Re: [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct

> On Jan 5, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Paul M. Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Jan 5, 2016, at 09:55, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jan 4, 2016, at 10:29 PM, Paul M. Jones <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> If there's an accusation, then *due process* needs to be applied. If it rises to >>> the level of needing *due process* then the police should be involved. There's no need, *none >>> at all*, for a star chamber *or* a mob to be an amenable authority to salve someone's hurt >>> feelings and ban someone else, not even in a temporary capacity. >> >> Isn’t this RFC setting up the due process? > > (/me shakes head) > > No rights of the accused, for one. Opaque star chamber for another. Vague and indefinable terms > for a third. It's a *political* action designed with a *political* intent, to enforce > *political* in-group at the expense of a *political* out-group. I think “no rights of the accused” is a fair criticism. I think Larry brought up a valid criticism when he said: > I am a firm believer in the right to face one's accusers. Let’s assume for a moment we need a code of conduct and/or diversity statement; we want to set up rules to govern ourselves in the event that a situation arises when someone is legitimately facing harassment in our community. Let’s assume the harassment is not life-threatening, nor is it threatening bodily harm, so law enforcement isn’t a viable course of action. What should those governance rules look like for our community? Anthony has already proposed one form of rules. There is some good criticism of these rules: they are too vague, they do not provide protections for the accused, too much power is given to a small body, the “public spaces” clause is too far-reaching, the rules can be used to silence speech that is unfavorable even if it isn’t harassment. There are groups of excellent programmers who would benefit our community with their ideas and contributions, but they feel marginalized and are not comfortable taking part in our community without an indication that they are welcome to participate and that we are a safe community for them. Should we have any form of statement or guidelines to show we are welcoming to all people? If we are welcoming to all people, how do we resolve conflicts within our community, and how do we enforce resolutions? Nate pointed to Paul’s “Be Nice” statement for the Solar Framework. I think that’s a good start for such a welcoming statement, but what happens when someone is not being nice? What is an appropriate course of action? -Ben

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail signature.asc