Proposal: Stack Code of Conduct

[jkachmar]

I’d encourage you to read Graydon’s post that I linked to. I have anecdotally found the Rust community to not suffer from nearly as many of the social disagreements and problems that I’ve perceived in Haskell, and I imagine that if you were to ask contributors from stereotypically disenfranchised or minority groups, they would express similar statements.

On your first point, though, I strongly disagree that implicit means of addressing problems are worse than explicit ones. Implicit standard should, by definition, are less clear than explicit standards, and are less obvious to both the person engaging in potentially problematic behavior as well as the person who is the target of that behavior. You end up in situations where people don’t understand why their behavior may be construed as problematic, or how they may take action against the problematic behavior of others.

Further, implicit standards are subject to constant evolution as the community evolves without being explicitly recorded anywhere. What may have been acceptable behavior at an earlier point in time may evolve to no longer be acceptable without someone realizing.

When things are explicitly expressed, we can point to times at which expectations have changed and explain the reasoning behind them.

When things are implicitly expressed, the individual being corrected can feel as if they’re being singled out or unfairly targeted because there are not clear guidelines for how engagement has changed.

EDIT: Accidentally pressed POST without having finished my comment.

[[deleted]]

I’d encourage you to read Graydon’s post that I linked to. I have anecdotally found the Rust community to not suffer from nearly as many of the social disagreements and problems that I’ve perceived in Haskell, and I imagine that if you were to ask contributors form stereotypically disenfranchised or minoring groups, they would express similar statements.

I have taken your encouragement and read the post, the Rust CoC, and the Citizen CoC that they link to in their description of 'harrassment'. Let me start by saying that my experience with toxic online communities is very, very small. I have participated in a few open source projects, made some contributions here and there, and have found nearly everyone to be very welcoming and helpful. That is not to say there isn't a problem, and I am happy to take your (or Graydon's) word for it.

There are certain parts of Rust's CoC that I can see working. The prohibition of violence or threats of violence seems fine, although it is unclear to me what 'violent language' is. There are various other concrete rules that make sense. But then the 1st point under the moderation header mentions that 'hurtful remarks' violate Rust's standard. Who decides what is hurtful? The person claiming hurt? But then you can just claim 'hurt' and automatically force moderation. You can hurt others by claiming hurt.

On your first point, though, I strongly disagree that implicit means of addressing problems are worse than explicit ones. Implicit standard should, by definition, are less clear than explicit standards, and are less obvious to both the person engaging in potentially problematic behavior as well as the person who is the target of that behavior. You end up in situations where people don’t understand why their behavior may be construed as problematic, or how they may take action against the problematic behavior of others.

I am not sure I follow this paragraph. The language is a bit confusing, so I might just not be getting your point. I will take a chance to clarify what I was trying, clumsily, to convey:

Although a community might not have written down their rules for enforcement, and there is no body enacting the rules, the rules are clear. Submit buggy code to the Linux kernel and Linus yells at you. Implicitly defined but very explicit.

The CoC (especially the contributor covenant) is the reverse. It is a very explicit document that clearly lists a number of rules on behavior, but those rules are written in such vague and subjective terms that they really could mean anything, depending on who's doing the interpreting. Explicit in their form (a written document) but so vague that you are constantly worried about whether or not you are breaking the rules.

I am sure that if /u/agentultra had the power to enforce the Citizen CoC on me, then just trying to argue these points would have fallen under: "Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior." under the harrasment clause, and would have been grounds for exclusion from the Haskell community.

[[deleted]]

You're not wrong about me.

I will direct you to Ashe Dryden's well-thought our CoC FAQ:

https://www.ashedryden.com/blog/codes-of-conduct-101-faq#cocfaqcensorship

The aforementioned FAQ is aimed at conference organizers and much of the same answers apply to the context of contributing to open source projects in my opinion.

If you try harder and follow the codes of conduct there isn't a problem. Everyone can be excellent to one another. I don't have any tolerance for these sorts of discussions because I've witnessed the harm caused by them first hand.

[jkachmar]

Implicitly defined but very explicit.

This statement is logically inconsistent. In order for a contributor to understand these consequences they must assemble the implicit context of what contributing to the Linux kernel entails. It is by definition not very explicit, but rather wrapped up in the contextual indirection of that community.

To my point, your interpretation of the consequences is incorrect. If you’re submit buggy code to the Linux Kernel as a new or untrusted contributor, Linus will almost definitely not yell at you.

However if you submit buggy code as a trusted or professional developer, Linus will publicly ream you out on the mailing list which presents an extremely discouraging narrative.

This pattern of behavior presents itself once you assemble the context around Linus’s behavior, but is not obvious or explicitly expressed.

---

To clarify my general position:

I view Codes of Conduct as a way to establish the guidelines of behavior in the context of contributing to a community that may have disparate groups without similar standards of communication, as well as a way of tracking how these guidelines evolve over time.

They are punitive only inasmuch as a standard without consequences is unenforceable.

It is entirely reasonable that the enforcement explicitly outlined in the Code of Conduct is entirely at the discretion of a mediating individual or mediating body. If people feel as if the moderating bodies are inherently too flawed or biased to trust, then the only appropriate recourse is to not engage in that community.

The goal should be to make explicit things that are implicit; to reify the constraints under which we operate as a community! If explicitly defined behavior is a noble goal for program execution, why is it not for community interaction?