It's probably also worth noting that that is not the standard imposed by
the quoted CoC line.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, 20:49 Isarra Yos, <zhoris...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Expecting every single comment to specifically move things forward
> seems... a bit excessive, frankly. Not everyone is going to have the
> vocabulary to properly express themselves, let alone the skill to fully
> explain exactly what the issues are, why they are, how to move forward,
> or whatever. And even then, I would argue that having input that isn't
> directly doing any of this can still be useful to indicating to others
> that can that such might indeed be in order, that there is indeed
> sufficient interest to merit the effort, or sufficient confusion that
> there might be more issue than immediately met the eye.
>
> A wtf from one person can help to get others involved to actually
> clarify, or ask followup questions, or what have you. It's not off topic.
>
> -I
>
> On 14/08/18 19:41, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
> > Hey Petr,
> > We have discussed this before in the thread and I and several other
> people
> > said it's a straw man.
> >
> > The problem is not the WTF or "What the fuck" and as I said before the
> mere
> > use of profanity is not forbidden by the CoC. What's forbidden is
> "Harming
> > the discussion or community with methods such as sustained disruption,
> > interruption, or blocking of community collaboration (i.e. trolling).".
> > [1]  When someone does something in phabricator and you *just* comment
> > "WTF", you're not moving the discussion forward, you're not adding any
> > value, you're not saying what exactly is wrong or try to reach a
> consensus.
> > Compare this with later comments made, for example:
> > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200742#4502463
> >
> > I hope all of this helps for understanding what's wrong here.
> >
> > [1]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
> > Best
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:29 PM Petr Bena <benap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I am OK if people who are attacking others are somehow informed that
> >> this is not acceptable and taught how to properly behave, and if they
> >> continue that, maybe some "preventive" actions could be taken, but is
> >> that what really happened?
> >>
> >> The comment by MZMcBride was censored, so almost nobody can really see
> >> what it was and from almost all mails mentioning the content here it
> >> appears he said "what the fuck" or WTF. I can't really think of any
> >> language construct where this is so offensive it merits instant ban +
> >> removal of content.
> >>
> >> I don't think we need /any/ language policy in a bug tracker. If
> >> someone says "this bug sucks old donkey's ****" it may sounds a bit
> >> silly, but there isn't really any harm done. If you say "Jimbo, you
> >> are a f**** retard, and all your code stinks" then that's a problem,
> >> but I have serious doubts that's what happened. And the problem is not
> >> a language, but personal attack itself.
> >>
> >> If someone is causing problems LET THEM KNOW and talk to them. Banning
> >> someone instantly is worst possible thing you can do. You may think
> >> our community is large enough already so that we can set up this kind
> >> of strict and annoying policies and rules, but I guarantee you, it's
> >> not. We have so many open bugs in phabricator that every user could
> >> take hundreds of them... We don't need to drive active developers away
> >> by giving them bans that are hardly justified.
> >>
> >> P.S. if someone saying "WTF" is really giving you creeps, I seriously
> >> recommend you to try to develop a bit thicker skin, even if we build
> >> an "Utopia" as someone mentioned here, it's gonna be practical for
> >> interactions in real world, which is not always friendly and nice. And
> >> randomly banning people just for saying WTF, with some cryptic
> >> explanation, seems more 1984 style Dystopia to me...
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:08 PM, David Barratt <dbarr...@wikimedia.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> Again, this isn't enwiki, but there would be a large mob gathering at
> >> the
> >>>> administrators' doorstep on enwiki for a block without that context
> and
> >>>> backstory.
> >>>>
> >>> That seems like really toxic behavior.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:27 AM George Herbert <
> george.herb...@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I keep seeing "abusers" and I still haven't seen the evidence of the
> >>>> alleged long term abuse pattern.
> >>>>
> >>>> Again, this isn't enwiki, but there would be a large mob gathering at
> >> the
> >>>> administrators' doorstep on enwiki for a block without that context
> and
> >>>> backstory.  That's not exactly the standard here, but ... would
> someone
> >>>> just answer the question?  What happened leading up to this to justify
> >> the
> >>>> block?  If it's that well known, you can document it.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Adam Wight <awi...@wikimedia.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Petr,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nobody is language policing, this is about preventing abusive
> behavior
> >>>> and
> >>>>> creating an inviting environment where volunteers and staff don't
> >> have to
> >>>>> waste time with emotional processing of traumatic interactions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think we're after the same thing, that we want to keep our
> community
> >>>>> friendly and productive, so it's just a matter of agreeing on the
> >> means
> >>>> to
> >>>>> accomplish this.  I see the Code of Conduct Committee standing up to
> >> the
> >>>>> nonsense and you see them as being hostile, so our perspectives
> >> diverge
> >>>> at
> >>>>> that point.  I also see lots of people on this list standing up for
> >> what
> >>>>> they think is right, and I'd love if that energy could be organized
> >>>> better
> >>>>> so that we're not sniping at each other, but instead refining our
> >> shared
> >>>>> statements of social values and finding a way to encourage the good
> >> while
> >>>>> more effectively addressing the worst in us.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This isn't coherent enough to share yet, but I'll try anyway—I've
> been
> >>>>> thinking about how our high proportion of anarchic- and
> >>>>> libertarian-oriented individuals helped shape a culture which doesn't
> >>>>> handle "negative laws" [1] well.  For example, the Code of Conduct is
> >>>>> mostly focused on "unacceptable behaviors", but perhaps we could
> >> rewrite
> >>>> it
> >>>>> in the positive sense, as a set of shared responsibilities to support
> >>>> each
> >>>>> other and the less powerful person in any conflict.  We have a duty
> to
> >>>>> speak up, a duty to keep abusers from their target, we own this
> social
> >>>>> space and have to maintain it together.  If you see where I'm headed?
> >>>>> Rewriting the CoC in a positive rights framework is a daunting
> >> project,
> >>>> but
> >>>>> it might be fun.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Adam
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:36 AM Petr Bena <benap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I am a bit late to the party, but do we seriously spend days
> >>>>>> discussing someone being banned from a bug tracker just for saying
> >>>>>> "WTF", having their original comment completely censored, so that
> >> the
> >>>>>> community can't even make a decision how bad it really was? Is that
> >>>>>> what we turned into? From highly skilled developers and some of best
> >>>>>> experts in the field to a bunch of language nazis?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We have tens of thousands of open tasks to work on and instead of
> >>>>>> doing something useful we are wasting our time here. Really? Oh,
> >> come
> >>>>>> on...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We are open source developers. If you make Phabricator too hostile
> >> to
> >>>>>> use it by setting up some absolutely useless and annoying rules,
> >>>>>> people will just move to some other bug tracker, or decide to spend
> >>>>>> their free time on a different open source project. Most of us are
> >>>>>> volunteers, we don't get money for this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> P.S. if all the effort we put into this gigantic thread was put into
> >>>>>> solving the original bug instead (yes it's a bug, not a feature) it
> >>>>>> would be already resolved. Instead we are mocking someone who was so
> >>>>>> desperate with the situation to use some swear words.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:06 AM, Yaron Koren <yaro...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>   Nuria Ruiz <nu...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> The CoC will prioritize the safety of the minority over the
> >> comfort
> >>>> of
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> majority.
> >>>>>>> This is an odd thing to say, in this context. I don't believe
> >>>> anyone's
> >>>>>>> safety is endangered by hearing the phrase in question, so it
> >> seems
> >>>>> like
> >>>>>>> just an issue of comfort on both sides. And who are the minority
> >> and
> >>>>>>> majority here?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The way the bug was closed might be incorrect (I personally as an
> >>>>>> engineer
> >>>>>>>> agree that closing it shows little understanding of how technical
> >>>>> teams
> >>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>> track bugs in phab, some improvements are in order here for sure)
> >>>> but
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> harsh interaction is just one out of many that have been out of
> >> line
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> while.
> >>>>>>> This seems like the current argument - that it's not really about
> >> the
> >>>>> use
> >>>>>>> of a phrase, it's about an alleged pattern of behavior by
> >> MZMcBride.
> >>>>> What
> >>>>>>> this pattern is I don't know - the one example that was brought up
> >>>> was
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>> blog post he wrote six years ago, which caused someone else to say
> >>>>>>> something mean in the comments. (!) As others have pointed out,
> >>>>> there's a
> >>>>>>> lack of transparency here.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Yaron
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
> >>>>>>> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
> >>>>>> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
> >>>>> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> -george william herbert
> >>>> george.herb...@gmail.com
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
> >>>> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikitech-l mailing list
> >>> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikitech-l mailing list
> >> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Reply via email to