Re: Let's Do the CoC Right

On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> I do wonder what it is that made you terrified of a shitstorm, and
> what it is that you're hoping for that you don't feel is already
> present.

Regina linked to some shitstorms in the Opal and Ruby communities. Shitstorms are not unusual when people ask for a CoC.

> Not only do I want that, but I thought we had it. I have still not
> seen anything to show me otherwise; the hypothetical examples I can
> remember seeing on these recent threads bear no resemblance to
> anything I can remember ever seeing on the PostgreSQL lists. Can
> you point to something as an example of the kind of behavior that
> you think a Code of Conduct would have prevented?

My own behavior earlier is not a terrible example. By one point on the CoC (“ language and actions are free
of personal attacks and disparaging personal remarks”), it seems problematic if not an outright violation. But one can argue by another point (“tolerant of people’s right to have opposing views”) that it’s totally within bounds. So the demarcations of right and wrong are too easily subject to debate and further disagreement. Less ambiguity and contradiction is required.

> Regarding the question of the Code of Conduct having short, general
> statements versus listing "protected groups", etc. -- I would like
> to see everyone protected. Any list, by its nature, is going to
> make someone feel excluded and unprotected. In my view, the closer
> it is to a statement of "The Golden Rule"[1], the better.

Some of us do not need protection; we are already privileged members of the community. Therefor it’s important to spell out whom we aim to protect.

> In particular, I think that if (hypothetically) someone who is part
> of the community makes some idiotic, offensive, insensitive
> statement of blathering idiocy *outside PostgreSQL forums*, they
> should enjoy the same right to respect and prevention of attack *on
> the PostgreSQL forums* as everyone else.

What if they psychologically abused someone in person, perhaps another member of the community, but in a non-community context? Should there be no repercussions?

> They just better not
> repeat the idiocy here. I would hope that major contributors would
> keep in mind the impact that such statements in other venues might
> have on the public perception of the community. I've come around
> to the point of view that encouraging such consideration is outside
> the scope of what a Code of Conduct should formally address.

In my above example, the victim of the abuse would not feel safe in our community, because their abuser would still be a member in good standing. Even if they reported that behavior, the would have no expectation of anything being done to address it. In this example, the abuser ends up protected by the CoC while the victim is not.

This is a very real thing that happens to real people in communities every day. IME, we want people to feel safe reporting incidents even if they occur outside the community, and that such reports will be taken seriously, with an explicit policy for doing so.

> The PostgreSQL forums should be a safe place, and rancor engendered
> elsewhere should not be brought in. Problems should be resolved in
> a way that minimizes the chance of escalation, recognizing that
> there could be miscommunication.[2]

Rancor isn’t the problem as much as abuse. And most abuse you can’t see unless the targets of such abuse feel safe reporting them.

Limiting the policy to community forums is insufficient for making people feel safe. This is the whole reason for v1.3.0 of the Contributor Covenant:

https://github.com/CoralineAda/contributor_covenant/blob/master/changelog#L7

Best,

David