Should balking at Code of Conduct be explicitly called out? #5
Comments
|
Organizers can demand that participants not harass others; I'm not sure it's practical to enforce everyone being "welcoming". If it crosses the line into "threatening" it should be covered in the existing materials. So, I vote to leave this out. |
|
I'm suggesting that we consider openly balking at the Code of Conduct as a form of harassment, and while opposition may have an important perspective, feedback should be discrete. Openly balking is contributing to the domination theme. Specific and thoughtful feedback is important and encouraged. @Meekohi and I are discussing a bit offline, and will put our notes here. Others welcome. |
|
At first blush, it feels a little meta to include expressing disdain about a code of conduct in a code of conduct; however, I agree with @rduplain that open expression of that sentiment often comes across as extremely unwelcoming. That said, putting something in there about where to go to express concerns about the code of conduct (and where NOT to) makes sense, both from a "maybe this will help people keep it quiet/constructive" perspective AND from a "we'll get the chance to explain the reasoning and sell people on it individually, as needed" perspective. (I use "we," here, kind of loosely. Some days, I have the energy to explain the need for a code of conduct. But not every day. I like being a programmer more than I like being a woman-programmer, if you get my drift.) |
|
We honor and embrace your drift. |
|
Right now I view the "Long CoC" as an anti-harassment policy and not more. I think it would be over-ambitious to make it also an Etiquette Guide, although I agree it is unwelcoming if someone is publicly bashing the CoC. Maybe that is outside the scope of this document and something to be handled 1-on-1? |
|
I agree with Michael. There may be very good reasons to balk at the CoC or With that said, if the balking includes harassing language, imagery, etc. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Michael Holroyd notifications@github.com
|
|
Perhaps I'm using "balk" with a stronger connotation. Vacant grunts upon introduction of the CoC can create tension for other attendees. Questions, feedback, and directed comments are most welcome. The spirit of the CoC is to create a welcome atmosphere, but the policies all specifically call out what is unwelcome. Immediately heckling (or its milder version, balking) the CoC is directly sending a message of unwelcome to people who really care about CoC. In that sense, I see the value in sending a clear message that balking contributes to unwelcoming behavior, but open dialog about the CoC is most welcome (though tiring for some, see above: drift). I'm okay to close this issue, or we can just leave it open for posterity. I certainly wanted to raise the issue because in this CoC's first day, I've already experienced this. It won't stop me from advocating and keeping dialog open. |
|
I don't think this change is necessary. If an event attendee were to voice their disagreement with the policy in a way intended to make others feel unwelcome, I believe that would be covered under deliberate intimidation. If it were done in a way that unintentionally made others feel unwelcome, then they should be invited to join discussion either here or in a less public setting and asked to cease that behavior. If the behavior continues, then that would fall under sustained disruption of talks or other events. It seems to me that the policy here is already clear - intentionally unwelcoming behavior is not tolerated, and will result in immediate expulsion. For unintentional but inappropriate actions there is a procedure in place for calling it to the attention of the person responsible so they can modify their behavior. If a participant is unwilling or unable to conduct themselves according to our CoC, then they aren't a good fit for the group. I also believe handling things this way avoids potential accusations of censorship and ensures that anyone with concerns or a dissenting opinion has ample opportunity to voice that in an appropriate context, while protecting the welcoming environment that this group has created. As for the purpose of the CoC - I'm of the opinion that a policy by itself doesn't do much. If participants believe they can intimidate others and make them feel like they don't belong, then a policy isn't going to stop them when they think they won't get caught. Likewise, it isn't going to bring anyone back to the group after they've been made to feel unwelcome. The CoC serves to signal this group's intent to be welcoming - it's up to the participants to be welcoming. Finally, I 100% agree that there should be an explicit way to voice concerns with or propose changes to the CoC. While we (i.e., those of us in this thread) may be comfortable doing so on Github in an open way, others might not be. |
|
These are great comments, and I think that we can close the issue. To @lyndsysimon's comments on the impact of the CoC, this is in part why the implementation of the CoC includes announcing the CoC during events:
... but I'm aware that there are limitations, which are at present outside the scope of this project. |
|
Great discussion! I think someone balking at the CoC is often a sign of underlying issues, which could be anything from displeasure that we need CoCs in the first place to full-blown sexist tendencies. Instead of seeing this as a reason for excluding them from events, I think we should see it as an opportunity to address the issues early on by engaging in meaningful dialogue. If someone makes disruptive comments and is subsequently unable to engage in healthy dialogue, then they're voicing their decision to not be a member of the community. |
This addresses #5. Also, link to previous discussions.
|
The topic of non-public comments is still open:
... and is #3. |
Reacting in opposition to the announcement of a code of conduct itself can be unwelcoming (or even threatening). As such, the Code of Conduct could explain that opposition to the code should be expressed discretely to the organizers.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: