On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 12:48:53PM -0700, Josh Andler wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Bryce Harrington
> 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
> heated, and things be said that sound like flaming or baiting. As
> written it sounds like these are considered equivalent severity as
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
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
> 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:
Offtopic: AFAIK, yes, you are the only person with ops on the
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
I don't think that's necessary, although we probably should add the
credentials to admin-docs.