[Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

[Alexey Andreyev]

> I think we have two camps:
> We want a CoC as a feel-good statement of inclusion and tolerance (I
think everyone is > committed to this)
> AND
> 1) We want to use existing situation of laws/self-policing OR
> 2) We want a CoC that contains a framework that can get people banned or
more

Hello, Jason!

What do you say about Archlinux CoC? [1]
For me it's probably an option to explicitly say at new CoC that "witch
hunt" questions from your terminology is not a task for a technical project
itself.
See part 2.3.3 among others.

[1]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct

пн, 29 окт. 2018 г. в 17:11, Jason H <jhihn at gmx.com>:

> Lydia,
>
> First, let me say I've stated my support of the KDE CoC. Thank you for
> your effort in it.
>
> But then you make a statement in your post script that demonstrates
> exactly what I'm talking about.  You stated  "some emails in this thread
> sadly make me see part of the project in a different light. I fear I'm not
> the only one."? Would you say the project has created fear in you and this
> has somehow "harmed" the project in some way? Who were these people that
> changed your mind? We need to identify these people and ban them because
> they are not casting the widest inclusive and protective audience and
> anything less than that is harm... Let the witch hunt begin... right?
>
> Everyone,
> This is the slippery slope that I'm talking about accusations start in
> wide-abstractions like your statement and devolve into direct accusations.
> While no one yet here has the motivation to conduct a witch hunt, we cannot
> assume that will be the case. So far common sense has prevailed, but common
> sense is, well, uncommon. It may be that Cone day oraline et. al. go on a
> witch hunt for those the opposed her Covenant.
>
> I've spent some time thinking about this this weekend. Here's what I don't
> get. Coraline authored the CC. She then goes into projects attacking them
> with it, but fortunately(?) it hasn't worked. But to put it a different
> way, if I design an instrument, publish the plans, and try to use it in a
> community, if it doesn't work, is it the instrument or the user that is at
> fault? If that instrument is intended to be destructive (say like a bomb),
> then can we see how she really means for this to be used? To my knowledge
> none of the people singled out in the witch hunts actually did anything
> offensive in the projects they were participating in.
>
> It could be that eventually those who opposed the CoC in some way get
> labeled as "intolerant" by the larger community. Lydia's statement has
> already given me pause in this regard and I'm not being hyperbolic.
> Political views, and things we don't consider as political today, can
> eventually become political.
>
> I think we have two camps:
> We want a CoC as a feel-good statement of inclusion and tolerance (I think
> everyone is committed to this)
> AND
> 1) We want to use existing situation of laws/self-policing OR
> 2) We want a CoC that contains a framework that can get people banned or
> more
>
> I've always assumed that there was some line that could be crossed that
> would get your accounts shut down and removed from the community. If
> someone makes it so that the community cannot function, in whole or in
> part, then removal is warranted. These Codes of Conducts lower the barrier
> to an incredibly low bar and don't say what lower threshold of "harm" is
> needed to run afoul. I haven't even had a response as to if it is perceived
> or demonstrable harm that is required.
>
> So far cooler heads and common sense have prevailed, but I don't trust
> that will always be the case. This is why if we go with a CoC that can
> prescribe punishments, that it be explicit both in determination and
> punishment stages.
>
>
> *Not that I have anything against witches. I have several wiccan friends.
> Is the term "witch hunt" offensive? Can I get banned for using that term
> now or in the future?
>
>
> > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:53 PM
> > From: "Lydia Pintscher" <lydia at kde.org>
> > To: development at qt-project.org
> > Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:45 PM Thiago Macieira
> > <thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:
> > > And I'm pretty sure the KDE Community WG can easily compile a list of
> times
> > > that they were maliciously asked to look into situations and how much
> time it
> > > took them to give it the attention it was due.
> >
> > I don't have an exact number but less than 10. And we could always
> > deal with it very quickly thanks to some common sense and good
> > knowledge of the situation and people involved. No big deal.
> >
> > (For those who don't know me: I'm one of the people who wrote KDE's
> > CoC and has been a member of it's community working group since then.
> > I'm also the current president of the non-profit behind KDE.)
> > If you have further questions about KDE's Code of Conduct please let
> > me know. I'm happy to answer them.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > Lydia
> >
> > PS: As someone on the fringes of the Qt Project some emails in this
> > thread sadly make me see part of the project in a different light. I
> > fear I'm not the only one.
> >
> > --
> > Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
> > KDE e.V. Board of Directors
> > http://kde.org - http://open-advice.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20181029/a384df89/attachment.html>