And we already see the budding sentiments to that exact tune: (quote from Edward Welbourne) >That sometimes folk have felt so intimidated that they give up on trying > to make a contribution; and that, were potential worse conduct to cause > distress to a contributor, we have no process in place that could give > them confidence that their distress will be respected and honest efforts vwill be made to relieve it. Various variations and permutations on > these themes may also be relevant; see Simon's mail.
Note: I understand that he means well, but Within the context of Contributor Covenant the punishability of the potential harm of people not contributing can escalate to stupid proportions. I have nothing against KDE's code. It strives to add positivity. I am very much against Qt's CoC being drafted from Covenant. Covenant is focused on oppression and excluding ppl. On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:06 PM Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote: > I don't really care that their role, though that move takes gravitas. > > I will never endorse a measure that encourages (and the CC does > encourage) a witchhunt on the members of the community. It encourages by > creating a metric of "maximum comfort" (or "least harmful") and that > anything else is somehow a violation. She did it herself with these > words[2]: "Is this what the other maintainers want to be reflected in the > project? Will any transgender developers feel comfortable contributing?" > With those words she created a metric of "maximum comfort". So now the > question moves from not just having not offended someone, but to be > maximally comforting to every possible person. Not that there's anything > wrong with *wanting* to be maximally comfortable for everyone. It's a great > goal. But now every interaction is to be judged by this metric, and > anything less than the maximal comfort is somehow potentially alienating to > a population and can be construed to be a cause for removal. > > In the CC itself it encourages a witchhunt with these words: > "Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, > or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other > contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban > temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they > deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful." > > That last word, "harmful" significantly alters the statement. Don't let > your eyes glaze over. Now anything that happens is potentially harmful. > (Ironically C++, or its constructs is even "considered harmful". Just > google "C++ considered harmful", lol). I probably would have let this whole > issue slide but that last word _really_ changes the character of the > covenant. I beleive that is *the* word that allows the witchhunting. It's > not just direct harm but potential harm. From [2]: "As a queer person > this sort of argument from a maintainer makes me feel unwelcome. The > ignorance which @elia <https://github.com/elia> shows by claiming that > transfolk are "not accepting reality" is actively harmful. I will not > contribute to this project or any other project which @elia > <https://github.com/elia> maintains." - strand > > Not that strand was participating, but states that there will be no future > contribution by strand. This is an appeal to percieved harm - that now > strand will not ever contribute, the project is potentially harmed by > missing out on a contributor. So now this issue can fall under the > Covenant. > > > How can we avoid witchhunts? > > *Sent:* Friday, October 26, 2018 at 1:24 PM > *From:* "NIkolai Marchenko" <enmarantis...@gmail.com> > *To:* jh...@gmx.com > *Cc:* "Christian Kandeler" <christian.kande...@qt.io>, "Qt development > mailing list" <development@qt-project.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct > Just to clarify: she sought to remove _maintainer_ of the project :) At > that point the guy was doing most of the work. > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:48 PM Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote: > >> My fundamental problem about the Contributor Covenant[1] was initially >> and solely the fallout from the Linux Kernel fiasco. But then I learned >> that it was drafted by Coraline Ada Ehmke, who sought to have a contributor >> removed [2] from a project preemptively. The contributor did nothing wrong >> with respect to the project or the project's community. She constructed a >> claim of "transphobia" based on a tweet the contributor wrote in no way >> relating to the project at hand, and slandered the project for not >> expunging them. My mind is made up: the Contributor Covenant is a tool of >> oppression. >> >> The specific sentence in the Covenant is: >> "This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public >> spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community." >> >> However, despite being the author of the Covenant (2014), she found it >> appropriate to attack someone who was clearly not operating in a project >> space or representing the project community (2015). We now have two >> examples - the linux Kernel and Opal project, that after CC was enacted >> that calls for removal of members based on past unrelated tweets went out. >> One of the problems its politics and political climates change over time. >> Expressing what is not political at one point in time may become political >> in subsequent years. People's minds also change over time. >> >> I urge you to read link[3] below and see if we want that kind of >> attention. It summarizes what happens when the CC has been adopted by other >> projects. >> >> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_Covenant >> [2] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 >> [3] https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/974038-why-the-linux-coc-is-bad/ >> >> > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 at 3:50 AM >> > From: "Christian Kandeler" <christian.kande...@qt.io> >> > To: "development@qt-project.org" <development@qt-project.org> >> > Subject: Re: [Development] QUIP 12: Code of Conduct >> > >> > On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 19:39:45 +0200 >> > André Pönitz <apoen...@t-online.de> wrote: >> > >> > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 09:51:00AM +0200, Volker Krause via >> Development wrote: >> > > > We do have a Code of Conduct at KDE for about 10 years now, and >> this hasn't >> > > > led to abuse of power, suppression of free speech, racism against >> white people >> > > > or whatever other nonsense people seem to attribute to CoCs >> nowadays. >> > > >> > > The KDE CoC is *friendly*. It contains words like "considerate", >> "pragmatic", >> > > "support". It doesn't push someone's personal political agenda. >> > >> > I agree. It reads as if it was written with the intention of creating a >> constructive environment, lacks the inquisition-y vibe and is free of >> jargon and weirdly over-specific lists. >> > >> > >> > Christian >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Development mailing list >> > Development@qt-project.org >> > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Development mailing list >> Development@qt-project.org >> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > >
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
