Re: Code of conduct (bis)

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Quim Gil wrote:

> Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 00:39:41 +0100
> From: Quim Gil <quimgil gmail com>
> Reply-To: qgil desdeamericaconamor org
> To: Foundation-List <foundation-list gnome org>
> Subject: Re: Code of conduct (bis)
>
> 2006/12/8, Telsa Gwynne <hobbit aloss ukuu org uk>:
> > Would it be possible to find out who felt which way? I can't see it
> > in the minutes, and this is very much a deciding issue for me when it
> > comes to voting for the new board.
>
> This is how I felt:
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-December/msg00017.html
>
> As a board member I don't think the board needs to be the first
> approving the CoC. Maybe the last, after the community has approved
> it, if the CoC needs it.
>
> As a GNOME Foundation member I don't think we need a CoC. Where is the
> abuse that justifies the adoption of a new tool to prevent abuse?

The Code of Conduct is not abuse, as both you and Philip seem to perceive
it.  Abuse is when behaviour goes below the bare minimum acceptable level
but a Code of Conduct tries to show better more ideal behaviour rather
than just scraping by with barely acceptable "not abusive" behaviour.

Like it or not the behaviour of all those who post to gnome lists and
write on Gnome channels is what represents us all.  Not using adresses
@gnome.org or claiming your words are your own and represent only you
might be a nice thought but it does not absolve the author from their
responsibilities.

Gnome has rightly or wrongly acquired a perception of arrogance.  It would
be nice if one those increasingly rare occasions that someone is having a
bad days and feels the need to take it out on someone else that we can
explain to users they need not expect or accept that sort of behaviour. A
beginner* does not and should not be expected to understand the difference
in motivations if they get a rude and unhelpful response.  They can quite
easily take their time and interest elsewhere.

Having a clear "Code of Conduct" gives us a starting position which says
this is what we are aiming for, and makes it much easier for anyone to
step in and say what is expected and what is not particularly appropriate.
Hopefully it will give users and developers a better idea of what people
are expecting and result in less unreasonable behaviour.

(Explaining such vague generalities is hard, pointing to the much more
forgiving and welcoming atmosphere fostered by Ubuntu compared to Debian
community where a certain amount of hostility was tacitly accepted when
they might actually have liked to have preferred to discourage it but
lacked a way to do so until Ubuntu showed a way.)

> Writing and signing a CoC doesn't make us per se any better promoting
> minorities and diversity. The CoC debate months ago was a somewhat sad
> example.

Failing to do so speaks volumes.  Although the writer was joking when they
wrote of a fictional headline "Gnome foundation fails to accept Code of
Conduct" (or words to that effect) there is an unfortunate risk of it
being perceived that way by those outside of Gnome.  Hopefully the list of
signatories to the Code of Conduct will go a long way to clarify the
amount of support for a clear Code of Conduct.

There really only appears to be a difference of degrees and a reluctance
from the Board to do anything from the top down and risk a backlash.
Low voter turnout means ideally "democratic" full participation
referendums are impractical. The board is elected to represent, and must
risk representing the voters and making the occasional slip rather than
giving in to analysis paralysis or any notion that doing their job is
undemocratic.

(This all reminds me how the usability guide gave all Gnome users a way to
articulate and communicate an idea most of us already had and accepted on
some level but not quite in exactly the same way.  To put it another way
all developers appreciate a good API and a clean specification right?)

-- 
Alan H.


* and hopefully future contributor