Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by address@hidden)

[David Kastrup]

Mike Solomon <address@hidden> writes:

> Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> śr., 5 lut 2020, 00:34 użytkownik <address@hidden> napisał:
>>
>>> What problem are we trying to solve here?
>>>
>>
>> In short, it's been found (I think Mike will be able to give you 
>> specific
>> examples) that having code of conduct encourages contributions from 
>> newcomers.
>
>> I rather think that a friendly atmosphere encourages contributions
>> from newcomers.  Whether an upfront requirement to commit to a set
>> of rules with an enforcement team is perceived as a guarantee of a
>> friendly atmosphere is debatable.
>
> I personally would feel more comfortable if there were a code of
> conduct, and I know within my company one employee will not attend a
> conference or participate in a project unless there is a code of
> conduct.  I don't have any hard stats to prove this, but have a gut
> feeling that a code of conduct opens more doors than it closes.
>
>> So in light of my personal experiences with this kind of backroom
>> channel (and it's worth noting that even the cited Linux developer
>> list removed the corrective measures part from the CoC they are
>> using), I would very much like to see some more imminent reason of
>> why LilyPond would stand to benefit from adopting a code and
>> accepting a corrective committee that has basically proposed itself
>> rather than being the result of a list-wide election and where just
>> one member has been a permanent fixture on the lists for a longer
>> amount of time at this moment.
>
> A list-wide election is a good idea.
>
> At the Salzburg meetup, one common thing a lot of people brought up
> was a slow-down in development and a shrinking pool of contributors.
> IMO we should do several experiments to fix this. The CoC I proposed
> is used in over 40,000 projects including many of the most active and
> diverse open source projects on github, so it seems like a reasonable
> experiment. If it proves to be a dud, we can get rid of it.

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.

-- 
David Kastrup