> On Apr 24, 2019, at 8:00 PM, Richard Yao <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Apr 24, 2019, at 12:11 PM, Matthew Ahrens <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 5:17 PM Richard Yao <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The following sentence is overly broad: >>> >>> "In addition, conduct outside these spaces may affect a person's ability >>> to participate within them." >> >> Richard, thanks for your input and for suggesting a specific change. Here >> is our reasoning behind this sentence: >> >> Harmful behavior has an impact regardless of the venue, and especially if >> the behavior is in public. For example, if someone is harassing a community >> member on social media, that creates a problem for the community because the >> target of harassment is (quite reasonably) deterred from participating in >> the OpenZFS community if their harasser is a member of our community. >> Another example would be if someone makes discriminatory or threatening >> statements against groups of people (women, minorities, etc). This creates >> a problem for the community because people won’t feel comfortable or safe >> interacting with someone who behaves this way. If these type of problems >> arise, we intend to address them, which is why we wrote this sentence in the >> Code of Conduct. As with any conduct issues, the way that these problems >> are addressed will depend on the particulars. For example, we would hope >> that informing someone that their behavior is harming others would be >> sufficient to prevent the incident from repeating. > Is an omission from the CoC going to prevent us from taking action in a > situation where we clearly should take action? If not, then it should be fine > to keep the CoC’s scope more narrow until we have gained experience with it. > > I would like to hope for the best, but in the back of my mind, I have the > question of “how could things possibly go wrong?” and the idea that the CoC > might somehow backfire on us occurred to me. This is the reason why I would > rather that we gain experience with a more narrowly scoped initial CoC that > has limited ambiguity in what it promises that we will do. > > By the way, given how much work and private lives mix these days, I would > consider twitter to be a professional forum. It is certainly that way how > some people use it. It probably is worth mentioning that Gentoo’s own code of conduct says “public communications mediums”, which basically means that it can be applied to anything that Gentoo community members say in public:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct I am not sure if we have needed to enforce it in non-project spaces (I could ask), but the opportunity is there. It was instituted in 2007 at a time when it was greatly needed and as far as I know, it has worked well for the Gentoo project in resolving issues. Anyway, I still think “conduct outside these spaces” is just too broad. It could invite situations where we are asked to police things said in private forums where it is not even clear who said what or if the person accused even was there to say anything. >> >> --matt > > zfsonlinux / Discuss / see discussions + participants + delivery options > Permalink ------------------------------------------ openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/T5dc11696c7b4bddb-M96c4990cdec96c7db451f4bd Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/subscription
