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