[COC-discuss] [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

Thu Dec 13 00:49:20 PST 2018

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:05 PM Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
wrote:

> María,
> I agree 99% with your intent, 80% with your implementation suggestions,
> and in responding, we are likely to focus on the 20% where we disagree.
> Please don't see that as a reason to leave the CoC committee.
> I don't want you to leave for many reasons, but I'll focus on my selfish
> reason. I want you to stay because your ability to explain a problem I'm
> grappling from a different perspective helps me become a better person, and
> helps us collaboratively develop a better system. Hopefully you will feel
> the same.
>

That's one of the reasons I like working with people from different
countries: we have a lot in common, but we still take many things for
granted and is always a surprise :)

> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 06:55, María Arias de Reyna <delawen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> You are right, let's continue on this list too.
>>
>> Let me explain my point of view.
>>
>> Removing the "assume good intention" is not "assuming people are guilty
>> until proven innocent" or "perfect paranoia". It is just putting the
>> intention aside when trying to solve a situation where someone feels
>> unwelcome or attacked. Presumption of innocence will still be there, why
>> not? But you can be innocent and good intented and still be harmful. What
>> the CoC should focus on is on stopping the harmful action, no matter the
>> intention.
>>
>> A CoC is not a legal system to punish illegal actions, it is a set of
>> rules to improve interaction on the best friendlier way. So I am not sure
>> if the comparison with a legal system applies here. As I see it, the CoC
>> main goal is not to punish, but to try to mediate and make people
>> understand how to interact on a better way, removing and fixing any
>> possible harm done. And, of course, in case of serious harrasment,
>> specially if it is continued, remove (temporarily?) someone from the
>> community. But most of the incidents should be able to be fixed with a good
>> mediation where both parts understand what harm has been done and actions
>> are taken to prevent further damage.
>>
>> I also have examples of being unintentionally rude, from both sides.
>> Whenever someone uses religious expressions like "bless you", I feel
>> uncomfortable, even attacked depending on the circumstances. Due to literal
>> translation from Spanish, sometimes my English sound rude to some cultures
>> and some people may feel uncomfortable. Neither of those cases have bad
>> intention, in fact, in both cases there is a good intention behind.
>>
>> But the intention is irrelevant here: what is important is that we should
>> try to be friendly on different circunmstances. When someone feels
>> unwelcomed, attacked, harrased, that should be fixed. Does it matter which
>> was the original intention? Shouldn't we be able to say "hey, you are doing
>> harm, stop doing it and let's see how to repair that harm" even if the
>> action was done in good faith? Don't you want to know if you are hurting
>> someone?
>>
>> I know you think this is only one case, but I have seen more inside this
>> community. But, at the same time, I/we couldn't act because, again, it was
>> an unintended harm. We could only act when it was obvious the intention was
>> not friendly.
>>
>> And also, define "good intention". Someone may have a perfectly good
>> intention when doing sexual advances on someone and that doesn't make that
>> action acceptable if the other person doesn't want it.
>>
>> Having "common sense" and "assume good intention" rules are good for
>> small communities, where everybody knows everyone. But we are no longer a
>> small family. We are a huge family, with cousins we have never met all
>> around the world. If we don't know each other personally, if we come from
>> different environments and cultures, we can no longer trust that that will
>> keep the community together. We need to be really open and understand that
>> it is not an issue if the CoC approaches us and points at something we have
>> done wrong. That's not bad! We are learning and improving on every step.
>> Better to be pointed by the CoC and learn how to improve our behaviour than
>> making someone feel uncomfortable and not knowing it.
>>
>> The thing is, this is an important bug on the CoC from my perspective. If
>> we don't remove that from the CoC, I don't think I will be able to mediate
>> properly on the incidents that may arise. The worst cases, those that are
>> hidden behind beautiful words and smiles, will not be possible to solve and
>> people will continue leaving the community. So if we can't push this I
>> think I will just step down from the CoC and let others, that have some
>> idea on how to deal with the "assume good intent", take that place. Because
>> I will be just useless there, not able to protect those attacked. This is
>> not me threating anything, this is me being plain about me not knowing how
>> to apply a broken CoC on common incidents.
>>
>> Remember that this Contributor Covenant is not somethign we are making up
>> on the fly, a lot of communities are adopting it[1] and improving it
>> continuously. If it has this approach, it has a reason. There is experience
>> behind backing this up.
>>
>> Hope this has quieted your worries,
>> María.
>>
>> [1] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/adopters
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:09 AM Jonathan Moules <
>> jonathan-lists at lightpear.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ben,
>>>
>>> I think the counterpoint to this is highlighting that most western
>>> justice systems are based around intent (i.e. good-faith or bad-faith,
>>> or "mens rea"). For example. the difference between murder and
>>> homicide/manslaughter is solely intent and it is up to the system itself
>>> to determine that intent.
>>>
>>> As the famous old quote goes:
>>>
>>> "Better that 10 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent
>>> man" - William Blackstone
>>>
>>> Personally I'm not a fan of the Covenant; it has big subjective
>>> loopholes and components that be used to retroactively change the rules.
>>>
>>> @Maria - a concern with having this conversation on the CoC list is that
>>> that's a self-selecting group and there's a non-zero chance it can end
>>> up as an echo chamber. How many of the folks who have put forth an
>>> opinion in this thread on /discuss are also on /CoC for instance?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2018-12-12 01:32, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
>>> > Rather than guilty until proven innocent, I think the covenant
>>> > proposes a neutral and evidence-based approach. Mandating good faith
>>> > as a starting point unfortunately enables bullies who provoke a
>>> > response and then hide behind "X can't take a joke" or other
>>> > minimisation to further harm their victim. I have not seen this in
>>> > OSGeo but I have seen it in several cases elsewhere and I hope we will
>>> > all be sufficiently alert to prevent it. I think that a proportionate
>>> > and sensitive response will encourage consideration of the feelings of
>>> > others without harming our collegial atmosphere.
>>> >
>>> > As another cross-cultural example, several of our members have given
>>> > names that are masculine in Italian but feminine in English, resulting
>>> > in their occasional misgendering on mailing lists and pull requests.
>>> > While I found this amusing and assumed that it was unintentional, I
>>> > also knew that some might find such misgendering insulting or hurtful
>>> > and in any case it was not a good precedent, so I took the time to
>>> > gently point out the mistake in private (IIRC). In each case, the
>>> > mistake was not repeated. We can all take little actions that
>>> > contribute to a welcoming environment.
>>> >
>>> > Kind regards,
>>> > Ben.
>>> >
>>> > On 11/12/2018 13:44, Jonathan Moules wrote:
>>> >> Hi Maria,
>>> >>
>>> >> Just a thought, but I'm not sure getting rid of the assumption of
>>> >> good faith is a good idea. To do so would be basically assuming
>>> >> people are guilty until proven innocent which runs counter to how
>>> >> these things should work.
>>> >>
>>> >> To use a personal anecdote, many years ago I had a black flatmate who
>>> >> I was joking around with and I made a comment that it turns out is a
>>> >> negative racial epithet. Being young and unworldly, I didn't know
>>> >> that at the time and certainly didn't mean it in that context, it
>>> >> also has a perfectly innocent context - the only one I'd ever been
>>> >> exposed to - which is how I was using it.
>>> >>
>>> >> Now, reading your thebias.com link, I can see that the author there
>>> >> would suggest I be pilloried for what was an honest mistake. They'd
>>> >> say I was being "careless" or "ignorant" and stepping on their toes.
>>> >> But I don't think either is fair because it's not reasonable to
>>> >> expect people to know everything that could offend everyone,
>>> >> especially somewhere as multicultural as the internet.
>>> >>
>>> >> For example, consider this symbol: 👍a simple thumbs-up emoticon
>>> >> that's commonly used to signify "it's all good" and "thanks". Well,
>>> >> it turns out that it's "an obscene insult" in some cultures! I didn't
>>> >> know that until a few seconds ago when I went searching for a simple
>>> >> example.
>>> >>
>>> >> I have learnt over the years from experiences in both directions that
>>> >> it's best to always assume good faith if possible. Humans may be the
>>> >> species with the most complex communication on the planet, but that
>>> >> doesn't mean we don't fail often.
>>> >>
>>> >> @Ben - Thanks for sharing World Human Rights day. I'm a long time fan
>>> >> of the UNDHR!
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers,
>>> >> Jonathan
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 2018-12-09 12:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
>>> >>> Dear OSGeo community,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in
>>> >>> improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space.
>>> >>> Recent events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work
>>> >>> ahead.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning
>>> >>> mentality that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our
>>> >>> culture. Disclosing private data or hinting threats is not helpful
>>> >>> and can only make our community less comfortable for everyone. We
>>> >>> will work on improving actions on harmful behavior.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up
>>> >>> the task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC
>>> >>> member, but I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure
>>> >>> that if I am involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take
>>> >>> care of it properly as mediator.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC
>>> >>> are reported. I noticed there are reports being done on person and
>>> >>> on private email, but never through the official channels (which
>>> >>> right now is a mailing list).To improve this, I will ask the SAC to
>>> >>> replace the mailing list with an alias and a form on the website.
>>> >>> Also, there will be a public list of who receives those emails so
>>> >>> people reporting incidents will have a clear understanding of who is
>>> >>> receiving the information and decide to contact privately only a
>>> >>> subset of the team. Replacing the mailing list by an alias that
>>> >>> sends the data directly to the inbox of the CoC team is important,
>>> >>> as sometimes incidents are not reported just because the person
>>> >>> reporting is scared to leave a trace of the report or is not sure
>>> >>> who will be reading the report.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Another action I am going to propose is a change on the CoC itself.
>>> >>> Our community has grown a lot both in diversity and in numbers, and
>>> >>> we need a strict code of conduct that makes sure marginalized or
>>> >>> harrased people is always covered by it. We can't rely anymore on
>>> >>> just common sense and good faith.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Once the new board is settled, I am going to propose to change the
>>> >>> current CoC for another like the Contributor Covenant[2]. As it is a
>>> >>> CoC shared by many communities, this has the advantage of receiving
>>> >>> the upgrades and experience from other communities. As you can see,
>>> >>> it fixes some of the bugs from our CoC, like the assuming good
>>> >>> intent and good faith[3] part that made the current CoC useless on
>>> >>> most cases. I will propose to add some foreword to adapt to
>>> >>> specifities for our community, but in my opinion, the latest version
>>> >>> of the Contributor Covenant is easy to read, simple, and cover most
>>> >>> of what we need. My hope is that this new CoC can be adapted to all
>>> >>> OSGeo Projects and Events that don't already have a CoC, so we have
>>> >>> full OSGeo universe covered by default.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I hope this actions will prove useful in the medium term and we
>>> >>> don't have to see more members leaving the community. We should
>>> >>> remember to be empathic and kind. We are all seeking the same goals
>>> >>> and we should encourage cooperation, not hinder each other. I know
>>> >>> that developer communities are very used to these bad behaviours,
>>> >>> but I'm confident we can grow better.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Have a nice day!
>>> >>> María.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2018-August/011640.html
>>> >>> [2] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
>>> >>> [3]
>>> >>>
>>> https://thebias.com/2017/09/26/how-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-inclusion/
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> Discuss mailing list
>>> >>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>> >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Discuss mailing list
>>> >> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>> >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> COC-discuss mailing list
>> COC-discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss
>>
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> Technology Demystifier
> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>
> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/coc-discuss/attachments/20181213/c97c1252/attachment-0001.html>