Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o, gentoo-nfp <gentoo-nfp@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Proposal for Council: Prohibit Harassment & Discrimination via the CoC
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 11:31:06
Message-Id: CAGfcS_=J2Q+X0QxOkxh=isYX_bQy7xXHJ0ysipxXQr27dMTXtA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Proposal for Council: Prohibit Harassment & Discrimination via the CoC by Patrick Lauer
1 On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 5:30 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote:
2 > On Saturday 25 April 2015 05:09:35 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
3 > [snip]
4 >> 3.2. Add a new bullet point:
5 >> <b>Harassing & Discrimination</b>. Harassing & Discrimination
6 >> includes, but is not limited to offensive comments in relation to:
7 >
8 > This is needlessly fuzzy and will motivate the lawyer-type to find ways to
9 > either frustrate you by staying within the limits, or claim to be offended by
10 > your actions, thus applying this rule to you and forcing you to be removed.
11 >
12 > It's a bit like defining obscenity ("I'll know it when I see it") ...
13 >
14
15 Hence the language "includes, but is not limited to" - that is a
16 pretty standard approach.
17
18 >
19 > I'm confused how this is going to actually fix any issues that we can't
20 > already fix.
21
22 Well, we've had incidents that have gone to the Trustees where they
23 didn't feel there was a basis for intervention. This might give them
24 one since it concerned a matter on the list. However, if we want this
25 to be binding on the Foundation we should work with the Trustees to
26 figure out how to make it happen. The Council can't put this into the
27 bylaws/etc alone.
28
29 >
30 >> gender; gender identity and expression; age; sexual orientation;
31 >> disability; physical appearance; body size; race; religion;
32 >> citizenship; nationality and familial status. It also includes: sexual
33 >> language and images in public spaces;
34 > (... but at least this amuses me - can we please not get Puritan Body Fear
35 > into our CoC?)
36
37 Just what activity that we want to have under a Gentoo banner would
38 this prohibit?
39
40 I like Robin's general comment that members of the Gentoo community
41 should act like they're visible employees at work. It should be a
42 reasonably professional environment. Members of the community
43 shouldn't be afraid to mention Gentoo on their resume.
44
45 As a semi-professional environment the stuff in that list doesn't
46 really belong on our media. I don't think the wording as it stands
47 would justify a ban on sci-biology/anatomy-atlas either. If somebody
48 can think of a better way to word it so that Gentoo isn't banned at
49 medical conferences, feel free to propose it. (Hmm, does anybody
50 actually have boilerplate conduct language from a medical conference?)
51
52 >
53 >> deliberate intimidation;
54 > (Would we have to ban Linus Torvalds if he were with us?)
55
56 Probably. I don't think that it is a bad thing. However, I suspect
57 he tends to follow the rules wherever he happens to be. Right now
58 lkml doesn't have a policy like this, which is another matter of
59 controversy, but we don't have to decide what their rules will be,
60 just our own.
61
62 >
63 >> stalking; following; harassing photography or recording; sustained
64 >> disruption of threads, talks or other events;
65 >
66 >> inappropriate physical
67 >> contact; and unwelcome sexual attention.
68 > This is covered by existing laws already, so why explicitly mention that
69 > illegal things are illegal?
70
71 Jaywalking is illegal in many jurisdictions. Gentoo shouldn't care if
72 you've gotten a jaywalking citation. Gentoo should care if you harass
73 somebody at a conference, especially if wearing a Gentoo badge, or if
74 your behavior becomes associated with Gentoo publicly.
75
76 Laws vary. Gentoo is a global organization. It is pretty typical for
77 global organizations to set standards of behavior which transcend
78 national law. Sometimes this even means choosing not to do business
79 in places where the global policies would be illegal. Fortunately, I
80 don't think this is likely to affect an organization like Gentoo much
81 since we don't own much property, have employees, etc.
82
83 >
84 > So all in all, 9.5/10 for initiative, 3/10 for execution. This is imo not the
85 > right way to 'fix' problems and, like the Proctors, can blow up in ways we
86 > don't want/need.
87 >
88
89 I'm open to further suggestions for improvements, but I don't have a
90 problem with a policy like this in general.
91
92 For the record, I didn't have a problem with the proctors either, but
93 I was only party to public discussions at the time. I think something
94 like the Proctors would be useful. Right now our only solution is to
95 tolerate issues until they get completely out of control, and then
96 basically ban people completely from the distro. Oh, and we can talk
97 them (and ourselves) to death while it is happening. The proctors
98 might have been a bit like grade-school hall monitors, but they were
99 designed to handle members of the community who were behaving like
100 they were still in grade-school. A slap on the wrist for a minor
101 infraction has the potential to get people to change their behavior,
102 before you resort to serious sanctions. It also creates a series of
103 escalations which makes it easier for Comrel to do their jobs -
104 instead of somebody showing up "for the first time" they're showing up
105 with a long string of failed enforcement actions. That doesn't mean
106 that there isn't value in trying to work with people, and it certainly
107 should be a part of the process.
108
109 I know I've replied in threads when I've been bothered by something,
110 beyond the point where I was being constructive. When that happens,
111 please call me on it, preferably in private, but if I've blown it in
112 public I can't exactly point fingers at people who rebuke me in
113 public. I'm sure it will annoy me at first, and then hopefully I'll
114 take a break from the keyboard and thank you for it later. I want us
115 to be a community where we can work WITH each other and not some
116 draconian HR org afraid of getting sued. However, it doesn't change
117 the standards. We can work with people when they do things which are
118 wrong, but we still need to acknowledge that they are wrong.
119
120 I need to take another look at the CoC around enforcement/etc. I
121 don't want any of this language to imply some kind of "one strike and
122 you're out" commitment. Behaviors in the list are unacceptable, and
123 there is no question about that. I just don't think that making
124 people wear a scarlet letter is the right solution either. Judicial
125 systems don't treat every offence on that list with equal severity,
126 and we should have the leeway to do the same.
127
128 --
129 Rich

Replies