Reworked language for avoiding and escalating conflict #2257
Conversation
comradekingu
changed the title
|
|
||
| In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not a pledge, as evident by its inclusion, and title. Further embodied in a seemingly active "we". I have not taken it, and I don't want anyone to operate on the assumption I have. So what can one take for granted? Sadly this text only revels in the muddling of this concept.
It is redundant to law where it deals in harassment, and specifically, invokes a needless reiteration of how people are irrelevantly different to the task at hand. It is not plausible that any of this is needed, nor is it historically the case, bringing only into question its validity through tarnishing the project. Guilt by implausible association, and/or the assumption of implicit wrongdoing.
| * Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences | ||
| * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism | ||
| * Focusing on what is best for the community | ||
| * Showing empathy towards other community members |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ability for empathy is a physical ability, of which some are not capable, see the aforementioned "disability", recognized in psychology. The intention possibly is sympathy, but still see the aforementioned same disability, and now it doesn't create a positive environment at all. This makes it nice sounding, but nonetheless deeply worrisome.
| Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment include: | ||
|
|
||
| * Using welcoming and inclusive language | ||
| * Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not qualified relating to an acceptance for diversity of thought. Insofar as it means all, no. Respect is given, not taken for granted. Issuing respect by default undermines the concept, unless used for a genuinely noble concept like freedom of speech, benefiting all at the best of ability.
|
|
||
| * Using welcoming and inclusive language | ||
| * Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences | ||
| * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This jumps the gun, criticism has to be offered first, and alarmingly, this does nothing to avoid non-constructive criticism. The difference between disabuse, making someone aware of the flawed logic in their thinking, and harassment, has not yet been made clear to anyone not wanting to make the mistake of confusing the two.
| * Using welcoming and inclusive language | ||
| * Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences | ||
| * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism | ||
| * Focusing on what is best for the community |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This does not have to be a good idea for the individual, which is why it is dangerous.
|
|
||
| Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: | ||
|
|
||
| * The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sexuality is human, this passage is moralizing in a paternalistic manner. Sexualized language is by its nature as out of place in a translation platform project as including its chastisement. Should it regardless be relevant, utilized for example to comedic effect, you make the point of being uncouth to that end. The nature of comedy is to run the risk of bombing.
What is unwelcome is decided in the courtesy of offering it in a respectable manner, not beforehand.
Banning a whole aspect of humanity, so innate the outcome is bound to be unsuccessful at that, because one or more outcomes of it is problematic, trades liberty for censorship, at a rate that is not even good.
| Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: | ||
|
|
||
| * The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances | ||
| * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Trolling is a art. Politics are meant to be attacked, in no way should that be mixed in with personal attacks. Where it is equally otherwise obvious that political attacks are not meant to be physical, this text offers nothing.
Insults is how some people test boundaries, it forms bonds. It is also how some people are injurious, which is not the same. Self-derogatory comments you will take away from my dumb self, from my clinching buttcheeks, over my dead rotating body.
|
|
||
| * The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances | ||
| * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks | ||
| * Public or private harassment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is illegal, and as such, redundant to law. The notion of "what if", has no end, the exploration of which does not make for relevant communication.
| * The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances | ||
| * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks | ||
| * Public or private harassment | ||
| * Publishing others' private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is good, but too long-winded. If one wants anyone to read any of this, and the concepts that are valuable to not drown, brevity is key.
| * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks | ||
| * Public or private harassment | ||
| * Publishing others' private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission | ||
| * Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Got me there, with the use of "reasonable", thoust the tautologyic thorn in my sides.
Professionalism for the sake of professionalism is bad. It is not more unreasonable than to call it as such, that the professional world is full of concessions away from humanity, befitting not people, but rather corporate identity and decision-making.
I do not bow to this. My power is mine, and I use it to question the age in which the stated claim passed for mustard. If then not to all, it is clear to me that a historically changing landscape, which in no way has found stability at present day, is not a model to admire or adopt. Work is called work because it is tedious, this act is what makes it so. This passage internally conflicts the point of "personal appearance", among sadly others.
|
|
||
| ## Our Responsibilities | ||
|
|
||
| Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Responsible how? If both in charge of corrections and clarifying the standard of behaviour, "fair" and "unacceptable" becomes entirely a question of admission. It is as unclear as it is empty. If then by doing, why in writing?
I would like to navigate social hierarchy the way it forms, using my own judgement, not be instructed. Nor is human interaction simple enough to instruct. Beyond unwritten rules, unwritten for a reason, this is a futile endeavour.
|
|
||
| Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior. | ||
|
|
||
| Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The CoC has grown into a self-aggrandizing entity not only protecting itself, but also capable of virtue-signaling. Where it is limited in scope, it does not limit power. Where it is unlimited in power, it lacks accuracy. Don't worry, scope becomes blurringly wide if you read on.
Where this is obvious, it could not be louder, where it is unclear, it is a consideration of harmfulness that does't go beyond the headline.
The user has the power to fork, that is the culture, that is the freedom, I do not want a CoC to pretend otherwise.
|
|
||
| ## Scope | ||
|
|
||
| This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The shameless notion of calling this an individual, when all non-corporate identity is stripped, glorifying in the name of the individual, appointment. The name is "entity", but I digress.
On the assumption that antisocial behaviour can be amended by text, resulting in an appeal to own morality that somehow values the latter over the given ability of the former, why would anyone misrepresenting the project care? The CoC is not my critical faculty, and to the contrary, it is my responsibility alone to question the validity of claims made by those trying to convince me. I can then offer this to my fellow man at their peril. You do not represent me, or dictate me by being in my community. The alternative is guilt by association, and morality by decree.
The reasoning behind this passage I find wanting. "Official" is below all else, only a claim.
|
|
||
| ## Enforcement | ||
|
|
||
| Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported by contacting the project team at info@weblate.org. The project team will review and investigate all complaints, and will respond in a way that it deems appropriate to the circumstances. The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The word "may" is ambiguous here. Is it suggesting validity or possibility? There is no team that I am aware of, since there is only one maintainer. Confidentiality can not be ensured over unencrypted e-mail. In a scenario where the report is the offence, this falls to its own logic.
|
|
||
| Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported by contacting the project team at info@weblate.org. The project team will review and investigate all complaints, and will respond in a way that it deems appropriate to the circumstances. The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. | ||
|
|
||
| Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project's leadership. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The project is the project is the project, is the authority over it. No amount of wording sugar-coats it.
Edit: Note it escalates "other members of the project's leadership" into what is the vaguest possible interpretations of "professional" or "appropriate". This is why this is a political tool, intended and admittedly so, and why it has been used as such. It is the one-way street to ruining meritocracy. Forking is costly, and reputation is worth more.
|
|
||
| ## Attribution | ||
|
|
||
| This Code of Conduct is adapted from the [Contributor Covenant][homepage], version 1.4, available at [http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4][version] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When something should be simple and it isn't, more revisions will not adjust the map to the surroundings.
I don't intend to keep up with the changelog, and the number holds no meaning when it allows for invariant sections. From the above: "Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted separately."
| This Code of Conduct is adapted from the [Contributor Covenant][homepage], version 1.4, available at [http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4][version] | ||
|
|
||
| [homepage]: http://contributor-covenant.org | ||
| [version]: http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the voice from above got tired of talking, it handed communication over to the middleman.
| @@ -1,46 +1,9 @@ | |||
| # Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not a Covenant in the sense of
"a formal alliance or agreement made by God with a religious community or with humanity in general", nor is it in the sens of law:
"a promise to engage in or refrain from a specified action (including restrictive covenant, a restriction on the use of property)."
It is an assumption, and an appeal to authority at that.
The scope of creating and fostering community is in some places not misplaced, but as such should then not be limited to contributors, as they are only part thereof, and at that not be an assumption by its introduction or as a result its utilization.
More importantly: Why?
|
The code of conduct is the default one provided by GitHub and I actually didn't spend much time looking for alternatives. I will read it your changes later, but I'm certainly not against making it simpler. |
|
@nijel Might have something to do with the person working there, from 2016 Interestingly posting this on Twitter: "Some people are saying that the Contributor Covenant is a political document, and they’re right." Though I was very fine before it got included here, I don't know why any "code of conduct" is needed, certainly I see nothing in this CoC warranting it, or authoritativeness of the kind. Though if anything is important enough for inclusion, it should be on the landing page. |
|
Thanks I've merged your changes. I'm not really experienced in this, so it's hard to make some decision. Having code of conduct was suggested by several people to me (not that we had problems so far) and I simply picked up whatever GitHub offered as default document. |
Critique welcome, changes equally so, I suggest on the basis of being OK to all, from a neutral standpoint of starting afresh.
The credibility of coming from one member of community (not for being a contributor) is at-least better than boilerplate, and it is offered as such.