Hi Gábor, On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 02:44:54AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > We've never had a formally written Code of Conduct document. Though it > > has been discussed off and on over the years, for the most part the > > behavior on the mailing list has been good enough that nobody felt the > > need to push one forward. > > > > However, even if there aren't specific problems now, it's a good idea to > > have a document: > > > > - it puts everybody on the same page with respect to expectations. > > This might avoid poor behavior, but also makes it easier to handle > > it if it does happen. > > > > - it publicly advertises that good conduct is important to us and will > > be enforced, which may make some people more comfortable with > > joining our community > > > > - it may be a good time to cement our expectations when things are > > quiet, since it gives everybody some distance rather than focusing > > on a current contentious issue > > > > This patch adapts the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct. As opposed > > to writing our own from scratch, this uses common and well-accepted > > language, and strikes a good balance between illustrating expectations > > and avoiding a laundry list of behaviors. It's also the same document > > used by the Git for Windows project. > > > > The text is taken mostly verbatim from: > > > > https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html > > > > I also stole a very nice introductory paragraph from the Git for Windows > > version of the file. > > > > There are a few subtle points, though: > > > > - the document refers to "the project maintainers". For the code, we > > generally only consider there to be one maintainer: Junio C Hamano. > > But for dealing with community issues, it makes sense to involve > > more people to spread the responsibility. I've listed the project > > committee address of git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx as the contact point. > > > > - the document mentions banning from the community, both in the intro > > paragraph and in "Our Responsibilities". The exact mechanism here is > > left vague. I can imagine it might start with social enforcement > > (not accepting patches, ignoring emails) and could escalate to > > technical measures if necessary (asking vger admins to block an > > address). It probably make sense _not_ to get too specific at this > > point, and deal with specifics as they come up. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Obviously related to the discussion in: > > > > https://public-inbox.org/git/71fba9e7-6314-6ef9-9959-6ae06843d17a@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > After some poking around at various CoC options, this one seemed like > > the best fit to me. But I'm open to suggestions or more discussion. It > > seems to me that the important piece is having _some_ CoC, and picking > > something standard-ish seems a safe bet. > > We are decent people, Okay, you are _asking_ for a devil's advocate, like, _really asking_ for it, and I will bite. You don't know that we are decent people. I don't know whether you are a decent person, neither do you know whether I am a decent person. To make things worse: your concept of "decent" might be very different from mine. In fact, I am almost certain that they are different, _and_ Git is an international project that attracts different people that have yet different notions of what constitutes "decent". Concrete example: a former mentee of mine, from a different cultural background than mine, found it indecent to voice disagreement with me, on the sole ground that I was their mentor. Let that sink in for a while. In the Git project, we _expect_ contributors to disagree with reviews that miss a point, to make a counterargument. That act alone would have been considered "indecent" by at least one contributor. And to make things _even_ worse: even a decent person has bad days, and bad days make for poor decisions, including how to treat fellow human beings. Having a "banister" (as the CoC would provide) is pretty helpful on those days. > and know how to behave properly and treat each other with respect. It > is my fundamental assumption that all future contributors are decent > and respectful human beings as well. Judging from certain examples in the past, I expect that Git will see the occasional future contributor where having a CoC comes in real handy. > A CoC like this, which is "explicit about the behavior we want to > model" (quoting the original discussion starter) inherently insinuates > that we aren't decent, and can't behave without being told how to do > so. Frankly, I find this borderline insulting to me, to my parents, > to all fellow contributors, and to future contributors as well. By that token, you should find any law offensive that forbids you from stealing. Because you, and your family, are not thieves. Does that sound reasonable? I would contest that. Just because you abide by a code of conduct does not mean that you are prone to violate it. In fact, I would expect that those who are the least prone to violate it are the ones who would be least opposed to one: what would they have to fear from it? > There are locations, nationalities and cultures, where the avarage > wide-spread CoCs, like Contributor Covenant and its derivatives, are > perceived as (paraphrasing) too "American", politically overcorrect, > corporate BS, etc., which are forced upon open-source projects. This knife cuts both ways, of course. I cannot count how many times I heard unflattering things about e.g. a former Hungarian colleague of mine who voiced opinions that were, at times, quite offensive to the rest of the staff, and it was often excused as "East European". In a multi-cultural team, respect often comes in the form of learning about one another's cultural background, and compromising, sometimes unexpectedly so. A CoC can very easily create clarity in such circumstances. By stating explicitly the standards to which we promise to hold ourselves, as well as others. And it can even help those who think of themselves as decent to improve on that front. Example: in Git for Windows, we adopted a variant of the Contributors' Covenant a couple of years ago. From my side, it was specifically intended not only to create a safe space for underrepresented groups, it was also intended to give a promise to contributors that I will hold myself to that standard, too. Guess what: several times I failed. I am human. I was called out for it, rightfully so, and it helped me improve the way I communicate. (I still have a ways to go, of course.) I still stand by my statement from above: nobody has anything to fear from a CoC, except those who are prone or even intent on violating it. In which case I am very much in favor of a CoC, and very, very much not against it. > Consequently, such CoCs are often found rather discouraging, and > announcements about their adoption in open-source projects generally > get negative reaction. That does not match my experience. In Git for Windows' case, I can recall only one minor negative reaction (private, if I remember correctly), and in that case, I have to admit that I feel my statement from above very much validated: that person did not seem to _want_ to abide by the common decency called for by the CoC. > Less is more. Much-much more. A concise CoC that treats its readers > as responsible, well-behaved human beings is met with much approval. But do those readers approve of the same thing? Like, do they really have the same understanding of that concise CoC? I have experienced _way_ too diverging interpretations of short texts like the one you linked below to believe _that_. > Take, for example, the TrueOS Rules of Conduct, which in just a few > short sentences covers everything that's worth covering: > > https://www.trueos.org/rulesofconduct/ This is what I understand from reading this very terse statement: "We do not want to be criticized for the way we talk, no matter how offended people might get, and here is an email address that might, or might not, be monitored, where you can complain, if you must. Good luck to you." > If diversity and inclusion of other cultures is indeed a priority, > then we should carefully consider that some potential contributors > will rather choose not to contribute because of a CoC like this. Let me be blunt for a minute. The proposed CoC would not change anything for any contributor I consider decent. Not one thing. There would not be any need to change any behavior, no need to complain, they could just read the CoC and say: "Yep, that's right, that's exactly how I want to behave, and that's how I want the others in this project to behave. Back to this bug I wanted to debug/this feature I wanted to implement..." > > If people are on board with this direction, it might be fun to pick > > up a bunch of "Acked-by" trailers from people in the community who > > agree with it. It might give it more weight if many members have > > publicly endorsed it. > > Because of the above I'm leaning towards NACK. It makes me sad to hear that, in particular because I give this patch a big ACK. To understand better why you are so negative about it: - would you feel that you have to do anything differently from before? - do you think that the CoC does not describe your values that you have already? - could you propose a better alternative to the CoC, which -- by Junio's own words -- would have helped tremendously in the past, would have made it easier for Junio and some others to deal with at least one very real, and very damaging problem? Thanks, Dscho
