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

Hi Stas, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:

Hi!

Also, I think it's worth bearing in mind that unintentional offence which is not persistent is unlikely to fall under this rule. Consider that this is roughly the standard that actual law follows, e.g. Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 in the UK:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

       disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which

       is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or
       another person harassment, alarm or distress.

I love it how The Law spends so much text and yet leaves so much unspecified and open to interpretation. Basically it says "offense is being threatening, abusive or insulting". But what is "abusive"? What is "insulting"? Even "threatening" is unclear - is "if you do this, you'll regret it very soon" a threat or mere prediction of the unintended consequences? "Causing another person distress" is unbelievably open to abuse - I can say STH RFC caused me much distress, so would somebody publishing it be harasser now? It's basically "if I disagree with you a lot, you are guilty" kind of clause.

The key part of that is "intent". I do note that it doesn't include the

The problem with "intent" that knowing it for sure is requires telepathy and time travel to work, and both are still very much TBD ;)

Sure. Again, inevitably any code of conduct is somewhat vague and requires trust in the maintainers to be reasonable. Thanks. -- Andrea Faulds https://ajf.me/