Mike Solomon <m...@meeshkan.com> writes: > Mike Solomon <m...@meeshkan.com> writes: > >> The preamble and intent is one thing; adding a corrective committee >> with the authority to enact punishments based on anonymous reports >> is another. It implements hierarchies and institutions exerting >> coercive power based on incomplete and secret information. That is >> inherently an entity offering an opportunity for "pulling strings". >> I am not really a fan of constructs with a life and dynamics of >> their own. > > It's a big responsibility. I think the way to do it is talk to > successful committees (ie the Facebook Open Source CoC Committee) and > learn how they've dealt with challenging situations. > > One example: in communities that are more gender balanced, I've heard > of situations where a man starts writing inappropriate messages to a > woman and she reports the messages to the CoC committee. In this > case, I think secrecy, hierarchy and coercive decision making power is > important to preserve the dignity of all parties. It also encourages > people to come forward, which is much harder to do in the open.
Frankly, I have my doubts that "in case you encounter a problem with acceptance of your demographic, here is a committee of three white men you can complain to" will be the most successful pitch. > I don't know of many communities with good gender balance that don’t > have codes of conduct, probably for this reason. Programming communities tend to be very lopsided. That was different the other way round when programming was considered low-pay work serving mathematicians. It's also at least less extreme outside of Western cultures. Personally, I find that disgraceful as a statement about society, but the demographics in developer groups tend to reflect what society does. In the LilyPond user groups, one does see occasional women with questions (judging from the names) and I don't recollect any inappropriate or gender-isolating behavior in response. > Ultimately, I think the benefits of secrecy, hierarchy and possible > coercion in matters of conduct outweigh the negatives, I think it depends on the necessity. Do you have any examples of female contributors or users that have been treated on LilyPond mailing lists or other communication media in a manner where it would have been reasonable to assume that they would have wanted to be able to file a complaint? > although I agree with you that secrecy and hierarchy should be the > exception and not the rule. Most communication should be in the open > and hierarchy free. > > Thanks, > ~Mike -- David Kastrup
