is it weird...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tbuitenh Jan 26, 2016 3:55 AM EDT |
... that I don’t want to be alone in a room with someone who is opposed to codes of conduct? I mean, what’s the problem with it being written down somewhere that harassment (sexual or other) won’t be tolerated, if you don’t plan to harass people? |
| jdixon Jan 26, 2016 7:01 AM EDT |
> ,,,... that I don’t want to be alone in a room with someone who is opposed to codes of conduct? I don't know. Are you willing to leave the house to go grocery shopping or eat out? The last time I checked, grocery stores and restaurants didn't have codes of conduct they required you to sign, and you might wind up alone with someone. Not to mention the possibility of passing some random non-code of conduct signer on the street on the way. Now, if you're asking is it OK to not want to work with such an individual, that's another matter. Most workplaces do have codes of conduct, though that's not always what they're called. That doesn't mean a group of volunteers will necessarily want one though, and that's a choice for each group and individual to make. If you want one and the rest of the group doesn't, then you're free to leave. That's also true if they want one and you don't. |
| tbuitenh Jan 26, 2016 7:49 AM EDT |
It’s counter-intuitive, but people one knows are, statistically, more dangerous than people one doesn’t know. I’m guessing that’s because random strangers don’t have time to grow obsessed with a person. So yes, I am willing to leave the house. I have my doubts about the effectiveness of codes of conduct in groups of volunteers, because I know from experience that volunteers are no good at enforcing their own rules. If one of my projects ever grows enough to get contributions from others, I will probably write a very simple code of conduct: “you know how to behave properly, and if I decide you don’t, I have the right to lock you out of further participation in the project without any discussion”. Yes, that’s dictatorial, but it avoids the endless discussions about whether the rules were violated, whether they were violated intentionally, whether second chances are deserved, etcetera. What would help much more than a CoC is a project “owner” who has both the social skills and the social intelligence necessary to get rid of the rats before they become part of the community. On the other hand, many if not most large open source projects are not entirely volunteer made. It’s fair to have a CoC for the volunteers when the other contributors are bound to one because of their job. So, in short, I think codes of conduct are largely irrelevant, but if someone is opposed to them, I can’t help wondering what thing forbidden by a CoC they want to do so badly. |
| kikinovak Jan 26, 2016 8:12 AM EDT |
You can comply to a Code of Conduct and still be a passive-aggressive douchebag. |
| jdixon Jan 26, 2016 9:30 AM EDT |
> It’s counter-intuitive, but people one knows are, statistically, more dangerous than people one doesn’t know I certainly hope so. I prefer to have the dangerous people on my side. > If one of my projects ever grows enough to get contributions from others, I will probably write a very simple code of conduct: “you know how to behave properly, and if I decide you don’t, I have the right to lock you out of further participation in the project without any discussion”. Yes, that’s dictatorial, but it avoids the endless discussions about whether the rules were violated, whether they were violated intentionally, whether second chances are deserved, That's the best way to handle it, yes. As long as you have enough power in the project to enforce it, there shouldn't be any problem. If people get upset about your actions, they can always fork the project (assuming it's open source). > It’s fair to have a CoC for the volunteers when the other contributors are bound to one because of their job. Is it? The others are getting paid to put up with the code of conduct. The volunteers aren't. Why should they put up with it? > ... but if someone is opposed to them, I can’t help wondering what thing forbidden by a CoC they want to do so badly. Would you oppose a code of conduct which bans kidnapping, torture, and murder of the others in the group? I can't help wondering which of those you want to do so badly if so. Reductio ad absurdum. |
| 750 Jan 26, 2016 10:10 AM EDT |
> You can comply to a Code of Conduct and still be a passive-aggressive douchebag. I'll go one further and say that said douchebags are the very people that want these rules in the first place, so that they can wrap themselves in them whenever their behavior comes back to bite them. |
| jdixon Jan 26, 2016 3:04 PM EDT |
For an opposing view on codes of conduct: https://4fa6134ddde55ae0092b69e1eb287d2840301d0a.googledrive... No idea how long it will stay up. |
| tbuitenh Jan 27, 2016 3:53 AM EDT |
> Would you oppose a code of conduct which bans kidnapping, torture, and murder of the others in the group? Putting such things in a CoC is superfluous, because they’re all illegal. What makes you think I would be opposed to putting them in, though? I mean, if someone wants to state even more of the obvious in an irrelevant document, they should go ahead and have fun, I don’t care. I get that some people are worried the CoCs will be applied to force some people out of projects while others can safely ignore them. But... the exact same political games also happen when there is no CoC. Maybe with different winners, but with the same level of unfairness. That’s what seems to be the problem - not the unfairness, but who the winners might be. I only care about fairness, not about whether a project self destructs by going east or by going west. In the end there never are any real winners. > That's the best way to handle it, yes. As long as you have enough power in the project to enforce it, there shouldn't be any problem. If people get upset about your actions, they can always fork the project (assuming it's open source). If only people would always be satisfied with seeing others forking and going their own ways... Any conflict visible on the web contains the risk that people who have nothing to do with the project will join in with threats of, well, exactly those things you suggested might be included in an extra bizarre CoC. And the CoC wouldn’t help against that because outsiders are not bound by it. > Is it? The others are getting paid to put up with the code of conduct. The volunteers aren't. Why should they put up with it? If A is forbidden from calling B an ***, it’s fair to ask B not to call A an ***. It’s the principle that one shouldn’t attack people who can’t defend themselves. People shouldn’t fight, but when they do, they shouldn’t fight dishonorably. Besides, the volunteers may not be paid for putting up with the CoC, but they also won’t lose their income for violating it. |
| jdixon Jan 27, 2016 7:10 AM EDT |
> Putting such things in a CoC is superfluous, because they’re all illegal. In most locations, so is sexual harassment. > If A is forbidden from calling B an ***, it’s fair to ask B not to call A an ***. A is getting paid not to call B an ***. B is not getting paid. Why should he willingly accept the obligation? > Besides, the volunteers may not be paid for putting up with the CoC, but they also won’t lose their income for violating it. So again, why should they care to follow it? Apparently, from your perspective, there's no penalty for not doing so. |
| tbuitenh Jan 27, 2016 9:08 AM EDT |
> So again, why should they care to follow it? Apparently, from your perspective, there's no penalty for not doing so. One could argue that being removed from a project is not a penalty, but I would say it is a penalty, just not a financial one. If being removed from something is a penalty, then being allowed to participate is a reward. Obviously it would be best, if there are going to be official rules, some version of them is already in place before anyone joins the project, otherwise a reward for nothing is being replaced with a reward that costs something, and that doesn’t make people happy. On the other hand, if it doesn’t take a person with good intentions zero effort to obey a CoC, something is wrong. |
| tbuitenh Jan 27, 2016 9:58 AM EDT |
> In most locations, so is sexual harassment. Actually, only some of it is illegal. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure catcall-like comments are not illegal. They are against the rules of companies, but those are not the law. The kinds of sexual harassment that are illegal are usually very difficult to prove because there tend to be no witnesses or physical evidence. The idea of codes of conduct is to create a culture in which people who would harass or do other bad things don’t feel welcome. Does that work? I don’t know... I know of serial rapists who are well known as supposedly being male feminists, who wrote intelligent things apparently supporting feminism. Pretending to follow the rules perfectly is excellent cover. But I suppose it can help against those who don’t already have evil plans before they join a community. I think a CoC is mostly a token to claim that women and minorities are welcome in a project that has a different reputation. Tokens can be a symbolic start for cultural change, but what really matters is what culture the project leaders want. Trying to push a CoC that contradicts the behaviour of the project leader *might* change the behaviour of that leader, but probably won’t, and is even less likely to change the culture. I’m not sure volunteer projects should pretend to be democracy-like (especially when they're neither - *cough*Ubuntu*cough*), with all the bureaucracy and documents that come with that. I say that as a local board member of an enormous worldwide non-software volunteer project, where it’s working, so maybe it’s a rule about mostly online projects. Mostly-corporate projects are something else than volunteer projects, but I’ve already discussed that. |
| jdixon Jan 27, 2016 10:17 AM EDT |
> On the other hand, if it doesn’t take a person with good intentions zero effort to obey a CoC, something is wrong. Well, that's sort of the point of those taking issue with them, isn't it? |
| tbuitenh Jan 27, 2016 2:38 PM EDT |
Unless they don't have good intentions. Which is the more likely problem if they’re opposed to *any* CoC no matter what it says. |
| jdixon Jan 27, 2016 2:51 PM EDT |
> Which is the more likely problem if they’re opposed to *any* CoC no matter what it says. Or just possibly they've seen or heard of abuse of such codes of conduct in the past. Which more and more people have as they proliferate. |
| kikinovak Jan 29, 2016 8:45 AM EDT |
> I'll go one further and say that said douchebags are the very people that want these rules in the first place, so that they can wrap themselves in them whenever their behavior comes back to bite them. In France (where I live) we have "la politesse" (politeness), which should mean something like caring about the other person's feelings, but which in fact designates nothing more than a subtle form of brutality. Similarly, Codes of Conduct are a set of rules for affective cretins who don't know how to behave themselves in the first place. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!