[Pharo-users] Code of Conduct
norbert at hartl.name
Fri Sep 20 02:51:31 EDT 2019
> Am 20.09.2019 um 06:45 schrieb James Foster <Smalltalk at JGFoster.net>:
> First, my guess is that it was part of the thing they copied and that aspect might not have gotten as much thought as you’ve given it.
That is right. I wondered myself about the last part but did not think about it too much.
> Second, this is an international organization and maybe the intent (by the original author(s)) was to extend the reach of the NZ/UK/EU-style laws to apply to those in jurisdictions with less strict speech codes or where the legal remedy is impractical. That is, maybe the author(s) don’t feel it is sufficient to tell someone who is harassed, “We can’t do anything about it. Hire a NZ lawyer.”
It doesn’t matter. We are _not_ an international organization that needs to fit in all participating nations laws. We are a community with plenty of nations participating and we are free to define our own culture. Everyone might have additional restrictions how to interpret „free speech“ but that is duty of the particular individual and the laws in the country he/she lives in.
> These are speculations on my part and, as a US citizen, I’m partial to our free speech protections. I’d prefer to have private organizations practice ostracization rather than have the government put rude people in jail. I say this, not to start a political discussion, but to point out that some harassment that would be illegal in NZ might not have a legal remedy if the actor was a US citizen.
This part in the text is vague and you acknowledge just that it welcomes speculation about it. In particular people put a lot of their opinion/believe/… into those speculations and I would like to see that minimized in this community. And I really don’t see a benefit having those.
> In any case, I found that when I submitted a PR then something happened pretty quickly. So, I’d suggest that you channel your analysis and concerns into a proposed improvement.
It is always good to go pro-active on topics rather than just writing mails and complain. In your case it was more of coincidence. We were discussing that for a longer time and your PR just met our time frame of getting a decision ready.
I will discuss about removing that last part of the text.
>> On Sep 19, 2019, at 8:44 PM, Richard O'Keefe <raoknz at gmail.com <mailto:raoknz at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On the whole, the new code is pretty good.
>> There was one thing that troubled me, though:
>> "even outside of Pharo's public communication channels."
>> What business is it of the Pharo Board what anyone says in any
>> other community? I've heard too many cases where A says something
>> to B and C complains about it as harassment when B didn't mind.
>> I have personally known people *affectionately* address each other
>> in terms that most would consider a deadly insult.
>> My behaviour in all digital media is subject to the
>> Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. See
>> http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html <http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html>
>> which extends the Harassment Act 1997. See
>> http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1997/0092/latest/whole.html <http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1997/0092/latest/whole.html>
>> for a definition of harassment.
>> If I harass anyone according to these Acts, they have a legal remedy.
>> I understand the the UK and the EU have similar laws.
>> So I don't understand why the Pharo Board want to extend their reach.
>> On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 07:21, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm at gmail.com <mailto:estebanlm at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I’m talking on behalf of the Pharo Board here.
>> As start, we accepted Serge’s proposition without actually discussing it much because we didn’t think it was going to be really a problem. Our community has been self-regulating since the beginning and we were doing it fine until now. Once or twice we (the board) needed to act, but never had a real situation as the ones the CoC tries to cover.
>> So, we can say we opened the umbrella without rain, just in case.
>> Now, after observe the situation, we have decided to retract the code. But sadly, we cannot just remove it and let things continue as before because as it’s know “it you open a can or worms, you will need a bigger can to put them back in”. Which means now we need a code of conduct.
>> So we are going to take the simplest one we could find that still can serve our community, you can see it here:
>> https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4660 <https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/4660>
>> This PR will be accepted, but as anything in our community, you can still discuss it and propose modifications.
>> Just remember be respectful of people disagreeing with your ideas :)
>> PS: As personal note: I blocked a github user that insulted a member of our community, a user who did not had history with us (or any other visible project), who did not had a name or ways to contact him so I assumed it was just another troll. Now, he identifies himself here... I will unblock him, but that does not means the kind of disrespectful messages he sent can be sent :)
>>> On 19 Sep 2019, at 19:47, Ben Coman <btc at openinworld.com <mailto:btc at openinworld.com>> wrote:
>>> makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot.
>>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <pharo-users at lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-users at lists.pharo.org>> wrote:
>>> Let's see, I've posted one email to this list describing the dangers
>>> of abusing CoCs
>>> I guess you refer to this one...
>>> > On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 19:39, Eugen Leitl via Pharo-users <pharo-users at lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-users at lists.pharo.org>> wrote:
>>> > I agree. Technical people are too easy to exploit by malignant manipulators of people.
>>> > All too often they don't even realize it after the fact.
>>> Thats fairly benign and doubt it had anything to do with being blocked on github.
>>> and one post to GitHub describing the motivations of
>>> people who introduce CoCs, and immediately get banned on GitHub from
>>> Note, the board member who blocked your GIthub account and deleted your post there
>>> also voiced their opinion as being...
>>> For me a "welcome and be nice" should be enough to just continue as before.
>>> I find the introduction of CoC was a noise we didn't need,
>>> our community was doing well and self-regulated without problem until now.
>>> So in spite of your implication, I doubt there is anything sinister from the CoC in play here.
>>> Comments such as "makes me wonder whether he's such a machiavellian sociopath, or a useful idiot."
>>> have been consistently condemned years before thought of a CoC.
>>> I'm getting called a troll and a nobody in public by members of the project,
>>> Its not that you are a "nobody", but actually you were "unknown to us" two days ago.
>>> Maybe you don't know Serge, but we've know him for years and his good work including governance of our GSoC participation
>>> so please consider why such comments from a newcomer may be dealt with as a troll.
>>> Community standards do not maintain themselves: They're maintained by people actively applying them, visibly, in public.
>>> Now personally I'm not going to condemn you on one slip.
>>> I've been told to pull my head in before and they were right - I was venting after a bad day at work. But no one held it against me long.
>>> These nontechnical and emotion-charge debates are infrequent and I hope get a chance to see how things normally run once we are past it.
>>> cheers -ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pharo-users