* Binutils Code of Conduct @ 2023-09-26 16:02 Nick Clifton 2023-09-28 19:27 ` Alexandre Oliva ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Nick Clifton @ 2023-09-26 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: binutils; +Cc: ganandan, markobri Hi Guys, We are going to have a Code of Conduct for the GNU Binutils. Rather than reinvent the wheel however, I have decided to take GCC's code of conduct and tweak it for us. The revised text is attached below. If you have any strong objections to this please let me know as soon as possible, as I plan to put the text up on the binutils web page and wiki by the end of the week. If you are interested in volunteering to be on the Code Of Conduct committee, please let me know directly, or email binutils-conduct@sourceware.org. In the meantime my boss Mark O'Brian has volunteered to be on the committee so we will be starting off with at least one person. Cheers Nick ------------------------------------------------------------------------- GNU Binutils Code of Conduct Like the free software community as a whole, the GNU Binutils community is made up of a mixture of professionals and volunteers from all over the world, working on every aspect of the project - including mentorship, teaching, and connecting people. Diversity is a huge strength, but it can also lead to communication issues and unhappiness. To that end, we have a few ground rules that we ask people to adhere to. This code applies equally to leaders, maintainers, and those seeking help and guidance. This isn't an exhaustive list of things that you can or can't do. Rather, take it in the spirit in which it's intended - a guide to make it easier to enrich all of us, the project, and the broader communities in which we participate. This code of conduct applies to all spaces managed by the GNU Binutils project. This includes the mailing lists, the issue tracker, events, and any other forums created by the project team which the community uses for communication. In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces (though still in the context of the GNU Binutils) may affect a person's ability to participate within them. The rules are: * Be friendly and patient. * Be welcoming. We strive to be a community that welcomes and supports people of all backgrounds and identities. This includes, but is not limited to, members of any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, color, immigration status, social and economic class, educational level, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size, family status, political belief, religion, and mental or physical ability. * Be considerate. Your work will be used by other people, and you in turn will depend on the work of others. Any decision you take will affect users and colleagues, and you should take those consequences into account when making decisions. Remember that we're a world-wide community, so you might not be communicating in someone else's primary language. * Be respectful. Not all of us will agree all the time, but disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour and poor manners. We might all experience some frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to turn into a personal attack. It's important to remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. Members of the community should be respectful when dealing with other members as well as with people outside the community. * Be kind to others and be careful in the words that you choose. Do not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and other exclusionary behaviour aren't acceptable. This includes, but is not limited to: - Violent threats or language directed against another person. - Discriminatory jokes and language. - Posting sexually explicit or violent material. - Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally identifying information ("doxing"). - Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms. - Unwelcome sexual attention. - Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behaviour. - Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you to stop, then stop. When we disagree, try to understand why. Disagreements, both social and technical, happen all the time and the GNU Binutils community is no exception. It is important that we resolve disagreements and differing views constructively. One of the strengths of the free software movement is its varied community, with people from a wide range of backgrounds. Different people have different perspectives on issues. Being unable to understand why someone holds a viewpoint doesn't mean that they're wrong. Don't forget that it is human to err and blaming each other doesn't get us anywhere. Instead, focus on helping to resolve issues and learning from mistakes. See the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines for more guidance on constructive interactions: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html If you believe someone is violating the code of conduct, we ask that you report it by emailing binutils-conduct@sourceware.org For more details please see our Reporting Guidelines. Code of Conduct Committee The Code of Conduct Committee, and the formal reporting and response procedures, are not yet fully established. For the time being, emailing binutils-conduct@sourceware.org will go to some of the GNU Binutils maintainers. If you are interested in serving on the CoC committee, or would like to suggest someone who you think would be a good candidate, please email binutils-conduct@sourceware.org . Questions? If you have questions, please see the FAQ. If that doesn't answer your questions, feel free to contact us. Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Text derived from the Django project Code of Conduct, used under the Creative Commons Attribution license and the GCC Code of Conduct, also under the same license. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils Code of Conduct 2023-09-26 16:02 Binutils Code of Conduct Nick Clifton @ 2023-09-28 19:27 ` Alexandre Oliva 2023-09-28 20:42 ` Carlos O'Donell ` (2 more replies) 2023-09-28 20:27 ` Carlos O'Donell 2023-09-29 12:52 ` Gomathi Anandan 2 siblings, 3 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2023-09-28 19:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Clifton via Binutils; +Cc: Nick Clifton, ganandan, markobri On Sep 26, 2023, Nick Clifton via Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org> wrote: > We are going to have a Code of Conduct for the GNU Binutils. This sounds like the decision has already been made. Is that so? Did I miss any discussion with volunteer port maintainers like myself, and other community members? > If you have any strong objections to this please let me know as soon > as possible, as I plan to put the text up on the binutils web page and > wiki by the end of the week. I'm not sure my objections are strong enough, but I do have objections. Having recently recognized myself as neurodivergent, I've realized how often I've been misunderstood and discriminated for thinking and expressing myself differently from most. For holding and expressing unconventional ideas in ways that don't adhere to common expectations, I've been severely mistreated. I've also watched others be misunderstood and brutally mistreated for similar reasons, even by people who participate in this community. For this reason, and for having seen how often this sort of initiative phrased as inclusive gets abused for exclusion, how the power associated with positions with authority for enforcement and exclusion tends to attract people with authoritarian leanings, and how often enforcement of rules takes over and pushes justice and inclusion to a back seat, this sort of initiative makes me very concerned and anxious. I feel vulnerable and unsafe, fearful of being misinterpreted, judged, condemned and excluded for thoughts attributed to me that oppose what I stand for. Again. Now, don't get me wrong. I appreciate and stand behind the goal of inclusion, and even the proposed wording, but Code of Conduct is unfriendly, unwelcoming and traumatic to me. And the proposal is so full of contradictions that I must doubt the meaning I get from it. I mean, neurotypicals seem to often read or hear A and infer and understand that the other party meant B. When I write or say A, I don't mean B, and I can't imagine why someone would assume I meant B, that's entirely different. But they do, and then they insist that I must have meant B, and that I'm being dishonest for even trying to deny it. So I've learned that such traps exist, that even when I speak languages I'm fluent in there are other, erhm, undocumented translation tables that I'm not aware of, and I fear that they will be used against me, and that are also being used in the rules I'm expected to abide by. So I can't really tell what the actual rules are, and CoCs with enforcement cabals lead to trigger-happy inimical escalation instead of trying to sort things out cooperatively. In my experience, none of this is conducive of good community. And don't get me started on the acronym for Code of Conduct! In French, it stands for rooster; in Portuguese, that's a bun, a way to arrange one's hair that may resemble a cockscomb, but the first meaning for that English word seems to be obscene, vulgar slang for something that some people love, some love to wield, but if forced into an unwilling party, amounts to rape. Well, I'm the unwilling party, I feel subjugated, and this feels very unpleasant. Even showing one's CoC in public, or in private to others who haven't asked, is usually understood to be inappropriate. But would this paragraph, that for most people presumably comes across as "don't think of an elephant" WRT sexual imagery, violate the CoC if it were in effect? I mean, even saying "Introducing a CoC" could arguably break the rule already. Would it? Would the acronym, all by itself? I see a lot of potential for abuse there. Not as in rape, I mean abuse as in word twisting to, erhm, mess with others' lives. Other terms I considered, instead of "mess", were "screw" and "fsck", but I figured they might also suggest something sexual, and thus not offer the intended disambiguation. That uncertainty and room for persecution worries me a lot. Seriously. Such things have happened before, to me and to people close to me. Here are some other points of concern: > This isn't an exhaustive list of things that you can or can't do. > Rather, take it in the spirit in which it's intended Red flags here. The first part legitimizes making up rules on the spot. The second seems to involve the very kind of undocumented translation tables that the part of the population I'm in has trouble with. So, instead of being inclusive, it becomes exclusive, and it induces anxiety and a feeling of unsafety and vulnerability that is not good for community. I also acknowledge that this is very hard to fix. Which is why I prefer guidelines over rules. They're a lot gentler, they are conducive of trying to cooperate to sort things out instead of, erhm, CoCing weapons and expelling accidental offenders over misunderstandings and common disfavorable interpretations. > * Be friendly and patient. And yet the CoC comes across as threatening of exclusion for violation of made-up-on-the-spot and not-quite-spelled-out rules, and encouraging people to report others, without as much as trying to confirm intent or working things out first. That's neither friendly nor patient... > * Be welcoming. ... nor welcoming, for that matter. > We strive to be a community that welcomes and supports people of all > backgrounds and identities. Except people like me, is what I read. > This includes, but is not limited to, > members of any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, color, > immigration status, social and economic class, educational level, > sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size, > family status, political belief, religion, and mental or physical > ability. I miss "philosophical beliefs" here, and I wonder whether there are reasons to not spell it out. I can think of some, just as I can think of some contradictions between tolerating various (intolerant) political/religious beliefs and other of the explicitly listed characteristics, which, by itself, leads to anxiety, unsafety, and a feeling that compliance is impossible (damned if you do, damned if you don't), and that even understanding the intended rules already goes far beyond my mental ability. It's not a good or welcoming feeling. And yes, I acknowledge my tendency to engage in overthinking and overworrying, to interpret things in unusual ways and ponder about boundary conditions. It's not like I choose to be this way, like I can opt out or turn it off. Neglecting that this is how at least one member of the community is would signal disregard for others' needs. That's the opposite of being inclusive, accessible and welcoming. > * Be considerate. Yes, please! > Your work will be used by other people, and you in turn will depend > on the work of others. Any decision you take will affect users and > colleagues, and you should take those consequences into account when > making decisions. Given the way my mind works and the above, I start worrying whether the way I breathe or sit or express myself may be annoying, disturbing or distracting (i.e. affecting) colleagues. That demands of me far more than what I would find reasonable, acceptable or able to deliver. It feels too demanding! Compounded with my inability to predict how others react (see undocumented translation table, and also <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_empathy_problem>), this makes me extremely anxious about not being able to take the consequences of my actions into account. A friend of mine came up with an image that is pertinent, and I found it so fitting that I've extended it a little further: sometimes people have an invisible extra foot, and if I accidentally step on it, they don't only feel hurt, which would be understandable if surprising; they actually feel angry that I couldn't tell or guess that they had an extra foot, that I couldn't tell or guess where it was, and they conclude that if I stepped on it, it's because I must have intended to hurt them. And then I spend a lot of time worrying about whether I'm unintentionally stepping on others' invisible feet, and how I could possibly help it if they won't tell me about it and demand me to guess! I often worry so much about others that it took me a long time to realize that I could also politely ask others to not step on this invisible foot of my own, which they do when such unbounded and unachievable requirements are posed on me. > Remember that we're a world-wide community, so you > might not be communicating in someone else's primary language. Plus, undocumented translation tables, that affect even primary languages. > * Be respectful. Unless it's to others' fear of abuse of authority, difficulty of dealing with unstated rules, of guessing implied meanings that others somehow find obvious and natural, is how I read this. > Not all of us will agree all the time, but disagreement is no excuse > for poor behaviour and poor manners. Here I find myself wondering whether 'poor behavior and poor manners' refer to lacking the mental ability to predict what others will consider poor behavior and poor manners, or lacking the consideration for the lack of such ability. I mean, is this a threat for me, or is it protecting me from others who would threaten me for my disability? > We might all experience some frustration now and then, but we > cannot allow that frustration to turn into a personal attack. /me nods > It's important to remember that a community where people feel > uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. Yes! > Members of the community should be respectful when dealing with > other members as well as with people outside the community. Even towards people who have been misunderstood, misrepresented, and framed as displaying 'poor behavior and poor manners'? Or will it remain acceptable to treat them like scum? > * Be kind to others and be careful in the words that you choose. Yes! But see undocumented translation tables, and inability to predict how others are going to use them. > Do not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and other > exclusionary behaviour aren't acceptable. Whether real or imaginary? > This includes, but is not limited to: Red flags again, on "not limited to" > - Violent threats or language directed against another person. Unless it's the thread of exclusion built into the CoC itself? Are any other acceptable exclusions implied? > - Discriminatory jokes and language. Self deprecation? Speaking of disabilities of a group I'm part of? That appears to be ruled out, and I find that excessive. > - Posting sexually explicit or violent material. The threat of ostracism due to an alleged violation of a "CoC" seems violent, but posting such a CoC seems acceptable and even desirable to others. What other kinds of violence are implicitly acceptable? I can't tell. > - Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally > identifying information ("doxing"). > - Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms. > - Unwelcome sexual attention. These seem perfectly reasonable, but also prone to abuse, and contradictory with other terms. A name or even a pronoun can be framed as personally identifying information, and if posting that is construed as a problem... In political action, posting public figures' email addresses and phone numbers, and in some cases even other addresses are fair game. I've seen genuinely non-insulting expressions be misunderstood and framed as insulting, and I have myself used and been reprimanded for terms that have been mistaken as insulting for meanings I wasn't even aware of. I've seen people condemned for behaviors that weren't sexual at all, but that were framed as such, and I've seen people be accused and harshly judged over false allegations of unwelcome sexual attention. It's been used to destroy target's lives, and harassers and manipulators know it works to that end. How are we going to protect ourselves from that sort of manipulation, without further harming actual victims? > - Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behaviour. Oops, have I just broken the rules for daring to ponder and to point out IMHO necessary exceptions to the stated rules? Would I have if they were already in effect? Would proposing and arguing for exceptions to the rules, once the rules are in effect, be regarded as violation of the rules in effect? > - Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you > to stop, then stop. Please stop proposing such threatening and excluding rules as CoCs, would you? Requiring CoCs is the very opposite of being inclusive and welcoming to all. > When we disagree, try to understand why. Yes, please! > Disagreements, both social > and technical, happen all the time and the GNU Binutils community is > no exception. It is important that we resolve disagreements and > differing views constructively. Yes, please! > One of the strengths of the free software movement is its varied > community, with people from a wide range of backgrounds. > Different people have different perspectives on issues. Indeed! > Being unable to understand why someone holds a viewpoint > doesn't mean that they're wrong. Seconded! > Don't forget that it is human to err and blaming each other > doesn't get us anywhere. Instead, focus on helping to resolve > issues and learning from mistakes. I like that! > See the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines for more guidance on > constructive interactions: > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html I find "Kind Communication Guidelines" a *lot* less threatening and more welcoming than a CoC. How about naming it "GNU Binutils Kind Communication Guidelines" or "GNU Binutils Inclusion and Diversity Guidelines" instead? > If you believe someone is violating the code of conduct, we ask that you > report it by emailing binutils-conduct@sourceware.org For more details > please see our Reporting Guidelines. I find this wording, and the committee's email address, very unfortunate and threatening. I find them conducive of trigger-happy persecution rather than of tolerance, inclusion, diversity and cooperatively, kindly and respectfully working differences out. I'd prefer to replace the above and the remainder of the proposal with the following: If you believe someone is failing to abide by the guidelines, please raise your concern privately with the perceived violator, and try to work things out kindly and respectfully. We have an inclusion and diversity support committee that can offer advice and help mediate such conversations, and it may, as a last resort, bring such concerns to the community's attention, and take other actions in accordance with community procedures. See (Supporting Inclusion and Diversity)[<link>] for more information on the committee and on community procedures. ---- Inclusion and Diversity Support Committee The committee can be reached at binutils-indsc@, but it is not fully formed yet, nor are the community procedures. For the time being, it reaches the GNU Binutils maintainers. If you are interested in serving on the committee, and would like to work on a proposal of community procedures to maintain these guidelines and the procedures, to be submitted to the community at a later date, please send us email. If you have questions, please the the FAQ part of the web page, and if that doesn't answer your questions, feel free to contact us. > Creative Commons License > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike > 4.0 International License. > Text derived from the Django project Code of Conduct, used under the > Creative Commons Attribution license and the GCC Code of Conduct, also > under the same license. Thanks for bearing with me and my oddities, -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils Code of Conduct 2023-09-28 19:27 ` Alexandre Oliva @ 2023-09-28 20:42 ` Carlos O'Donell 2023-09-28 23:12 ` Alexandre Oliva 2023-09-28 23:35 ` Mark Wielaard 2023-09-29 13:39 ` Nick Clifton 2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Carlos O'Donell @ 2023-09-28 20:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexandre Oliva, Nick Clifton via Binutils Cc: Nick Clifton, ganandan, markobri On 9/28/23 15:27, Alexandre Oliva via Binutils wrote: > On Sep 26, 2023, Nick Clifton via Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org> wrote: > >> We are going to have a Code of Conduct for the GNU Binutils. > > This sounds like the decision has already been made. Is that so? Did I > miss any discussion with volunteer port maintainers like myself, and > other community members? I support Nick's decision, and I think it's the right decision to make for the project. -- Cheers, Carlos. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils Code of Conduct 2023-09-28 20:42 ` Carlos O'Donell @ 2023-09-28 23:12 ` Alexandre Oliva 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2023-09-28 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Carlos O'Donell Cc: Nick Clifton via Binutils, Nick Clifton, ganandan, markobri On Sep 28, 2023, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote: > On 9/28/23 15:27, Alexandre Oliva via Binutils wrote: >> On Sep 26, 2023, Nick Clifton via Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org> wrote: >> >>> We are going to have a Code of Conduct for the GNU Binutils. >> >> This sounds like the decision has already been made. Is that so? Did I >> miss any discussion with volunteer port maintainers like myself, and >> other community members? > I support Nick's decision, and I think it's the right decision to make for the project. It looks like your response was a reaction to my alternate proposal of community governance. Would you be considerate enough to summarize the relevant differences you perceive between the proposals, and justify your preference for one over the other? Otherwise it might seem like you didn't even look. -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Think Assange & Stallman. The empires strike back ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils Code of Conduct 2023-09-28 19:27 ` Alexandre Oliva 2023-09-28 20:42 ` Carlos O'Donell @ 2023-09-28 23:35 ` Mark Wielaard 2023-09-29 13:39 ` Nick Clifton 2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Mark Wielaard @ 2023-09-28 23:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Nick Clifton via Binutils, Nick Clifton, ganandan, markobri On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 04:27:22PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva via Binutils wrote: > On Sep 26, 2023, Nick Clifton via Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org> wrote: > > > We are going to have a Code of Conduct for the GNU Binutils. > > This sounds like the decision has already been made. Is that so? Did I > miss any discussion with volunteer port maintainers like myself, and > other community members? There was a short discussion at the Cauldron during the binutils BoF. And I think various community members have been hoping for some sort of Code of Conduct for some time (I have). > > If you believe someone is violating the code of conduct, we ask that you > > report it by emailing binutils-conduct@sourceware.org For more details > > please see our Reporting Guidelines. > > I find this wording, and the committee's email address, very unfortunate > and threatening. Sorry for the email address being unfortunate and threatening. That was my suggestion. I am not a native English speaker and might have a positive connotation with the word conduct which isn't share by others. The thing that is missing here is the actual Reporting Guidelines and the Response Guidelines. Which as far as I understand are still a work in progress. But since this Code of Conduct is derived from the GCC one these are probably reasonable guides: https://gcc.gnu.org/conduct-report.html https://gcc.gnu.org/conduct-response.html Note that the resolutions include offering to mediation. And that there should be transparancy reports. Hope that helps give a bit more context and what the spirit of a code of conduct is. Some more background can be found at https://www.contributor-covenant.org/ which is a slightly different code of conduct than Nick is proposing, but similar in spirit. They have a very nice FAQ https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq/ Cheers, Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils Code of Conduct 2023-09-28 19:27 ` Alexandre Oliva 2023-09-28 20:42 ` Carlos O'Donell 2023-09-28 23:35 ` Mark Wielaard @ 2023-09-29 13:39 ` Nick Clifton 2023-09-29 15:03 ` Matt Rice 2023-09-29 17:30 ` Alexandre Oliva 2 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Nick Clifton @ 2023-09-29 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexandre Oliva, Nick Clifton via Binutils; +Cc: ganandan, markobri Hi Alex, >> We are going to have a Code of Conduct for the GNU Binutils. > > This sounds like the decision has already been made. Is that so? Basically yes. But, I am willing to listen to you and to try to find a solution that is acceptable to both of us. > Did I > miss any discussion with volunteer port maintainers like myself, and > other community members? Yes. I actually raised this topic at the binutils BoF at the GNU Tools Cauldron in 2022, and then later on I added a line to the Binutils Wiki indicating that it was coming. I raised it again at this year's Cauldron and there was a general consensus that the idea was sound. Hence I decided to go ahead and post a draft to the mailing list. The "put the text up on the wiki at the end of the week" was a bit hasty, but I thought that it might prompt people to actually respond to the email, rather than just sit back and ignore it. Since however you do obviously have issues with the text, I will not put it up straight away. Instead I will talk to you about it. >> If you have any strong objections to this please let me know as soon > I'm not sure my objections are strong enough, but I do have objections. I understand. But how do I judge "strong enough" and if I do decide to go ahead with the plans, how do I say to you "I read and tried to understand your objections, but I still think that the proposed plans are the right course of action", without making you feel that you are being sidelined and/or ignored ? So far you are the only person who has raised objections to this idea, whereas I have had quite a few people tell me that they like the idea and want to see it implemented. On the whole therefore I think that some form of Code Of Conduct (or policy with some other name) is going to happen. What we need to sort out is exactly what is in that policy. > For this reason, and for having seen how often this sort of initiative > phrased as inclusive gets abused for exclusion, how the power associated > with positions with authority for enforcement and exclusion tends to > attract people with authoritarian leanings, and how often enforcement of > rules takes over and pushes justice and inclusion to a back seat, this > sort of initiative makes me very concerned and anxious. OK, so you saying that if we have a code of conduct and if there is a committee that has the power to issue punishments in some form or other, then you would be concerned that a) the people on the committee would abuse their power and b) you could become at target of this committee because of your neurodivergence. Is that right ? > Now, don't get me wrong. I appreciate and stand behind the goal of > inclusion, and even the proposed wording, but Code of Conduct is > unfriendly, unwelcoming and traumatic to me. I guess at this point I should ask - what would be a friendly, welcoming and non-traumatic way to promote inclusion and, if necessary, resolve conflicts ? > And the proposal is so > full of contradictions that I must doubt the meaning I get from it. Well I do not think that it is, but I guess that this is what most of the rest of this post will be about. > I mean, neurotypicals seem to often read or hear A and infer and > understand that the other party meant B. When I write or say A, I don't > mean B, and I can't imagine why someone would assume I meant B, that's > entirely different. But they do, and then they insist that I must have > meant B, and that I'm being dishonest for even trying to deny it. Please let me interrupt you here. If people are accusing you of lying or being dishonest then that is, at the very least, harassment. And it is the sort of thing that this code of conduct is meant to prevent (by telling people that such behaviour is not welcome) or respond to (when it does happen). I get from what you have said above that at one of your concerns is that if you did file a complaint saying "I meant A, but others are saying that I meant B and when I explain they attack me" that the committee, being populated by people who also think "hear A, mean B", that you will then be vilified or ignored. Is that right ? Or maybe I am being one of these A vs B people and I just have not understood what you said ? > So > I've learned that such traps exist, that even when I speak languages I'm > fluent in there are other, erhm, undocumented translation tables that > I'm not aware of, and I fear that they will be used against me, and that > are also being used in the rules I'm expected to abide by. So I can't > really tell what the actual rules are, and CoCs with enforcement cabals > lead to trigger-happy inimical escalation instead of trying to sort > things out cooperatively. In my experience, none of this is conducive > of good community. Hmm, well I may have to defer to your experience here, since I have never been in the firing line of a trigger happy cabal. I would like to think that we would never have such a thing with the binutils, should it adopt a code of conduct. I guess this leads to the same question as above. If a conduct committee is a bad thing and will lead to abuse of power, then what is the alternative ? > And don't get me started on the acronym for Code of Conduct! Yes well, that is just something that I choose to ignore. There are lots of acronyms out there that can be associated with less than ideal images, but refusing to use them just because of a lingual association seems unproductive to me. >> This isn't an exhaustive list of things that you can or can't do. >> Rather, take it in the spirit in which it's intended > > Red flags here. The first part legitimizes making up rules on the spot. (I may be doing a "hear A think B" thing here) ... I would argue that it does legitimize making up rules, but not on the spot. Rather it acknowledges the fact that the rules are not static but that they can be changed. Perhaps what the paragraph ought to include is an indication of rules can be altered/removed/added-to ? > The second seems to involve the very kind of undocumented translation > tables that the part of the population I'm in has trouble with. So > instead of being inclusive, it becomes exclusive, and it induces anxiety > and a feeling of unsafety and vulnerability that is not good for > community. So you are saying that the second line makes you think that there is another, maybe hidden meaning to the sentence - presumably because it does not spell out what the intended spirit actually is - and hence this upsets you ? Did I get that right ? How about a rephrasing then ? Something like (adopting your suggestion of calling these guidelines rather than rules): These guidelines are not set in stone. They can be changed, removed and added to. Any such changes will be made in consultation with the GNU Binutils community. > I also acknowledge that this is very hard to fix. Which is why I prefer > guidelines over rules. They're a lot gentler, they are conducive of > trying to cooperate to sort things out instead of, erhm, CoCing weapons > and expelling accidental offenders over misunderstandings and common > disfavorable interpretations. I still think that there needs to be some method for people who feel that they are being mistreated to raise their concerns, and some way to respond to people who are abusing others. If we do not have "CoC weapons" then what do we do ? I would also argue that these "CoC weapons" do come in a range of severity. The committee would not always have to go with the nuclear option as a first response... >> * Be friendly and patient. > > And yet the CoC comes across as threatening of exclusion for violation > of made-up-on-the-spot and not-quite-spelled-out rules, and encouraging > people to report others, without as much as trying to confirm intent or > working things out first. That's neither friendly nor patient... But the point is that I am trying to be friendly and patient. I am trying to understand your concerns and think of ways to address them. This first draft of the CoC has upset you. OK, lets work together and see if we can make something better. >> * Be welcoming. > > ... nor welcoming, for that matter. I think that you may be in a minority here. I have been told, repeatedly, that having a code of conduct would actually make the binutils project more <appealing to new contributors. That having a CoC would actually be a welcome feature, not a divisive one. I understand that you do not feel that way, but I would ask that, in this case, please try to consider the proposed code as an attempt to reach out to a wider audience and not an attack directed at yourself. >> We strive to be a community that welcomes and supports people of all >> backgrounds and identities. > > Except people like me, is what I read. Please don't read that. Please read it as: "we strive to be a community that welcomes and supports people of all backgrounds and identities, including people like you". >> This includes, but is not limited to, >> members of any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, color, >> immigration status, social and economic class, educational level, >> sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size, >> family status, political belief, religion, and mental or physical >> ability. > > I miss "philosophical beliefs" here, and I wonder whether there are > reasons to not spell it out. I doubt it, and I see no reason why it cannot be added. The whole of posting this text to the list was exactly so that issues like this could be discussed. >> Your work will be used by other people, and you in turn will depend >> on the work of others. Any decision you take will affect users and >> colleagues, and you should take those consequences into account when >> making decisions. > > Given the way my mind works and the above, I start worrying whether the > way I breathe or sit or express myself may be annoying, disturbing or > distracting (i.e. affecting) colleagues. That demands of me far more > than what I would find reasonable, acceptable or able to deliver. It > feels too demanding! Compounded with my inability to predict how others > react (see undocumented translation table, and also > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_empathy_problem>), this makes me > extremely anxious about not being able to take the consequences of my > actions into account. I hope that you do not mind me saying that that sounds like a bit of an overreaction. But nevertheless I can see that the wording might be a bit too general. How about something like this instead: ... Any binutils related decision you take will affect users .... >> Remember that we're a world-wide community, so you >> might not be communicating in someone else's primary language. > > Plus, undocumented translation tables, that affect even primary > languages. Is that something you actually want to put into the wording of the code of conduct ? My understanding from what you have said is that these undocumented translation tables are a personal construct that you use to help you understand why other people do not behave in the way that you predict they should. >> * Be respectful. > > Unless it's to others' fear of abuse of authority, difficulty of dealing > with unstated rules, of guessing implied meanings that others somehow > find obvious and natural, is how I read this. Please do not read it that way. Please read it as "be respectful". Just that. No exclusions, no caveats. >> Not all of us will agree all the time, but disagreement is no excuse >> for poor behaviour and poor manners. > > Here I find myself wondering whether 'poor behavior and poor manners' > refer to lacking the mental ability to predict what others will consider > poor behavior and poor manners, or lacking the consideration for the > lack of such ability. I mean, is this a threat for me, or is it > protecting me from others who would threaten me for my disability? Actually I would say it is both. It is a threat to you in the sense that it is saying that no matter what your disagreement might be, that does not give you license to abuse or threaten others. (Please note - I am *not* saying that you are doing this. You most definitely are not). But I am saying that the guideline above is trying to make it clear that just because you might disagree about something, that does not excuse behaving badly. Which is why this is also a sentence intended to protect you from others. People who disagree with you do not have the license to abuse or threaten you either. It is a two way street. >> Members of the community should be respectful when dealing with >> other members as well as with people outside the community. > > Even towards people who have been misunderstood, misrepresented, and > framed as displaying 'poor behavior and poor manners'? Yes, respect should be displayed universally. > Or will it remain acceptable to treat them like scum? That is a pretty provocative sentence. Have you been treated like scum ? If so, would having had a code of conduct stating that such treatment is not welcome have been welcome to you. ? You could have tried to file a complaint, and maybe something would have been done about it. Or not. But at least you could have tried. >> Do not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and other >> exclusionary behaviour aren't acceptable. > > Whether real or imaginary? I am not quite sure what you mean be imaginary here. We are not forming the thought police, so anything you or anybody else thinks inside their own heads remains outside the scope of this code. > >> This includes, but is not limited to: > > Red flags again, on "not limited to" Do you have a suggested alternative wording ? >> - Violent threats or language directed against another person. > > Unless it's the thread of exclusion built into the CoC itself? Are any > other acceptable exclusions implied? No. First of the threat of exclusion is not a threat of violence. Secondly there are no implied exceptions to this rule of any kind. >> - Discriminatory jokes and language. > > Self deprecation? Speaking of disabilities of a group I'm part of? > That appears to be ruled out, and I find that excessive. It is a grey area. You may feel that a comment you make about a group of which you are a member is funny, but another member of that same group may not see it that way. But since these are guidelines and not rules you can decide for yourself whether what you say is suitable or not. Just be prepared for the possibility that someone might not appreciate what you say. >> - Posting sexually explicit or violent material. > > The threat of ostracism due to an alleged violation of a "CoC" seems > violent, but posting such a CoC seems acceptable and even desirable to > others. What other kinds of violence are implicitly acceptable? I > can't tell. This may be one of these undocumented translation table things here, but I do not see how you get from ostracism to violence. My suggestion would be to consider the (only used as a last resort) threat of exclusion as not being a threat of violence, and that there are *no* acceptable forms of violence at all. >> - Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally >> identifying information ("doxing"). >> - Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms. >> - Unwelcome sexual attention. > > These seem perfectly reasonable, but also prone to abuse, and > contradictory with other terms. > > A name or even a pronoun can be framed as personally identifying > information, and if posting that is construed as a problem... In > political action, posting public figures' email addresses and phone > numbers, and in some cases even other addresses are fair game. > > I've seen genuinely non-insulting expressions be misunderstood and > framed as insulting, and I have myself used and been reprimanded for > terms that have been mistaken as insulting for meanings I wasn't even > aware of. > > I've seen people condemned for behaviors that weren't sexual at all, but > that were framed as such, and I've seen people be accused and harshly > judged over false allegations of unwelcome sexual attention. It's been > used to destroy target's lives, and harassers and manipulators know it > works to that end. How are we going to protect ourselves from that sort > of manipulation, without further harming actual victims? OK, so this goes back to the code of conduct committee, and whether you can trust them. In theory, one of the roles of the committee is to prevent the kind of abuses that you describe above. They are meant to be able to determine when a guideline is being broken and when it is not. They are also meant to be able to judge the seriousness of an issue, and to determine if the parties involved actually understood what was happening. >> - Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behaviour. > > Oops, have I just broken the rules for daring to ponder and to point out > IMHO necessary exceptions to the stated rules? No - you are not advocating or encouraging. You are querying. > Would I have if they > were already in effect? Would proposing and arguing for exceptions to > the rules, once the rules are in effect, be regarded as violation of the > rules in effect? No it would not. >> - Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you >> to stop, then stop. > > Please stop proposing such threatening and excluding rules as CoCs, > would you? You realise that this is the first time that an actual CoC for the binutils has been proposed, right ? > Requiring CoCs is the very opposite of being inclusive and > welcoming to all. We may have to agree to disagree on this one. I think that having a CoC would make the project more welcoming and help to improve inclusivity. You do not. >> See the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines for more guidance on >> constructive interactions: >> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html > > I find "Kind Communication Guidelines" a *lot* less threatening and more > welcoming than a CoC. > > How about naming it "GNU Binutils Kind Communication Guidelines" or "GNU > Binutils Inclusion and Diversity Guidelines" instead? Hmmm, I am open to a name change. In fact I quite like the Kind Communications guidelines idea. I think that "inclusion and diversity guidelines" would not work, since the idea is cover more than just inclusion and diversity, but also cover harassment, abuse, and other undesirable behaviours. >> If you believe someone is violating the code of conduct, we ask that you >> report it by emailing binutils-conduct@sourceware.org For more details >> please see our Reporting Guidelines. > > I find this wording, and the committee's email address, very unfortunate > and threatening. I find them conducive of trigger-happy persecution > rather than of tolerance, inclusion, diversity and cooperatively, kindly > and respectfully working differences out. I'd prefer to replace the > above and the remainder of the proposal with the following: > > If you believe someone is failing to abide by the guidelines, please > raise your concern privately with the perceived violator, and try to > work things out kindly and respectfully. We have an inclusion and > diversity support committee that can offer advice and help mediate > such conversations, and it may, as a last resort, bring such concerns > to the community's attention, and take other actions in accordance > with community procedures. See (Supporting Inclusion and > Diversity)[<link>] for more information on the committee and on > community procedures. I could work with that. I think that a slightly shorter version might be better. How do you feel about this wording: If you believe someone is failing to abide by the guidelines, please raise your concern privately with the perceived violator, and try to work things out kindly and respectfully. We have a support committee that can offer advice and help mediate such conversations, and it may, as a last resort, bring such concerns to the community's attention, and or take other actions in accordance with community procedures. See (the Binutils Conduct Committee)[<link>] for more information on the committee and on community procedures. Cheers Nick ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils Code of Conduct 2023-09-29 13:39 ` Nick Clifton @ 2023-09-29 15:03 ` Matt Rice 2023-09-29 17:30 ` Alexandre Oliva 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Matt Rice @ 2023-09-29 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Clifton Cc: Alexandre Oliva, Nick Clifton via Binutils, ganandan, markobri On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 1:40 PM Nick Clifton via Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org> wrote: > >> This isn't an exhaustive list of things that you can or can't do. > >> Rather, take it in the spirit in which it's intended > > > > Red flags here. The first part legitimizes making up rules on the spot. > > (I may be doing a "hear A think B" thing here) ... I would argue that > it does legitimize making up rules, but not on the spot. Rather it > acknowledges the fact that the rules are not static but that they can > be changed. Perhaps what the paragraph ought to include is an indication > of rules can be altered/removed/added-to ? I read this as Alexandre did, however my reaction was positive. That the spirit of the guidelines is to foster a civil environment for everyone, and that actions detrimental to that goal not stated in the guidelines may have consequences as determined by a reasonable interpretation of the actions by the committee. Or simply stated that actions which go against the spirit of the guidelines will not be tolerated. I felt like it was flexible while clearly stating intent, so I'm actually quite surprised by Nick's interpretation quoted above. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils Code of Conduct 2023-09-29 13:39 ` Nick Clifton 2023-09-29 15:03 ` Matt Rice @ 2023-09-29 17:30 ` Alexandre Oliva 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2023-09-29 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Clifton; +Cc: Nick Clifton via Binutils, ganandan, markobri Hello, Nick, On Sep 29, 2023, Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Alex, >>> We are going to have a Code of Conduct for the GNU Binutils. >> This sounds like the decision has already been made. Is that so? > Basically yes. But, I am willing to listen to you and to try to find > a solution that is acceptable to both of us. Thank you very much, that sounds very encouraging, welcoming and reassuring. > The "put the text up on the wiki at the end of the week" was a bit hasty, *nod*; I guess that's understandable, given the earlier steps and reactions. I appreciate your taking the time to understand, validate and address my concerns. > So far you are the only person who has raised objections to this idea, FWIW, I don't really object to the idea, as in, I do like the idea of having community guidelines and policies, and I do acknowledge the need for the community to be able to defend itself from harassers. My objections are more focused on terminology, framing, tactics to achieve the desired goals and to avoid common pitfalls. > OK, so you saying that if we have a code of conduct and if there is a committee > that has the power to issue punishments in some form or other, then you would > be concerned that a) the people on the committee would abuse their power and > b) you could become at target of this committee because of your neurodivergence. > Is that right ? It's not incorrect, but I wouldn't put it that way, mainly because it appears to cast doubt and distrust on the committee, and that's not at all my intent. Let me try to spell things out more briefly than yesterday: Code of Conduct is, to me, a term that evokes imagery of hard rules being used by authoritarian groups to impose uniformity and conformity rather to promote tolerance, diversity and inclusion. The framing of 'code of conduct' as rules rather than guidelines, to me, promotes an oppressive and abusive rather than friendly and protective law enforcement, because I'm in a minority group that is often threatened and treated unfairly, not only by the population at large, but by enforcement agents specifically; because I've watched others be targeted by weaponized community rules, and been targeted myself, and those rules have invariably come from pushers of "codes of conduct". It doesn't take a lot of effort to add 2+2. Write rules as if your worst enemy were in power trying to use them against you is a common legislative recommendation that I endorse. Guidelines, OTOH, come across as gentler to me. Rather than absolute rules that some people tend to take as godspell and rush to enforce, they're compasses that point to the surroundings where we collectively wish to be, while giving room for people to come in, make mistakes, be gently nudged, learn, and improve. They're welcoming rather than punitive. But I acknowledge that for harassers rather than honest mistakes, we need enforcement. But instead of outsourcing enforcement, I'd rather make it a collective responsibility. Instead of empowering a committee to be prosecutor, judge and executioner, I'd rather have it as mediator and prosecutor, with e.g. a community juri selected at random for each case. Power tends to corrupt and to attract abusers and authoritarians. That's not a judgment of value on anyone who wishes to volunteer their efforts to promote inclusion, diversity and a safe environment. It's rather an observation from politics at large, that bring requirements such as dispersing power and minimizing necessary trust to the design of such protocols. E.g., we strive to make election protocols transparent and verifiable not out of distrust for election officials and technology, but out of the realization that such positions of power would likely attract attention of corruptors. It's better when we don't need to place much trust on them, and the protocols just don't make room for them to do much damage, and even if they do, it can be noticed and addressed, so that it discourages corruption and doesn't create positions of power that are magnets for abusers. Thus, a committee focused on supporting inclusion and diversity, to attract people with the various kinds of knowledge that are valuable to these ends, to mediate, investigate, explain, negotiate, and, if that fails to solve the problem, prosecute, but keeping the power and decision to enforce dispersed with the community. And, to spare us from the mess that community-wide trials could become, a lottery to appoint a likely unbiased and community-representative juri is something that comes to mind. Ugh, that wasn't so brief, after all, was it? > I guess at this point I should ask - what would be a friendly, welcoming > and non-traumatic way to promote inclusion and, if necessary, resolve > conflicts ? Answered above, I hope > I get from what you have said above that at one of your concerns is that > if you did file a complaint saying "I meant A, but others are saying that I > meant B and when I explain they attack me" that the committee, being > populated by people who also think "hear A, mean B", that you will then be > vilified or ignored. Is that right ? That is a concern, yeah, and having seen that happen to others, and having had that happen to myself makes it a very real concern for me. However, the gentler framing I propose doesn't and can't address that problem. Awareness and respect might, but I've seen how word-twisting and weaponization of rules can dehumanize targets and justify atrocities. But when a majority of a population sets out in a witch hunt, the only hope seems to be for a contra-majoritary force that enjoys enough trust from the community, enough understanding of fundamental rights and justice processes, and enough understanding and care for inclusion and diversity to try to hear all sides, take the time to investigate and negotiate, and (because justice is not well served hot) cool things down and inform a representative juri of the relevant points and what's at stake. The lottery juri avoids bias and keeps the decision representative of the community values, rather than of self-selected witch hunters' values. Keeping the appointed juri undisclosed for the duration of the procedures is probably a good idea to avoid undue pressure, but it may also make it more difficult to make the process verifiable. Disclosing the list after the fact may work, but I'm not sure that's desirable either, because of the risk of retaliation from people unhappy with the outcome. There are conflicting requirements that resemble the challenge of secrecy and verifiability in elections, and there may be protocols I'm not aware of to address them. Something to be looked into... > Or maybe I am being one of these A vs B people and I just have not understood > what you said ? It didn't look like it, but yeah, restating what we're getting from the other party is a valuable way to avoid miscommunication. >> So >> I've learned that such traps exist, that even when I speak languages I'm >> fluent in there are other, erhm, undocumented translation tables that >> I'm not aware of, and I fear that they will be used against me, and that >> are also being used in the rules I'm expected to abide by. So I can't >> really tell what the actual rules are, and CoCs with enforcement cabals >> lead to trigger-happy inimical escalation instead of trying to sort >> things out cooperatively. In my experience, none of this is conducive >> of good community. > Hmm, well I may have to defer to your experience here, since I have never > been in the firing line of a trigger happy cabal. Oh, I haven't either. There's a bit of miscommunication here. The "trigger happy" parties I've come across were regular community members, that were all too happy to jump the gun and report imagined offenses to enforcement committees, without checking for miscommunication or trying to work things out. > These guidelines are not set in stone. They can be changed, removed > and added to. Any such changes will be made in consultation with the > GNU Binutils community. Yeah, you seem to have understood my concerns, and this addresses them in this passage. > I still think that there needs to be some method for people who feel that > they are being mistreated to raise their concerns, and some way to respond > to people who are abusing others. Yes, for sure. > But the point is that I am trying to be friendly and patient. You are indeed :-) Thank you! I wish that sort of embracing response was a lot more common, and I hope that, with understanding and tolerance, we can get to that some day. >>> * Be welcoming. >> ... nor welcoming, for that matter. > I think that you may be in a minority here. Yes, exactly. Including minorities rather than running over them is a large part of what got me interested in inclusion and diversity. > please try to consider the proposed code as an attempt to reach out to > a wider audience and not an attack directed at yourself. Having observed the attitude and the behaviors of groups who have historically pushed for such rules, and how often they end up abused, is the reason why I find them repellant and dangerous. But the reason they get so much adoption is that they appeal to positive values, which is a common deception trick. My response is to take the positive values and push them forward, while avoiding making room for the dirty agendas that motivate a (hopefully small) part of the pushers. Surely those with dirty authoritarian agendas will object, but those interested in being welcoming and inclusive and tolerant should have no reason to object to making things actually better. That's how we can tell them apart. >> I miss "philosophical beliefs" here, and I wonder whether there are >> reasons to not spell it out. > I doubt it, and I see no reason why it cannot be added. I suppose you just haven't overthought it enough ;-) Good for you :-) Consider the philosophical belief that nonfree software is acceptable. GNU doesn't agree with that, but it doesn't reject community members who do. But there are various odious political, religious and philosophical beliefs, particularly ones that target other characteristics we explicitly tolerate, that we might not wish to validate or tolerate, even if we welcome participation and contributions from, and strive to include and tolerate *people* who espouse them. Even as being radically inclusive, I've found that a very tricky line to draw at times, and many people mistake tolerance for endorsement or defense. > I hope that you do not mind me saying that that sounds like a bit of an > overreaction. No doubt. It's because I can't help it, even realizing that it's uncalled for and even harmful, that it's a disability, which brings accessibility needs along with it, whether or not communities and society at large recognize and tend to them. >>> Remember that we're a world-wide community, so you >>> might not be communicating in someone else's primary language. >> Plus, undocumented translation tables, that affect even primary >> languages. > Is that something you actually want to put into the wording of the code > of conduct ? Nah, it's just a way I found of explaining to computing professionals some of my struggles to communicate and to be included. > Please read it as "be respectful". Just that. No exclusions, no > caveats. That does sound good, and you are giving a great example of how it can be done. > (Please note - I am *not* > saying that you are doing this. You most definitely are not). ACK, thanks for thinking of the explicit clarification, even though I had not taken it that way. > Yes, respect should be displayed universally. Even towards people who the community feels entitled to hate? Even towards people who dare defend them? Even towards haters who feel entitled to and justified in expressing their hatred, and in encouraging others to do so? I can support and endorse that, but I see how that can be very challenging to comply with at times. I strive to do it, but I don't expect anyone to succeed at all times. And that's one of the reasons why I prefer guidelines over rules. Does the distinction make sense to you? >> Or will it remain acceptable to treat them like scum? > That is a pretty provocative sentence. Have you been treated like scum ? Not in binutils specifically, no, but elsewhere I have. > If so, would having had a code of conduct stating that such treatment is > not welcome have been welcome to you. ? It would have been welcome, but I don't think it would have been useful; it might have actually made things worse, given how my behavior was framed. >>> Do not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and other >>> exclusionary behaviour aren't acceptable. >> Whether real or imaginary? > I am not quite sure what you mean be imaginary here. I see from your response I was very unclear, sorry. I meant imaginary as in when someone reads A and understands B and considers B a form of harassment, discrimination, exclusion, or other hateful misbehaviors not present in A. >>> This includes, but is not limited to: >> Red flags again, on "not limited to" > Do you have a suggested alternative wording ? No, it's probably not even possible when speaking of rules that should not be broken, as opposed to guidelines that we strive to abide by. > No. First of the threat of exclusion is not a threat of violence. We are social animals. Ostracism is extreme violence, for the same reason that extended solitary confinement is torture. Ostracism may be justified for a community to protect itself, but the rationale makes it no less violent. >>> - Discriminatory jokes and language. >> Self deprecation? Speaking of disabilities of a group I'm part of? >> That appears to be ruled out, and I find that excessive. > It is a grey area. IMHO that's one more reason for s/rules/guidelines/g. > But since these are guidelines and not rules you can decide for > yourself whether what you say is suitable or not. Just be prepared > for the possibility that someone might not appreciate what you say. That's an attitude I like and support! Then we listen, learn, and do better next time. > In theory, one of the roles of the committee is to prevent the kind of > abuses that you describe above. They are meant to be able to > determine when a guideline is being broken and when it is not. They > are also meant to be able to judge the seriousness of an issue, and to > determine if the parties involved actually understood what was > happening. *nod*, and IMHO they can do a better job at it if they do not ever attract certain kinds of authoritarian vigilantes that try to impose their standards of conformance (vs freedom) and uniformity (vs diversity). So I recommend it to focus on tolerance, understanding, advising, negotiating compliance, and, as a last resort, prosecuting for enforcement, but *not* judging. >>> - Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you >>> to stop, then stop. >> Please stop proposing such threatening and excluding rules as >> CoCs, >> would you? > You realise that this is the first time that an actual CoC for the binutils > has been proposed, right ? *nod*. How many (perceived) offenses and threats of violence are required before one can legitimately ask for them to stop? >> Requiring CoCs is the very opposite of being inclusive and >> welcoming to all. > We may have to agree to disagree on this one. I think that having a CoC > would make the project more welcoming and help to improve inclusivity. Having policies, guidelines, procedures can make it welcoming and inclusive. Having rules that must not be broken and centralized enforcement powers tends to attract abusers who weaponize the rules, expel dissenters and turn into toxic and uniform environments. The latter has been spelled CoC, and has often been abused. The former is the way I hope us to do it. > I think that "inclusion and diversity guidelines" would not > work, since the idea is cover more than just inclusion and diversity, but also > cover harassment, abuse, and other undesirable behaviours. I perceive the avoidance of those undesirable behaviors as part of the support for inclusion and diversity, but I'm fine with kind communication guidelines. > If you believe someone is failing to abide by the guidelines, please > raise your concern privately with the perceived violator, and try to > work things out kindly and respectfully. We have a support committee > that can offer advice and help mediate such conversations, and it may, > as a last resort, bring such concerns to the community's attention, and > or take other actions in accordance with community procedures. See > (the Binutils Conduct Committee)[<link>] for more information on the > committee and on community procedures. "Conduct Committee" still irks me, and brings to mind imagery of concentration camps, of forced behaviors, uniforms, intolerance and extermination of differences. I'm sure that's not the way you mean it, but it is what gets to me and AFAICT to other victims of unjust enforcement. How about Binutils KIND Committee? (KIND stands for Kindness, Inclusion aNd Diversity? :-) Jonathan Wakely also mentioned last night that recommending victims to sort things out with perceived attackers is not cool, and I agree. What I had in mind when I wrote my proposal was third-party community members noticing problems and reaching out to the perceived violator, but there will be times when only victims notice or even know about mistreatment, and victims should be encouraged to seek support from the committee. Thanks for listening, -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Think Assange & Stallman. The empires strike back ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils Code of Conduct 2023-09-26 16:02 Binutils Code of Conduct Nick Clifton 2023-09-28 19:27 ` Alexandre Oliva @ 2023-09-28 20:27 ` Carlos O'Donell 2023-10-03 9:54 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists) 2023-09-29 12:52 ` Gomathi Anandan 2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Carlos O'Donell @ 2023-09-28 20:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Clifton, binutils; +Cc: ganandan, markobri On 9/26/23 12:02, Nick Clifton via Binutils wrote: > We are going to have a Code of Conduct for the GNU Binutils. > > Rather than reinvent the wheel however, I have decided to take GCC's > code of conduct and tweak it for us. The revised text is attached > below. > > If you have any strong objections to this please let me know as soon > as possible, as I plan to put the text up on the binutils web page and > wiki by the end of the week. > > If you are interested in volunteering to be on the Code Of Conduct > committee, please let me know directly, or email > binutils-conduct@sourceware.org. In the meantime my boss Mark O'Brian > has volunteered to be on the committee so we will be starting off with > at least one person. Thanks for working on this Nick. I've been thinking of exactly the same thing for glibc: https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/conduct Should this go on the binutils wiki? I'd be happy to volunteer to be on the CoCC for binutils. If we adopt something like this for all of the GNU Toolchain projects we can probably work together to process and respond to CoCC issues across the communities. There is quite a bit we can learn from downstream distributions too like Gentoo, Debian, Fedora etc. -- Cheers, Carlos. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils Code of Conduct 2023-09-28 20:27 ` Carlos O'Donell @ 2023-10-03 9:54 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists) 2023-10-03 10:36 ` Nick Clifton 2023-10-03 17:52 ` Tom Tromey 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Richard Earnshaw (lists) @ 2023-10-03 9:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Carlos O'Donell, Nick Clifton, binutils; +Cc: ganandan, markobri On 28/09/2023 21:27, Carlos O'Donell via Binutils wrote: > On 9/26/23 12:02, Nick Clifton via Binutils wrote: >> We are going to have a Code of Conduct for the GNU Binutils. >> >> Rather than reinvent the wheel however, I have decided to take GCC's >> code of conduct and tweak it for us. The revised text is attached >> below. >> >> If you have any strong objections to this please let me know as soon >> as possible, as I plan to put the text up on the binutils web page and >> wiki by the end of the week. >> >> If you are interested in volunteering to be on the Code Of Conduct >> committee, please let me know directly, or email >> binutils-conduct@sourceware.org. In the meantime my boss Mark O'Brian >> has volunteered to be on the committee so we will be starting off with >> at least one person. > > Thanks for working on this Nick. > > I've been thinking of exactly the same thing for glibc: > https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/conduct > > Should this go on the binutils wiki? > > I'd be happy to volunteer to be on the CoCC for binutils. > > If we adopt something like this for all of the GNU Toolchain projects we can probably > work together to process and respond to CoCC issues across the communities. > > There is quite a bit we can learn from downstream distributions too like Gentoo, > Debian, Fedora etc. > I realize that we have separate projects, each with slightly different governance structures, but I'd really like to see *one* CoC that covers all of the GNU toolchain components - gcc, glibc, binutils and gdb - rather than one for each which is nearly, but not quite the same. Yes, each component can have a different committee, as needed (and that might lead to slightly different interpretations), but having identical policies would help foster better understanding and compliance IMO. R. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils Code of Conduct 2023-10-03 9:54 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists) @ 2023-10-03 10:36 ` Nick Clifton 2023-10-03 17:52 ` Tom Tromey 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Nick Clifton @ 2023-10-03 10:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Earnshaw (lists), Carlos O'Donell, binutils Cc: ganandan, markobri Hi Guys, On 10/3/23 10:54, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > I realize that we have separate projects, each with slightly different governance structures, but I'd really like to see *one* CoC that covers all of the GNU toolchain components - gcc, glibc, binutils and gdb - rather than one for each which is nearly, but not quite the same. Yes, each component can have a different committee, as needed (and that might lead to slightly different interpretations), but having identical policies would help foster better understanding and compliance IMO. I would like that too. I suspect that it will take some organizing, maybe with the help of the next Cauldron meeting, but it should be do-able. With that in mind, I have tried to make the proposed binutils Code of Conduct be a clone of the GCC one, just with a few name changes here and there. That way we can set up the binutils code now, and if we do want a unified code later on, the harmonization effort should be relatively easy. Cheers Nick ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils Code of Conduct 2023-10-03 9:54 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists) 2023-10-03 10:36 ` Nick Clifton @ 2023-10-03 17:52 ` Tom Tromey 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Tom Tromey @ 2023-10-03 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Earnshaw (lists) via Binutils Cc: Carlos O'Donell, Nick Clifton, Richard Earnshaw (lists), ganandan, markobri >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Earnshaw (lists) via Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org> writes: Richard> I realize that we have separate projects, each with slightly different Richard> governance structures, but I'd really like to see *one* CoC that Richard> covers all of the GNU toolchain components - gcc, glibc, binutils and Richard> gdb - rather than one for each which is nearly, but not quite the Richard> same. Yes, each component can have a different committee, as needed Richard> (and that might lead to slightly different interpretations), but Richard> having identical policies would help foster better understanding and Richard> compliance IMO. I'd support this as well. thanks, Tom ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: Binutils Code of Conduct 2023-09-26 16:02 Binutils Code of Conduct Nick Clifton 2023-09-28 19:27 ` Alexandre Oliva 2023-09-28 20:27 ` Carlos O'Donell @ 2023-09-29 12:52 ` Gomathi Anandan 2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Gomathi Anandan @ 2023-09-29 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Clifton; +Cc: binutils, markobri [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6653 bytes --] Nick, Thank you for working on this. It IS a great first step in making the binutils community more inclusive. Gomathi On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:03 PM Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Guys, > > We are going to have a Code of Conduct for the GNU Binutils. > > Rather than reinvent the wheel however, I have decided to take GCC's > code of conduct and tweak it for us. The revised text is attached > below. > > If you have any strong objections to this please let me know as soon > as possible, as I plan to put the text up on the binutils web page and > wiki by the end of the week. > > If you are interested in volunteering to be on the Code Of Conduct > committee, please let me know directly, or email > binutils-conduct@sourceware.org. In the meantime my boss Mark O'Brian > has volunteered to be on the committee so we will be starting off with > at least one person. > > Cheers > Nick > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > GNU Binutils Code of Conduct > > Like the free software community as a whole, the GNU Binutils community > is made up of a mixture of professionals and volunteers from all over > the world, working on every aspect of the project - including > mentorship, teaching, and connecting people. > > Diversity is a huge strength, but it can also lead to communication > issues and unhappiness. To that end, we have a few ground rules that we > ask people to adhere to. This code applies equally to leaders, > maintainers, and those seeking help and guidance. > > This isn't an exhaustive list of things that you can or can't do. > Rather, take it in the spirit in which it's intended - a guide to make > it easier to enrich all of us, the project, and the broader communities > in which we participate. > > This code of conduct applies to all spaces managed by the GNU Binutils > project. This includes the mailing lists, the issue tracker, events, > and any other forums created by the project team which the community > uses for communication. In addition, violations of this code outside > these spaces (though still in the context of the GNU Binutils) may > affect a person's ability to participate within them. > > The rules are: > > * Be friendly and patient. > > * Be welcoming. > > We strive to be a community that welcomes and supports people of all > backgrounds and identities. This includes, but is not limited to, > members of any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, color, > immigration status, social and economic class, educational level, > sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size, > family status, political belief, religion, and mental or physical > ability. > > * Be considerate. > > Your work will be used by other people, and you in turn will depend > on the work of others. Any decision you take will affect users and > colleagues, and you should take those consequences into account when > making decisions. Remember that we're a world-wide community, so you > might not be communicating in someone else's primary language. > > * Be respectful. > > Not all of us will agree all the time, but disagreement is no excuse > for poor behaviour and poor manners. We might all experience some > frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to turn > into a personal attack. It's important to remember that a community > where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive > one. Members of the community should be respectful when dealing with > other members as well as with people outside the community. > > * Be kind to others and be careful in the words that you choose. > > Do not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and other > exclusionary behaviour aren't acceptable. This includes, but is not > limited to: > > - Violent threats or language directed against another person. > - Discriminatory jokes and language. > - Posting sexually explicit or violent material. > - Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally > identifying information ("doxing"). > - Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms. > - Unwelcome sexual attention. > - Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behaviour. > - Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you > to stop, then stop. > > When we disagree, try to understand why. Disagreements, both social > and technical, happen all the time and the GNU Binutils community is > no exception. It is important that we resolve disagreements and > differing views constructively. One of the strengths of the free > software movement is its varied community, with people from a wide > range of backgrounds. Different people have different perspectives > on issues. Being unable to understand why someone holds a viewpoint > doesn't mean that they're wrong. Don't forget that it is human to > err and blaming each other doesn't get us anywhere. Instead, focus > on helping to resolve issues and learning from mistakes. > > See the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines for more guidance on > constructive interactions: > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.en.html > > > If you believe someone is violating the code of conduct, we ask that you > report it by emailing binutils-conduct@sourceware.org For more details > please see our Reporting Guidelines. > > Code of Conduct Committee > > The Code of Conduct Committee, and the formal reporting and response > procedures, are not yet fully established. For the time being, > emailing binutils-conduct@sourceware.org will go to some of the GNU > Binutils maintainers. If you are interested in serving on the CoC > committee, or would like to suggest someone who you think would be a > good candidate, please email binutils-conduct@sourceware.org . > > Questions? > > If you have questions, please see the FAQ. If that doesn't answer your > questions, feel free to contact us. > > Creative Commons License > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike > 4.0 International License. > > Text derived from the Django project Code of Conduct, used under the > Creative Commons Attribution license and the GCC Code of Conduct, also > under the same license. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-10-03 17:52 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2023-09-26 16:02 Binutils Code of Conduct Nick Clifton 2023-09-28 19:27 ` Alexandre Oliva 2023-09-28 20:42 ` Carlos O'Donell 2023-09-28 23:12 ` Alexandre Oliva 2023-09-28 23:35 ` Mark Wielaard 2023-09-29 13:39 ` Nick Clifton 2023-09-29 15:03 ` Matt Rice 2023-09-29 17:30 ` Alexandre Oliva 2023-09-28 20:27 ` Carlos O'Donell 2023-10-03 9:54 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists) 2023-10-03 10:36 ` Nick Clifton 2023-10-03 17:52 ` Tom Tromey 2023-09-29 12:52 ` Gomathi Anandan
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).