On 06/02/20 14:40, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi James, > >> I am still struggling to understand the point of a COC for the LP project, >> other than some kind of ... what is the term ... virtue signalling or >> something that a project does *after* someone says something that happens to >> be offensive to someone else - which is just, life isn't it? >> Really. What is the point? > > Disclaimer: I’m on the fence about having a CoC. > > That being said, I think the point is this: if you *are* "being an arse to > someone", there is something concrete people can point to that says "you said > you wouldn’t be an arse". Does a "No Smoking" sign stop someone from smoking? > No. But it allows the police to write that person a ticket, and potentially > escalate if the person continues to contravene the "code". > Given that people have said elsewhere that things should be open and transparent, I would be inclined to say something about "off list" communication, which in normal circumstances should NOT happen. Between happy consenting adults, okay. Taking a flame-war off list? A very BIG NO-NO. Which gives other people plenty of opportunity to step in and say "cool it the pair of you!"
Incidentally, is there any way we can rate-limit the list? If you post more than four or five messages in a couple of minutes the list chucks you in the "sin bin" for 15 minutes? That'll choke off a lot of angry discussions without impeding thoughtful stuff, and if enforced mechanically it'll hopefully get all participants to sober up without feeling victimised. >> It doesn't 'enforce' anything nor is it legally binding or has any kind of >> (real) consequence other than giving certain types of people a justification >> to impose their own sensitivities (or lack thereof) over the 'rest'. > > civ·il so·ci·e·ty, n. > • society considered as a community of citizens linked by common > interests and collective activity. > >> All I can see that we've done here is waste (and I consider it a waste) time >> bikeshedding a document that just talks about 'how to be nice to people' and >> at the same time potentially worry one of our best developers because he >> might not happen to have all the social graces and just wants to 'get stuff >> done' but in doing so might offend someone with his terse emails. > > Actually, it seems like the discussion has caused that developer to rethink > the form, content, and frequency of his contributions to the list, with a > potential benefit of him being able to spend his considerable gifts and > precious time elsewhere (like actually coding). If nothing else, that made > the discussion worthwhile in my opinion. > The worry is that said developer may decide his talents are better spent elsewhere, and he'll quit ... > There are, of course, many other benefits I’ve already seen — if you’re > interested in talking about them, but feel it’s not worth discussing on-list, > I’m happy to discuss it with you off-list. =) > I hate to say this, but a quick skim of the emails says to me this is rapidly turning into a toxic tragedy of the commons. And no, the tragedy of the commons is NOT the villagers mis-managing their resources, as it is so often portrayed. The REAL tragedy is OUTSIDERS coming in, thinking things are being mis-managed, and imposing their own rules. And because they don't understand the complex dynamics at play, the whole thing collapses in a heap! By his own admission, it seems to me the main driver behind this CoC is no longer a regular member of the community. One of the main consequences of this looks like we could lose our lead developer. Do we REALLY want lilypond to go the way of Xorg, because it's looking like it might? Personally, I quite like the sound of the GNU "be nice to each other" guidelines. Couple this with a rule "Do NOT take discussions off the mailing list or you're on your own", and an "elder statesmen" council, this means that (a) there is a place to complain, and (b) all the evidence is in the open. There should be an EXPLICIT assumption that if you take an argument to private email then you're the one in the wrong. As for my take on the current situation, I got pushed out of a project I started a good few moons ago. I didn't like it, but my attitude was "he who does the work makes the rules" and this other guy was doing MUCH more than me. It's hard, but I think we have to back David and support him, like Kieren is trying to do. The more we can support the existing strong community members, and strengthen people on the edge and try and bring them in, the easier we'll be able to codify rules that are seen to be working rather then hoping to fix things by adding regulation. That's always a recipe for failure. And yes, I know I'm not a regular member of the community any more, which is why I'm not prescribing what "the community" (ie others) should do, although I'm happy to voice my opinions :-) I just don't want to see lilypond go the way of Xorg (or to a lesser extent gentoo). For those who don't know, gentoo is hopefully recovering but lost an awful lot of developers a while back because a couple of developers turned toxic and, in *private* conversations, drove a lot people on the edge away. They finally got thrown out, but it took the project a LONG time to recover. That's why I'm very much against private channels. And yes I've seen the result of doing this in public. It is messy, unfortunately. But the evidence is there in public too (a woman played the gender card, and the shock from half the thread who hadn't realised she was a she rather undermined her arguments...) Or another woman in the same venue who just accepted that it was a male environment with no malicious intent but that she just couldn't take it when the testosterone got out of hand. It IS a hard nut to crack. Cheers, Wol
