[Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

Fri Oct 26 20:17:45 CEST 2018

And we already see the budding sentiments to that exact tune:

(quote from Edward Welbourne)
>That sometimes folk have felt so intimidated that they give up on trying
>  to make a contribution; and that, were potential worse conduct to cause
>  distress to a contributor, we have no process in place that could give
>  them confidence that their distress will be respected and honest efforts
vwill be made to relieve it.  Various variations and permutations on
>  these themes may also be relevant; see Simon's mail.

Note: I understand that he means well, but Within the context of
Contributor Covenant the punishability of the potential harm of people not
contributing can escalate to stupid proportions.
I have nothing against KDE's code. It strives to add positivity.
I am very much against Qt's CoC being drafted from Covenant. Covenant is
focused on oppression and excluding ppl.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:06 PM Jason H <jhihn at gmx.com> wrote:

> I don't really care that their role, though that move takes gravitas.
>
> I will never endorse a measure that encourages (and the CC does
> encourage) a witchhunt on the members of the community. It encourages by
> creating a metric of "maximum comfort" (or "least harmful") and that
> anything else is somehow a violation. She did it herself with these
> words[2]: "Is this what the other maintainers want to be reflected in the
> project? Will any transgender developers feel comfortable contributing?"
> With those words she created a metric of "maximum comfort". So now the
> question moves from not just having not offended someone, but to be
> maximally comforting to every possible person. Not that there's anything
> wrong with *wanting* to be maximally comfortable for everyone. It's a great
> goal. But now every interaction is to be judged by this metric, and
> anything less than the maximal comfort is somehow potentially alienating to
> a population and can be construed to be a cause for removal.
>
> In the CC itself it encourages a witchhunt with these words:
> "Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit,
> or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other
> contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban
> temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they
> deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful."
>
> That last word, "harmful" significantly alters the statement. Don't let
> your eyes glaze over. Now anything that happens is potentially harmful.
> (Ironically C++, or its constructs is even "considered harmful". Just
> google "C++ considered harmful", lol). I probably would have let this whole
> issue slide but that last word _really_ changes the character of the
> covenant. I beleive that is *the* word that allows the witchhunting. It's
> not just direct harm but potential harm. From [2]: "As a queer person
> this sort of argument from a maintainer makes me feel unwelcome. The
> ignorance which @elia <https://github.com/elia> shows by claiming that
> transfolk are "not accepting reality" is actively harmful. I will not
> contribute to this project or any other project which @elia
> <https://github.com/elia> maintains." - strand
>
> Not that strand was participating, but states that there will be no future
> contribution by strand.  This is an appeal to percieved harm - that now
> strand will not ever contribute, the project is potentially harmed by
> missing out on a contributor. So now this issue can fall under the
> Covenant.
>
>
> How can we avoid witchhunts?
>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 26, 2018 at 1:24 PM
> *From:* "NIkolai Marchenko" <enmarantispam at gmail.com>
> *To:* jhihn at gmx.com
> *Cc:* "Christian Kandeler" <Christian.Kandeler at qt.io>, "Qt development
> mailing list" <development at qt-project.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
> Just to clarify: she sought to remove _maintainer_ of the project :) At
> that point the guy was doing most of the work.
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:48 PM Jason H <jhihn at gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> My fundamental problem about the Contributor Covenant[1] was initially
>> and solely the fallout from the Linux Kernel fiasco. But then I learned
>> that it was drafted by Coraline Ada Ehmke, who sought to have a contributor
>> removed [2] from a project preemptively. The contributor did nothing wrong
>> with respect to the project or the project's community.  She constructed a
>> claim of "transphobia" based on a tweet the contributor wrote in no way
>> relating to the project at hand, and slandered the project for not
>> expunging them. My mind is made up: the Contributor Covenant is a tool of
>> oppression.
>>
>> The specific sentence in the Covenant is:
>> "This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public
>> spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community."
>>
>> However, despite being the author of the Covenant (2014), she found it
>> appropriate to attack someone who was clearly not operating in a project
>> space or representing the project community (2015). We now have two
>> examples - the linux Kernel and Opal project, that after CC was enacted
>> that calls for removal of members based on past unrelated tweets went out.
>> One of the problems its politics and political climates change over time.
>> Expressing what is not political at one point in time may become political
>> in subsequent years. People's minds also change over time.
>>
>> I urge you to read link[3] below and see if we want that kind of
>> attention. It summarizes what happens when the CC has been adopted by other
>> projects.
>>
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_Covenant
>> [2] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941
>> [3] https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/974038-why-the-linux-coc-is-bad/
>>
>> > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 at 3:50 AM
>> > From: "Christian Kandeler" <Christian.Kandeler at qt.io>
>> > To: "development at qt-project.org" <development at qt-project.org>
>> > Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>> >
>> > On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 19:39:45 +0200
>> > André Pönitz <apoenitz at t-online.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 09:51:00AM +0200, Volker Krause via
>> Development wrote:
>> > > > We do have a Code of Conduct at KDE for about 10 years now, and
>> this hasn't
>> > > > led to abuse of power, suppression of free speech, racism against
>> white people
>> > > > or whatever other nonsense people seem to attribute to CoCs
>> nowadays.
>> > >
>> > > The KDE CoC is *friendly*. It contains words like "considerate",
>> "pragmatic",
>> > > "support". It doesn't push someone's personal political agenda.
>> >
>> > I agree. It reads as if it was written with the intention of creating a
>> constructive environment, lacks the inquisition-y vibe and is free of
>> jargon and weirdly over-specific lists.
>> >
>> >
>> > Christian
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Development mailing list
>> > Development at qt-project.org
>> > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Development mailing list
>> Development at qt-project.org
>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20181026/9e3f7601/attachment.html>