Re: Let's Do the CoC Right - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | David E. Wheeler |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Let's Do the CoC Right |
Date | |
Msg-id | CA59563A-A97B-4FFC-A414-9888392F541B@justatheory.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Let's Do the CoC Right ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Let's Do the CoC Right
|
List | pgsql-general |
Hi PostgreSQL General. I get that my short, snarky posts don’t help my argument, but I admit to being a bit frustrated that the posts wherein Ihave tried to lay out a position get little or no response. So let me try again. 1. Items in the current draft of the CoC can be manipulated by abusers to claim that they were just expressing an opinionor were ignorant of their tone. The ability to say that, and reference a specific item in the CoC when doing so, introducesan element of inconsistency that can lead people to doubt that statements are in violation of the CoC. One mightthink that “You can not violate one part of the CoC and use the other part as the reason”, and yet that is exactly whatis likely to happen. One can, and one will, and then how will those evaluating a case of reported abuse handle it? Ifsomeone says, “I was abused as defined in Bullet 2,” but the abuser says, “I am protected in my speech by Bullets 1 and3,” what’s going to happen? Related: http://paddy.io/posts/professional-concerns/ 2. This document has been written and edited, in the main, by people who have not, to my knowledge, experienced the kindof abuse we want to prevent. Nor do they have experience in writing a document like this in such a way to make it consistentand effective, and to make targets of abuse feel safe here. We really should be taking advantage of the expertiseof those who have experienced these issues, who have seen what has worked and what hasn’t, and can advise us onthe most likely approach for success. The Contributor Covenant tries to encapsulate such expertise in a way that’s easyfor communities to develop. But if our community doesn’t like the Covenant, I think we should bring in the expertiseto help us craft a document that’s likely to be the most effective. There are a number of consultants in this spacewho have tremendously helped other communities I’ve participated in, such as the XOXO Festival. 3. If I understand correctly, the impetus for adopting a CoC (which, believe me, I laud in no uncertain terms) was this postby Randi Harper about her experience reporting abuse to the FreeBSD community: http://blog.randi.io/2015/12/31/the-developer-formerly-known-as-freebsdgirl/ Ideally, by adopting a CoC and an enforcement policy, we can try to prevent bad experiences for people reporting abuse. However,in this example, the abuse, which came from a FreeBSD committer and was aimed at another, took place on Twitter,not in a FreeBSD forum. However, the rules of the FreeBSD community at that time did not cover abuse outside sanctionedcommunity forums. As a result, the FreeBSd core: > weren’t willing to take action on threats because they didn’t happen on the mailing list — despite them happening in avenue where the committer publicly identified himself as a member of the project. The proposed CoC does not cover this situation, either, at least not as directly as it should. So if someone who identifiedas a PostgreSQL community member abused someone else on Twitter or Facebook, and that abuse was reported to thePostgreSQL community (by whatever policy the community will need to spell out), will the abuse enforcement team be ableto do anything about it, by the proposed CoC? I suspect not. The third bullet item refers only to the community “collaborativespace”. It should also cover forums outside the community’s own collaborative spaces. Otherwise, if someonein our community abuses someone in an outside forum, but is allowed to continue to participate in the community, thenthe target of that abuse will not feel safe here. The abuser, however, will. Is that an outcome we really want? If not,how do we make explicit that it won’t happen? Look, I’m not an authority on this stuff, either. But I understand that rules, such as those in a Code of Conduct, must beexplicit and as unambiguous as language will allow. And it’s pretty easy for me, a non-expert in the fields of law or abusemitigation, to see oversights and contradictions that can and will be exploited by abusers. We should close them. Ideallythe core organization would hire one or more experts to help us out, or else would take advantage of the fruits oftheir past labors and adopt something that has already been thought-through by experts and adopted by a wide range of communities.Will it be perfect? No. Can we make it good enough to make people feel safe? Absolutely. This isn’t about compromise, mind. If what we want to do is to let people know that they are safe from abuse in this communityand from members of this community, that we take abuse seriously and will act on reports expeditiously, then I don’tsee how the proposed CoC get us there. Best, David
Attachment
pgsql-general by date: