
Django adopts a Code of Conduct - Lightning
https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2013/jul/31/django-adopts-code-of-conduct/
======
skore
Historically, is there any good example for a community that had issues and
was improved by a CoC?

I'm really interested because - All I've seen over the years is that a
community has toxic people in them and it's either because of their actions or
(funnily enough) because of their initiative that a CoC gets drafted and put
in place. Afterwards, these toxic people now see themselves in charge of
upholding the CoC and you get a neat little mall cop situation.

It depends on the CoC, of course, but in my experience the actual details only
change the rate of decline in community quality. If it does end up getting
better, it's often in spite of the CoC, not because of it.

Inevitably, people who aren't as anal about the rules find themselves pushed
out of the community by sheer frustration over being policed by the mall cops.
More often than not, the people who are pushed out happen to be the more
productive members of the community (in other areas than policing).

I had an experience where I was policed for using the "highly offensive
dictionary ``complete cock´´". Not towards a person, just as a general
expression. I was so astonished, I had to make a screenshot. It marked the
beginning of the end of my participation in that particular forum.

A year later, another developer was pushed out of the community for using the
word "pussy". As in: "I decided I will finish this code tonight instead of
being a pussy." Fun times.

~~~
jacobian
I have anecdotes about how CoCs have improved communities, but I don't really
want to play dueling anecdotes with you. It sucks that you've seen Coc's used
as a bludgeon; I haven't.

However, it's sorta irrelevant here: we're not expecting this to really change
much of anything, and we don't think the community needs improving. Like the
FAQ says, "we know that the Django community is open, friendly, and welcoming.
We want to make sure everyone else knows it too." The goal here is to
articulate and write down the standards that we already basically follow but
have been (until now) unwritten.

In fact, if you're worried about having the book thrown at you, you should be
_happy_ about this change. Before today, if I thought you were being a jerk, I
could throw you off IRC or the mailing list or whatever and that was that. I
was, until a few hours ago, essentially sole arbiter of standards in the
Django community, and those standards were ones that basically lived in my
head until earlier this year.

Now, those standards are written down, and there's a process and some
oversight to make sure I don't unilaterally decide someone's worth hitting
with the ban-hammer.

So really, if you're honestly concerned about being people ousted for violated
community policies, this sort of documentation and process should make you
feel _more_ comfortable, not less. We're replacing a BDFL-ship with open
documentation, a committee, and organizational oversight.

~~~
skore
I appreciate and agree with the points you are making. I really was talking
general, it seems like my points were taken a little too much in a python or
django related vein.

I do think there _are_ inherent problems with a CoC. You state that the rules
probably won't change anything and I agree with that. I think that shows the
power of an _implicit_ agreement of conduct. Because even if a CoC tries to
inform that, I remain unconvinced that it can.

I suppose mostly what I have a problem with is the concept of expectation
itself. A CoC is a lightning rod that is cited when people feel wronged. You
sort of turn that around by saying that I might feel safer with explicit
rules, but I could just as well argue that the more explicit the rules are,
the more suspect they are to being misused or misinterpreted. Because what
they do is create the explicit _expectation_ that they will be upheld. What
part of them and in what manner is subject to interpretation and those "toxic"
people are usually quite inventive when it comes to finding such
transgressions. Managing expectations like that can be a very tricky thing.

I might be biased by my experience here, but I've just seen a little too often
how making conduct a high ranking concern can create a vacuum that attracts
politics.

In the end, I'm quite certain that you are right with the beginning of your
second paragraph. Although I would still say - If it's not needed and it won't
change anything, then why have it? (And yes, I read your FAQ, so feel free to
ignore this question ;-) )

------
zalew
These codes of conduct make the community look like a band of savages. I've
been following the django user groups for years and haven't seen anything
regarding the issues presented there. What's the reason behind it (other than
the #donglegate), if I may ask?

~~~
sneak
Considering they've explicitly thanked notoriously destructive concern-troll
Valerie Aurora and her organization The Ada Initiative for assistance, my
guess would be direct pressure to support her divisive and unproductive
agenda.

~~~
jacobian
For the record: we reached out to Valerie, not the other way around. We did
that because we value her opinion.

It's interesting to me that you seem so angry about a group that's trying to
bring more people into tech. What are you worried about, exactly?

~~~
sneak
Her agenda masquerades as something genuinely good and productive, yet pushes
something orthogonal and unrelated. She's on a crusade.

Most of the women I know in tech loathe these sorts of concern-trolls for
giving feminists erroneous reputations of being hard to work with.

Also, who's angry? I just think it's stupid to engage with such destructive
people, but then again I don't participate in the Django community in any way
so it doesn't affect me one way or the other.

Also, giving them credence and strengthening their brand serves to help them
undermine actual equality in our industry, but, again, I'm male, so it doesn't
directly affect me. It's still stupid, though.

~~~
kingkilr
Please don't think of diversity as an issue that doesn't affect you, because
you are a man. A lack of diversity affects all of us. More diverse groups
perform better. If a lack of diversity is a result of artificial barriers
being put into place (such as a community not welcoming new members), then
that less the effect an individuals right to self-determiniation, and I
believe that's an issue that effects all of us.

~~~
sneak
That's precisely why I qualified it with "doesn't _directly_ affect me".

------
jdc
These rules are blatantly patronizing, and come off a bit like a large
organization's standard CYA boilerplate. Something along the lines of HN's
commenting guidelines or Hacker School's social rules would be more
appropriate.

~~~
jacobian
Can you identify specifically what you find patronizing and CYA-ish? Neither
were our intentions; help me understand how we've failed there?

~~~
jdc
Sorry, I realize I am being harsh, and am grateful for all the work of the
Django community organizers. Let me clarify my previous remarks.

The items under the "Be careful in the words that you choose" heading (which
make up a significant part of the document), except for maybe the doxing
clause, addresses an apparently antisocial audience, which is patronizing.

And what I mean by CYA-ish, is that the intent of the code seems to be to
prevent worst-case scenarios. Whereas the HN and Hacker School guidelines aim
to boost the level of discourse and friendliness, the Django code offers
suggestions on how to avoid getting arrested.

------
sergiotapia
I think this is in response to that female evangilist from SendGrid getting
those two guys fired a couple of months ago at a Python conference.

~~~
kingkilr
It's not. Jacob and I started working on a code of conduct for the Django
community months before PyCon.

~~~
mathattack
It's great that we have this from the source!

btw - I like the intent of "When we disagree, try to understand why." This
does seem to run against the internet grain of, "When in doubt, repeat
yourself, and if needed GO ALL CAPS"

