[Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct

[Edward Welbourne]

In a context of witch-hunts against even allegations of minimal harm,
NIkolai Marchenko (26 October 2018 20:17) wrote
>> 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 will 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.

Just to be clear: I was speaking of the case for having *a* code of
conduct and a publicly-described process around coaxing folk into
honouring it.  In particular, I'm not particularly attached to the
present wording, nor do I know more than the present discussion has
(since I wrote the above) told me about the Contributors' Covenant on
which it is based.

What I asked for was a process that a contributor can turn to, with
reasonable hopes of being heard and getting help, if they feel
persecuted.  If their feelings of persecution are not anchored in any
actual conduct by a community member that actually persecutes them I am
all for the process (politely and respectfully) teaching them to not
feel persecuted when they aren't being persecuted.  I am firmly in
favour of the code of conduct's associated processes being
proportionate, precisely so that they avoid any objection to an alleged
or potential harm escalating "to stupid proportions".

I do, indeed, find the Covenant-derived wording and process somewhat
heavy-handed and hope I shall soon find the time to read the KDE CoC, of
which several voices here have spoken favourably.  I'm in favour of *a*
code of conduct, and associated processes, precisely if it assures folk
who deal with this community of reasonable and respectful treatment.  It
rather sounds as if the Contributors' Covenant (or, at least, the
history of how it's been used) undermines your confidence that you'll be
treated reasonably and respectfully, if what we adopt is based on it.
Please make the case for that, rather than imputing that I am a
preparing the way (however unwittingly) for witch-finders ;^>

Jason H (29 October 2018 17:42) ended a recent missive with:
> 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.

Specifics are exactly what the code review is for.  Come join us at:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/243623

I assure you, you are not alone in wanting this thing nailed down tidily
enough that there aren't loose flaps under which Aliens with Agendas
(whether of the left or the right, whether progressive or reactionary)
can slip in and work mischief for our community,

	Eddy.