Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Alexandre François Garreau]

Le samedi 22 février 2020, 20:48:43 CET Andreas Enge a écrit :
> If anything, this message shows how much a code of conduct is needed.

I’ve just read https://wiki.gnu.tools/wiki:code-of-conduct

Beside the usage of the binary *-free english phrasing which is 
unfortunate when applied to human behavior, I noted that people who are 
part of “this community” (gnu.tools community, I guess), and sometimes 
pushing for a CoC within GNU, yet never abided by points 0 (“Demonstrating 
empathy and kindness toward other people”) and 1 (“Being respectful of 
differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences”) of section 1, while I 
think it could be of great help to deescalate the tensions and disputes on 
this list.

Yet, to refrain myself from any unappropriated accusation, I understand 
point 0 requires skills which are unequally distributed according 
populations (and sometimes pretty low in ours, so this is not a point I 
particularely like being considered as obvious), and point 1 is something 
that requires experience, at first, to be dealt with easily.

Anyway this is pretty much unfortunate as if you are the ones defending 
such rules, you are socially smart enough to be more likely and able to do 
this than your opponents… unfortunately, as I guess you may consider that 
unlegitimate.

Also the recent attacks rms received recently, including by members of GNU 
and FSF, doesn’t abide by points 1 and 2 of section 2.

PS: there’s the added issue that while this CoC talks about “community”, 
it also does about “professional settings” (which to me is antagonist to 
“community”, and the very reason why the “community” word is so used 
nowadays (to include unpaid/unemployed people)), while this wiki is not 
professional, and GNU is not a professional organization, nor even 
withstand “professionalism” (I recall that being stated along with 
recalling GNU’s name itself is a joke anyway).  Also the wording of the 
“community impact” of “permanent ban” section is unclear, in regards to 
whether “inappropriate” and/or “sustained” also qualify “disparagement of 
classes of individuals” (which btw might include any left-wing discourse 
such as talking about “plutocrats”… something I can hardly see unwelcome 
(yet I’ve seen a GHM talk being almost retired for something similar ><)).