Binutils Code of Conduct

Binutils Code of Conduct

[Nick Clifton]

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.

Re: Binutils Code of Conduct

[Alexandre Oliva]

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

Re: Binutils Code of Conduct

[Carlos O'Donell]

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.

Re: Binutils Code of Conduct

[Carlos O'Donell]

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.

Re: Binutils Code of Conduct

[Alexandre Oliva]

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

Re: Binutils Code of Conduct

[Mark Wielaard]

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

Re: Binutils Code of Conduct

[Gomathi Anandan]

[-- 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.
>
>

Re: Binutils Code of Conduct

[Nick Clifton]

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

Re: Binutils Code of Conduct

[Matt Rice]

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.

Re: Binutils Code of Conduct

[Alexandre Oliva]

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

Re: Binutils Code of Conduct

[Richard Earnshaw (lists)]

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.

Re: Binutils Code of Conduct

[Nick Clifton]

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

Re: Binutils Code of Conduct

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "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