On Codes of Conduct

[William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

So I just sort of boggled at an post that seemed to quote private
correspondence while making a CoC accusation, or at least that's
what I think I read. Many of us know the holidays for the airing of
grievances arrives in 2 months, but public archived email lists
really are simply not the place. We have an organizational policy
that anyone can approach any officer or board member to help
resolve personal conflict or violations of the CoC. With that said...

I'd like everyone on every side of the issue to take a moment to read
the thoughts of one of the most effective convention organizers and
another all around good friend, who together penned some thoughts
on the subject of how we creates codes of conduct, and how we use
or abuse them. Both are active within the SF community and have
tried to weather the recent storms in the Hugo Awards world which
took a dark turn into politics. These are their thoughts...

http://copious-free-time.org/ss-hs/the-shield-or-the-weapon/

I'm re-sharing this publicly on Facebook so we will all agree not
to pollute this list with a bunch of back-and-forth on the merits
of *their* thoughts (they are tagged and will follow that dialog,)
Here lies that thread;

https://www.facebook.com/wrowe/posts/10154815771416929?pnref=story

If you have an *actionable* and *productive* suggestion for the *ASF*
please present it, but let's not let this list become that cesspool
for endlessly debating the subject,

individual comments or the entire thread on FB may be shut down
without prior notice, if individuals can't keep it civil.

Yours,

Bill

Re: On Codes of Conduct

[William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On Nov 17, 2016 04:03, "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> He offered to copy the email to the list in the reply I was responding to.

Not directed toward you, but I had thought to bring this up a week or so
earlier when I first read their article and other hostile email traffic,
and the welcome plenary at ACEU reinforced the need to consider all sides
of this issue, especially upon emphasised admonishment of eviction from the
venue. Note this tool/shield/weapon is used for the benefit of events and
the plurality of their attendees, as well as in questionable or dubious
circumstances, in the authors' direct and personal experiences. Not that
the possibility of exclusion isn't already printed on every
event/theater/public admission ticket, if you squint hard enough at the
fine print.

> As for the rest, thanks for the clarification. :)

And thank you for your thoughts as well. I ask you to not engage me further
on this topic, and I will no longer engage with you.

Please do accept my apologies for any misunderstanding of using one
specific thread, and specific post, to introduce some reflections on this
topic, that was inappropriate of me, whether such post was yours or not.

Re: On Codes of Conduct

[Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>]

He offered to copy the email to the list in the reply I was responding to.
:)

I can't resist pointing out the irony of you flagging my conduct on a
public list, in an email thread you started to criticise me for flagging
someones conduct on the same list. ;)

Also, I want to challenge your characterisation of "the CoC hammer".
Really, this sort of framing is the type of thing that causes
misunderstandings and fear about the code of conduct. Pointing out to
someone that what they did was unacceptable should not be seen as bringing
down a hammer. Bringing down the hammer is when you take punitive measures.

Similarly, saying that commenting on other people's conduct on a public
list is done from a place of righteousness or superiority is really sending
the wrong message about how we're hoping people will feel empowered by the
code of conduct to flag upsetting behaviour early and freely. (Also, again,
ironic, in an email flagging my conduct lol.)

Electing or not electing someone to the PMC is a very different matter imo.
We shouldn't be drawing analogies.

I also don't think it's productive to bring up slander. IANAL but I would
be surprised if flagging people's conduct on a public list is really
something we have to worry about in this respect. And again, circulating
ideas like this is only going to discourage people actually making use of
the code of conduct.

As for the rest, thanks for the clarification. :)

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 at 03:43 William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:

> I think you misinterpreted a couple things...
>
> On Nov 17, 2016 02:18, "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org> wrote:.
> >
> > I quoted a chunk of an email that was sent to me privately because the
> > person who sent it had already offered to copy it to the list. I saved
> him
> > the trouble by excerpting the bit I wanted to remark on.
>
> If you had permission, please suggest 'shared with your permission...'
> rather than 'from your private message to me'.  You can see how others will
> misconstrue this and question your behavior.
>
> > More to the point, the code of conduct explicitly states that grievances
> > can be aired publicly.
>
> Yes. But bringing the CoC hammer down in a public way never solves anything
> other than a sense of righteousness or superiority, c.f. cited article, and
> the CoC itself. Please take time to read and reflect on it, and share your
> thoughts. The authors are not insensitive people and would welcome
> constructive feedback.
>
> We have a very basic principle here at the ASF that we consider individuals
> in private, within the PMC for inclusion, to spare them the humiliation of
> being rejected if the PMC is not on board with their becoming a new
> committer or PMC member here and now. Better to revisit it another time.
>
> We should initially treat most disciplinary measures similarly. If they can
> be resolved quietly and spare embarrassment, great. If the complainant
> demands more than that, then they too are part of the culture problem.
>
> And in the US there are certain liabilities of slander that have to be
> considered, whether the accusation is factual or not.
>
> > And regarding your "cesspool" comment. I'm not sure that's a fair, or
> > useful, characterisation.
>
> Whoa... What I said, which wasn't in response to this specific incident,
> was...
>
> > If you have an *actionable* and *productive* suggestion for the *ASF*
> > please present it, but let's not let this list become that cesspool
> > for endlessly debating the subject,
>
> This is on the topic of Dave and Helen's reflections on the effective
> application and potential for abuse of CoCs in general. I'll let folks fall
> down that rabbit hole on that FB discussion thread, but let's keep that
> noise off this list until we can come back with actionable proposals,
> because the topic of 'to have or not to have' a CoC is itself a trap.
>
> Cesspool was not a reflection on the discussion in the other thread.
>
> Hope that clarifies my post.
>

Re: On Codes of Conduct

[William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

I think you misinterpreted a couple things...

On Nov 17, 2016 02:18, "Noah Slater" <ns...@apache.org> wrote:.
>
> I quoted a chunk of an email that was sent to me privately because the
> person who sent it had already offered to copy it to the list. I saved him
> the trouble by excerpting the bit I wanted to remark on.

If you had permission, please suggest 'shared with your permission...'
rather than 'from your private message to me'.  You can see how others will
misconstrue this and question your behavior.

> More to the point, the code of conduct explicitly states that grievances
> can be aired publicly.

Yes. But bringing the CoC hammer down in a public way never solves anything
other than a sense of righteousness or superiority, c.f. cited article, and
the CoC itself. Please take time to read and reflect on it, and share your
thoughts. The authors are not insensitive people and would welcome
constructive feedback.

We have a very basic principle here at the ASF that we consider individuals
in private, within the PMC for inclusion, to spare them the humiliation of
being rejected if the PMC is not on board with their becoming a new
committer or PMC member here and now. Better to revisit it another time.

We should initially treat most disciplinary measures similarly. If they can
be resolved quietly and spare embarrassment, great. If the complainant
demands more than that, then they too are part of the culture problem.

And in the US there are certain liabilities of slander that have to be
considered, whether the accusation is factual or not.

> And regarding your "cesspool" comment. I'm not sure that's a fair, or
> useful, characterisation.

Whoa... What I said, which wasn't in response to this specific incident,
was...

> If you have an *actionable* and *productive* suggestion for the *ASF*
> please present it, but let's not let this list become that cesspool
> for endlessly debating the subject,

This is on the topic of Dave and Helen's reflections on the effective
application and potential for abuse of CoCs in general. I'll let folks fall
down that rabbit hole on that FB discussion thread, but let's keep that
noise off this list until we can come back with actionable proposals,
because the topic of 'to have or not to have' a CoC is itself a trap.

Cesspool was not a reflection on the discussion in the other thread.

Hope that clarifies my post.

Re: On Codes of Conduct

[Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>]

The thread you're referencing contains a number of actionable, productive
suggestions. Indeed, mine and other's participation on that thread was an
attempt to counteract derailment.

I quoted a chunk of an email that was sent to me privately because the
person who sent it had already offered to copy it to the list. I saved him
the trouble by excerpting the bit I wanted to remark on.

More to the point, the code of conduct explicitly states that grievances
can be aired publicly. And in fact, an implicit part of what I was arguing
is that most of the time, this is preferable. It should be as simple as
saying "hey I think what you did violates this principal" and the other
person (hopefully) going "oh right yeah sorry".

This is good because it makes our community standards self-reenforcing.
Newcomers learn what is acceptable and what is not. And that saves time and
effort down the line.

Saying that we ought to involve officers or board members communicates the
idea that infractions ought to be very grave before we acknowledge them
(which limits the utility of the code of conduct). Or, on the flip side,
people see that and imagine that the tiniest thing is going to get them
booted out of the community via board intervention (which causes
unjustified fear of the code of conduct).

In this particular case, there is additional justification. The person was
challenging our desire to talk about safety whilst also behaving in a way
that contributes to me feeling unsafe, and would contribute to other people
feeling unsafe.

And regarding your "cesspool" comment. I'm not sure that's a fair, or
useful, characterisation. But what I will say is that this work isn't
pretty. And the arguments that happen around it are not pretty. They're
never going to be pretty. People don't like to be challenged. This is hard,
upsetting work. But if we're lucky, our conversations have a real impact
and help to make the whole of the foundation, and every community within
it, safer, warmer, more friendly, and more welcoming.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 at 00:53 William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:

So I just sort of boggled at an post that seemed to quote private
correspondence while making a CoC accusation, or at least that's
what I think I read. Many of us know the holidays for the airing of
grievances arrives in 2 months, but public archived email lists
really are simply not the place. We have an organizational policy
that anyone can approach any officer or board member to help
resolve personal conflict or violations of the CoC. With that said...

I'd like everyone on every side of the issue to take a moment to read
the thoughts of one of the most effective convention organizers and
another all around good friend, who together penned some thoughts
on the subject of how we creates codes of conduct, and how we use
or abuse them. Both are active within the SF community and have
tried to weather the recent storms in the Hugo Awards world which
took a dark turn into politics. These are their thoughts...

http://copious-free-time.org/ss-hs/the-shield-or-the-weapon/

I'm re-sharing this publicly on Facebook so we will all agree not
to pollute this list with a bunch of back-and-forth on the merits
of *their* thoughts (they are tagged and will follow that dialog,)
Here lies that thread;

https://www.facebook.com/wrowe/posts/10154815771416929?pnref=story

If you have an *actionable* and *productive* suggestion for the *ASF*
please present it, but let's not let this list become that cesspool
for endlessly debating the subject,

individual comments or the entire thread on FB may be shut down
without prior notice, if individuals can't keep it civil.

Yours,

Bill