Re: Binutils Code of Conduct

[Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>]

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