
GitHub's Atom Switches from the Open Code of Conduct to the Contributor Convent - pauloday
https://github.com/atom/atom/commit/5a24d550628d76e39c401ee5e10e23ecdb65270b#diff-04c6e90faac2675aa89e2176d2eec7d8
======
djur
The Open Code of Conduct is just too long and specific. To me, it feels like
an attempt to preemptively head off 'rules lawyer' casuistry by ensuring that
everything that could be a cause for ejecting someone from a community is
explicitly listed. In my experience, this just provides a much larger surface
of attack -- and the OCoC seems to be suffering from exactly that now.

The Contributor Covenant's approach seems to be to make a clear statement of
intent, and relying on the community to apply it correctly. It doesn't
specifically ban, say, offering a backrub, but the necessary and appropriate
response to someone saying "ha, but there's no rule against repeatedly
offering a stranger backrubs, IS there?" isn't to draft a new rule, it's to
show them the door.

~~~
pauloday
Well put. The solution to rules lawyering is not more rules.

------
pauloday
> We are committed to making participation in this project a harassment-free
> experience for everyone, regardless of level of experience, gender, gender
> identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal
> appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, or nationality.

It seems like you don't need a laundry list of things that are not OK to
harass people about unless certain types of harassment are OK. For example
"differences of opinion" is not on the list. Is it OK to harass someone who
disagrees with me? I doubt that's the intention, and it's probably covered by
the rest of the covenant, but if that's the case why do they need to list out
all the things it's not OK to harass people about? It just seems needlessly
complicated and ripe for causing further drama.

~~~
bluecalm
I agree and I think it's politically motivated. What about: "avoid personal
remarks and don't make any personal information public without permission".
Who cares if it's religion, food preferences or gender. Harassing people is
bad, giving away their personal information is bad - don't do it no matter
what the specifics are.

------
tzs
This looks like a good move to me. The text of the CC only has one potential
problem area that I see:

    
    
       This code of conduct applies both within project
       spaces and in public spaces when an individual is
       representing the project or its community.
    

The potential problem here is what does it mean to be "representing the
project or its community"?

For example, suppose on my personal website I include a link to my resume, and
on that resume I list my work on the project. Suppose also on my personal
website I have have a blog, and on that blog I post an article containing
sexualized language or imagery.

Am I in violation of the CC?

The use of sexualized language or imagery is one of the specific examples
given in the CC of a violation.

I would say that, based on current common usage of English, stating on a site
unrelated to the project, as part of biographical information (such as a
resume) that I contribute to the project would _NOT_ be "representing the
project or its community", and so would be outside the scope of the CC.

~~~
faztym
That clause was added after a devout Catholic who contributes to Opal
expressed his thoughts on transgender people while talking about a piece of
legislation in his country, Italy on his Twitter account. The person who wrote
the Contributor Covenant went on to GitHub and demanded he be removed by the
project. After much discussion, Opal's founder said they would adopt a code of
conduct, specifically the Contributor Covenant. Once people in favor of the
Contributor Covenant realized it would do nothing to prevent what they
perceived as harassment, they added that clause. They tried to issue a PR to
update Opal's Contributor Covenant version. Said founder seemed hesitant of
the revised COC, but looks like he added the change but only with it
explicitly saying where the code of conduct does and does not apply. See
below.

Some links:
[https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941](https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941)
[https://twitter.com/elia/status/611319469982527488](https://twitter.com/elia/status/611319469982527488)
[https://github.com/opal/opal/pull/961](https://github.com/opal/opal/pull/961)

Opal's code of conduct says:

"This code of conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces
where an individual explicitly associates their presence with the project;
non-project related material on accounts explicitly marked as personal should
not be considered to be so associated."

~~~
mordocai
I don't particularly like the way that whole thing was handled (and Coraline
said she didn't feel she handled it optimally, even if she didn't apologize)
but I think the concepts are still sound.

Having someone post things in a public place where they identify as a member
of a group can reflect badly on the group. It is in the group's best interest
to enforce that people who identify with a group on a certain medium do not
say/do things that would not be allowed on official group channels.

This specific instance seems to have been intended to be interpreted
differently than it was and did not need to be brought into the spotlight.

~~~
exstudent2
> Having someone post things in a public place where they identify as a member
> of a group can reflect badly on the group. It is in the group's best
> interest to enforce that people who identify with a group on a certain
> medium do not say/do things that would not be allowed on official group
> channels.

No one within the group had a problem though. Coraline Ada came from outside
the group and caused the disturbance.

> This specific instance seems to have been intended to be interpreted
> differently than it was and did not need to be brought into the spotlight.

It's good that this instance is being brought into the spotlight because it
shows the dangers of introducing identity politics into open source.

~~~
mordocai
I didn't say it was so if someone in the group had a problem. I said it was in
the group's best interest.

Someone making the group look bad to anyone is bad for the group because it
limits the(already pretty small really) potential pool of new contributors.

As far as "showing the dangers of introducing identity politics into open
source"... you must not be a part of the same open source movement as myself.
Identify politics have always been huge in the open source world. People work
on projects, shun projects, ostracize projects, all because of identity
politics.

Identity politics has been a large part of open source (and free software
before it) since the beginning.

~~~
exstudent2
Do you claim to know what's in the best interest for the Opal project? Or Ada
knows best?

I don't think so, it's pure meddling.

> you must not be a part of the same open source movement as myself.

I must not because it used to be widely acknowledged that no one on the
internet cares if you're a dog. Identity politics (specifically aggressive
feminism) have made their appearance in the past 5 years.

~~~
magicalist
> _Identity politics (specifically aggressive feminism) have made their
> appearance in the past 5 years_

Even in the very narrow sense you mean this isn't remotely true. Maybe take
some trips back to old Usenet content?

But mordocai is absolutely right. "identity politics" is the foundation of
free and open-source software.

~~~
Nadya
Switch "identity politics" with "gender/racial identity politics" and their
statement becomes (almost) accurate. The whole internet SJW brigade seemed to
get its footing in 2008, which would make it about 7 years ago. Before that it
existed in niche groups nobody ever heard of or dealt with and was far from
being mainstream.

It wasn't until 2010 that it seemed to _really_ take off in the media so I'll
personally excuse the "5 years". If you try to find feminist articles or
gender politics articles circa 2004-2006 it can be pretty difficult, but if
you try to find them from 2008-2010 they become plentiful and easy to find.

I find it intellectually dishonest to stretch "identity politics" to be about
"Free vs Proprietary" in the context it was used in, because context will
always matter more than a strict dictionary definition.

The nitpicking over terminology (and analogies) is an extremely annoying
tactic. So I'll cite Layne's Law [0]. While in the actual "dictionary
definition" of identity politics, he is factually wrong. You do indeed have to
have a very narrow scope of identity politics (gender, most specifically) to
become accurate. In modern usage, in regards to SJW/feminism, "identity
politics" is almost exclusively about "gender politics".

[0] [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LaynesLaw](http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LaynesLaw)

~~~
magicalist
> _The nitpicking over terminology (and analogies) is an extremely annoying
> tactic. So I 'll cite Layne's Law [0]. While in the actual "dictionary
> definition" of identity politics, he is factually wrong._

No, you cannot narrow a definition to be about your pet cause and then declare
anyone discussing the (fairly transparent) larger context to be nitpicking.
The "modern usage" you're talking about is limited by self selection and is
not, in fact, modern usage so much as jargon with a specific meaning to a
particular subculture (or subcultures). Meanwhile the term continues to have a
well defined meaning with an extensive and well documented history.

> _The whole internet SJW brigade seemed to get its footing in 2008, which
> would make it about 7 years ago. Before that it existed in niche groups
> nobody ever heard of or dealt with and was far from being mainstream._

> _It wasn 't until 2010 that it seemed to really take off in the media so
> I'll personally excuse the "5 years". If you try to find feminist articles
> or gender politics articles circa 2004-2006 it can be pretty difficult, but
> if you try to find them from 2008-2010 they become plentiful and easy to
> find._

I have no idea how to respond to this except to suggest you may just not be
very good at finding sources before 2008?

~~~
Nadya
Define "pet cause", I'm a random passerby. I happen to understand their
argument as they intend it - rather than purposefully misrepresent it so that
they are wrong.

:::Edit (also TL;DR)

This example doesn't match up because "Dogs are prone to heart conditions"
would be the original argument, but I would need more context that was talking
about Rottweilers and Dobermans to allow the meaning to be obvious, but the
terminology used to be poor. My point here is to not get stuck on the words
used - but the meaning _intended_ behind them.

:::End Edit

Discussing the larger context when you've already delved into a specific
context isn't merely nitpicking, it's intellectually dishonest. I'll give you
a contrived example, albeit not an exact comparison of the current issue, to
illustrate my point:

Argument: "Rottweilers and Dobermans are prone to heart conditions."

Counterargument: "Dogs are not prone to heart conditions!"

Well, the context has already been specified to a niche. Both statements are
true but are now arguing what are fundamentally different things. One is
talking about specific breeds (subsections) of the species (idea) "dog" while
the other is talking about the species "dog".

It would be intellectually dishonest to argue about "dogs" when the person was
arguing for "Rottweilers and Dobermans". Even if both belong to "dogs".

Gender/racial identity politics are both subsections of "identity politics".
They had already delved into an argument/subsection regarding gender/racial
identity politics, and then you went and argue about the broader concept of
"identity politics". The issue is you do not want to actually argue against
his points. You wanted to argue about his usage of "identity politics". That's
intellectually dishonest.

Here's a better way to approach someone either misusing a term or using a
broad term where a more specific term would suit their argument better:

"Identity politics is a broad term and could include 'free vs proprietary'
ideals, which is the foundation of Open Source / FOSS. It sounds like you're
arguing about 'gender politics'. I want to make sure we're on the same page."

They can then clarify that yes, they meant "gender politics" and they might
even apologize for using a term that was too broad in meaning.

The point of a debate is to counter someone's arguments, which means you have
to make some effort to see their arguments as how they were _intended_ rather
than how they were _stated_.

That means do not nitpick over trivialities and definitions. If you're unclear
on a definition of a word they are using, have them clarify it. But to
purposefully misunderstand and argue an entirely different concept is unfair
to the other person. Especially if they don't recognize what you are doing.
(So I'll repeat ad nauseam: intellectually dishonest behavior)

 _> I have no idea how to respond to this except to suggest you may just not
be very good at finding sources before 2008?_

"Sources" and "so many sources I could establish a well-stocked multi-floor
library" are two different things. I'm not saying sources _don 't exist at
all_.

------
iza
I definitely prefer the wording of the Contributor Code of Conduct over the
Open Code of Conduct. I don't really see the point though. Everything listed
is just common sense, and there is still a catch-all clause open to
interpretation.

~~~
omginternets
>Everything listed is just common sense, and there is still a catch-all clause
open to interpretation.

And, as I've been repeating _ad nauseam_ , these codes of conduct fail to
distinguish between genuine harassment and garden variety ass-hattery.
Attempting to govern the latter is a fool's errand, and good for nobody in the
long run.

I don't think anybody can honestly claim to have never fallen short of
absolute professionalism and kindness. These codes of conduct are little more
than pretexts to ostracize and publicly shame arbitrary individuals.

------
madink
Regardless or who is right or wrong in that case it's interesting that the US
moral standard are being applied all over the internet. I mean if the main
part of github community was from say Italy where there is less and a quite
different social justice context we would not have this debate. The SJW think
differently all over the world , but we only apply Californian value . Same
for nudity on Facebook for exemple . As the internet grow more centralised ,
mostly over US based entities i'm sad to see different culture get dissolve
into the US mold.

------
kzhahou
I honestly don't understand why any of this is necessary.

Without the doc, if I hurl nasty insults and personal attacks, the community
will tell me to fuck off and not accept my work. Won't they?

~~~
chc
Different people have very different expectations of the world. For example,
what does it mean to interact with other people like a mature adult? To some,
this means being respectful and expecting the same in return. To others, this
means "sacking up" or "putting on your big-girl panties" and welcoming as much
abuse and invective as anyone can dish out. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to
me for a community to take stance on basic things like that, even if it seems
obvious to those of us who already agree with the stance they're taking.

~~~
pauloday
I agree, but I think the basic stance doesn't need to be more than "Be
respectful and if someone isn't, talk to them about it before bringing it up
with the community". Mismatches in what people think respectful means will
happen, but I suspect it's impossible to write a COC that eliminates this
problem.

It seems better to allow people to say what they want (with the assumption
that it's reasonable and respectful) and provide a path for conflict
resolution than to try to codify exactly what "respectful and reasonable"
means. Both because that's different for every community, and any strict set
of rules is ripe for rules lawyering/abuse.

------
tvanantwerp
There appears to be a lot of drama around both the Open Code of Conduct and
the Contributor Convent. I'm not at all familiar with either--is there anyone
who is who could share the disagreements going on around both documents?

~~~
josteink
The drama is over having a CoC in the first place.

ESR has written about one of the CoC authors here:
[https://archive.is/6F9Yr](https://archive.is/6F9Yr)

Tldr: the people who claims to deliver a product providing order and civility
(the "CoC") are usually the people who are conducting the abusive behaviour.

In such a CoC is very alarming signal with regard to who is in charge of a
project's management.

~~~
djur
ESR has political motivations to oppose these CoCs, and the strongest argument
that post makes is an attempt at guilt by association. I found it extremely
unconvincing.

~~~
josteink
He has his political motivation, just like the CoCers have theirs. This
probably applies to everyone, so it's not an argument which can be used to
blanket reject a statement as such.

His political position is that open source projects should be about the code,
not gender, politics and endless subjects ripe for tactical abuse and causing
drama.

Personally I find that a perfectly reasonable and rational position. What
fault do you find with it?

------
protomyth
"This code of conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces
when an individual is representing the project or its community."

What exactly constitutes "representing the project or its community"?

~~~
steve19
I presume this means anywhere the general public can read it (twitter,
Facebook, youtube) or infer "it" from secondary sources (campaign
contributions).

It refers to anything that the mob disagrees with.

This is the most scary development in open source I have witnessed.

I will have nothing to do with an open source project that means I cannot
express my views in public (whatever those views might be) without fear of
reprisal.

------
throwaway54984
It's sad that programming is starting to mean more and more politics.

~~~
freshhawk
It's involved politics ever since more than two people were doing it.

Are you sad that it's being made explicit and being talked about or that it's
being talked about in terms of identity politics?

~~~
pauloday
Not the OC, but it seems like there are more an more outsiders coming in and
trying to enforce their politics while not contributing anything. I think this
has always happened, but it seems like there's been an uptick recently and
that worries me.

~~~
djur
Can you name some of these outsiders? Most of the people I've seen involved in
promoting social justice in the open source community are themselves open
source contributors.

~~~
pauloday
Well, CoralineAda with that whole Opal thing for one. I guess I was unclear, I
didn't mean outsiders as in people who don't contribute to open source as much
as outsiders who don't contribute to specific projects coming into those
projects and trying to impose a COC. Perhaps I'm overreacting.

------
Zikes
Title should be "Covenant" not "Convent".

~~~
jerelunruh
Ha, I initially didn't realize that was a typo and thought things were getting
pretty serious with this whole contributor conduct thing.

------
josteink
Actual pull request here:
[https://github.com/atom/atom/pull/8312](https://github.com/atom/atom/pull/8312)

Related HN post:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10043356](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10043356)

 _Edit:_ looking at the discussion in general and this article by ESR[1] in
particular, I'm surprised they didn't just drop this COC nonsense entirely
instead of adopting a new "flawed" one.

[1] [https://archive.is/6F9Yr](https://archive.is/6F9Yr)

------
pauloday
Contributor Covenent: [http://contributor-
covenant.org/version/1/2/0/](http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/2/0/)

------
xn
_Covenant_

------
LyndsySimon
:%s/convent/covenant/

