Add explicit definitions from Geek Feminsim

[ammeep]

Continuing from #8

I think any code of conduct should include specific definitions of harassment, and also outline in detail the steps for dealing with incidents.

Let me know what you think ✨

[caniszczyk]

Thanks for the PR @ammeep!

Initially we were trying to aim for brevity while covering all of the bases. We tried the cover some of the explicit definitions in the "Be careful in the words that you choose:" section.

The consequences section I think is redundant based on the first paragraph and even last sentence there: "Anyone who violates this code of conduct may be banned from the community."

Any other ideas :)? Thoughts @bkeepers?

[ammeep]

Initially we were trying to aim for brevity while covering all of the bases.

Thanks for that context @caniszczyk ✨

How would you feel about removing attribution to Geek Feminism? One of the great things about the Geek Feminism code of conduct is that is is super explicit. By being brief, I don't think we are in the spirit of the original.

[caniszczyk]

@ammeep we could remove the reference but this CoC was definitely inspired by all the ones listed in the thanks/attribution section. We looked at what were recommended CoCs and why [1]

How about this, I ooked to the Rust CoC for inspiration as a way to keep things shorter but also relevant to your request and in spirit with what GF considers a solid CoC [2]

How about a bullet that amends the "Be careful in the words that you choose" section with:

Be careful in the words that you choose: we are a community of professionals, and we conduct ourselves professionally. Be kind to others. Do not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and other exclusionary behavior aren’t acceptable. We interpret the term "harassment" as including the definition in the Geek Feminism Code of Conduct; if you have any lack of clarity about what might be included in that concept, please read their definition.

[1] - http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct_evaluations
[2] - http://www.rust-lang.org/conduct.html

[caniszczyk]

@ammeep I came up with a PR here: #24

Let me know if that helps resolve the issue.

[stephbwills]

@caniszczyk @ammeep I agree that brevity is a noble goal, but after reading through the PRs on this and hearing some reactions, I think it is worth explicitly listing what constitutes harassment or figuring out a way to ensure that the concerns of marginalized communities are represented in the CoC. As is, the CoC feels exclusionary without the list in Geek Feminism.

Perhaps there is a way we can fix this without sacrificing brevity, but I'm not sure hyperlinking does the trick. It does force dependency on whatever is behind the link. I think it would benefit us to own the content ourselves and stand behind it.

[Addvilz]

This PR is superfluos and has issues similar to issue #26. CoC should protect everyone equally, without emphasis on one distinct group, marginalized or not.

[stephbwills]

@Addvilz this PR proposes including a list defining types of harassment without linking to it, whereas #24 suggests linking to the list as a solution to the issues in this PR.

The list in Geek Feminism is explicit about forms of harassment, which is helpful. It also defines areas of harassment against certain communities (the transgender community, for example) that people who aren't in those communities might just not understand or be aware of. Including the list (or a list) obviates any guesswork as to what does or does not constitute bad behavior.

From a practical perspective, adapting the list for the CoC and having it live there also makes the content easier to maintain. Hope this helps explain the goal of this PR.

[modality]

+1 to this PR.

[Addvilz]

Reference to Geek Feminism should be removed or replaced with [COMMUNITY]

[stephbwills]

Yah, could be:

Deliberate “outing” of any aspect of a person’s identity without their consent except as necessary to protect people from intentional abuse

[Addvilz]

@stephbwills I believe, even if it might be helpful, it is still superfluos and it faces the same issues as commented in #26. There exists a widely accepted coverall definition ref. in #24 and I believe a short and clear statement as the one linked can cover pretty much every type of harassment conceivable towards everyone equally and without emphasis on any particular group. In addition to that, it is stated in clear and common language, and does not requires in depth knowledge in specific terminology regarded to any specific group in particular, eliminating any indirect discrimination to anyone who might not be scholar enough in various terms used in this pull request.

Argument that someone outside a given community might or might not understand or be aware of something is opinionated and discussion about it can be endless. Even more, as stated before, a single sentence delivered in a clear and unambiguous way will deliver more value than endless paragraphs of specifics which require previous knowledge and is subject to debate.

Otherwise this pull request should include definitions for all marginalized groups in existence, not just some select ones.

Although the idea might be good and helpful, the execution leaves lot to be desired. One example would be that the construction of given types and other suggested content is constructed in almost rude, derogatory and overly restrictive language which might lead one to believe this to be code of enforcement for a particular viewpoint, not a general code of conduct.

[ammeep]

I've addressed the feedback with relation to explicit definitions of what constitutes and does not constitute harassment ✨ @bkeepers @caniszczyk @stephbwills how does this look?

[stephbwills]

Probs don't need the period at the end of this.

[bkeepers]

Could we reword this so [COMMUNITY] is not needed here? Multiple occurrences just mean people have to remember to change all of them when copying the template, and if we can do without it, I think it makes it easier. Maybe something like:

Deliberate “outing” of any aspect of a person’s identity without their consent except as necessary to protect others from intentional abuse

[bkeepers]

I'm 👍 on this direction. Brevity initially was a goal, but I don't think it's worth it at the cost of ambiguity.

[caniszczyk]

IMHO we can drop this section, it's pretty clear from the first paragraph what the consequences will be: "We are committed to providing a welcoming and inspiring community for all and expect our code of conduct to be honored. Anyone who violates this code of conduct may be banned from the community"

[searls]

👍 after reading the changes in this PR.

On the topic of brevity+ambiguity versus verbosity+clarity: it seems that having explicit definitions of what behavior is covered and what will (and will not be) responded to can be very useful for resolving disagreements about what constitutes harassment, potentially preventing an incident from escalating further (e.g. pointing to an event's URL and showing in plain language that a similar situation is explicitly mentioned in the CoC).

[ammeep]

Hey folks - I've made some updates based on the feedback. I'm feeling like this is starting to shape up.

Let me know what you think ✨

[Addvilz]

I am sorry, but I still have to object against including this. I believe racism is racism, sexism is sexism and phobias are phobias, and it does not matter who are they directed towards.

As an example, if someone would state that I should not participate in certain discussion about whatever topic because I am a male or white, I consider that sexist and racist but with this I would be dismissed simply because I happened to be born with particular skin color and type of genitalia, hence it leads me to conclude including this is in a CoC is biased towards rights of certain groups, and contradicts previous statement in CoC as quoted:

Although we will fail at times, we seek to treat everyone both as fairly and equally as possible.

[ammeep]

This is a critical part of this PR and I will not be removing it.

I will do my best to put into words why this is important, and beyond that I do urge you to do some research, free of an innate feeling of being attacked. Beyond that I do not wish debate this topic further.

As an example, if someone would state that I should not participate in certain discussion about whatever topic because I am a male or white

Everyone is invited to participate in the conversation, but when you come from a position of privilege (which as white people, both you and I do) we have a responsibility to realise the societal benefits we have been afforded. We have a responsibility to realise that minorities are not afforded these same benefits.

As members of a privileged demographic - it is very easy for us to not see inequality. To turn a blind eye. It is very easy to think the playing field is level. 'It doesn't happen to me, so it can't be real'. This is erasure.

When we claim that the playing field is equal, or level for all, we are erasing the pain and struggles of those who are not afforded the same societal benefits as us.

When we claim any reverse-sims, what we are really doing is derailing the conversation. Making it about the privileged again. This is erasure.

Life is hard, but some have it harder than others.

[Addvilz]

Your last sentence is true, as is most of what you said. In fact so true, that it essentially proves my point - but having a hard life does not really justify being racist or sexist. Having said that, I have conducted some research, not limited to academic research or other peoples opinions, but also personal experiences from myself and people around me from wide variety of cultural backgrounds and communities all around the world. What you are essentially saying, instead of not having racism or sexism as such, let's just allow racism and sexist for a minority - because, what could possibly go wrong with privileging one part of society against another. Right?

This "reverse-ism" thing is based primarily on assumption that in all the communities across the globe it is, lets say, western white man who has the privilege and in general, a white man tends to live happy, full life while everyone else's is just struggle for survival. However, I believe large parts of Asia, Middle east, Africa and Latino-America will probably disagree with you - especially in some culturally established matriarchies. In some places privileged are those who have born in some particular place instead of another, in some places privilege is derived from your profession or many different other factors. Hence, this kind of exclusionism introduces not only ambiguity, but also certain level of discrimination.

Hence again, I believe this very statement excludes a large part of the community essentially saying "you can only complain if you are not a part of stereotypical minority". Do we want a statement like that in a code that should facilitate openness and fair treatment for everyone?

In addition, this is a review. Please, refrain yourself from making it personal in this or any other way, and instead of appealing the reviewer, argue against the argument. Everybody you meet here does not come from utopian patriarchal society ruled by a stereotypical white male having every white male essentially spending life drinking mojitos and getting a tan.

[stephbwills]

Just wanted to quickly add that racism and sexism don't define discrimination against one particular race or gender. Privilege vs. non-privilege is really at the heart of the -isms we're discussing, and this is explicitly stated in the preceding paragraph that starts with "our open source community..." I've interpreted this paragraph as a call to administrators who adopt the CoC to protect people who experience institutionalized oppression in their communities.

[modality]

This "reverse-ism" thing is based primarily on assumption that in all the communities across the globe it is, lets say, western white man who has the privilege and in general, a white man tends to live happy, full life while everyone else's is just struggle for survival.

Reverse racism and reverse sexism don't exist because racism and sexism are institutional forms of oppression. Context is everything, and the open source community, which is what this Code of Conduct is for (please don't derail), is overwhelmingly white and male. Case in point: check out the list of contributors to this project.

However, I believe large parts of Asia, Middle east, Africa and Latino-America will probably disagree with you - especially in some culturally established matriarchies.

This is a cool story. Thank you. Again, context is everything, so discrimination against white men in these communities, if it happened, wouldn't be reverse racism or reverse sexism. It would be racism and sexism, because things like political boundaries and cultural power structures are institutions, and racism and sexism are institutional forms of oppression. However, appealing to examples of matriarchies is derailing this conversation. The open source community is overwhelmingly white and male, so cases of discrimination against women or persons of color (and all the other usual axes of oppression) are particularly prevalent.

In addition, this is a review. Please, refrain yourself from making it personal in this or any other way,

Derailing (using emotion)!

and instead of appealing the reviewer, argue against the argument. Everybody you meet here does not come from utopian patriarchal society ruled by a stereotypical white male having every white male essentially spending life drinking mojitos and getting a tan.

You're right, everyone doesn't come from the same place, but this isn't a code of conduct for where people come from, it's a code of conduct for this space, which is open source software, which is overwhelmingly white and male (and other things too). Context is everything!

[Addvilz]

Okay, but if that is indeed the case, it should be stated clearly and unambiguously.

I do really like the sentence "[We] call to administrators who adopt the CoC to protect people who experience institutionalized oppression in their communities." - it is clear, with obvious positive intent and not exclusionist. I would very welcome including this statement in some form instead of statement that explicitly suggests no action will be taken in this particular regard on complaints from one group exclusively just because they happen to belong to one.

[Addvilz]

@modality thank you for your opinion. I would like to refer you to visit communities like Alibaba OS, Taocode, then Rails Girls and similar to gain better insight to the status of open source community in the world, not only English speaking part of it.

Derailing (using emotion)!

I am simply stating ad hominem and ergo decedo. My statement involves no emotion whatsoever. As to my wording - I am not a native English speaker, if my statement was formulated in a way that you perceived it as anything different than pointing out the issue with argumentation, that was by no means intended.

[ammeep]

This is ready for another pass of 👀

@todogroup/owners I would love this to be merged by one of you if there is nothing else outstanding ✨

[Addvilz]

Before doing that it would be really nice if you would address all the comments and issues pointed out in your pull request you have intentionally ignored so far. Including those between commits.

[ammeep]

Your feedback has been noted an acted on in many areas of this PR and I am thankful for your input ✨

Unless there are further comments to improve clarity, but not change intent, there will be no further changes to the reverse-ism sections. The intent is deliberate, and I strongly disagree it should be altered to be more lenient to priveged groups.

[searls]

@Addvilz:

This comment (emphasis mine):

Before doing that it would be really nice if you would address all the comments and issues pointed out in your pull request you have intentionally ignored so far. Including those between commits.

Reads as inappropriately presumptive and hostile. I don't think many of the (not already explicitly responded to) criticisms of this PR have been all that substantive, and I've never seen a healthy project for which it was incumbent upon the person requesting a patch to catalog their reaction to each and every piece of feedback.

[Addvilz]

@searls I am not requesting reactions, nor am I requesting cataloging them (I am not interested in reactions), I am requesting that the issues I am pointing out be addressed based on the objective argument and whatever other backing they are based on, which so far has been mostly, but not exclusively, met by some sort of twisted, almost lobbyist, rhetoric based on subjective opinion and thesis of one particular social activist group completely dismissing any reasoning anyone else might have.

As to healthy projects, I am not sure I have ever seen any healthy project where, for example, contributor is allowed to introduce bugs to the code just because of particular affiliation or just because the person requesting patch disagrees with it. This, for years, has been the very essence of open source and open contribution. One can not, of course, be expected to please everyone, and it is not needed - however, backing up your argument with something more than an opinion based solely on presumptions without any real backing is a must have if the community is truly open.

As to inappropriately hostile, I for one think ignoring whatever one might have to say only because you disagree with it, is what is hostile and presumptive.

[bkeepers]

Everyone please chill. I know we all care deeply and may get a little passionate at times.

@Addvilz you've had some great feedback so far. If there are some things you still aren't satisfied with, would you be willing to open another PR (just base it off the add-back-explicit-definitions branch, and created it against that branch instead of master)?

[Addvilz]

@bkeepers sure, I can do that.

[bkeepers]

Thanks @ammeep for your work on this! It feels like this is read to go.

[ammeep]

[NuckChorris]

I was absolutely in love with this CoC until I reached the part about reverse-isms and despaired over how rigid and western-centric it was. Thanks for adding the list of definitions though, that was absolutely necessary, and I'm glad to see that it's all being discussed. I do see the reasoning for this stuff being western-centric, since programming is largely western-centric, but we are slowly seeing more people from other cultures enter programming and something less rigid would probably be better.

I want to give a huge +1 on the "call to administrators who adopt the CoC to protect people who experience institutionalized oppression in their communities" concept, though I worry that "call" makes it too terribly weak. It should be something enforceable. It's also a bit unclear how to define "in their communities" as well as how such community's intersection with another community (ie if somebody is male but lives in a matriarchal area, but in an open source community that is roughly patriarchal, then how do we determine the oppression?)

I'd also like to bring up (perhaps a bit too late, since this got merged), the confusingness of "We will not act on complaints regarding [...] Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts" — I originally misinterpreted this as "If you complain that somebody is trying to debate you, we'll do nothing" and that's probably not the intention. Somebody explained to me that it probably meant "nobody is required to explain a social justice concept to anybody", which is great, but I would like to suggest rewording. I'm no author, and frankly have no clue how to reword that, but I'm open to suggestions.

[Addvilz]

@bkeepers I was kind of expecting for this to be on hold till I get the changes I suggested in writing, but oh well...

[bkeepers]

@Addvilz still looking forward to your changes, but it was important that we got the explicit definitions added sooner rather than later.

[MrStonedOne]

I'll take what I said in #56 and repeat it here, for the record:

Regardless of any discussion or debate on rather reverse racism exists, or any discussion or debate on the exact definition of discrimination, language that excludes entire classes from anti-discrimination clauses creates an unwelcoming, impolite, and potentially hostile environment.

[just3ws]

Who is the arbiter of privilege? Who makes the decision about when racism or sexism or whatever is okay and when it isn't? That puts a lot of pressure on community leaders that isn't fair. This should be about protecting everyone's ability to participate in the community. It should not be about taking people who have arbitrarily been deemed as privileged down a peg or two.