On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 12:48:53PM -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...2...> wrote:
There is a lot of verbage around harrassment, and then one line given to "spamming, trolling, flaming, baiting, or other attention-stealing behavior". Harrassment is of course unacceptable but fortunately seems to be absent in our community, afaik. But trolling, baiting, etc. have indeed been problems on occasion, so I wonder if these deserve more attention here.
We don't even have a draft CoC that I am aware of unless I'm reading the page wrong. This seems more specific to the "Rust" CoC, which is the first example CoC on that page. The other two focus on it far less so. We are very fortunate with the general behavior of our community, so I agree we shouldn't focus in an imbalanced way on hypotheticals more than the tangibles.
My go-to phrasing has been some permutation of "Let's keep the discussions to a civil level." I like 'civil' as a neutral word that nonetheless calls on people's best behaviors.
Speaking of which, one tangible problem area we do run afoul from time to time is what I guess I'd call heated technical disagreements. This is a particular problem for our development model since commit access is open. You can disagree with someone's code style or algorithm design, or lack of attention to type safety or whatever, yet they can ignore your protestations and commit the code, necessitating you to go back and clean it up later. Or some variation on this. I think we've all seen this firsthand (or even been involved in a few). Pretty much the issues always end up working out, modulo a few bad feelings. I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning it in the CoC, since it tends not to be too severe, but it is a real problem we have. Maybe we can give some guidance in how these sorts of disagreements can most effectively be handled? What do others think?
In particular, regular development discussions can sometimes become heated, and things be said that sound like flaming or baiting. As written it sounds like these are considered equivalent severity as harrassment.
I think the "Speak Up!" and Django CoCs are probably more in line with what we would use for the basis of our CoC than the Rust one. I think the focus on language about disagreements and trying to understand each other while not letting it turn abusive seems more in line with our needs/community.
Much as we don't want to model on the Ubuntu CoC, I recall there were some insightful bits there, such as relating to stepping down gracefully.
We don't have active moderators for IRC. I think I'm the only person with ops on channel, but I am not going to actively monitor any discussions. As written, the CoC implies a more active level of moderation than that, which may disappoint expectations. I think we should condense this section down.
This page has some good suggestions for behavior, might be worth including a link to this page:
https://freenode.net/channel_guidelines.shtml
Offtopic: AFAIK, yes, you are the only person with ops on the channel. As one of those side issues, we should probably make sure that at least one other person has ops as well for the bus factor.
Yep.
Should a Conservancy member have ops as well for them to be able to hold that important "asset" for us too as they do with a handful of other things?
I don't think that's necessary, although we probably should add the credentials to admin-docs[0].
Bryce
0: https://code.launchpad.net/~inkscape.admin/+junk/admin-docs