[Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

Mon Oct 29 17:42:39 CET 2018

Hi Volker,

I think you ask a very good question.  "If someone like Coraline were to direct her energy to the Qt Project, how much in the open would you want their efforts to be? Or would you rather simply trust that there are not enough maintainers in the Qt project that would fall for their chain of arguments and backdoor schemings?"

Let's break that down.
"If someone like Coraline were to direct her energy to the Qt Project" - 
1) If by energy you mean, she wants to contribute, I would not have a problem with her participation despite me not agreeing with her previous behavior. Contributions would be judged on technical merits alone.
2) If by energy you mean a witch hunt, then it should be done publicly as to add to her existing history.
3) If by energy you mean a "legitimate complaint" then I guess it would depend on the nature of her claims. If the items of transgression are Qt community items, then it's already in public. If things were done in private then it would be debatable what influence the Qt community resolution process would have.

So I don't have a clear answer for you, but that should set up some kind of framework. The agreement on venue is difficult. I could both see wanting public resolution or private resolution, and I can't even typify that based on scenario.

Admittedly, I don't understand the last part of your question. "simply trust that there are not enough maintainers in the Qt project that would fall for their chain of arguments and backdoor schemings". Previously I suggested that the people selected to judge the process be entirely at random to prevent politicisation of the decision makers. And also evidence should only be considered if on a Qt community property.  At the same time, these incidents may have confidential information, which should be protected from public disclosure. I think all of that fell on deaf ears?

I've asked repeatedly for very specific definitions and standards of things to be considered. This would go along way to getting my approval. I will always resist an ambiguous judgements on ambiguous standards. The process should be transparent to those involved in it, such that you should know how it will turn out before entering into the process. I don't think ambiguity serves anyone justly.

> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 at 11:33 AM
> From: "Volker Hilsheimer" <volker.hilsheimer at qt.io>
> To: "Jason H" <jhihn at gmx.com>
> Cc: "Lydia Pintscher" <lydia at kde.org>, "Qt development mailing list" <development at qt-project.org>
> Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct
>
> Hey Jason,
> 
> 
> You seem to assume that without a code of conduct there is no way that people can get banned. That is not the case. In practice, people can be kicked out of the Qt Project by the folks that control the respective systems. And by extension by those who have some influence over those people.
> 
> You call that “self-policing”, but in fact it’s about us trusting that the folks that have those privileges do not abuse their power. That’s great as long as it works, but if the project somehow does become “more political”, then I do think this lack of transparency is not in the interest of the project.
> 
> A CoC tries to formulate what environment we want our behaviors to create, and it establishes a less opaque process for managing situations where an individual seems to do more harm than good to the project.
> 
> That doesn’t mean that there won’t be mistakes. It doesn’t take much to cause someone distress through an email or a quick comment to their code, esp when we want to include people that are regularly exposed to all sorts of harassment, and are not quite as thick-skinned and self-assured as you and I might be. But I think that, by simply establishing a CoC that community members agree to, we can create an atmosphere where even a rough piece of language is received in the spirit of collaboration.
> 
> And that also doens’t mean that there won’t be abuse. I’m sure there are people that have made it a way of life to be offended. However, they do not need a Code of Conduct (which is not a legal document anyway). I’d rather have them raise their voice in the open, and direct them towards a transparent process, than to have them use backdoor tactics to get influence over the project.
> 
> The question to you is then: If someone like Coraline were to direct her energy to the Qt Project, how much in the open would you want their efforts to be? Or would you rather simply trust that there are not enough maintainers in the Qt project that would fall for their chain of arguments and backdoor schemings?
> 
> 
> Volker
> 
> 
> > On 29 Oct 2018, at 15:10, Jason H <jhihn at gmx.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 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
> 
>