Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD's New Code of Conduct (freebsd.org)
FreeBSD has a new code of conduct, which is making several people angry. From the blog post: This code of conduct applies to all spaces used by the FreeBSD Project, including our mailing lists, IRC channels, and social media, both online and off. Anyone who is found to violate this code of conduct may be sanctioned or expelled from FreeBSD Project controlled spaces at the discretion of the FreeBSD Code of Conduct Committee. Participants are responsible for knowing and abiding by these rules. Harassment includes but is not limited to: Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion. Unwelcome comments regarding a person's lifestyle choices and practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and employment. Deliberate misgendering. Deliberate use of "dead" or rejected names. Gratuitous or off-topic sexual images or behaviour in spaces where they're not appropriate.
Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "hug" or "backrub") without consent or after a request to stop. Threats of violence. Incitement of violence towards any individual, including encouraging a person to commit suicide or to engage in self-harm. Deliberate intimidation. Stalking or following. Harassing photography or recording, including logging online activity for harassment purposes. Sustained disruption of discussion. Unwelcome sexual attention. Pattern of inappropriate social contact, such as requesting/assuming inappropriate levels of intimacy with others. Continued one-on-one communication after requests to cease. Deliberate "outing" of any private aspect of a person's identity without their consent except as necessary to protect vulnerable people from intentional abuse. Publication of non-harassing private communication without consent. Publication of non-harassing private communication with consent but in a way that intentionally misrepresents the communication (e.g., removes context that changes the meaning). Knowingly making harmful false claims about a person.
Physical contact and simulated physical contact (e.g., textual descriptions like "hug" or "backrub") without consent or after a request to stop. Threats of violence. Incitement of violence towards any individual, including encouraging a person to commit suicide or to engage in self-harm. Deliberate intimidation. Stalking or following. Harassing photography or recording, including logging online activity for harassment purposes. Sustained disruption of discussion. Unwelcome sexual attention. Pattern of inappropriate social contact, such as requesting/assuming inappropriate levels of intimacy with others. Continued one-on-one communication after requests to cease. Deliberate "outing" of any private aspect of a person's identity without their consent except as necessary to protect vulnerable people from intentional abuse. Publication of non-harassing private communication without consent. Publication of non-harassing private communication with consent but in a way that intentionally misrepresents the communication (e.g., removes context that changes the meaning). Knowingly making harmful false claims about a person.
Someone at FreeBSD needs a hug.
On the Linux mailing list, "deliberate intimidation" is graded like a gymnastic routine, 1-10 points. Linus has the most points so far.
One of the most successful online communities I was ever part of had one single code of conduct: Don't be a dick.
The community enforced that. And if there wasn't consensus, the founder decided.
It wasn't perfect, but what it did was drive discussion on whether conduct someone was engaging in was dickish, or if the complainer was being a whiny dick. It forced discussion on where people's boundaries on "being a dick" were, and it helped people identify when their boundaries were way out of the norm compared to the rest of the community.
In this it was a brilliantly simple code of conduct. Instead of rules-lawyering a laundry list of dos and don'ts, the discussion centered solely on the conduct of an individual and the interpretation of that conduct by those complaining about it. I find it far superior to these expansive codes of conduct, because these are essentially checklists of ways to harass someone you don't like, even if the context of their conversation with others was pleasant for all involved. If you're forced to consider every statement for intent, and determine if it rises to the level of a community defined understanding of "being a dick", it significantly limits the ability to complain about all but the most egregious conduct.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
codes of conduct are known for being extremely toxic. if you're someone reading this who doesn't understand that, look at the keywords: is there *anything* positive in them? just look at the word type, and substitute "positive" or "negative" instead of the actual word. then count the two types up, and ask yourself the question, "what kind of person do you think this would attract?"
it would attract two types of people wouldn't it: one that is absolutely terrified of making mistakes - of being the kind of person that the document ACCUSES people of being. and the other type would be precisely the kinds of people MOST LIKELY to ignore such proscriptions and do them anyway.
so what, *exactly*, do you think these kinds of documents achieve? they describe - and attract - the very things that people fear will happen, and at the very best poison (toxify) the working environment for absolutely everyone involved with the project.
a much better approach would be to use something like the bill of ethics (titanians.org). it's effectively a "forth normalised form" document, that "unpacks on demand". it defines what an "ethical act" is, and encourages and invites its upholders to act ethically. that *requires* that the participants think through incidents very carefully but WITHOUT having incredibly dangerous "toxic proscriptive lists"... which are never complete anyway.
You think texting someone with "Hugs! :)" is generally construed as unacceptable behavior? Your social circle sounds horrible.