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

On 06.01.2016, at 03:58, Kevin Smith <kevin@gohearsay.com> wrote: > >> You state this like some kind of self-evident truth. Understand that not everybody agrees >> with you, and scorn is not generally something that wins people round to your argument. > > If a code of conduct so broad and invasive that it seeks deal with such crimes as the > “thoughtless use of pronouns” and “culturally insensitive names” isn’t speech-policing, > what is? Where does it say that though? Did I miss something? > >>> >>> The "real and legitimate issues" can be addressed without >>> one, perhaps with the "conflict resolution" document you referenced. It >>> is orders of magnitude more reasonable >> >> Ah, some constructive suggestions. More of this please. > > You may not see much of Paul’s engagement in this discussion as constructive, but I would > disagree, and it doesn’t look like I’m alone. Many codes of conduct are written by > well-intentioned people unskilled in legislation and enforced by tribunals unskilled in > investigation and adjudication. Pair that up with the sort of person who earnestly believes they are > making the world a better place by controlling what others say and how they say it, who deems any > opinion they don’t like “dangerous" and any pushback they receive > “harassment"—those sorts of people do exist, and they readily abuse extrajudicial > systems—and you’ve got the recipe for gross injustice levied against people with an unpopular > opinion. This does not require knowingly bad actors. Everyone involved would be not just cleared but > congratulated by their own consciouses for doing what is Right and Good. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"... > Knowing Paul to some degree, I doubt he’s merely using “fascism” as a general, > inflammatory descriptor. Make no mistake, a project is not the same thing as a political > nation-state. Still, the Contributor Covenant that was put forward as the original CoC does have > some fascistic tendencies, including the fact that it reaches outside the scope of the project and > into the way a person speaks or behaves on their own time, and it uses the project maintainer’s > own understanding of the project’s ethical values as a basis for determining bad behavior. > Everything in the project, nothing outside the project… I know Paul too, and while I really like him as a person and find his company most enjoyable (with or without drinks and good steak!) I usually disagree with his political views because I think they're overly simplistic or maybe even naive, and I think his generous utilization of the word "fascism" during this discussion is not helping because it escalate(d/s) the rhetoric at a way too early point in time and cause(d/s) division when unity was/is needed. However, I very much appreciate how persistently and passionately he is participating in this debate, especially because I share many of his concerns. David