Issue #12004 has been updated by Responsible Pythonista.


The need for a Code of Conduct is subjective, what we need is keep communities open to new ideas, after all they are Free Open Source project communities that thrive on intellectual currency. This why I oppose the usage of the Contributor Covenant, as a whole or in part.

As mentioned by Richard [https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004#note-196] it is important to look at the motivations behind the push for adoption of the Covenant and as another poster showed, proponents of the Covenant HAVE engaged in behaviour that contradicts it, yet no punitive action have occured for these wrong doings. The ambigious and selective nature at which the Covenant can even detect wrong doing is cause for concern. Relevant link:https://archive.is/q25KG

Coraline's insistence that in the case a CoC is adopted, the Contributor Covenant is credits, is a conflict of interest and revelas an ulterior motive. It seems to be more about gaining a foot note to brag about adoption number to further push the Covenant into other projects as it the case in this very issue: "At last count there are over 13,000 projects on Github that have adopted it." *Implement it because all these have done*, one of the many logical fallacies being used to push for adoption in this thread.

Other cases against CoC adoption are the case of the Django Software Foundation conference and mailing list CoCs.

After implementation of the private mailing list CoC activity has trickled down to the point where the past december board election saw record low participation causing a preocupation for vote diversity.  These preocupations were voiced by the new chair and echoed by the rest of the board.  Most members in the list are scared now to post anything.  This is a case where adoption of a CoC cause a reduction in diversity and particiaption.

Further beyond the board, as a consequence of low participation the Board, Code of Conduct Committe, Grant Committe, Fellowship Committe are composed of the same leardership, very few new name. A monoculture is being created as a secondary effect.
The other case is the complaint filed against a members of the DSF by a transgendered programmer. The CoC committe representative acknowledges that there is a "conflict of interest" in the complaint and warns that it will be a delicate matter. It seems position does matter when the time for applicatbility comes in the CoC cases. In these cases those in favor of CoCs or in positions of power seem to be shielded from the requirements of the code.

Further evidence in the decline of the operations of the DSF can be seem in the low number of Corporate members this year, where many companies have not renewed their membership causing a severe cut of the fountations' revenue. The grant from the Mozilla foundation has a backstory known to just a few.

There is also a legal matter of the DSF using foundation money for pursuit of matter of political nature in violating it's bylaws and contrary to it's mission statement. This matter is being discussed in private for fear of retribution, and shows how CoCs are not above the law.

I can post censored screenshots (and archived links where there is no identifiable information) of these cases if assurance that evidence against CoC's will not be further deleted.

Disclaimer: I am a Django core developer, DSF member, PyLadies co-founder, PSF member and DjangoGirls US chapter board member.

----------------------------------------
Misc #12004: Code of Conduct
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004#change-56417

* Author: Coraline Ada Ehmke
* Status: Assigned
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: Yukihiro Matsumoto
----------------------------------------
I am the creator of the Contributor Covenant, a code of conduct for Open Source projects. At last count there are over 13,000 projects on Github that have adopted it. This past year saw adoption of Contributor Covenant by a lot of very large, very visible projects, including Rails, Github's Atom text editor, Angular JS, bundler, curl, diaspora, discourse, Eclipse, rspec, shoes, and rvm. The bundler team made code of conduct integration an option in the gem creation workflow, putting it on par with license selection. Many open source language communities have already adopted the code of conduct, including Elixir, Mono, the .NET foundation, F#, and Apple's Swift. RubyTogether also adopted a policy to only fund Ruby projects that had a solid code of conduct in place.

Right now in the PHP community there is a healthy debate about adopting the Contributor Covenant. Since it came from and has been so widely adopted by the Ruby community at large, I think it's time that we consider adopting it for the core Ruby language as well.

Our community prides itself on niceness. What a code of conduct does is define what we mean by nice. It states clearly that we value openness, courtesy, and compassion. That we care about and want contributions from people who may be different from us. That we pledge to respect all contributors regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or other factors. And it makes it clear that we are prepared to follow through on these values with action when and if an incident arises.

I'm asking that we join with the larger Ruby community in supporting the adoption of the Contributor Covenant for the Ruby language. I think that this will be an important step forward and will ensure the continued welcoming and supportive environment around Ruby. You can read the full text of the Contributor Covenant at http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/3/0/ and learn more at http://contributor-covenant.org/. 

Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.




-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>