Move the examples of harassment to separate section in code of conduct #1087
Conversation
This will make the Encouraged and Discouraged sections more balanced. The examples are from the Citizen Code of Conduct and would be good to clarify that to avoid the misunderstanding that these were based on incidents in our community.
| - Deliberate intimidation, stalking or following (online or in person). | ||
| - Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior. | ||
| - Sustained disruption of community events, including talks and presentations. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These were added recently in e457198#diff-102cddd805ad66d3e769233af629d8b3L35-R49 to make it independent of external resource "Citizen Code of Conduct", as I have understood it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see the point of improving the "balance" of the text, but in the process of doing so you have reverted some changes that were recently approved. I don't necessarily want to close the discussion on that, but it should be a different PR, independent of the re-balancing.
|
Note that the context for this is akka/akka-meta#120 . Some of the feedback there was about balancing positivity and negativity, to keep the document from feeling too negative. At the time we merged the PR inlining the Citizen CoC bullets, I don't think that's an angle we fully considered. |
conduct.md
Outdated
| - Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior. | ||
| - Sustained disruption of community events, including talks and presentations. | ||
| - In particular, we don’t tolerate behavior that excludes people in socially marginalized groups. | ||
| - We will exclude you from interaction if you insult, demean or harass anyone. See [examples of harassment](#examples-of-harassment) below. In particular, we don’t tolerate behavior that excludes people in socially marginalized groups. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This point conflates two different points, with different severity: “will exclude” for things that are also illegal in general in many countries, “won’t tolerate” for exclusion of certain groups. The conjunction “in particular” is therefore not correct here, I propose to split it into two separate bullet points.
The second point is currently worded in a needlessly specific form, I propose to remove ambiguity and subjective judgement by rewording as
- We don’t tolerate behavior that excludes people based on their association with social, ethnic, religious, political, or similar groups.
This avoids any question about what “socially marginalized” may or may not mean — and I hope that my assumption is correct that we also won’t tolerate the exclusion of substantial or mainstream groups.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(See my comment below where I've suggested moving this change to a separate PR.)
|
Thanks for linking the context @SethTisue! I have opened another PR for addressing the second half of the feedback from Akka, see #1089. |
|
I have incorporated feedback from @rkuhn . |
|
In its current form, this PR contains three changes: Change 1a: move the examples-of-bad-behavior down in the document, to their own section. Change 1b: describe the examples as "unacceptable behavior" rather than as "harassment". I think both of these are clear improvements. They are modest refinements to #1079 that bring the actual text in better alignment with what I understand to be the code's intent. Based on the discussion so far, there doesn't seem to be any objections, either, so this much is now mergeable, I think (though I suggest we wait until a total of at least two weeks have passed, to see if any further feedback comes in). Change 2 replaces "In particular, we don’t tolerate behavior that excludes people in socially marginalized groups" with "We don’t tolerate behavior that excludes people based on their association with social, ethnic, religious, political, or similar groups". I'm less comfortable with this change, and I might even be opposed to it. I'm not sure yet. It seems to me like a real change to the substance of the code, rather than just of improving the structure or wording. Perhaps we could find some change somewhat along these lines that I would be comfortable with? In any case, I would prefer that this part go in a separate PR, with a separate discussion. |
This reverts commit cebfbbe.
|
reverted Change 2 (marginalized groups) |
|
Sounds reasonable, let’s address one thing after the other. I’ll open a new PR to discuss the “In particular” issue once this one is merged (otherwise there would be conflicts). |
|
@milessabin @rossabaker @neko-kai objections or thoughts on the current form of this PR? see also #1089 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 to this as a positive and agreeable change.
Rereading it all, I find the "We will exclude you" / "Behavior that will lead to exclusion" language here discordant with the softer warning procedure as laid out in the Moderation section, but it's not a new problem, and I'd rather tackle that in a separate issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm comfortable with this change, and will propose to include it in the derived Lightbend Community Code of Conduct once it's merged here.
|
thanks, all, for the thoughtful input on this |
This will make the Encouraged and Discouraged sections more
balanced.
The examples are from the Citizen Code of Conduct and would be
good to clarify that to avoid the misunderstanding that these were
based on incidents in our community.