Re: Binutils Code of Conduct

[Alexandre Oliva <oliva@gnu.org>]

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