On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 05:17:50PM +0000, Brett Cannon wrote: [...] > After a rather rude email on python-dev
I haven't noticed this email. Care to link to it? We should be allowed to see what sort of behaviour is likely to treated as officially unacceptable in the future. I think this is actually a very important point. I've seen forums and discussion groups where the enforcement of faux-politeness and "being friendly and positive" and "no jerks allowed" makes the place extremely hostile to anyone who doesn't follow the majority opinion. Where even polite disagreement is seen as "being a jerk". Since rudeness is so subjective, formal prohibitions on being "rude" is a potent weapon for groups to hijack a community by labelling anything and anyone they don't like as "rude". So I think it is important for us to know what you consider is rude enough to require a CoC. [...] > When people know they are expected to behave in a > civil manner and others know they are allowed to call someone out for being > uncivil it typically is enough to make people behave. You don't need a CoC for that. Social expectations apply even without a formal set of rules. > So there is no issue of people "being overburdened by regulations". The CoC > only comes up when someone is being so rude that they need to be talked to > about their attitude problem, Who judges that point? Can *anyone* take it upon themselves to (let's say) say "Brett, you unilaterally changed the policy with no discussion or consultation and just four minutes notice. That is unspeakably rude and total jerk behaviour, so under your own rules you're out of here"? I'm not just making a rhetorical point. I wouldn't accept that sort of unilateral behaviour from my work colleagues. It is pushy and obnoxious and breeds resentment and is exactly the sort of reason why some people are deeply suspicious of CoCs. And when it happens on a Friday night, when people are likely to be away from their computers... http://politicaldictionary.com/words/friday-news-dump/ My employer learned the hard lesson that even "self-evidently and obviously correct" policy changes need a consultation period before making official. No single manager can be allowed to make unilateral policy changes for the entire group without giving the other relevant managers time to respond. Python is over 20 years old and the core devs have managed without a CoC for all that time. You could have, should have, waited a few days before seemingly ramming this policy change in behind people's backs. > so as long as we try and keep people from > being rude it won't come up. Quite frankly, the CoC is really just meant > as a way for people to feel comfortable in knowing they don't have to > tolerate jerks. Nobody *has* to tolerate jerks, especially on an email forum. Just filter their emails into the trash. Or maybe people could be a bit more flexible in what behaviour they accept from others and a bit less quick to label others as jerks? This is an international group, and I'm an Australian, and the language I use with my wife, friends and co-workers is far more forthright and strong than the language I use here. But if I slip occasionally, and call a spade a bloody shovel as they say, I don't want those with more restrictive, less enlightened or even merely different standards to be able to formally rebuke me. Why should I have to change my behaviour more than I already do? Why can't they be a bit more flexible and accepting of differences and less judgmental? > And I would hope none of us are jerks to people in the community, If I knew what you considered "a jerk", then I might be able to say whether I agreed or disagreed. For all I know, you might consider this email to be nothing but me being a jerk. -- Steve _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
