Re: Add Code of Conduct

[Janek Warchoł]

Elaine,

pt., 7 lut 2020 o 02:28 Flaming Hakama by Elaine <address@hidden>
napisał(a):

> 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.
>

Such behaviour is indeed bad, but did anyone actually post such an
ultimatum? Speaking about myself, I definitely don't consider adopting CoC
a condition for my return to the community. If that wasn't clear, I
apologize.


> 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.
>

Okay, I admit that I didn't think (or rather: think hard enough) about how
the proposal will be perceived by DK and the community. I apologize for
this lack of thoughtfulness. I can only say that my motivation was to help
the community grow, by addressing the issue that I found most troublesome
for me (tension and heated discussions between contributors), and I wanted
to just get it done. Bad approach.


pt., 7 lut 2020 o 06:03 Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> napisał(a):

> I trust each of the individuals who were proposed to be on the committee.


I am humbled to hear this from you, especially after this long discussion
and the enormous amount of protests and suspicion about my (our) motivation.


> 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.
>

Absolutely, and I assure that - if I were to be part of the committee - I
would never have done that. (I can see that it may not had been clear from
the proposed CoC.)

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.
>

You are right. In fact, I had considered providing support to the
complainant to be the basic job of the committee (not punishing anyone).
But I can see that it was not clear from the proposal.

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.
>

Thank you, Carl. Yes, this is (and was) exactly my motivation, and I'd be
grateful if the community took it as such (similarly how we try to take
David's email literally and not as sarcasm).

Janek