There is consensus at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dra... that the best way to finalize the CoC draft is to focus on a few sections at once (while still allowing people to comment on other ones). This allows progress without requiring people to monitor all sections at once and lets us separate the questions of “what are our goals here?” and “how should this work?”. After these sections are finalized, I recommend minimizing or avoiding later substantive changes to them.
The first sections being finalized are the intro (text before the Principles section), Principles, and Unacceptable behavior. These have been discussed on the talk page for the last two weeks, and appear to have stabilized.
However, there may still be points that need to be refined. Please participate in building consensus on final versions of these sections:
* https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dra...
* https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Draft
If you are not comfortable contributing to this discussion under your name or a pseudonym, you can email your feedback or suggestions to conduct-discussion@wikimedia.org . Quim Gil, Frances Hocutt, and Kalliope Tsouroupidou will be monitoring this address and will anonymously bring the points raised into the discussion at your request.
Thanks,
Matt Flaschen
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.org wrote:
There is consensus at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dra... that the best way to finalize the CoC draft is to focus on a few sections at once (while still allowing people to comment on other ones). This allows progress without requiring people to monitor all sections at once and lets us separate the questions of “what are our goals here?” and “how should this work?”. After these sections are finalized, I recommend minimizing or avoiding later substantive changes to them.
The first sections being finalized are the intro (text before the Principles section), Principles, and Unacceptable behavior. These have been discussed on the talk page for the last two weeks, and appear to have stabilized.
However, there may still be points that need to be refined. Please participate in building consensus on final versions of these sections:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dra...
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Draft
If you are not comfortable contributing to this discussion under your name or a pseudonym, you can email your feedback or suggestions to conduct-discussion@wikimedia.org . Quim Gil, Frances Hocutt, and Kalliope Tsouroupidou will be monitoring this address and will anonymously bring the points raised into the discussion at your request.
lol, consensus among whom, to what? i am against it (i'd love to send the reasons in another mail though), do i count, and it is still consensus? probably not, because i did maybe two unimportant commits for kiwix. i would prefer if you would be so kind to define one measurable criteria for the question "do we need a code of conduct", no matter if entry or success criteria. e.g
* 50 volunteers from different part of the world saying that we need it * 20% of committers want it * after one year 20% more volunteer commits are done
other critieria like "people attending conferences", or "mails written" would be a bad idea, as the goal is to have more contributions, not more conference tourists or mailing list tourists. what you think, matt, or quim ?
best, rupert
Why don't you comment on any of the three links provided in the email you're replying to? That seems like an obvious venue for concerns you might have.
On 5 September 2015 at 17:32, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.org wrote:
There is consensus at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dra... that the best way to finalize the CoC draft is to focus on a few sections at once (while still allowing people to comment on other ones). This allows progress without requiring people to monitor all sections at once and lets us separate the questions of “what are our goals here?” and “how should this work?”. After these sections are finalized, I recommend minimizing or avoiding later substantive changes to them.
The first sections being finalized are the intro (text before the Principles section), Principles, and Unacceptable behavior. These have been discussed on the talk page for the last two weeks, and appear to have stabilized.
However, there may still be points that need to be refined. Please participate in building consensus on final versions of these sections:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dra...
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Draft
If you are not comfortable contributing to this discussion under your name or a pseudonym, you can email your feedback or suggestions to conduct-discussion@wikimedia.org . Quim Gil, Frances Hocutt, and Kalliope Tsouroupidou will be monitoring this address and will anonymously bring the points raised into the discussion at your request.
lol, consensus among whom, to what? i am against it (i'd love to send the reasons in another mail though), do i count, and it is still consensus? probably not, because i did maybe two unimportant commits for kiwix. i would prefer if you would be so kind to define one measurable criteria for the question "do we need a code of conduct", no matter if entry or success criteria. e.g
- 50 volunteers from different part of the world saying that we need it
- 20% of committers want it
- after one year 20% more volunteer commits are done
other critieria like "people attending conferences", or "mails written" would be a bad idea, as the goal is to have more contributions, not more conference tourists or mailing list tourists. what you think, matt, or quim ?
best, rupert _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On the general subject of codes of conduct and what they bring (or don't bring) in terms of user safety and a sense of inclusion, I recently encountered http://www.catehuston.com/blog/2015/09/02/code-of-conducts-and-worthless-man... on Twitter - it's an interesting read and brings up a couple of points definitely worth thinking about, namely that the intent behind a CoC is not to be the be-all and end-all of user safety but instead to set a very minimum bound of what is acceptable.
On 5 September 2015 at 17:39, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
Why don't you comment on any of the three links provided in the email you're replying to? That seems like an obvious venue for concerns you might have.
On 5 September 2015 at 17:32, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.org wrote:
There is consensus at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dra... that the best way to finalize the CoC draft is to focus on a few sections at once (while still allowing people to comment on other ones). This allows progress without requiring people to monitor all sections at once and lets us separate the questions of “what are our goals here?” and “how should this work?”. After these sections are finalized, I recommend minimizing or avoiding later substantive changes to them.
The first sections being finalized are the intro (text before the Principles section), Principles, and Unacceptable behavior. These have been discussed on the talk page for the last two weeks, and appear to have stabilized.
However, there may still be points that need to be refined. Please participate in building consensus on final versions of these sections:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dra...
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Draft
If you are not comfortable contributing to this discussion under your name or a pseudonym, you can email your feedback or suggestions to conduct-discussion@wikimedia.org . Quim Gil, Frances Hocutt, and Kalliope Tsouroupidou will be monitoring this address and will anonymously bring the points raised into the discussion at your request.
lol, consensus among whom, to what? i am against it (i'd love to send the reasons in another mail though), do i count, and it is still consensus? probably not, because i did maybe two unimportant commits for kiwix. i would prefer if you would be so kind to define one measurable criteria for the question "do we need a code of conduct", no matter if entry or success criteria. e.g
- 50 volunteers from different part of the world saying that we need it
- 20% of committers want it
- after one year 20% more volunteer commits are done
other critieria like "people attending conferences", or "mails written" would be a bad idea, as the goal is to have more contributions, not more conference tourists or mailing list tourists. what you think, matt, or quim ?
best, rupert _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Oliver Keyes Count Logula Wikimedia Foundation
The first and last paras are particularly worth quoting:
Earlier this year I pulled out of a conference because the organiser and I disagreed on code of conducts. Specifically I thought there should be one, and he did not. He did eventually add one, but refused to define unacceptable behaviour. Myself and another woman pulled out.
...
I don’t feel safe because there is a code of conduct. But I tell you one thing that makes me feel unsafe – men who will endlessly, vociferously argue against them. Maybe a code of conduct isn’t meaningful. But at this point, refusing to listen, refusing to have one. Well, that is.
- d.
On 5 September 2015 at 23:07, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
On the general subject of codes of conduct and what they bring (or don't bring) in terms of user safety and a sense of inclusion, I recently encountered http://www.catehuston.com/blog/2015/09/02/code-of-conducts-and-worthless-man... on Twitter - it's an interesting read and brings up a couple of points definitely worth thinking about, namely that the intent behind a CoC is not to be the be-all and end-all of user safety but instead to set a very minimum bound of what is acceptable.
On 5 September 2015 at 17:39, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
Why don't you comment on any of the three links provided in the email you're replying to? That seems like an obvious venue for concerns you might have.
On 5 September 2015 at 17:32, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.org wrote:
There is consensus at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dra... that the best way to finalize the CoC draft is to focus on a few sections at once (while still allowing people to comment on other ones). This allows progress without requiring people to monitor all sections at once and lets us separate the questions of “what are our goals here?” and “how should this work?”. After these sections are finalized, I recommend minimizing or avoiding later substantive changes to them.
The first sections being finalized are the intro (text before the Principles section), Principles, and Unacceptable behavior. These have been discussed on the talk page for the last two weeks, and appear to have stabilized.
However, there may still be points that need to be refined. Please participate in building consensus on final versions of these sections:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dra...
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Draft
If you are not comfortable contributing to this discussion under your name or a pseudonym, you can email your feedback or suggestions to conduct-discussion@wikimedia.org . Quim Gil, Frances Hocutt, and Kalliope Tsouroupidou will be monitoring this address and will anonymously bring the points raised into the discussion at your request.
lol, consensus among whom, to what? i am against it (i'd love to send the reasons in another mail though), do i count, and it is still consensus? probably not, because i did maybe two unimportant commits for kiwix. i would prefer if you would be so kind to define one measurable criteria for the question "do we need a code of conduct", no matter if entry or success criteria. e.g
- 50 volunteers from different part of the world saying that we need it
- 20% of committers want it
- after one year 20% more volunteer commits are done
other critieria like "people attending conferences", or "mails written" would be a bad idea, as the goal is to have more contributions, not more conference tourists or mailing list tourists. what you think, matt, or quim ?
best, rupert _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Oliver Keyes Count Logula Wikimedia Foundation
-- Oliver Keyes Count Logula Wikimedia Foundation
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Oliver Keyes wrote:
On the general subject of codes of conduct and what they bring (or don't bring) in terms of user safety and a sense of inclusion, I recently encountered http://wp.me/p11Aax-4aq on Twitter - it's an interesting read and brings up a couple of points definitely worth thinking about, namely that the intent behind a CoC is not to be the be-all and end-all of user safety but instead to set a very minimum bound of what is acceptable.
Am I supposed to know what a manfeeling is? It seems weird to me that the push (perhaps a movement, who knows) to implement codes of conduct has become so enmeshed with the ultra-liberal feminist movement. I think there are people who sympathize with and even support efforts to have codes of conduct in technical spaces, but who don't want to feel demonized for being male. There's a dark irony in sites such as Geek Feminism Wiki feeling the need to prominently answer "Are men welcome here?" in their FAQ (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Geek_Feminism_Wiki_FAQ).
This isn't to say that there aren't good ideas and good people behind some of this content, but I can see a lot potential allies to the code of conduct cause being put off by the militant feminist language and overeager citations of feminist theory.
MZMcBride
On 5 September 2015 at 19:11, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
On the general subject of codes of conduct and what they bring (or don't bring) in terms of user safety and a sense of inclusion, I recently encountered http://wp.me/p11Aax-4aq on Twitter - it's an interesting read and brings up a couple of points definitely worth thinking about, namely that the intent behind a CoC is not to be the be-all and end-all of user safety but instead to set a very minimum bound of what is acceptable.
Am I supposed to know what a manfeeling is? It seems weird to me that the push (perhaps a movement, who knows) to implement codes of conduct has become so enmeshed with the ultra-liberal feminist movement. I think there are people who sympathize with and even support efforts to have codes of conduct in technical spaces, but who don't want to feel demonized for being male. There's a dark irony in sites such as Geek Feminism Wiki feeling the need to prominently answer "Are men welcome here?" in their FAQ (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Geek_Feminism_Wiki_FAQ).
This isn't to say that there aren't good ideas and good people behind some of this content, but I can see a lot potential allies to the code of conduct cause being put off by the militant feminist language and overeager citations of feminist theory.
It seems weird to me that a conversation about codes of conduct is being shifted into a discussion of "but the people writing about codes of conduct, let's debate where they fall on an ideological spectrum". This thread is not for discussing "militant feminist language" or "demonizing people for being male", this is about having a code of conduct, full stop. If you want to start a conversation about "militant feminism" I'm sure there is a mailing list out there for that, but it is not this one.
MZMcBride
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 5 September 2015 at 19:11, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
On the general subject of codes of conduct and what they bring (or don't bring) in terms of user safety and a sense of inclusion, I recently encountered http://wp.me/p11Aax-4aq on Twitter - it's an interesting read and brings up a couple of points definitely worth thinking about, namely that the intent behind a CoC is not to be the be-all and end-all of user safety but instead to set a very minimum bound of what is acceptable.
Am I supposed to know what a manfeeling is?
I wondered the same thing.
It seems weird to me that a conversation about codes of conduct is being shifted into a discussion of "but the people writing about codes of conduct, let's debate where they fall on an ideological spectrum". This thread is not for discussing "militant feminist language" or "demonizing people for being male", this is about having a code of conduct, full stop.
Ok, let's talk about this in context of a code of conduct. One of the drivers behind the push for a code of conduct is that there is too much[1] misogyny in the larger "online technical community" world. But the answer to it isn't misandrist phrases like "worthless manfeelings" or dismissing because of poor word choice others' concerns over overly-gendered rhetoric being thrown around in various blog posts sent to the list as examples, as those too should be against the code of conduct.
Some people (regardless of gender or other characteristics) find harassing or discriminatory behavior offensive, such behavior is unfortunately too common,[1] and a code of conduct (assuming it's enforced) that prohibits such behavior can reassure concerned people that they will find support should they experience such behavior. Let's write one based on that premise rather than focusing on the female experience to the exclusion of all else. And, in fact, at a glance the language of current draft does seem to be on that basis.
[1]: i.e. "incidence is greater than zero"
On 8 September 2015 at 12:56, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 5 September 2015 at 19:11, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
On the general subject of codes of conduct and what they bring (or don't bring) in terms of user safety and a sense of inclusion, I recently encountered http://wp.me/p11Aax-4aq on Twitter - it's an interesting read and brings up a couple of points definitely worth thinking about, namely that the intent behind a CoC is not to be the be-all and end-all of user safety but instead to set a very minimum bound of what is acceptable.
Am I supposed to know what a manfeeling is?
I wondered the same thing.
It seems weird to me that a conversation about codes of conduct is being shifted into a discussion of "but the people writing about codes of conduct, let's debate where they fall on an ideological spectrum". This thread is not for discussing "militant feminist language" or "demonizing people for being male", this is about having a code of conduct, full stop.
Ok, let's talk about this in context of a code of conduct. One of the drivers behind the push for a code of conduct is that there is too much[1] misogyny in the larger "online technical community" world. But the answer to it isn't misandrist phrases like "worthless manfeelings" or dismissing because of poor word choice others' concerns over overly-gendered rhetoric being thrown around in various blog posts sent to the list as examples, as those too should be against the code of conduct.
Some people (regardless of gender or other characteristics) find harassing or discriminatory behavior offensive, such behavior is unfortunately too common,[1] and a code of conduct (assuming it's enforced) that prohibits such behavior can reassure concerned people that they will find support should they experience such behavior. Let's write one based on that premise rather than focusing on the female experience to the exclusion of all else. And, in fact, at a glance the language of current draft does seem to be on that basis.
It's ambiguous as to whether that last paragraph means "this CoC is targeted at the experiences of women and this is a bad thing" or "we should make sure we have an intersectional CoC and the current draft does a good job".
If it's the former, you're welcome to comment on the talkpage with proposed changes, although I disagree with your read on it; there are plenty of people of all gender identities or backgrounds who find the behaviour the draft is trying to protect against offensive. But the read that this primarily covers the experience of people excluded or underrepresented from/within our community is...exactly what a code of conduct should do. Yes, lots of people of all backgrounds find behaviour of various stripes inappropriate. But it's been pretty widely shown, through quantitative data and lived experiences, that different groups are more or less likely (as the demographics of the public feedback on the proposal suggests!) to stick around after being /exposed/ to that behaviour. A code of conduct that prioritises the experiences of those people who are particularly disenfranchised by poor behaviour is...well, a good code of conduct, unless you can point to parts of the CoC that actively drive away groups who are currently flourishing.
-- Brad Jorsch (Anomie) Senior Software Engineer Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 8 September 2015 at 12:56, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
Some people (regardless of gender or other characteristics) find
harassing
or discriminatory behavior offensive, such behavior is unfortunately too common,[1] and a code of conduct (assuming it's enforced) that prohibits such behavior can reassure concerned people that they will find support should they experience such behavior. Let's write one based on that
premise
rather than focusing on the female experience to the exclusion of all
else.
And, in fact, at a glance the language of current draft does seem to be
on
that basis.
It's ambiguous as to whether that last paragraph means "this CoC is targeted at the experiences of women and this is a bad thing" or "we should make sure we have an intersectional CoC and the current draft does a good job".
The latter.
On 8 September 2015 at 14:04, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 8 September 2015 at 12:56, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
Some people (regardless of gender or other characteristics) find
harassing
or discriminatory behavior offensive, such behavior is unfortunately too common,[1] and a code of conduct (assuming it's enforced) that prohibits such behavior can reassure concerned people that they will find support should they experience such behavior. Let's write one based on that
premise
rather than focusing on the female experience to the exclusion of all
else.
And, in fact, at a glance the language of current draft does seem to be
on
that basis.
It's ambiguous as to whether that last paragraph means "this CoC is targeted at the experiences of women and this is a bad thing" or "we should make sure we have an intersectional CoC and the current draft does a good job".
The latter.
Gotcha; cool!
-- Brad Jorsch (Anomie) Senior Software Engineer Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 6 September 2015 at 00:11, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
become so enmeshed with the ultra-liberal feminist movement. I think there
It would probably be fascinating to have this technical term defined with any specificity.
of this content, but I can see a lot potential allies to the code of conduct cause being put off by the militant feminist language and overeager citations of feminist theory.
The hypothetical people in question would look to any excuse in practice.
- d.
On 5 September 2015 at 19:11, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
<snip>
It seems weird to me that the push (perhaps a movement, who knows) to implement codes of conduct has become so enmeshed with the ultra-liberal feminist movement.
Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_the_United_States_Fighting_Force
Risker/Anne
On 5 September 2015 at 23:19, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I don’t feel safe because there is a code of conduct. But I tell you one
thing that makes me feel unsafe – men who will endlessly, vociferously argue against them. Maybe a code of conduct isn’t meaningful. But at this point, refusing to listen, refusing to have one. Well, that is.
This quote seems a bit sexist to me.
Actually, I wonder whether the current draft of the code of conduct would allow you to send it here or not.
On 6 September 2015 at 01:42, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 September 2015 at 19:11, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
<snip>
It seems weird to me that the push (perhaps a movement, who knows) to implement codes of conduct has become so enmeshed with the ultra-liberal feminist movement.
Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_the_United_States_Fighting_Force
How is this relevant to what MZMcBride said?
On 5 September 2015 at 21:11, Alex Monk krenair@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 September 2015 at 23:19, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I don’t feel safe because there is a code of conduct. But I tell you
one
thing that makes me feel unsafe – men who will endlessly, vociferously argue against them. Maybe a code of conduct isn’t meaningful. But at this point, refusing to listen, refusing to have one. Well, that is.
This quote seems a bit sexist to me.
Actually, I wonder whether the current draft of the code of conduct would allow you to send it here or not.
On 6 September 2015 at 01:42, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 September 2015 at 19:11, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
<snip>
It seems weird to me that the push (perhaps a movement, who knows) to implement codes of conduct has become so enmeshed with the ultra-liberal feminist movement.
Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_the_United_States_Fighting_Force
How is this relevant to what MZMcBride said?
Codes of conduct originated in what most people would consider the most stereotypically male-dominated organizations. If you read the article, you'll see that they had to update it in the 1980s to make it gender neutral. Gradually, over the last three generations, codes of conduct have made it through to most sectors of the professional and business worlds. It's hardly an ultra-liberal feminist movement that has led to this.
Risker
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 4:11 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Am I supposed to know what a manfeeling is? It seems weird to me that the push (perhaps a movement, who knows) to implement codes of conduct has become so enmeshed with the ultra-liberal feminist movement. I think there are people who sympathize with and even support efforts to have codes of conduct in technical spaces, but who don't want to feel demonized for being male. There's a dark irony in sites such as Geek Feminism Wiki feeling the need to prominently answer "Are men welcome here?" in their FAQ (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Geek_Feminism_Wiki_FAQ).
This isn't to say that there aren't good ideas and good people behind some of this content, but I can see a lot potential allies to the code of conduct cause being put off by the militant feminist language and overeager citations of feminist theory.
Considering the fact that so far the vast majority of voices raised in this email thread, the previous 2 email threads, and the Code of Conduct draft discussion itself were mostly self-identified male, I suspect we are fairly safe from making it "anti men".
MZMcBride
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 9/5/15, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
On the general subject of codes of conduct and what they bring (or don't bring) in terms of user safety and a sense of inclusion, I recently encountered http://wp.me/p11Aax-4aq on Twitter - it's an interesting read and brings up a couple of points definitely worth thinking about, namely that the intent behind a CoC is not to be the be-all and end-all of user safety but instead to set a very minimum bound of what is acceptable.
Am I supposed to know what a manfeeling is? It seems weird to me that the push (perhaps a movement, who knows) to implement codes of conduct has become so enmeshed with the ultra-liberal feminist movement. I think there are people who sympathize with and even support efforts to have codes of conduct in technical spaces, but who don't want to feel demonized for being male. There's a dark irony in sites such as Geek Feminism Wiki feeling the need to prominently answer "Are men welcome here?" in their FAQ (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Geek_Feminism_Wiki_FAQ).
This isn't to say that there aren't good ideas and good people behind some of this content, but I can see a lot potential allies to the code of conduct cause being put off by the militant feminist language and overeager citations of feminist theory.
MZMcBride
I'm not sure what the phrase "ultra-liberal feminist movement" means, but if what you're trying to say is that all the "You're either with us- or you're an evil scumbag" rhetoric is getting annoying (and probably backfiring on those employing it), then I agree 100%.
-- bawolff
On 09/05/2015 07:11 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
I think there are people who sympathize with and even support efforts to have codes of conduct in technical spaces, but who don't want to feel demonized for being male.
Then those people should be glad to participate in finalizing this CoC.
There's a dark irony in sites such as Geek Feminism Wiki feeling the need to prominently answer "Are men welcome here?" in their FAQ (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Geek_Feminism_Wiki_FAQ).
Since I felt welcome on that wiki before reading that FAQ, I don't really find it ironic. Perhaps they went farther than they needed to be welcoming, but *that's not a bad thing*.
This isn't to say that there aren't good ideas and good people behind some of this content, but I can see a lot potential allies to the code of conduct cause being put off by the militant feminist language and overeager citations of feminist theory.
There is no such language or citation on the draft.
Matt Flaschen
On 9/5/15, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.org wrote:
There is consensus at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dra... that the best way to finalize the CoC draft is to focus on a few sections at once (while still allowing people to comment on other ones). This allows progress without requiring people to monitor all sections at once and lets us separate the questions of “what are our goals here?” and “how should this work?”. After these sections are finalized, I recommend minimizing or avoiding later substantive changes to them.
The first sections being finalized are the intro (text before the Principles section), Principles, and Unacceptable behavior. These have been discussed on the talk page for the last two weeks, and appear to have stabilized.
However, there may still be points that need to be refined. Please participate in building consensus on final versions of these sections:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dra...
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Draft
If you are not comfortable contributing to this discussion under your name or a pseudonym, you can email your feedback or suggestions to conduct-discussion@wikimedia.org . Quim Gil, Frances Hocutt, and Kalliope Tsouroupidou will be monitoring this address and will anonymously bring the points raised into the discussion at your request.
lol, consensus among whom, to what? i am against it (i'd love to send the reasons in another mail though), do i count, and it is still consensus?
Consensus, of the people participating in the talk page of the draft, in the typical Wikimedia definition of the word (Most arguments have .puttered out, and a super-majority of those participating seem to have settled on some agreement).
Since arguments seem to have mostly stopped, and most of the people participating on the talk page seem to be in agreement, several people felt that its time to bring this back to the larger community for comment before asking the larger community to approve. And thus here we are.
probably not, because i did maybe two unimportant commits for kiwix.
Well you're sending email here. That's participation. Your arguments will influence people, and as a result may change the course of what the wider community decides.
i would prefer if you would be so kind to define one measurable criteria for the question "do we need a code of conduct", no matter if entry or success criteria. e.g
- 50 volunteers from different part of the world saying that we need it
- 20% of committers want it
- after one year 20% more volunteer commits are done
other critieria like "people attending conferences", or "mails written" would be a bad idea, as the goal is to have more contributions, not more conference tourists or mailing list tourists. what you think, matt, or quim ?
I feel like this is mixing up the question of whether we "need" a code of conduct, with whether we will get a code of conduct.
Whether we need a code of conduct is a complicated question, that has been debated quite a bit already. I do not believe this is something that is quantifiable (Or if we are tying the CoC to some sort of quantifiable goal, then we are doing it for the wrong reasons).
Whether we will get one (or to put another way, under what criteria will we consider the proposal to adopt a code of conduct a success, and actually adopt it), is a different question. My opinion would be to have something along the lines of having a vote, and if 75% of the people who decide to participate support it, then its considered adopted. Although I'm sure people will argue back and forth about the procedures for this and people are talking about it at Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Draft#Next_steps.
-- -bawolff
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Brian Wolff bawolff@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/15, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Matthew Flaschen <
mflaschen@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
There is consensus at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dra...
that the best way to finalize the CoC draft is to focus on a few sections at once (while still allowing people to comment on other
lol, consensus among whom, to what? i am against it (i'd love to send the reasons in another mail though), do i count, and it is still consensus?
Consensus, of the people participating in the talk page of the draft, in the typical Wikimedia definition of the word (Most arguments have .puttered out, and a super-majority of those participating seem to have settled on some agreement).
i would prefer if you would be so kind to define one measurable criteria
for
the question "do we need a code of conduct", no matter if entry or
success
criteria. e.g
- 50 volunteers from different part of the world saying that we need it
- 20% of committers want it
- after one year 20% more volunteer commits are done
other critieria like "people attending conferences", or "mails written" would be a bad idea, as the goal is to have more contributions, not more conference tourists or mailing list tourists. what you think, matt, or
quim
?
I feel like this is mixing up the question of whether we "need" a code of conduct, with whether we will get a code of conduct.
the mails sent here the last week made me think more thorough about what the actual problem is, and reconsider my posiiton. i added comments to the phabricator ticket at: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T90908#1612033.
to summarize the phabricator comments briefly, i experienced the wikimedia technical community as arrogant and ignorant, paradoxically despite the persons in the community are not arrogant and ignoring. mails get no answer, ticktes get closed immediately or reshuffled, patches sit in gerrit for years. contrary, the most successful open source community, linux / git, tolerates things which we would not tolerate (e.g. https://youtu.be/MShbP3OpASA?t=2895 f*ck nvidia). i experienced that community as extremely welcoming and helpful.
after rethinking, i am now convinced that our community can be come more welcoming with two measures. first, the mindset need to change to be welcoming. if constant talking about the approach on the mailing list is not enough a 10 lines code of conduct might help, containing a "WMF persons assure on every contact that the client walks away happy." instead of a "WMF punishes misbehave". contrary to all the punishment suggestions above, it would be a positive policy. the ones involved in raising children already saw how much more effective a praising and lauding approach is - which i find works as well with adults. good is also that praising works international, no cultural barriers.
second i think that our technical products should have a skilled programmer as product owner who likes tinkering with the product. but - this ideally goes into a separate mail thread.
best, rupert
the mails sent here the last week made me think more thorough about what the actual problem is, and reconsider my posiiton. i added comments to the phabricator ticket at: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T90908#1612033.
to summarize the phabricator comments briefly, i experienced the wikimedia technical community as arrogant and ignorant, paradoxically despite the persons in the community are not arrogant and ignoring. mails get no answer, ticktes get closed immediately or reshuffled, patches sit in gerrit for years. contrary, the most successful open source community, linux / git, tolerates things which we would not tolerate (e.g. https://youtu.be/MShbP3OpASA?t=2895 f*ck nvidia). i experienced that community as extremely welcoming and helpful.
I could certainly see how one could feel that way. There have been several times when I have felt that way.
But I also feel like they are separate issues from what the Code of conduct is trying to address, and probably need different solutions.
"WMF persons assure on every contact that the client walks away happy."instead of a "WMF punishes misbehave". contrary to all the punishment suggestions above, it would be a positive policy. the ones involved in raising children already saw how much more effective a praising and lauding approach is - which i find works as well with adults. good is also that praising works international, no cultural barriers.
Well if we extend the metaphor - Even parents who believe in praise, would probably punish their child if s/he committed murder. The code of conduct is supposed to deal with the horrible situations, not the everyday situations. Its not supposed to be the be-all and end-all of everything.
-- bawolff
As I tried to explain at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-August/082778.html, there is a potential correlation between being opposed to a Code of Conduct and having a community profile needing less such Code of Conduct. This doesn't mean that our community doesn't need a Code of Conduct, though. We want to be an open and diverse community, with profiles definitely more diverse than the ones of the people active in this discussion.
For the sake of the argument, let's say that those community members opposing completely to a Code of Conduct for Wikimedia tech wouldn't gain anything in case it is approved. Fine, but would they have anything to lose? Would the Wikimedia Tech community lose anything or be harmed in any way for the approval of a Code of Conduct? Is there anything harmful or counterproductive (or politically tendentious, as it has been suggested) in the three sections that are being proposed right now?
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Draft (intro paragraph / section 0 only)
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Draft#Pr...
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Draft#Un...
Looking at these part of the current draft, it is hard for me to see how this could not be beneficial, or at the very least how it could be counterproductive, something we should avoid.
I cannot find any possible lost by applying those principles neither.
Vito
2015-09-06 14:49 GMT+02:00 Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org:
As I tried to explain at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-August/082778.html, there is a potential correlation between being opposed to a Code of Conduct and having a community profile needing less such Code of Conduct. This doesn't mean that our community doesn't need a Code of Conduct, though. We want to be an open and diverse community, with profiles definitely more diverse than the ones of the people active in this discussion.
For the sake of the argument, let's say that those community members opposing completely to a Code of Conduct for Wikimedia tech wouldn't gain anything in case it is approved. Fine, but would they have anything to lose? Would the Wikimedia Tech community lose anything or be harmed in any way for the approval of a Code of Conduct? Is there anything harmful or counterproductive (or politically tendentious, as it has been suggested) in the three sections that are being proposed right now?
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Draft (intro paragraph / section 0 only)
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Draft#Pr...
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Draft#Un...
Looking at these part of the current draft, it is hard for me to see how this could not be beneficial, or at the very least how it could be counterproductive, something we should avoid. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 09/05/2015 05:32 PM, rupert THURNER wrote:
lol, consensus among whom, to what?
"There is consensus at" - Consensus among people discussing at that talk page.
"that the best way to finalize the CoC draft is to focus on a few sections at once" - Consensus about that.
Matt Flaschen
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org