> been lucky, only minor incidents for me, although the same can't be said
>> for other of my female colleagues), I prefer explicit over implicit. If
>> someone is a harasser outside the community, I won't feel safe encountering
>> them in a conference setting either.
>>
>> That said, I trust the discretion of the core team and the DSF membership
>> and I'll be interested to see how they decide on the matter.
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Django developers" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/9f89cb24-f572-444d-9723-386eb93e495a%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
> to say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire)
> "The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero
> GPG Key fingerprint: 125F 5C67 DFE9 4084
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFRnB2XfgpLy-zrb%2BSF%3D2Cz9KzErEWANYmtwmDCLn1xb8wS8yQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAM0i3f5yRYBy6qGO1R2x9QOANi_xRDCTVLBuZ7qZL2%3DwMjduPQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Alex Gaynor]

When Jacob and I originally drafted the CoC, we specifically included an
enumeration of some disallowed behaviors on the recommendation of the Ada
Initiative -- it was their view that the list helped to minimize rules
lawyering, whereby someone attempts to explain how they could not have
known their behavior was disallowed.

On reflection, I completely agree with their reasoning and am very glad we
included it.

Alex


On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:43 AM, barbara.shaurette <
barbara.shaure...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As someone who has been the target of harassment at conferences (I've been
> lucky, only minor incidents for me, although the same can't be said for
> other of my female colleagues), I prefer explicit over implicit. If someone
> is a harasser outside the community, I won't feel safe encountering them in
> a conference setting either.
>
> That said, I trust the discretion of the core team and the DSF membership
> and I'll be interested to see how they decide on the matter.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/9f89cb24-f572-444d-9723-386eb93e495a%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it." -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (summarizing Voltaire)
"The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero
GPG Key fingerprint: 125F 5C67 DFE9 4084

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFRnB2XfgpLy-zrb%2BSF%3D2Cz9KzErEWANYmtwmDCLn1xb8wS8yQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[barbara.shaurette]

As someone who has been the target of harassment at conferences (I've been 
lucky, only minor incidents for me, although the same can't be said for 
other of my female colleagues), I prefer explicit over implicit. If someone 
is a harasser outside the community, I won't feel safe encountering them in 
a conference setting either.

That said, I trust the discretion of the core team and the DSF membership 
and I'll be interested to see how they decide on the matter.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/9f89cb24-f572-444d-9723-386eb93e495a%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[kate heddleston]

I wholeheartedly support the measure to change the language and more 
explicitly state that behavior in discordance with the Django code of 
conduct outside the walls of Django events can affect participation within 
the walls of Django events. The community itself spans both spaces, and you 
cannot effectively create a safe space for community members during the 
week of DjangoCon while ignoring behavior at all other times. 

As for the code of conduct containing affirmative rules that lay out 
behavior that attendees should follow, I am also in support of that. I look 
forward to the PR that contains the rules and guidelines detailing 
recommended conference behavior.

Many of the counterarguments do not address the change at hand but the code 
of conduct as a whole and call for an objective application of these rules 
to community members. Objectivity for a set of rules regarding humans is a 
tall order. Even the law recognizes its lack of objectivity and has in 
place checks and balances; the Constitution is a great document in part 
because it lays forth a set of somewhat ambiguous guidelines that are open 
to interpretation in their application. Objectivity is not the goal with 
the code of conduct; the goal is to create rules that help others 
understand how to make our community a safe space for all people. If you 
are concerned with how the code of conduct is enforced, you should open a 
thread to discuss the checks and balances the Django community puts in 
place when reviewing code of conduct violations.

On Saturday, September 6, 2014 9:10:42 PM UTC-4, Kevin Daum wrote:
>
> I have submitted two pull requests for the code of conduct:
>
>- #84 , to let 
>folks who belong to a wide variety of social identities know that yes, 
> even 
>they are welcome here, and
>- #86 , to make 
>explicit the currently implicit policy that someone's abusive behavior 
>outside the django community *may* have an adverse effect on their 
>ability to participate within the django community.
>
> I welcome your feedback. 
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin Daum
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/6f3184fc-1d36-4b47-8e67-9b30998edab7%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Benjamin Scherrey]

Kevin,

Again I believe your heart is in the right place but the presumption in
your message is that there are people who need and deserve special
protection above and beyond other members of the community. While, well
intentioned, we all know how the road to hell got paved. A good policy is
one that affords benefits to all members equally or it shouldn't be in
place at all. That's why I propose an affirmative policy which is inclusive
rather than a speech or conduct code which never works as their stated
purpose would claim.

That said, I welcome any thoughtful critiques or feedback on any of the
assertions and recommendations I have made. I would especially like to know
what aspect of an affirmative policy someone who supports the other kind
finds deficient and have real evidence supporting their position if that is
the case.

best regards,

  -- Ben Scherrey

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Kevin Daum  wrote:

> I'm going to attempt to reach out to some folks who I think might be more
> likely than us to benefit from a code of conduct and ask if they have
> anything to add. I'm not mounting a public campaign, I just think we're
> missing some important perspectives.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAHN%3D9D7rZt8o6Ypoh8Z0ErXR3YYQ89_6SaW-q4WSgb8ewzdj%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Benjamin Scherrey]

Hi Stephen,

Out of your three links only the 3rd describes an actual harassment
occurring at a Django-related event. It also describes that as soon as the
person reported it to the conference director she got an immediate positive
response by the director who seems to have made every attempt to be helpful
despite the lack of a written policy being in place at the time. Your first
link is written by someone who described how exceptional DjangoCon is in
that she was never harassed.

So far we have exactly one documented example and TPTB took it
seriously right away. To me, this hardly justifies any need for an explicit
"anti-harassment" policy. In fact, all "zero-tolerance" policies are, by
definition, "zero-thought" policies and quite dangerous. There is no
evidence that they help and tons of evidence that they do harm and are
abused - which I have already documented in the first and only (so far as I
can tell) threat of invocation of the existing policy.

By your statement "stop talking about it and show us what that would
look like" It seems clear, unfortunately, that you haven't bothered to read
my posts, including my very first response to the PRs in question, because
I have already done just that. I'm very emphatically for an affirmative
policy of inclusiveness and positive conduct which the first PR supported.
I am even more emphatically against a speech and conduct code that lists
banned speech and behavior which the second PR makes even worse.

With an affirmative policy you don't need to ban certain conduct. If
someone acts outside of this policy they are quickly reminded about what
kind of community group this is and offered suggestions in which they might
re-work their approach in order to fit in and be more effective in their
participation. If they do something that is outside of the law, witnesses
can swear out a warrant against them as we are not the police, despite the
appearance that some people seem to want to behave as such. I have found
this kind of policy to be very effective in maintaining a high
signal-to-noise ratio and makes it very clear that there is no fertile
ground here in which to seed hostile acts of any kind.

-- Ben

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Stephen Burrows <
stephen.r.burr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Benjamin,
>
> I believe there have been serious issues with harassment of women
> specifically at previous DjangoCons (though there may not be mention of it
> on the mailing lists.) It has definitely been a major issue at other tech
> conferences and tech meetups. That was a major factor in the recent push in
> the tech world to have better anti-harassment / code of conduct policies.
> See also: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents (and
> the rest of the wiki, really).
>
> Here is a short selection of other links that talk about this issue, with
> various relations to Django / DjangoCon specifically.
>
>
> http://geekfeminism.org/2013/08/15/that-time-i-wasnt-harassed-at-a-conference/
>
> http://www.caktusgroup.com/blog/2012/05/24/narrowing-gender-gap-open-source-community/
> http://juliaelman.com/blog/2012/jun/3/lets-get-little-louder/
>
> I could just keep going, but I don't want to overwhelm people (slash you)
> with too many links. If you want more, you can use google.
>
> If you think a policy like this doesn't need to exist, you are IMO,
> frankly, very wrong. But if you think it just needs to be written
> differently, stop talking about it and show us what that would look like!
>
> --Stephen
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Kevin Daum  wrote:
>
>> I'm going to attempt to reach out to some folks who I think might be more
>> likely than us to benefit from a code of conduct and ask if they have
>> anything to add. I'm not mounting a public campaign, I just think we're
>> missing some important perspectives.
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 3:15:10 AM UTC-4, Robert Grant wrote:
>>>
>>> Good email. This one won't be that good.
>>>
>>> Boiling my verbose email down to two sentences:
>>>
>>> We seem to already have a private group of people who make decisions in
>>> secret and pronounce a verdict on issues, and who can to a large extent
>>> control the community. If this is the case, and they already have total
>>> control should they choose to exercise it, a Django ASBO won't give any
>>> extra power over - and thus protection against - griefers/bullies/whatever.
>>>
>>> Just to hedge my bets, if the group does decide to create the ASBO,
>>> could it be called the Anti-Social Django Act?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Benjamin Scherrey 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Kevin,

And thanx for responding to my question about the need for such a
 policy with Django. Last night, as I had not yet had a response from anyone
 about this question I searched the archives of both django groups looking
 for any events or circumstances in which the code of conduct was invoked as

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Stephen Burrows]

Benjamin,

I believe there have been serious issues with harassment of women
specifically at previous DjangoCons (though there may not be mention of it
on the mailing lists.) It has definitely been a major issue at other tech
conferences and tech meetups. That was a major factor in the recent push in
the tech world to have better anti-harassment / code of conduct policies.
See also: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents (and the
rest of the wiki, really).

Here is a short selection of other links that talk about this issue, with
various relations to Django / DjangoCon specifically.

http://geekfeminism.org/2013/08/15/that-time-i-wasnt-harassed-at-a-conference/
http://www.caktusgroup.com/blog/2012/05/24/narrowing-gender-gap-open-source-community/
http://juliaelman.com/blog/2012/jun/3/lets-get-little-louder/

I could just keep going, but I don't want to overwhelm people (slash you)
with too many links. If you want more, you can use google.

If you think a policy like this doesn't need to exist, you are IMO,
frankly, very wrong. But if you think it just needs to be written
differently, stop talking about it and show us what that would look like!

--Stephen

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Kevin Daum  wrote:

> I'm going to attempt to reach out to some folks who I think might be more
> likely than us to benefit from a code of conduct and ask if they have
> anything to add. I'm not mounting a public campaign, I just think we're
> missing some important perspectives.
>
> On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 3:15:10 AM UTC-4, Robert Grant wrote:
>>
>> Good email. This one won't be that good.
>>
>> Boiling my verbose email down to two sentences:
>>
>> We seem to already have a private group of people who make decisions in
>> secret and pronounce a verdict on issues, and who can to a large extent
>> control the community. If this is the case, and they already have total
>> control should they choose to exercise it, a Django ASBO won't give any
>> extra power over - and thus protection against - griefers/bullies/whatever.
>>
>> Just to hedge my bets, if the group does decide to create the ASBO, could
>> it be called the Anti-Social Django Act?
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Benjamin Scherrey 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>
>>>And thanx for responding to my question about the need for such a
>>> policy with Django. Last night, as I had not yet had a response from anyone
>>> about this question I searched the archives of both django groups looking
>>> for any events or circumstances in which the code of conduct was invoked as
>>> I had no personal recollection of any such thing. I found some innocuous
>>> reference in the django-users group (wrongly suggesting that this coming
>>> policy was going to increase female participation) and in
>>> django-developers, one actual circumstance where its use was threatened -
>>> not surprisingly as part of the one example you provided that actually has
>>> anything to do at all with the Django community. Sadly, it's invocation was
>>> precisely used in the manner that I had feared - to stifle debate and
>>> threaten a person who was making valid and reasonable arguments (no doubt
>>> in the middle of a flame war but he/she wasn't the flamer). When I saw the
>>> name of the person who invoked the code of conduct I was even more
>>> disappointed as it was someone that I otherwise have a profound respect for.
>>>
>>> Other than this I was not surprised to see zero evidence for the
>>> need for such a policy as there don't seem to be any threatening events of
>>> the like that your email raises. These problems may exist elsewhere but not
>>> amongst the general django community that I've ever seen.
>>>
>>> Understand my background. I own a software development company that
>>> was a VERY early adopter of Django way before the 1.0 days. I expect I was
>>> certainly one of the first thousand developers to use Django in a real-life
>>> situation once it got outside of the newspaper where it was created. My
>>> company is one of the first to build commercial systems for clients on top
>>> of Django. My staff even has a few little commits into the django code base
>>> over the years, although minor, but we were proud nonetheless to be able to
>>> contribute in some small way. I've attended my share of PyCons (prior to
>>> the invention of DjangoCon which I hope to attend one day) and have always
>>> found the community very open and inclusive of all types. This is a Good
>>> Thing (TM). I've even sent 5 staff to the event, four of which happened to
>>> be women. My team now consists of 34+ people, all but two of which are in a
>>> technical capacity. WE are geeks who seek out other geeks who want to be
>>> appreciated solely based on merit. We happen to have about a 40% female
>>> colleague share and explicitly do NOT have a diversity policy (nor will we
>>> ever have an HR department but that's another story). I 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Kevin Daum]

I'm going to attempt to reach out to some folks who I think might be more 
likely than us to benefit from a code of conduct and ask if they have 
anything to add. I'm not mounting a public campaign, I just think we're 
missing some important perspectives. 

On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 3:15:10 AM UTC-4, Robert Grant wrote:
>
> Good email. This one won't be that good.
>
> Boiling my verbose email down to two sentences: 
>
> We seem to already have a private group of people who make decisions in 
> secret and pronounce a verdict on issues, and who can to a large extent 
> control the community. If this is the case, and they already have total 
> control should they choose to exercise it, a Django ASBO won't give any 
> extra power over - and thus protection against - griefers/bullies/whatever.
>
> Just to hedge my bets, if the group does decide to create the ASBO, could 
> it be called the Anti-Social Django Act?
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Benjamin Scherrey  > wrote:
>
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>>And thanx for responding to my question about the need for such a 
>> policy with Django. Last night, as I had not yet had a response from anyone 
>> about this question I searched the archives of both django groups looking 
>> for any events or circumstances in which the code of conduct was invoked as 
>> I had no personal recollection of any such thing. I found some innocuous 
>> reference in the django-users group (wrongly suggesting that this coming 
>> policy was going to increase female participation) and in 
>> django-developers, one actual circumstance where its use was threatened - 
>> not surprisingly as part of the one example you provided that actually has 
>> anything to do at all with the Django community. Sadly, it's invocation was 
>> precisely used in the manner that I had feared - to stifle debate and 
>> threaten a person who was making valid and reasonable arguments (no doubt 
>> in the middle of a flame war but he/she wasn't the flamer). When I saw the 
>> name of the person who invoked the code of conduct I was even more 
>> disappointed as it was someone that I otherwise have a profound respect for.
>>
>> Other than this I was not surprised to see zero evidence for the need 
>> for such a policy as there don't seem to be any threatening events of the 
>> like that your email raises. These problems may exist elsewhere but not 
>> amongst the general django community that I've ever seen. 
>>
>> Understand my background. I own a software development company that 
>> was a VERY early adopter of Django way before the 1.0 days. I expect I was 
>> certainly one of the first thousand developers to use Django in a real-life 
>> situation once it got outside of the newspaper where it was created. My 
>> company is one of the first to build commercial systems for clients on top 
>> of Django. My staff even has a few little commits into the django code base 
>> over the years, although minor, but we were proud nonetheless to be able to 
>> contribute in some small way. I've attended my share of PyCons (prior to 
>> the invention of DjangoCon which I hope to attend one day) and have always 
>> found the community very open and inclusive of all types. This is a Good 
>> Thing (TM). I've even sent 5 staff to the event, four of which happened to 
>> be women. My team now consists of 34+ people, all but two of which are in a 
>> technical capacity. WE are geeks who seek out other geeks who want to be 
>> appreciated solely based on merit. We happen to have about a 40% female 
>> colleague share and explicitly do NOT have a diversity policy (nor will we 
>> ever have an HR department but that's another story). I simply am strong at 
>> identifying and attracting people with strong potential and the market is 
>> so extremely competitive that one must leave no stone unturned in order to 
>> find the best. THAT is the one way that a more inclusive group will come 
>> into being and for the right reasons.
>>
>> So I have actually achieved what everyone is crying out for and can't 
>> seem to figure how to accomplish. It wasn't difficult. I'm here to tell you 
>> that diversity policies and codes of conduct, in my experience consulting 
>> to dozens of commercial, government, and educational organizations in my 
>> 30+ years of experience have never once helped achieve their stated goals 
>> and, many times, have hurt both the organization and it's intended 
>> beneficiaries. True to my experience, the one threatened invocation of the 
>> code of conduct for Django fits right in line with my experience of such 
>> policies, sadly. 
>>
>> Therefore, I hope everyone appreciates that I'm fully invested in 
>> Django and attracting the best & brightest into our community. I think 
>> you'll see Kevin, that I supported your first PR but have very grave 
>> concerns about the second for the reasons I've already gone into great 
>> detail about. I do believe completely that both 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Robert Grant]

Good email. This one won't be that good.

Boiling my verbose email down to two sentences:

We seem to already have a private group of people who make decisions in
secret and pronounce a verdict on issues, and who can to a large extent
control the community. If this is the case, and they already have total
control should they choose to exercise it, a Django ASBO won't give any
extra power over - and thus protection against - griefers/bullies/whatever.

Just to hedge my bets, if the group does decide to create the ASBO, could
it be called the Anti-Social Django Act?

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Benjamin Scherrey 
wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
>
>And thanx for responding to my question about the need for such a
> policy with Django. Last night, as I had not yet had a response from anyone
> about this question I searched the archives of both django groups looking
> for any events or circumstances in which the code of conduct was invoked as
> I had no personal recollection of any such thing. I found some innocuous
> reference in the django-users group (wrongly suggesting that this coming
> policy was going to increase female participation) and in
> django-developers, one actual circumstance where its use was threatened -
> not surprisingly as part of the one example you provided that actually has
> anything to do at all with the Django community. Sadly, it's invocation was
> precisely used in the manner that I had feared - to stifle debate and
> threaten a person who was making valid and reasonable arguments (no doubt
> in the middle of a flame war but he/she wasn't the flamer). When I saw the
> name of the person who invoked the code of conduct I was even more
> disappointed as it was someone that I otherwise have a profound respect for.
>
> Other than this I was not surprised to see zero evidence for the need
> for such a policy as there don't seem to be any threatening events of the
> like that your email raises. These problems may exist elsewhere but not
> amongst the general django community that I've ever seen.
>
> Understand my background. I own a software development company that
> was a VERY early adopter of Django way before the 1.0 days. I expect I was
> certainly one of the first thousand developers to use Django in a real-life
> situation once it got outside of the newspaper where it was created. My
> company is one of the first to build commercial systems for clients on top
> of Django. My staff even has a few little commits into the django code base
> over the years, although minor, but we were proud nonetheless to be able to
> contribute in some small way. I've attended my share of PyCons (prior to
> the invention of DjangoCon which I hope to attend one day) and have always
> found the community very open and inclusive of all types. This is a Good
> Thing (TM). I've even sent 5 staff to the event, four of which happened to
> be women. My team now consists of 34+ people, all but two of which are in a
> technical capacity. WE are geeks who seek out other geeks who want to be
> appreciated solely based on merit. We happen to have about a 40% female
> colleague share and explicitly do NOT have a diversity policy (nor will we
> ever have an HR department but that's another story). I simply am strong at
> identifying and attracting people with strong potential and the market is
> so extremely competitive that one must leave no stone unturned in order to
> find the best. THAT is the one way that a more inclusive group will come
> into being and for the right reasons.
>
> So I have actually achieved what everyone is crying out for and can't
> seem to figure how to accomplish. It wasn't difficult. I'm here to tell you
> that diversity policies and codes of conduct, in my experience consulting
> to dozens of commercial, government, and educational organizations in my
> 30+ years of experience have never once helped achieve their stated goals
> and, many times, have hurt both the organization and it's intended
> beneficiaries. True to my experience, the one threatened invocation of the
> code of conduct for Django fits right in line with my experience of such
> policies, sadly.
>
> Therefore, I hope everyone appreciates that I'm fully invested in
> Django and attracting the best & brightest into our community. I think
> you'll see Kevin, that I supported your first PR but have very grave
> concerns about the second for the reasons I've already gone into great
> detail about. I do believe completely that both were put forward with good
> intentions. I'm all for policies that put forward good examples of
> appreciated behavior and add to the general sense of inclusiveness which I
> think your first one does. It scares the hell out of me when people start
> enumerating banned conduct and speech - and I wish more people understood
> the issue as well as I about why. That's why I'm quite vocal about this.
>
> Thanx for your time and interest,
>
>-- Ben Scherrey
>
> 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Benjamin Scherrey]

Hi Kevin,

   And thanx for responding to my question about the need for such a policy
with Django. Last night, as I had not yet had a response from anyone about
this question I searched the archives of both django groups looking for any
events or circumstances in which the code of conduct was invoked as I had
no personal recollection of any such thing. I found some innocuous
reference in the django-users group (wrongly suggesting that this coming
policy was going to increase female participation) and in
django-developers, one actual circumstance where its use was threatened -
not surprisingly as part of the one example you provided that actually has
anything to do at all with the Django community. Sadly, it's invocation was
precisely used in the manner that I had feared - to stifle debate and
threaten a person who was making valid and reasonable arguments (no doubt
in the middle of a flame war but he/she wasn't the flamer). When I saw the
name of the person who invoked the code of conduct I was even more
disappointed as it was someone that I otherwise have a profound respect for.

Other than this I was not surprised to see zero evidence for the need
for such a policy as there don't seem to be any threatening events of the
like that your email raises. These problems may exist elsewhere but not
amongst the general django community that I've ever seen.

Understand my background. I own a software development company that was
a VERY early adopter of Django way before the 1.0 days. I expect I was
certainly one of the first thousand developers to use Django in a real-life
situation once it got outside of the newspaper where it was created. My
company is one of the first to build commercial systems for clients on top
of Django. My staff even has a few little commits into the django code base
over the years, although minor, but we were proud nonetheless to be able to
contribute in some small way. I've attended my share of PyCons (prior to
the invention of DjangoCon which I hope to attend one day) and have always
found the community very open and inclusive of all types. This is a Good
Thing (TM). I've even sent 5 staff to the event, four of which happened to
be women. My team now consists of 34+ people, all but two of which are in a
technical capacity. WE are geeks who seek out other geeks who want to be
appreciated solely based on merit. We happen to have about a 40% female
colleague share and explicitly do NOT have a diversity policy (nor will we
ever have an HR department but that's another story). I simply am strong at
identifying and attracting people with strong potential and the market is
so extremely competitive that one must leave no stone unturned in order to
find the best. THAT is the one way that a more inclusive group will come
into being and for the right reasons.

So I have actually achieved what everyone is crying out for and can't
seem to figure how to accomplish. It wasn't difficult. I'm here to tell you
that diversity policies and codes of conduct, in my experience consulting
to dozens of commercial, government, and educational organizations in my
30+ years of experience have never once helped achieve their stated goals
and, many times, have hurt both the organization and it's intended
beneficiaries. True to my experience, the one threatened invocation of the
code of conduct for Django fits right in line with my experience of such
policies, sadly.

Therefore, I hope everyone appreciates that I'm fully invested in
Django and attracting the best & brightest into our community. I think
you'll see Kevin, that I supported your first PR but have very grave
concerns about the second for the reasons I've already gone into great
detail about. I do believe completely that both were put forward with good
intentions. I'm all for policies that put forward good examples of
appreciated behavior and add to the general sense of inclusiveness which I
think your first one does. It scares the hell out of me when people start
enumerating banned conduct and speech - and I wish more people understood
the issue as well as I about why. That's why I'm quite vocal about this.

Thanx for your time and interest,

   -- Ben Scherrey

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Kevin Daum  wrote:

> Thanks Russ, I assumed as much, having read
> https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/changes/.
>
>
> --
>
> Perhaps Daniele's keynote talk at Djangocon this year, combined with the
> already very good Django code of conduct, caused me to assume too much of
> this community's progression towards appreciating both the need of
> diversity in tech and the actual conditions required to bring that about.
>
> Benjamin, you asked if there is an actual problem that needs solving. Yes.
> Absolutely. It is a systemic one within the world of software development
> and I am excited to be a part of a particular software 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Kevin Daum]

Thanks Russ, I assumed as much, having 
read https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/changes/. 

--

Perhaps Daniele's keynote talk at Djangocon this year, combined with the 
already very good Django code of conduct, caused me to assume too much of 
this community's progression towards appreciating both the need of 
diversity in tech and the actual conditions required to bring that about. 

Benjamin, you asked if there is an actual problem that needs solving. Yes. 
Absolutely. It is a systemic one within the world of software development 
and I am excited to be a part of a particular software development 
community that is taking proactive steps towards the goal of a safe, 
supportive environment for *everyone *who is working towards that same 
goal. The quality of our software will reflect the quality of our 
community. Here is just a tiny sample of reading for any who are interested 
in learning why these kinds of policies are so important:


   1. See the recent case of Anita Sarkeesian, which is one sort of 
   situation I have in mind when writing down a policy such as this:
   https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/504718160902492160/photo/1
   
   
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/29/gaming-vlogger-anita-sarkeesian-is-forced-from-home-after-receiving-harrowing-death-threats/
   2. http://modelviewculture.com/pieces/abuse-as-ddos, including this bit: 
   "Just like with computer security, you should have plans in place to 
   identify and address attacks. At conferences, user groups, and other 
   events, this can take the form of a code of conduct along with a policy for 
   enforcement. In workplaces, this often takes the form of an employee 
   handbook. These types of policies help mitigate attacks when they happen, 
   so that decisions don’t have to be made on the fly when something goes 
   wrong. These policies are far from perfect fixes for everything, but 
   they’re better than doing nothing."
   3. http://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-open-source-identity-crisis. 
   By the way, I'm proud that the one time this author links to something 
   django-related, it's this situation 
   

 
   in which the core devs wisely and quickly made the right choice.




On Monday, September 8, 2014 9:37:16 PM UTC-4, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Thanks for these suggestions.
>
> By way of settings expectations - a patch of this nature has a little more 
> procedural overhead than a normal patch, because it requires a change to 
> our community policies. Regardless of the merit (or otherwise) of a 
> specific proposal, a change to these policies needs to be ratified by the 
> core team and the DSF membership before it goes into effect.
>
> Discussions on the ticket itself from people outside those groups is 
> definitely welcome - the broader opinion and attitudes of the community 
> will be considered as part of the ratification process. But it's not 
> something that a small group of people can quickly agree on and commit. 
>
> Russ %-)
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Kevin Daum  > wrote:
>
>> I have submitted two pull requests for the code of conduct:
>>
>>- #84 , to let 
>>folks who belong to a wide variety of social identities know that yes, 
>> even 
>>they are welcome here, and
>>- #86 , to make 
>>explicit the currently implicit policy that someone's abusive behavior 
>>outside the django community *may* have an adverse effect on their 
>>ability to participate within the django community.
>>
>> I welcome your feedback. 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kevin Daum
>>
>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Django developers" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/0633ea6c-c973-4cb0-bf94-60d045c608ea%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Russell Keith-Magee]

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for these suggestions.

By way of settings expectations - a patch of this nature has a little more
procedural overhead than a normal patch, because it requires a change to
our community policies. Regardless of the merit (or otherwise) of a
specific proposal, a change to these policies needs to be ratified by the
core team and the DSF membership before it goes into effect.

Discussions on the ticket itself from people outside those groups is
definitely welcome - the broader opinion and attitudes of the community
will be considered as part of the ratification process. But it's not
something that a small group of people can quickly agree on and commit.

Russ %-)


On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Kevin Daum  wrote:

> I have submitted two pull requests for the code of conduct:
>
>- #84 , to let
>folks who belong to a wide variety of social identities know that yes, even
>they are welcome here, and
>- #86 , to make
>explicit the currently implicit policy that someone's abusive behavior
>outside the django community *may* have an adverse effect on their
>ability to participate within the django community.
>
> I welcome your feedback.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin Daum
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/0633ea6c-c973-4cb0-bf94-60d045c608ea%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAJxq848OwLPhSNwaksOg5e2E%3DZ7bfs5ype04zuJW%3DPY%2BYQwNRQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Stephen Burrows]

If you think you could do it better, maybe you should submit your own
version for consideration. I assume that's how the process works.


On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Benjamin Scherrey 
wrote:

> Daniele,
>
> You're reading me completely wrong. I am not being sarcastic at all.
> I'm pointing out the absurdity that one style of "code of conduct"
> inevitably leads to versus another affirmative style which could actually
> serve it's intended purpose. I'm not against any code - I'm quite
> specifically supportive of one style and very aware and concerned about the
> ramifications of the other. I don't know how much more clear I can make the
> point than I already have.
>
> Thus far, however, your only response to my actual concern is
> assurances that people will "do the right thing and be reasonable". Forgive
> me if that holds absolutely no water with me because, even if I were to
> trust you personally, you have no power to enforce such an assurance. But I
> understand that's the best you can do because that is the best that can
> ever be done with this type of thing. So the only responsible action is
> don't go there. If you're going to make a policy that is completely open to
> any individual's interpretation then you've actually set back the community
> and have laid the foundation to harm to the very thing you're trying to
> protect.
>
> You keep using the term "known harasser" but attempts to codify what
> that is exactly are impossible via lists of "forbidden speech/actions". I
> welcome evidence to the contrary but I'm fairly experienced in such matters
> and don't anticipate any forthcoming. In some circles I might be a bit more
> forgiving for willfully ignoring these facts. But this is a programming
> group for goodness sakes! We know how to be specific about things and the
> dangers of opening up things to ambiguity. We can do better. So given this,
> why not just go with an affirmative policy stating how people should
> conduct themselves and demonstrate good intentions without the need to
> codify "evil things"? I think it accomplishes what you want to do and, best
> of all, could actually work!
>
> -- Ben Scherrey
>
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Daniele Procida  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014, Benjamin Scherrey  wrote:
>>
>> >I thought I made my objections pretty clear in my original email but I'll
>> >attempt to be more pedantic about it now. The specific language in the PR
>> >86 is:
>> >
>> >"In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a
>> >person's ability to participate within them." for both faq.html and
>> >index.html.
>> >
>> >I disagree with your assertion "that only makes explicit something that
>> was
>> >already the case" because that's a) not how I read it and b) completely
>> >impossible to reasonably enforce or expect.
>>
>> I can assure you that if we became aware of someone's problematic
>> behaviour then depending on the behaviour we could do anything from keeping
>> a careful eye on the individual to - in extreme cases - banning them from
>> participation.
>>
>> "Violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a person's
>> ability to participate within them" is correct. It doesn't mean that action
>> will be taken, but that it may be.
>>
>> That's already the case. If a known harrasser subscribes starts posting
>> to one of our email lists, we might have a quiet word with them, just for
>> example.
>>
>> >I hope that what is occurring is
>> >simply a matter of "I don't think it means what you think it means" but
>> >what you're really saying here is that all people on this planet must
>> >comply with our "code of conduct" at all times in all places or risk
>> being
>> >removed from our community - right after, mind you ironically, claiming
>> to
>> >support an encourage the participation of all individuals.
>>
>> Being removed from the community would be the last, not the first, course
>> of action.
>>
>> >So what is this
>> >code of conduct that we're imposing on all of humanity for the salvation
>> of
>> >the world?
>>
>> You've had your points answered twice already, politely both times. If
>> you want to make sarcastic remarks for your own amusement, don't expect any
>> more replies.
>>
>> Daniele
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Django developers" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20140908115639.2110009050%40mail.wservices.ch
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Chief Systems Architect Proteus 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Benjamin Scherrey]

Daniele,

You're reading me completely wrong. I am not being sarcastic at all.
I'm pointing out the absurdity that one style of "code of conduct"
inevitably leads to versus another affirmative style which could actually
serve it's intended purpose. I'm not against any code - I'm quite
specifically supportive of one style and very aware and concerned about the
ramifications of the other. I don't know how much more clear I can make the
point than I already have.

Thus far, however, your only response to my actual concern is
assurances that people will "do the right thing and be reasonable". Forgive
me if that holds absolutely no water with me because, even if I were to
trust you personally, you have no power to enforce such an assurance. But I
understand that's the best you can do because that is the best that can
ever be done with this type of thing. So the only responsible action is
don't go there. If you're going to make a policy that is completely open to
any individual's interpretation then you've actually set back the community
and have laid the foundation to harm to the very thing you're trying to
protect.

You keep using the term "known harasser" but attempts to codify what
that is exactly are impossible via lists of "forbidden speech/actions". I
welcome evidence to the contrary but I'm fairly experienced in such matters
and don't anticipate any forthcoming. In some circles I might be a bit more
forgiving for willfully ignoring these facts. But this is a programming
group for goodness sakes! We know how to be specific about things and the
dangers of opening up things to ambiguity. We can do better. So given this,
why not just go with an affirmative policy stating how people should
conduct themselves and demonstrate good intentions without the need to
codify "evil things"? I think it accomplishes what you want to do and, best
of all, could actually work!

-- Ben Scherrey

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Daniele Procida  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014, Benjamin Scherrey  wrote:
>
> >I thought I made my objections pretty clear in my original email but I'll
> >attempt to be more pedantic about it now. The specific language in the PR
> >86 is:
> >
> >"In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a
> >person's ability to participate within them." for both faq.html and
> >index.html.
> >
> >I disagree with your assertion "that only makes explicit something that
> was
> >already the case" because that's a) not how I read it and b) completely
> >impossible to reasonably enforce or expect.
>
> I can assure you that if we became aware of someone's problematic
> behaviour then depending on the behaviour we could do anything from keeping
> a careful eye on the individual to - in extreme cases - banning them from
> participation.
>
> "Violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a person's
> ability to participate within them" is correct. It doesn't mean that action
> will be taken, but that it may be.
>
> That's already the case. If a known harrasser subscribes starts posting to
> one of our email lists, we might have a quiet word with them, just for
> example.
>
> >I hope that what is occurring is
> >simply a matter of "I don't think it means what you think it means" but
> >what you're really saying here is that all people on this planet must
> >comply with our "code of conduct" at all times in all places or risk being
> >removed from our community - right after, mind you ironically, claiming to
> >support an encourage the participation of all individuals.
>
> Being removed from the community would be the last, not the first, course
> of action.
>
> >So what is this
> >code of conduct that we're imposing on all of humanity for the salvation
> of
> >the world?
>
> You've had your points answered twice already, politely both times. If you
> want to make sarcastic remarks for your own amusement, don't expect any
> more replies.
>
> Daniele
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20140908115639.2110009050%40mail.wservices.ch
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Chief Systems Architect Proteus Technologies 
Chief Fan Biggest Fan Productions 
Personal blog where I am not your demographic
.

This email intended solely for those who have received it. If you have
received this email by accident - well lucky you!!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Daniele Procida]

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014, Benjamin Scherrey  wrote:

>I thought I made my objections pretty clear in my original email but I'll
>attempt to be more pedantic about it now. The specific language in the PR
>86 is:
>
>"In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a
>person's ability to participate within them." for both faq.html and
>index.html.
>
>I disagree with your assertion "that only makes explicit something that was
>already the case" because that's a) not how I read it and b) completely
>impossible to reasonably enforce or expect.

I can assure you that if we became aware of someone's problematic behaviour 
then depending on the behaviour we could do anything from keeping a careful eye 
on the individual to - in extreme cases - banning them from participation.

"Violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a person's ability to 
participate within them" is correct. It doesn't mean that action will be taken, 
but that it may be.

That's already the case. If a known harrasser subscribes starts posting to one 
of our email lists, we might have a quiet word with them, just for example.  

>I hope that what is occurring is
>simply a matter of "I don't think it means what you think it means" but
>what you're really saying here is that all people on this planet must
>comply with our "code of conduct" at all times in all places or risk being
>removed from our community - right after, mind you ironically, claiming to
>support an encourage the participation of all individuals. 

Being removed from the community would be the last, not the first, course of 
action.

>So what is this
>code of conduct that we're imposing on all of humanity for the salvation of
>the world?

You've had your points answered twice already, politely both times. If you want 
to make sarcastic remarks for your own amusement, don't expect any more replies.

Daniele

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20140908115639.2110009050%40mail.wservices.ch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Robert Grant]

Yeah I agree with Ben; this is one of those highly conservative things that 
might sound good, but just allow more and more extreme responses to 
nonconformist behaviour. Every unpleasant system at some point had good 
intentions, and asked the question, "But why wouldn't you want people to be 
like this?" 

The answer is: I don't know, but there are almost certainly things that the 
current lack of rules allow that I also like, and I won't like it when 
they're gone.

Similarly, as Ben makes clear, while you may intend one thing when writing 
down rules, you actually open them up to any interpretation, and things can 
get much more extreme than you intended. That's one of the reasons people 
start liberal but become conservative; they want change, but no, we didn't 
think anyone would ever do *that!* And if you say, "But we won't let things 
go bad" then the obvious answer is: you have written rules, or you have 
dictators. Having both is the same as having dictators. All it'll do is 
expose inconsistencies when the dictators don't like unforseen implications 
of rules, and so override them, or they'll interpret the rules in 
non-obvious ways to get people to stop doing things they feel they're 
allowed to do (e.g. people call smacking your kids "beating" them, because 
"beatings are bad" is a rule we agree with).

But I'm a liberal at heart :) I can see that it's very attractive to be 
able to come down hard on people who offend you, but without a lot more 
detail it's probably just going to cause a lot of aggravation and drive 
people to more liberally educated communities.

The community doesn't seem so vast that it needs self-appointed governers, 
but possibly I'm wrong there.

On Monday, 8 September 2014 09:16:23 UTC+2, Benjamin Scherrey wrote:
>
> I thought I made my objections pretty clear in my original email but I'll 
> attempt to be more pedantic about it now. The specific language in the PR 
> 86 is:
>
> "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a 
> person's ability to participate within them." for both faq.html and 
> index.html. 
>
> I disagree with your assertion "that only makes explicit something that 
> was already the case" because that's a) not how I read it and b) completely 
> impossible to reasonably enforce or expect. I hope that what is occurring is 
> simply a matter of "I don't think it means what you think it means" but 
> what you're really saying here is that all people on this planet must 
> comply with our "code of conduct" at all times in all places or risk being 
> removed from our community - right after, mind you ironically, claiming to 
> support an encourage the participation of all individuals. So what is this 
> code of conduct that we're imposing on all of humanity for the salvation of 
> the world? Fortunately there is, literally, a list:
>
>   
> Violent threats or language directed against another person.
> Sexist, racist, or otherwise discriminatory jokes and 
> language.
> Posting sexually explicit or violent material.
> Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally 
> identifying information ("doxing").
> Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist 
> terms.
> Unwelcome sexual attention.
> Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.
> Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you to 
> stop, then stop.
>   
>
> So lets see... anyone who has done any of the following completely outside 
> the context of the Django community or forums is now not welcome to 
> participate:
>
> 1) Ever threatened to or actually spank their children.
> 2) Ever used violence or threat there-of to defend another person from 
> same.
> 3) Ever posted a naked or somewhat explicit picture of themselves or 
> others in a private message to another person or in a forum, such as a 
> photo site like flickr.
> 4) Dox'd a person who is clearly engaging in criminal activity under a 
> pretense of anonymity.
> 5) Ever repeated a joke with sexual or racial content.
> 6) Ever asked someone out or complemented another person on their looks 
> who didn't want it.
> 7) Said it's ok for someone to do any of the above.
> 8) Said or did it twice.
>
> Seriously?!?! This *is* really what you're saying. (BTW - I've done all of 
> the above at one time or another so ban me now.)
>
> Of course some of these (but not all - and it depends a lot about whom) 
> may seem outrageous but they are true to the letter of the code of conduct. 
> I agree these things probably don't belong in the context of a Django 
> discussion or group but I do not believe you can enforce elimination this 
> conduct outside of same. And - then there's just the ability to agree to 
> disagree. One can very credibly argue that many religions or political 
> philosophies are racist, sexist, etc. Are all practicing members of same 
> now banned from participation in Django? This RP language says yes.
>
> Now that I 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Stephen Burrows]

Turns out there *is* a document detailing enforcement policies and it
*does* involve a range of possible responses to violations.

https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/blob/master/templates/conduct/enforcement.html
https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/enforcement-manual/


On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Stephen Burrows <
stephen.r.burr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ben,
>
> Just to clarify, it sounds like what you're saying is the following: If
> there were a member of the django community who (may this never be the
> case) was harassing members of the django community, but limited their
> harassment to non-django-specific forums, you would want it to not affect
> their participation in django spaces.
>
> Is that correct? If so, is that a blanket statement or does it depend in
> your mind what exactly they've done? For example, what if they had a single
> hateful tweet? What if they had five? What if they orchestrated a
> harassment campaign that drove someone from their home?
>
> Where would you draw the line?
>
> I would also like to point out that the code of conduct doesn't seem to
> contain any statements about how it's enforced. Generally speaking,
> policies like this operate with a certain number of warnings, followed by
> escalation if that doesn't stick - except in extreme cases. It even says
> explicitly *in* the policy:
>
> Don’t forget that it is human to err and blaming each other doesn’t get us
>> anywhere, rather offer to help resolving issues and to help learn from
>> mistakes.
>
>
> I understand that you're concerned about the application of the policy,
> but it seems like you're (perhaps unintentionally) exaggerating the scope
> and purpose of the policy to support your point.
>
> --Stephen
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Benjamin Scherrey 
> wrote:
>
>> I thought I made my objections pretty clear in my original email but I'll
>> attempt to be more pedantic about it now. The specific language in the PR
>> 86 is:
>>
>> "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a
>> person's ability to participate within them." for both faq.html and
>> index.html.
>>
>> I disagree with your assertion "that only makes explicit something that
>> was already the case" because that's a) not how I read it and b) completely
>> impossible to reasonably enforce or expect. I hope that what is occurring is
>> simply a matter of "I don't think it means what you think it means" but
>> what you're really saying here is that all people on this planet must
>> comply with our "code of conduct" at all times in all places or risk being
>> removed from our community - right after, mind you ironically, claiming to
>> support an encourage the participation of all individuals. So what is this
>> code of conduct that we're imposing on all of humanity for the salvation of
>> the world? Fortunately there is, literally, a list:
>>
>>   
>> Violent threats or language directed against another person.
>> Sexist, racist, or otherwise discriminatory jokes and
>> language.
>> Posting sexually explicit or violent material.
>> Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally
>> identifying information ("doxing").
>> Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist
>> terms.
>> Unwelcome sexual attention.
>> Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.
>> Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you to
>> stop, then stop.
>>   
>>
>> So lets see... anyone who has done any of the following completely
>> outside the context of the Django community or forums is now not welcome to
>> participate:
>>
>> 1) Ever threatened to or actually spank their children.
>> 2) Ever used violence or threat there-of to defend another person from
>> same.
>> 3) Ever posted a naked or somewhat explicit picture of themselves or
>> others in a private message to another person or in a forum, such as a
>> photo site like flickr.
>> 4) Dox'd a person who is clearly engaging in criminal activity under a
>> pretense of anonymity.
>> 5) Ever repeated a joke with sexual or racial content.
>> 6) Ever asked someone out or complemented another person on their looks
>> who didn't want it.
>> 7) Said it's ok for someone to do any of the above.
>> 8) Said or did it twice.
>>
>> Seriously?!?! This *is* really what you're saying. (BTW - I've done all
>> of the above at one time or another so ban me now.)
>>
>> Of course some of these (but not all - and it depends a lot about whom)
>> may seem outrageous but they are true to the letter of the code of conduct.
>> I agree these things probably don't belong in the context of a Django
>> discussion or group but I do not believe you can enforce elimination this
>> conduct outside of same. And - then there's just the ability to agree to
>> disagree. One can very credibly argue that many religions or political
>> philosophies are racist, sexist, etc. Are all practicing members of same
>> now 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Stephen Burrows]

Ben,

Just to clarify, it sounds like what you're saying is the following: If
there were a member of the django community who (may this never be the
case) was harassing members of the django community, but limited their
harassment to non-django-specific forums, you would want it to not affect
their participation in django spaces.

Is that correct? If so, is that a blanket statement or does it depend in
your mind what exactly they've done? For example, what if they had a single
hateful tweet? What if they had five? What if they orchestrated a
harassment campaign that drove someone from their home?

Where would you draw the line?

I would also like to point out that the code of conduct doesn't seem to
contain any statements about how it's enforced. Generally speaking,
policies like this operate with a certain number of warnings, followed by
escalation if that doesn't stick - except in extreme cases. It even says
explicitly *in* the policy:

Don’t forget that it is human to err and blaming each other doesn’t get us
> anywhere, rather offer to help resolving issues and to help learn from
> mistakes.


I understand that you're concerned about the application of the policy, but
it seems like you're (perhaps unintentionally) exaggerating the scope and
purpose of the policy to support your point.

--Stephen


On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Benjamin Scherrey 
wrote:

> I thought I made my objections pretty clear in my original email but I'll
> attempt to be more pedantic about it now. The specific language in the PR
> 86 is:
>
> "In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a
> person's ability to participate within them." for both faq.html and
> index.html.
>
> I disagree with your assertion "that only makes explicit something that
> was already the case" because that's a) not how I read it and b) completely
> impossible to reasonably enforce or expect. I hope that what is occurring is
> simply a matter of "I don't think it means what you think it means" but
> what you're really saying here is that all people on this planet must
> comply with our "code of conduct" at all times in all places or risk being
> removed from our community - right after, mind you ironically, claiming to
> support an encourage the participation of all individuals. So what is this
> code of conduct that we're imposing on all of humanity for the salvation of
> the world? Fortunately there is, literally, a list:
>
>   
> Violent threats or language directed against another person.
> Sexist, racist, or otherwise discriminatory jokes and
> language.
> Posting sexually explicit or violent material.
> Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally
> identifying information ("doxing").
> Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist
> terms.
> Unwelcome sexual attention.
> Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.
> Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you to
> stop, then stop.
>   
>
> So lets see... anyone who has done any of the following completely outside
> the context of the Django community or forums is now not welcome to
> participate:
>
> 1) Ever threatened to or actually spank their children.
> 2) Ever used violence or threat there-of to defend another person from
> same.
> 3) Ever posted a naked or somewhat explicit picture of themselves or
> others in a private message to another person or in a forum, such as a
> photo site like flickr.
> 4) Dox'd a person who is clearly engaging in criminal activity under a
> pretense of anonymity.
> 5) Ever repeated a joke with sexual or racial content.
> 6) Ever asked someone out or complemented another person on their looks
> who didn't want it.
> 7) Said it's ok for someone to do any of the above.
> 8) Said or did it twice.
>
> Seriously?!?! This *is* really what you're saying. (BTW - I've done all of
> the above at one time or another so ban me now.)
>
> Of course some of these (but not all - and it depends a lot about whom)
> may seem outrageous but they are true to the letter of the code of conduct.
> I agree these things probably don't belong in the context of a Django
> discussion or group but I do not believe you can enforce elimination this
> conduct outside of same. And - then there's just the ability to agree to
> disagree. One can very credibly argue that many religions or political
> philosophies are racist, sexist, etc. Are all practicing members of same
> now banned from participation in Django? This RP language says yes.
>
> Now that I have, again, been responsive to your dismissal of my
> objections, please do me the courtesy of re-reading my original (and this)
> email and attempt to be responsive to it's content.
>
> thank you,
>
>   -- Ben Scherrey
>
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Daniele Procida  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014, Benjamin Scherrey  wrote:
>>
>> >Nothing you've written 

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Benjamin Scherrey]

I thought I made my objections pretty clear in my original email but I'll
attempt to be more pedantic about it now. The specific language in the PR
86 is:

"In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a
person's ability to participate within them." for both faq.html and
index.html.

I disagree with your assertion "that only makes explicit something that was
already the case" because that's a) not how I read it and b) completely
impossible to reasonably enforce or expect. I hope that what is occurring is
simply a matter of "I don't think it means what you think it means" but
what you're really saying here is that all people on this planet must
comply with our "code of conduct" at all times in all places or risk being
removed from our community - right after, mind you ironically, claiming to
support an encourage the participation of all individuals. So what is this
code of conduct that we're imposing on all of humanity for the salvation of
the world? Fortunately there is, literally, a list:

  
Violent threats or language directed against another person.
Sexist, racist, or otherwise discriminatory jokes and language.
Posting sexually explicit or violent material.
Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally
identifying information ("doxing").
Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist
terms.
Unwelcome sexual attention.
Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.
Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you to
stop, then stop.
  

So lets see... anyone who has done any of the following completely outside
the context of the Django community or forums is now not welcome to
participate:

1) Ever threatened to or actually spank their children.
2) Ever used violence or threat there-of to defend another person from same.
3) Ever posted a naked or somewhat explicit picture of themselves or others
in a private message to another person or in a forum, such as a photo site
like flickr.
4) Dox'd a person who is clearly engaging in criminal activity under a
pretense of anonymity.
5) Ever repeated a joke with sexual or racial content.
6) Ever asked someone out or complemented another person on their looks who
didn't want it.
7) Said it's ok for someone to do any of the above.
8) Said or did it twice.

Seriously?!?! This *is* really what you're saying. (BTW - I've done all of
the above at one time or another so ban me now.)

Of course some of these (but not all - and it depends a lot about whom) may
seem outrageous but they are true to the letter of the code of conduct. I
agree these things probably don't belong in the context of a Django
discussion or group but I do not believe you can enforce elimination this
conduct outside of same. And - then there's just the ability to agree to
disagree. One can very credibly argue that many religions or political
philosophies are racist, sexist, etc. Are all practicing members of same
now banned from participation in Django? This RP language says yes.

Now that I have, again, been responsive to your dismissal of my objections,
please do me the courtesy of re-reading my original (and this) email and
attempt to be responsive to it's content.

thank you,

  -- Ben Scherrey

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Daniele Procida  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014, Benjamin Scherrey  wrote:
>
> >Nothing you've written disagrees with what I said, nor do you address
> >the core concern I bring up about the "change of substance" which is chock
> >full of opportunities for the law of unintended consequences to come up
> and
> >bite us all.
>
> What in your opinion is (or was) the "change of substance" in <
> https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/pull/86>?
>
> I didn't see any but a very minor one, that only makes explicit something
> that was already the case.
>
> >Re-reading the existing documents, I find that this language
> >introduces an entirely different tone to the language of these policies
> >and, again, implies some dangerous precedents beyond what the writers may
> >intend.
>
> Which language in pull request 86?
>
> Daniele
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20140907200417.1287303773%40mail.wservices.ch
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Chief Systems Architect Proteus Technologies 
Chief Fan Biggest Fan Productions 
Personal blog where I am not your demographic

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Daniele Procida]

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014, Benjamin Scherrey  wrote:

>Nothing you've written disagrees with what I said, nor do you address
>the core concern I bring up about the "change of substance" which is chock
>full of opportunities for the law of unintended consequences to come up and
>bite us all. 

What in your opinion is (or was) the "change of substance" in 
?

I didn't see any but a very minor one, that only makes explicit something that 
was already the case.

>Re-reading the existing documents, I find that this language
>introduces an entirely different tone to the language of these policies
>and, again, implies some dangerous precedents beyond what the writers may
>intend.

Which language in pull request 86?

Daniele

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20140907200417.1287303773%40mail.wservices.ch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Benjamin Scherrey]

Daniele,

Nothing you've written disagrees with what I said, nor do you address
the core concern I bring up about the "change of substance" which is chock
full of opportunities for the law of unintended consequences to come up and
bite us all. Re-reading the existing documents, I find that this language
introduces an entirely different tone to the language of these policies
and, again, implies some dangerous precedents beyond what the writers may
intend. Whether intentional or not, they aren't good and should be avoided.

-- Ben

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Daniele Procida  wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014, Benjamin Scherrey  wrote:
>
> >Number 84 sounds fine. #86 is just looking for trouble. You were wise in
> 84
> >to keep it positive and not enumerate a list of "banned" behaviour. To
> have
> >86 be anything beyond providing a weapon to be used by anyone looking to
> be
> >"victimized" in order to silence those whom they disagree with, you would
> >have to absolutely list the behaviours you don't want to tolerate. Frankly
> >84 is about toleration and acceptance whereas 86 can do nothing but
> >increase intolerance ultimately.
>
> The only change of substance in <
> https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/pull/86> is the addition of
> one sentence:
>
> In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a
> person's ability to participate within them.
>
> which is the case already - this just makes it explicit.
>
> "May affect" give us plenty of scope for a measured and proportionate
> response - it may just mean we watch them more carefully.
>
> Daniele
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20140907142424.1464951136%40mail.wservices.ch
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Chief Systems Architect Proteus Technologies 
Chief Fan Biggest Fan Productions 
Personal blog where I am not your demographic
.

This email intended solely for those who have received it. If you have
received this email by accident - well lucky you!!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAHN%3D9D7_VHj5iZef7STn6N1gZgHVUDZRp3WXo97JriEPQKSn%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Two proposals for the Django Code of Conduct.

[Daniele Procida]

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014, Benjamin Scherrey  wrote:

>Number 84 sounds fine. #86 is just looking for trouble. You were wise in 84
>to keep it positive and not enumerate a list of "banned" behaviour. To have
>86 be anything beyond providing a weapon to be used by anyone looking to be
>"victimized" in order to silence those whom they disagree with, you would
>have to absolutely list the behaviours you don't want to tolerate. Frankly
>84 is about toleration and acceptance whereas 86 can do nothing but
>increase intolerance ultimately.

The only change of substance in 
 is the addition of one 
sentence:

In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a 
person's ability to participate within them.

which is the case already - this just makes it explicit.

"May affect" give us plenty of scope for a measured and proportionate response 
- it may just mean we watch them more carefully.

Daniele

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/20140907142424.1464951136%40mail.wservices.ch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.