9:42 a.m.
Dear Board,
To help move the code of conduct forwards, we've (by which I mean Maren)
has put together a draft page. All board members have editing rights on
the website so you should be able to edit it directly if you need to.
https://inkscape.org/en/community/coc/
Once you're happy with the draft, we'll make it live (in the menu) and
add links from various social spots such as the comment boxes and IRC
page. So do respond to this email with your thoughts too.
Thanks for your time.
Best Regards, Martin Owens
Webmaster
11:40 a.m.
On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 12:42:56PM -0400, Martin Owens wrote:
Dear Board,
To help move the code of conduct forwards, we've (by which I mean Maren)
has put together a draft page. All board members have editing rights on
the website so you should be able to edit it directly if you need to.
https://inkscape.org/en/community/coc/
Once you're happy with the draft, we'll make it live (in the menu) and
add links from various social spots such as the comment boxes and IRC
page. So do respond to this email with your thoughts too.
Thanks for your time.
Some general thoughts...
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.
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.
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.
Bryce
11:49 a.m.
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014, at 11:40 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
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.
On this point, I think that we would like the wording to properly
reflect the level of active moderation we engage in. We probably don't
want to give any impression of an implied promise to be doing more than
we are. Matching well would also help if someone might suggest moving
things forward on that point. As you mentioned we don't have as much
issue in that area yet, so we can just keep an eye to see when we might
need more.
--
Jon A. Cruz
jon@...9...
12:48 p.m.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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?
Cheers,
Josh
4:24 p.m.
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
2:51 p.m.
On Sat, 2014-11-01 at 12:48 -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
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.
+1
3314
days inactive
3315
days old
inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org
5 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Bryce Harrington -
Jon A. Cruz -
Josh Andler -
Martin Owens -
Tavmjong Bah