Issue #12004 has been updated by Robert Klemme.


Lisa Beld wrote:

> I would recommend the Contributor Covenant. People complaining that it includes harassment in public spaces are most likely just guilty of doing so.

Please do not jump to conclusions!  This is an assumption which is not warranted by evidence and which I strongly reject.  And btw., this kind of thinking is exactly what many arguing against a CoC seem coming - and leading to bad results.

> Just because the harassment occurs outside the scope of the project does not make it any more ok!

I do not think anybody has said that.  But I personally find it problematic at best that a project tries to police behavior outside its own scope.  There are various issues:

* For many areas there are rules already (for example laws).
* This can lead to a violation in one scope expunging someone from a lot of communities.
* Whoever will be responsible for monitoring CoC adherence or dealing with CoC violations now also needs to deal with potential issues in other areas; areas where they might not have good access to or no access at all.

> It's quite obvious from this thread alone how toxic this community is, I can't believe so many people are essentially saying they don't want to stop harassing people by coming up with silly excuses as if a CoC was somehow implementing communism.

I do not see any people saying they want to keep harassing other people.  The fact that someone rejects the idea of having a CoC does not imply that she is harassing or intends to do so.  And please do not argue that we need not fear anything if we do not harass anyway.  That would be the same pattern of argument that advocates of mass surveillance put forward - and it is as flawed there as it is here.

> The responsibility of enforcing the code of conduct should be handed to a committee comprised of people who have more experience with harassment which is often not recognised by people with more privilege. As well as that, what if Matz or one of the maintainers themselves were to violate the code of conduct? Nobody could stop them, therefore the CoC enforcement task should be carried out members of minority groups who will not violate the CoC. Nobody, not Matz or any maintainers should be exempt from consequences like demotion and banning. And as Matz has already stated, he will probably not have the time or willingness to deal with peoples reports of unacceptable behavior.

"minority groups who will not violate the CoC"?  There is no way I will start to believe that this makes them better people in general who are bulletproof against abusive behavior.  I am sorry, but assuming that people who have experienced harassment are not susceptible to harass or violate a CoC in other ways themselves is naive.

I can see that certain groups have more "experience with harassment" and that this makes them mores sensitive to the issue.  Should people from these groups be in such a committee?  Definitively!  Should this committee be comprised solely of members of these groups of society?  No way.  Even, if only to avoid too homogeneous views on a case.  Putting a homogeneous group in control removes one level of checks that usually helps in coming to better conclusions.

I do assume that you made your suggestions in the best of intentions, but it seems you did not look at all the consequences.

Kind regards

robert

----------------------------------------
Misc #12004: Code of Conduct
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004#change-56766

* 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.


---Files--------------------------------
Screen Shot 2016-01-22 at 6.45.23 PM.png (595 KB)
Ruby_Code_of_Conduct_Numbers.png (119 KB)
Ruby_Code_of_Conduct_Discussion.png (143 KB)


-- 
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>