Re: Add Code of Conduct

[Carl Sorensen]

On 2/6/20, 6:28 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Flaming Hakama by Elaine" 
<lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=address@hidden on behalf of address@hidden> 
wrote:

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

Perhaps the point is to provide a support system, so that somebody who feels 
marginalized has others on their side.
    
    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.

Without enforcement, perhaps the response to uncomfortable situations turn away 
from "accusations of violation" and instead to "I" statements -- "I felt XXX 
when YYY happened".  Such statements are less incendiary than accusations.
    
    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.

I do not see this as the main issue.  I trust each of the individuals who were 
proposed to be on the committee.  The main issue I had (and continue to have) 
with the proposed CoC is the prospect of punitive-appearing enforcement actions 
taken after a private process with the complainant remaining anonymous.

I would not be concerned about anonymous "I felt" statements were the job of 
the committee to provide support to the complainant, rather than to provide 
consequences to the putative offender.
    
    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.

I agree that if we are to have a committee with the authority to banish people, 
the processes need to be fully spelled out and transparent.  Unfortunately, I 
think that a lot of effort would be spent on such activities without a 
corresponding amount of benefit.
    
    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.

As far as I can see, Han-Wen is not the person pushing the CoC the most.  I see 
Han-Wen pushing for simpler review processes and quicker patch implementation.  

I see Mike Solomon and Janek as the most open proponents of the CoC.  Neither 
one appears to want power in the LilyPond organizational structure.  Both 
appear to want a more welcoming and less stressful community.  I think it's 
important to take their requests at face value, rather than assuming hidden 
agendas.

Thanks,

Carl