[Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

[Elvis Stansvik]

Den sön 28 okt. 2018 kl 11:34 skrev Alexey Andreyev
<yetanotherandreyev at gmail.com>:
>
> Hello, Tomasz! :)
> Thank you for the question!
>
> Current draft based on CoC:
>
> > Our Pledge
> > ==========
> > In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we
> > as contributors to and maintainers of the Qt Project pledge to make
> > participation in our project and our community a harassment-free
> > experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability,
> > ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level
> > of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal
> > appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation,
> > or any other characteristics that are not relevant to a person's
> > ability to contribute to the Qt Project.

A lot of people seem to have a problem with this long enumeration.

I think this is because we're programmers, and we think of it as
redundant given the concluding "[...] or any other characteristics
that are not relevant to a person's ability to contribute to the Qt
Project.", or the shorter list in the KDE CoC, so we instinctively
want to trim the fat - we want to optimize.

But, and this is of course just my personal opinion/interpretation, I
think the purpose of this enumeration is to list those very large
groups of people in society who are currently experiencing harassment
and mistreatment for who they are. The pledge is supposed to be a set
of guidelines for how the community operates, but *also* a message to
potential contributors. Thought of that way, I think the enumeration
makes sense: We tell a large part of the population who are currently
being oppressed/mistreated that, at least in our community, you can
feel safe. The enumeration is not supposed to cover everything, but I
think it fulfills a purpose by covering a lot.

I don't agree with some earlier poster who thought of the enumeration
as setting some kind of bar, I don't think that is the purpose of it.
It is meant as a message, and to drive that message home with the
groups of people we want to reach, I think it makes sense to be
explicit. The concluding "[...] or any other characteristics that are
not relevant to a person's ability to contribute to the Qt Project."
is of course very important *as well*, to cover our bases.

If in 5, 10 or 50 years (I know, I'm a pessimist), there is no longer
widespread discrimination and mistreatment of people for their race,
religion or sexual identity/orientation, but some other groups are
being mistreated (again, sorry for the pessimism), then I think it's
perfectly fine to revise this list.

I can't really see how this list could be misused. If people have an
issue with a particular item on the list, they should say so.

That's just my 2 cents on the enumeration, which seems to bug people,
and I completely understand if others see it differently.

Elvis

>
> and KDE version:
>
> > We do not tolerate personal attacks, racism, sexism or any other form of discrimination.
>
> Do we have any research about effects it leading?
>
> How many discrimination suspicions do we have right now?
>
> How could it be resolved successfully at digital community?
>
> How many misuse examples do we have at open projects since accepting similar rules?
>
> How CoC board are going to protect community from discrimination and harassment?
>
> Are CoC committee ready for "affirmative action"?
>
> I'm not against the rules as a concept, I agree we need it,
> but I totally against perverted or undefined rules that could help to destroy the community.
>
> I could not accept argument like "let's accept just anything and see how it goes and fix something later".
> "Don't code today what you can't debug tomorrow" :)
>
> I'm just saying we should think twice befoce accepting something.
>
> P.S.: I'm ready to change my mind if I've made a mistake, feel free to criticize, correct and ignore me :)
>
> вс, 28 окт. 2018 г. в 10:47, Tomasz Siekierda <sierdzio at gmail.com>:
>>
>> > The controversial discrimination protection sentences at least should be carefully discussed. It's not some thing that we could accept as easy as rewrite.
>>
>> Hi Alexey, I've just read the QUIP proposal and couldn't find any
>> controversial sentences. Could you elaborate? Which points shall be
>> discussed?
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 22:41, Konstantin Shegunov <kshegunov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 11:20 PM Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The answer to all of those questions needs to be "yes". Anything short of that
>> >> means the CoC is powerless and just for show.
>> >
>> >
>> > Which was my point exactly.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Whether there's a termination of employment or not is out of scope, since the
>> >> CoC does not rule TQtC employment and what other work there is inside that
>> >> company.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Note also it applies to any company. If you're not welcome anymore in the
>> >> community where your employer is asking you to do work, that is going to
>> >> affect your employment.
>> >
>> >
>> > I agree. However my argument was that the QtC being a major contributor to the codebase is going to have to abide by the ruling of the proposed committee, which is a significant commitment (and a major nitpick I admit).
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development