
Nanomsg: Stepping Down - danieljh
http://garrett.damore.org/2016/01/stepping-down.html
======
SwellJoe
I think the value of a CoC is merely to signal to people who have experienced
abuse or disrespect in communities before (which would describe, I think, most
women and people of color who have participated in technical communities for
more than a short time) that the community is on their side when sexists or
racists show up. That has some value. It doesn't really matter to the
majority, and it doesn't actually alter how people behave (generally), nor
does it really alter a project leaders ability to excise a toxic person. But,
it does say, "We will excise toxic people. We will try to make you feel
welcome here, even if you have been made to feel unwelcome elsewhere."

Even if that's all it does (which I think it probably is), it is enough to
make it worth doing in most cases. (Which reminds me that I don't have a code
of conduct on any of the open source projects or communities I work on, but
I'll make it a project for the first quarter of this year.)

~~~
DannyBee
"I think the value of a CoC is merely to signal to people who have experienced
abuse or disrespect in communities before (which would describe, I think, most
women and people of color who have participated in technical communities for
more than a short time) that the community is on their side when sexists or
racists show up. "

If a COC becomes a baseline requirement for people to run projects and attract
contributors, ISTM the people who don't care will just add COC's, and never
enforce them.

You say "But, it does say, "We will excise toxic people. We will try to make
you feel welcome here, even if you have been made to feel unwelcome
elsewhere.""

It does not actually do that. It's one level removed from that. It's "we _say_
we will excise toxic people.". It in fact, may be the case that you go to ask
them to enforce it, and they say "sorry, don't care", even with a COC.

Then you are back to square 1. You essentially are trying to use the COC as a
proxy for "communities that will care enough to put a stop to things" and i'm
pretty much 100% it will not achieve this goal.

~~~
SwellJoe
Of course a CoC can't make a community actually do anything. These are Open
Source communities we're talking about here, and nobody can make anyone do
anything at all.

You're alleging that a CoC is meaningless, but why implement a CoC, as a
community, if you don't _actually want more women and people of color_
becoming involved in your projects? The CoC is the signal saying, "We, as a
community, want you to feel welcome here."

That's all I'm saying it does, and all I'm suggesting it can do, and I say
that's sufficient cause to implement a CoC, _if_ you want more women and
people of color in your community.

So, to repeat, a CoC is a signal of desire to be inclusive. It is not a law,
it is not a guarantee, it won't make assholes stop being assholes. It is a
sign on the door saying, "We're gonna try to be welcoming. Come on in."

~~~
DannyBee
"You're alleging that a CoC is meaningless, but why implement a CoC, as a
community, if you don't actually want more women and people of color becoming
involved in your projects? The CoC is the signal saying, "We, as a community,
want you to feel welcome here.""

See the part where i directly answer this: "If a COC becomes a baseline
requirement for people to run projects and attract contributors,"

IE if people stop going to projects without COC's, people will add COC's.

I'm not sure why you think anything else will happen.

"So, to repeat, a CoC is a signal of desire to be inclusive."

It is _this second_. As I said, if it becomes a thing people look for, it will
no longer be that, because everyone will just add them and ignore them. It
will no longer be a signal for what you are looking for. It will achieve
precisely nothing.

Again, I'm honestly befuddled why you think anything else would happen

Do you really think normal people trying to start projects are going to say
"well, i really want to attract contributors of all kinds, and it seems i have
to have a COC, that i don't care about, to do that, but i guess it would just
be wrong to have a COC if i don't care?"

Or do you think they are just going to say "well, i really want to attract
contributors of all kinds, i better add a COC that i don't really care about".

I mean, this is _already happening_. How many projects are like our OP, and
basically go and say "well, i should probably add a COC, but i don't really
care".

You need look no further than things like yellow/pink ribbons/flag pins
senators wear/etc to see what will happen. These things were once signals of
people who cared. Now they are just social norms.

------
teh_klev
He gives off mixed signals here:

[https://www.freelists.org/post/nanomsg/Adopting-a-
CoC,11](https://www.freelists.org/post/nanomsg/Adopting-a-CoC,11)

 _Now, me_ personally _, I couldn’t give a crap whether a project has a CoC or
not._

 _Frankly, if someone acts irredeemably toxically in this project, I won’t
feel like I need to have a CoC to justify taking corrective action — I’ll just
take the action_

 _So, I’m definitely_ _not_ _going to “require” a CoC; if someone acts like an
ass then they can expect me to take some kind of action._

But then comes out with:

 _I’m pretty disheartened by the intensely negative response this suggestion
has drawn;_

I'm at a loss as to why he didn't just let the discussion roll for a bit
without expressing his "disheartened" feelings and if the outcome from active
members is "we don't think this is a good idea" then let it go. He's already
stated that thus far the project has no known issues regarding conduct and
that anyone being an asshat dickhead would be dealt with anyway.

Odd.

------
aidenn0
I disagree with him both about the usefulness and harm of CoCs. There are
jackasses, and not having preemptively adopted a CoC, they can leverage the
lack of clear rules to divide the community.

On the other-hand, once you have rules, there are some people who for some
reason or another go out of their way to argue that a behavior violates/does
not violate the rules and completely ignore whether the behavior was benign or
malignant, which is what one should really care about.

~~~
gedy
> once you have rules, there are some people who for some reason or another go
> out of their way to argue that a behavior violates/does not violate the
> rules and completely ignore whether the behavior was benign or malignant

Maybe projects can adopt CoCs that address that too, and cover both sides of
the coin.

------
nijiko
I have attempted to ascertain the need of a CoC for this community by reading
through the mailing list and issues... The more that I read through it, the
less I see the need for one. It simply appears as a power play from this
individual user, as such is identified by this lengthy blog post which signals
some red flags.

The previous owner says it all himself pretty clearly:

> The current attempts to adopt CoC in various FOSS projects are IMO doomed
> for similar reasons. It has zero effect on abusers (no abuser thinks of
> himself as an abuser) and the message it sends to decent folks is: "There's
> an elite in the community that will decide what's good and what's bad and
> enforce it by censoring your emails/posts/contributions." Which in turn
> erodes trust within the community and, consequently, its ability to
> spontaneously deal with abuse.

------
protomyth
I found Martin Sustrik's comment[1] very informative. It is a bit of history
and also states some of the fears of this CoC additions to projects. His idea
about "abuse postmortems" seems a lot more workable.

1) [https://www.freelists.org/post/nanomsg/Adopting-a-
CoC,7](https://www.freelists.org/post/nanomsg/Adopting-a-CoC,7)

------
rdtsc
I don't understand. The people who are -1, what do they care if it is adopted?
Is CoC that controversial? Are personal attacks, doxing, trolling and slurs
part of their daily routine they will be seriously inconvenienced by inability
to use them?

\---

* The use of sexualized language or imagery

* Personal attacks

* Trolling or insulting/derogatory comments

* Public or private harassment

* Publishing other's private information, such as physical or electronic addresses, without explicit permission

* Other unethical or unprofessional conduct

\---

As a maintainer they should have just said "There is a CoC now. Check it out:
<link>. Happy new year everyone".

~~~
Nadya
A CoC lets people stretch something to fall under it to get someone else
punished if enforced properly and by the letter.

If it isn't enforced by the letter - why does any of this bullshit need to be
mentioned? If someone's being a dick, they'll be addressed and dealt with for
being a dick. No CoC needed.

What is the difference between the following two statements?

"We've received a complaint that could be construed as violating Section 3
Subsection B of the CoC. So I'm going to have to ask you to quit it or leave."

"You're being an ass. Quit it or leave."

~~~
michaelmior
People have different definitions of what constitutes acceptable conduct. A
CoC acknowledges this and takes some steps to make sure people are on the same
page. Even if it isn't enforced to the letter, some people need a reminder. I
think there's also a hope (maybe not true in practice) that having a CoC is a
positive signal to people who feel marginalized in other communities.

------
exolymph
I disagree with him regarding the usefulness of CoCs -- spelling out the rules
of engagement can be powerful -- but I respect that he put his money where his
mouth is, so to speak.

~~~
optimuspaul
I tend to agree with you. I do think that the common sense "don't be a dick"
shouldn't need to be explicitly expressed as a rule we all follow. But it
should also be common sense not to put your hands near a spinning metal blade,
but we have those warnings on lawnmowers. I think where a CoC provides it
value is defining the procedures for when the CoC is violated, which it no
doubt will be.

~~~
gedy
> we have those warnings on lawnmowers

because of lawsuit-happy culture, not due to lack of common sense.

Rachel Nabor's article is interesting, but not sure how a CoC fixes dealing
with a boorish weirdo outside the conference.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Do you imply that maiming should be a common occurrence or that warnings
prevent no injuries?

~~~
gedy
In this context I'm implying CoC do not "prevent" nor the lack thereof causes
bad behavior.

This BTW seems to get to the crux of what half of his decision was about. If
he thinks CoC are worthless, that is not the same thing as believe abuse
should be a common occurrence.

------
jgalt212
We as a community should be embarrassed that a significant portion of our
community believes Codes of Conduct are necessary.

~~~
CharlesW
We should be embarrassed that they're necessary for some groups to feel safe.

As we see in this thread, whether CoC "mean something" or "are needed" aren't
absolutes — clearly they are to some, and aren't to others. The key for me is
that they're not important to people who don't need them to feel safe, and
vice-versa.

------
nautical
CoCs do layout some rules for engagement but I believe there should be a
positivity in the engagement itself. There should not be abuse in any form ,
either by disrespecting others or pinching others that they are abusing this
segment of Coc (which might happen in some cases) . Disrespecting others in
any form is not acceptable and hence I think Coc may not be a perfect solution
. I can completely see his point .

------
SFjulie1
Most people demand CoC when they have not talent and want to be respected per
status.

CoC is a proof of failure in leadership, respect is earned.

------
mahouse
CoCs are worthless. If a community is not able to detect poisonous behaviour
by itself, a .txt file won't help.

~~~
davis
You may think they are "worthless" but clearly some people think they they
have value.

Which one do you think is more poisonous? Making a fuss over the maintainer
wanting to impose one or just accepting that someone else sees value in
something you don't and agreeing to the CoC.

~~~
nijiko
Why should someone have to agree simply because someone else does, and accept
it?

The other person should have the same approach, accept that others do not see
it as a worthwhile and not have it.

