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

On Jan 8, 2016 3:12 AM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjones88@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 2016, at 13:51, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It is not. To me to distinguish harassment vs hot discussions (public or private) is part of common sense and I trust us to have this common sense when this group will be created. > > I opine that if "common sense" were enough, then no COC would be under discussion now. We're in a different realm now. > > > > Also the very definition of harassment is pretty clear. Read http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment for the reference. If it is not clear for you then yes, I cannot make it clearer. Sorry. > > Now we're getting somewhere. Quoting that definition: > > """The act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker.""" > > So, that's both rather vague (the opening sentence) and rather specific (the latter portions). If the activity in question rises to the level of filing a petition for *and being granted* a restraining order, *then and only then* might the project have some responsibility to help enforce that order, since the project itself may become subject to a lawsuit or other legal actions. (I am satisfied to read "employee" as "contributor/participant" and "employer" as "the project" in this case.) > > But anything less? No, the project's responsibility is only to enforce its policies on its own communication channels. > > Do you feel otherwise? As I said, if someone is clearly behaving with harassment, insult, etc to fulfil his goal (f.e. to kick someone out, or stop/force someone to do something ), then he has no place here. No matter where the acts happen. I am slowly giving up on getting an answer from you about accepting such people afterwards.