[Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

Sun Oct 28 14:31:55 CET 2018

> [...]  or the shorter list in the KDE CoC, so we instinctively
> want to trim the fat - we want to optimize.

I've provided both (CC and from KDE) not to show some version is better,
but to show both have same problems.

For me it's not about optimization right now. Is it possible to follow
provided versions?
And receive more positive for the commuity than negative.

> 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

Is that obvious that provided document will help not made things worse for
everyone?
Are we going to treat something at the commuity just blindly without
diagnosis and research?

>  We tell a large part of the population who are currently
> being oppressed/mistreated that, at least in our community, you can
> feel safe

How are we going to provide safety?

> The enumeration is not supposed to cover everything, but I
> think it fulfills a purpose by covering a lot.

As far as I can see the reasoning is based on the hypothesis that any rules
will not be able to aggravate the situation. It's not obvious.

> 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.

> 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.

How the committee is going to determine that someone has violated these
"guidelines not bars"?
What is the purpose of the guidelines without additional information how to
protect them?

> 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.

For example, let's say some person (person or legal entity, organization or
groups of organizations) have projects, competing with Qt somehow (or
linux, or KDE).
That "person/groups" will get more profit if Qt community will became
unhealthy or will cease to exist.
That person could sponsor, support or pay money somehow to other persons to
support some vulnerable ideas.
Persons who accept that ideas and have interests, conflicting with the
community, could say something like
"hey, we are actually feeling harassment, please accept our
ideas/patches/anything too".
It is a space for accepting non-obvious security or architectural changes.

In 50, 10 or 5 years :) if attackers will be lucky enough, Qt community
could lost their image of as awesome commuity as it is right now.

..???

PROFIT! Young generation not interested, no support, commuity is dying,
profit for competing projects.

It's just one example that could sound like a joke since I'm not a
professional with this kind of tricky social questions,
but I hope I showed the danger as a caricature at least.

I don't want my arguments be adressed to someone personally, and I'm not
saying there's some conspiracy here.
I just want to help to save and develop the community for the future.

I agree we need rules. My problem is not any rules are healthy.

вс, 28 окт. 2018 г. в 14:37, Elvis Stansvik <elvstone at gmail.com>:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20181028/c4472aef/attachment.html>