Re: Add Code of Conduct

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

Regarding the CoC.

If there is no enforcement, then it is not clear what is the point.

In the abstract, such a document could help to set expectations of
behavior, including clarifying types of behavior that is considered
unacceptable.  Such that everyone/anyone in the community would be able to
have something to point to to say, "see this type of behavior is considered
unacceptable".

However, even with a clear CoC, any accusations of violation could be
disputed.  Reasonable people can disagree on many things, especially human
feelings, actions, and intentions.  Without an offiical enforcement
mechanism, we only really have peer pressure.  Which is exactly what we
have now.  And I don't think any of us need a CoC to identify uncivil
behavior.


The main issues with the original enforcement proposal is that it delegates
authority to the people most likely to have a conflict of interest:  the
core contributors.

If we want such a committee to be effective, it should be populated by
people who have fewer conflict of interest.  Ideally, it would include
people who primarily have good standing among the community with track
records of being helpful and diplomatic--coding chops should not be the
main criteria.  Likewise, I think we should consider recruiting at least
one person from outside the community who has experience with such things
(mediators, facilitiators, open source mentors, diversity trainers).  This
should be clear by considering the one suggested use case (sexual
harassment), since we would want a committee that is able to understand and
handle such complaints, and to which community members will feel
comfortable bringing forward such complaints.  That is not an easy thing to
construct entirely in-house.

Any such proposal should also make it clear how this committee gets
elected, have some mechanisms for limiting terms, and how to handle appeals.

In my opinion, in the abstract a CoC with enforcement is useful, but only
once the community is large enough, and if the enforcement mechanism is
transparent, democratic, and constructed to actually handle well the task
it is charged with.

I don't think either the lilypond community nor this specific proposal
comes anywhere close to this.



There are two things that have been said in this discussion so far that I
would like to point out as being un-collaborative and in violation of any
CoC worth its salt:

1) "Adopt this CoC or I will leave the community"  Such threats amount to a
my-way-or-the-highway attitude, which is an attempt to enforce veto power
in what is supposed to be a collaborative / concensus / democratic
approach.  Also difficult to disentangle the degree to which this is
intentionally or unintentionally an unprofessional attempt to elicit
praise, with the expected reactions of "oh no, don't leave, you're too
valuable".  To me, this is toxic behavior and I would welcome their
self-removal from the community if this is their idea of how to conduct
themselves in an exemplary manner.

2) Being disingenuous regarding the point of the CoC.  While it may be a
bit overboard for DK to assume that removing him is the sole point of the
proposal, it is equally disingenuous for the proposers of the CoC to
suggest that any such consequences would be unintended, since that is the
*only* actionalble part of the proposal, and DK is the most obvious target
for such concerns.  What has become clear to me is that there is a
disharmony between the original BDFL and the incumbent BDFL.  This specific
proposal for a CoC seems to me to be an attempt to provide the *appearance*
of some kind of consensus-based or otherwise democratic process, in an
effort to reinstate the original BDFL and dethrone the incumbent BDFL, when
in fact there is nothing consensus-based or democratic about the proposal
at all.  So, it has a taste of insencerity and disguised motives, which is
exactly the opposite of what a CoC should be engendering.

For both sides of this kerfuffle, I'd offer the following reality check:

* The current process relies too heavily on one contributor, and any
improvements to the process will inherently invovle untangling the many
hats being worn by the current BDFL, such that others can wear them--and
probably also reconstituting the hat wardrobe.

* Those wanting more input and responsibility should be frank about their
aims, and not disguise them behind a lofty CoC proposal.  They should
recognize that such a proposal is, in part, difficult to distinguish from a
personal attack, since it does essentially target one individual, even if
that is not the intention and eventual scope of the proposal when applied
to a future 'pond that does operate among a larger number of contributors.

* Those who currently have oversized roles should be willing to help
transform the workflow and workload such that collaboration is expanded,
such that they can focus on their areas of genius.  Also, recognize that,
while the desire to disentangle the workflows of the incumbent BDFL, it is
not intended as a personal attack, despite the fact that it is being
carried out in a way that does not make this clear.



Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954                                           "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
address@hidden
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist ~ Educator
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-