[Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

[Mitch Curtis]

Just realised that you replied privately; let's take it back to the list.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mitch Curtis
> Sent: Thursday, 25 October 2018 3:31 PM
> To: Rafael Roquetto <rafael at roquetto.com>
> Subject: RE: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rafael Roquetto <rafael at roquetto.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 25 October 2018 2:42 PM
> > To: Mitch Curtis <mitch.curtis at qt.io>
> > Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/25/18 9:22 PM, Mitch Curtis wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Development <development-bounces+mitch.curtis=qt.io at qt-
> > >> project.org> On Behalf Of NIkolai Marchenko
> > >> Sent: Thursday, 25 October 2018 12:13 PM
> > >> To: Konstantin Tokarev <annulen at yandex.ru>
> > >> Cc: Qt development mailing list <development at qt-project.org>
> > >> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
> > <snip>
> > > Rafael said:
> > >
> > > "During all these years contributing to Qt I have encountered many
> > > times
> > strong criticism in gerrit - some people were very harsh or
> > *seemingly* rude
> > - or that was what I thought, until I realized that: 1) it was just
> > their modus operandi; 2) at the end of the day, their comments made
> > sense and improved my code; 3) they were not butt hurt when roles were
> reversed."
> > >
> > > To me it seems like you guys are saying:
> > >
> > > "I don't care if this person treats me like crap because they sure can
> code."
> >
> > Exactly, I don't care as long as certain boundaries, such as name
> > calling, are not crossed.
> 
> Great!
> 
> > And even if, it really depends on the context:
> 
> Wait, what?
> 
> > I would rather communicate with Linus Torvalds than having to on ice
> > with someone else for the sake of politeness. And just to be clear, I
> > am extrapolating here.
> 
> That's a really odd analogy to choose.
> 
> If you are reviewing a patch or communicating with someone within this
> community, you're doing so by choice: either because you're being paid to or
> you're here on your own free time. Both are choices. The point of this code
> of conduct is not to limit *who* you communicate with, but *how* you treat
> those people who you communicate with in the course of contributing. It's to
> help people who are getting treated like crap by the "expert" developers
> feel more safe in the community by making it clear what will not be accepted.
> 
> > >
> > > I'm happy for you if you've gotten this far in life and decided that
> > > you like
> > being insulted in exchange for someone reviewing your code (or even
> > just asking a question on IRC), but personally I do not like it. I'm
> > more than capable of standing up for myself, but other people who feel
> > the same way may not feel comfortable speaking out.
> > >
> > > What you're also saying is:
> > >
> > > "You (the Qt Project) aren't going to do anything about their
> > > behaviour
> > because they contribute good code."
> >
> > I never said that. See my answer to Simon. Alas, this is something I
> > vehemently oppose. Also, to be clear: I am not suggesting we suck it
> > up and do not take action. I was just suggesting that maybe a CoC is
> > not the way to go.
> 
> It was meant for Nikolai, just bad quoting on my behalf.
> 
> > >
> > > Which sadly is true. Really, your question seems almost rhetorical
> > > given
> > this. It's even explicitly acknowledged on the home page of the thing
> > that we're basing our code of conduct on:
> > >
> > > "People with “merit” are often excused for their bad behavior in
> > > public
> > spaces based on the value of their technical contributions."
> >
> > And they shouldn't be excused. But this goes both ways. There are a
> > lot of people who like to turn everything into a speech problem. This
> > is when we have to be tolerant and respectful. Sadly, indeed, in the
> > real world things don't work quite like that.
> 
> Yes, so: finding a balance. I agree. I just want to get my job done and improve
> as a developer. I don't think anyone wants to force people to be overly
> polite, they just don't want to be attacked. Constructive criticism without
> snarkiness is personally all I'm asking for.
> 
> > >
> > > - https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
> > >
> > > Disregarding all of the other factors (racism, sexual identity, age,
> > > etc.) and
> > just keeping it purely about treating other people with respect: the
> > statement above is absolutely true.
> > >
> > > Honestly I have my doubts whether this code of conduct will actually
> > achieve its most basic goal, given that many people have apparently
> > tried to intervene with the people who treat others poorly and nothing
> > has come of it (although people will tell you it's gotten better). I
> > hope it does, but I've been in the community and around these people
> > long enough to know that it probably won't. Reading through these
> > replies, it's also clear that a large amount of the people responding
> > are quite happy with the status quo, which, although not surprising to me,
> is always disheartening.
> > >
> > > I haven't seen any racism, discrimination, etc., but there are
> > > definitely
> > people within the community whose behaviour is such that other
> > developers will avoid interacting with them, even if it would have
> > likely improved the quality of their work or got that work done
> > faster. I doubt you'll hear from those people though, because they
> > just want to get their job done -- which is perfectly understandable,
> > but does not excuse the behaviour of the people they try to avoid.
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 1:06 PM Konstantin Tokarev
> > >> <annulen at yandex.ru <mailto:annulen at yandex.ru> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 	25.10.2018, 13:01, "NIkolai Marchenko" <enmarantispam at gmail.com
> > >> <mailto:enmarantispam at gmail.com> >:
> > >> 	>> And btw, we have had a clear majority in favour of adding a CoC
> > >> at the Contributor Summit
> > >> 	>
> > >> 	> It seems very wrong to make such decisions at conventions where
> > >> only a small part of the contributors can participate.
> > >> 	> Especially for something as big and divisive
> > >>
> > >> 	+1
> > >>
> > >> 	--
> > >> 	Regards,
> > >> 	Konstantin
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Development mailing list
> > > Development at qt-project.org
> > > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
> > >