[Pharo-users] Code of Conduct

John Pfersich jpfersich at gmail.com
Fri Sep 13 23:38:26 EDT 2019


For encrypted mail use jgpfersich at protonmail.com
Get a free account at ProtonMail.com
Web: www.objectnets.net and www.objectnets.org

> On Sep 12, 2019, at 10:13, Richard O'Keefe <raoknz at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are some aspects of the "Covenant" that rub me up the wrong way.
> I note that the only part of it where anyone actually promises to do
> (or not do) anything is the "Pledge", which rather pointedly refrains
> from treating people with different political viewpoints (like gun
> ownership, or like TERFs who are silent about their opinions within
> the group) well.  It's about supporting diversity of *being*, not
> diversity of *opinion*.
> There are other codes of conduct around which are framed in less
> identitarian terms.  And it is rather startling to find that one
> is expected to be bound by a "Covenant" which is no Covenant (that
> is, an *agreement*).  A code of conduct can be imposed from the
> top down; a covenant requires the consent of the governed.
> I am somewhat perturbed by the term "inclusive language" because
> it is a shifting standard.  I have frequently heard young women
> addressing each other as "guys", yet have just recently watching
> someone basically saying "I know it's gender neutral now and there
> is no malice in it but it's exclusionary so it's really bad."
> So if you say something like "hey guys" in a message, you have just
> violated this covenant, and deserve to be thrown out.  Or then
> again, you may not have.  Who decides?  In a world where an
> anti-racist black hero gets labelled a white supremacist, who decides?
> Here's another case.  Many mailing lists or newsgroups have a policy
> "no homework answers".  If you tell someone off for violating that
> policy, your mailing list or newsgroup is not welcoming and inclusive.
> In another mailing list I am on, there is a clear and explicit "no HTML
> postings" policy, for good topic-specific reason, and people are often
> (politely) told off for violating it.  As I read the Covenant, that's
> not allowed.
> In a mailing list where you have no idea of my age, sex, body size,
> gender orientation, etc, much of the Covenant is prima facie pointless.
> The Covenant goes way too far to be a mere "be nice to each other" guide.
> I have no intention of giving offence, and I am I not going to pull out
> of the mailing list, but couldn't some less creepy code be adopted?
>> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 08:08, Sean P. DeNigris <sean at clipperadams.com> wrote:
>> Sven Van Caekenberghe-2 wrote
>> > https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct - which
>> > is quite popular and generally accepted.
>> Based on the reaction earlier in the thread, I was expecting something
>> highly opinionated and polarizing, but it seems to boil down to: be
>> professional and don't make it personal. While there are some categories of
>> people mentioned, it doesn't seem to make a value judgement about them, but
>> merely say that no one (including from those categories) will be harassed
>> inside the Pharo community. Seems pretty reasonable, unless I'm missing
>> something...
>> -----
>> Cheers,
>> Sean
>> --
>> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20190913/04d3ab53/attachment.html>

More information about the Pharo-users mailing list