[python-committers] Proposal for procedures regarding CoC actions

[Nick Coghlan]

On 2 April 2017 at 14:27, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:
> But he didn't. He labelled Wes a CoC violator, both privately and in
> public, for something which is a violation of the CoC only by *really*
> stretching the definition. I mean, come on now, insufficiently
> respectful of people's time? How Orwellian can you get?

I think this is the point of disconnect, as is Raymond's description
of CoC actions as "more of a nuclear option to be reserved for
egregious cases of harassment and abuse."

I'll say it right here: I *have* violated the Python CoC, especially
if you go back and look at discussions like those around the decision
to move away from open source Mercurial hosting to a proprietary git
hosting service. Many of the comments I made during those discussions
were *far* from being respectful or kind, and it took a long time for
me to become open to the idea that helping core developers spend less
time on CPython infrastructure maintenance or fighting with inadequate
ad hoc tooling might be a higher priority goal than helping to
encourage the use of version control tools and service that happen to
be written in Python.

When that kind of thing happens, it's usually because I was
sufficiently annoyed that I didn't go through my usual routine of
proofreading my emails and figuring out how to replace all the second
person pronouns with first person ones and otherwise filtering out the
unproductive noise that can get in the way of people understanding the
point I'm attempting to communicate. That step takes deliberate effort
on my part, but is paid back many times over by reducing the number of
pointless side arguments I'd otherwise get myself into. Proofreading
is also the point where I may decide not to send a particular message
at all, or switch it from a public rebuke to a private reminder of
more appropriate behaviour.

As far as I can tell, folks just tend not to remember those incidents
for long because:

- they're significantly outnumbered by the occasions where I was able
to communicate effectively and help other people achieve *their* goals
(or at least help them gain a better understanding of why their goals
may be unachievable)
- once I calm down, depending on the exact circumstances, I'll
sometimes explicitly apologise for the lack of restraint I exhibited

Whenever we anchor ourselves in an essentialist mindset of "basically
good people with good intentions will never violate a CoC out of
ignorance or as an emotional outburst", then it makes it *really* hard
to apply gentle nudges early in the process where we point out
borderline or outright unacceptable behaviour to people, and ask them
to apply self-moderation techniques to help provide a more enjoyable
environment for everyone else. It also makes it much harder for us as
individuals to say "That was an error on my part, I apologise, and I
will continue to strive to do better in the future".

And from the point of view of the impact on folks suspended and/or
banned, "I got suspended/banned from <channel> due to my inability to
follow explicit directions regarding my communications style" doesn't
seem to me all that different from "I got suspended/banned from
<channel> due to my inability to be respectful and kind towards my
fellow participants".

That said, for the benefit of channel moderators, I do think it would
be a good idea to define a shared set of explicit "Rules for Active
Participation" that are distinct from the more general Code of
Conduct, and are explicitly noted as being handled through moderator
actions focused on providing a productive collaboration environment.

For example:

1. PSF provided communication channels, such as mailing lists, issue
trackers, and code repositories, each exist for a particular purpose.
While initial off-topic posts will be met with a gentle redirection to
a more appropriate location, persistently posting off-topic items will
be grounds for suspension at the discretion of the moderators of that
particular communication channel
2. Messages are posted to be read by others, so it's important to be
respectful of the time and energy of readers, and have a clear purpose
in posting (e.g. asking a question, answering a question, clearly
reporting a problem, proposing a solution to a problem, clarifying a
point of confusion), rather than merely posting for the sake of
posting. As with off-topic posts, persistently disrespecting the time
and energy of readers will be grounds for suspension at the discretion
of the moderators of that particular communication channel
3. Quietly observing the available public communication channels
without actively participating is always an option
4. Keep in mind that neither the PSF nor any of the community channels
it provides offer any form of commercial customer support. Rather, all
communication channels are provided for the benefit of community
contributors and potential future contributors
5. Also keep in mind that there's a lot more to the internet than just
the PSF provided communication channels. Personal blogs, social media,
code hosting services, etc, can all provide a way to collect and
publish material that isn't considered suitable for any available PSF
provided channel
6. When in doubt about the appropriateness of a message, some good
ways to resolve that doubt can be to:
    * spend some more time observing the communications channel in
question, perhaps by browsing the archives of past messages
    * for mailing lists, explicitly *ask* the question that is
concerning you, as most mailing lists allow for at least some
meta-discussion regarding appropriate use of the list
    * for issue trackers and code repositories, look for a suitable
venue (such as a related mailing list) to ask the question
    * if you already know other participants in the channel, ask them
for private feedback first

The "be open, respectful, and kind" guidance in the CoC would then
mostly apply to the channel moderators responsible for enforcing those
Rules for Active Participation, since CoC violations on the
communication channels themselves would *also* break the suggested
rules 1 & 2 above (by being both off-topic and disrespectful of
readers time and energy).

Regards,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia