New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Nov 2017 Update #57

Merged
merged 15 commits into from Dec 28, 2017

Conversation

@Ipstenu
Collaborator

Ipstenu commented Nov 17, 2017

  • Overall tense of guidelines made consistent
  • Shorten titles when possible for readability
  • Update introduction for readability and unpack what we mean by keeping email updated
  • Connect guideline 2 to 9
  • Explain the converse of 3
  • Put the important part of 5 on top
  • Include references to management services (permitted) and crypto mining (not) to 8
  • Add link to forum guidelines to 9
  • Add prohibition against harassment to anyone in WP
  • Clarify self-dismissible alerts are acceptable in 11
  • Changed tense of 12 and 13 to emphasize their importance
  • Grammar fix for title of 15
  • Fix reference to zips in 16 (upload now vs link to)
  • Reword title of 17 to explain that PLUGINS must honor…
  • Guideline 18 has received a full rewrite to clarify what rights we reserve and reiterate our promise to do this as fairly as possible.
Clarifications
* Overall tense of guidelines made consistent
* Update introduction for readability and unpack what we mean by keeping email updated
* Explain the converse of 3
* Put the important part of 5 on top
* Add link to forum guidelines to 9
* Add prohibition against harassment to anyone in WP
* Clarify self-dismissible alerts are acceptable in 11
* Changed tense of 12 and 13 to emphasize their importance
* Grammar fix for title of 15
* Fix reference to zips in 16 (upload now vs link to)
* Reword title of 17 to explain that PLUGINS must honor…

Guideline 18 has received a full rewrite to clarify what rights we reserve and reiterate our promise to do this as fairly as possible.
@aaroncampbell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aaroncampbell

aaroncampbell Nov 12, 2017

Member

"which is why a zip file"

Member

aaroncampbell commented on guideline-16.md in dea2eb4 Nov 12, 2017

"which is why a zip file"

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Ipstenu

Ipstenu Nov 13, 2017

Collaborator

Derp. Pushing fix.

Collaborator

Ipstenu replied Nov 13, 2017

Derp. Pushing fix.

Ipstenu added some commits Nov 12, 2017

Clarifications
* Overall tense of guidelines made consistent
* Update introduction for readability and unpack what we mean by keeping email updated
* Explain the converse of 3
* Put the important part of 5 on top
* Add link to forum guidelines to 9
* Add prohibition against harassment to anyone in WP
* Clarify self-dismissible alerts are acceptable in 11
* Changed tense of 12 and 13 to emphasize their importance
* Grammar fix for title of 15
* Fix reference to zips in 16 (upload now vs link to)
* Reword title of 17 to explain that PLUGINS must honor…

Guideline 18 has received a full rewrite to clarify what rights we reserve and reiterate our promise to do this as fairly as possible.
Show outdated Hide outdated guideline-17.md
Show outdated Hide outdated guideline-17.md
Show outdated Hide outdated introduction.md
Show outdated Hide outdated guideline-18.md
Developers, all users with commit access, and all users who officially support a plugin are expected to abide by the Directory Guidelines as well as the [Forum Guidelines](https://wordpress.org/support/guidelines/). Violations may result in plugins or plugin data (for previously approved plugins) being removed from the directory until the issues are resolved. Plugin data, such as user reviews, may not be restored, depending on the nature of the violation and the results of a peer-review of the situation. Repeat violations may result in all the author’s plugins being removed and the developer being banned from hosting plugins on WordPress.org. It is the responsibility of the plugin developer to ensure their contact information on WordPress.org is up to date and accurate, in order that they receive all notifications from the plugins team.
Developers, all users with commit access, and all users who officially support a plugin are expected to abide by the Directory Guidelines.

This comment has been minimized.

@jdevalk

jdevalk Dec 3, 2017

Including the WordPress code of conduct?

@jdevalk

jdevalk Dec 3, 2017

Including the WordPress code of conduct?

This comment has been minimized.

@Ipstenu

Ipstenu Dec 3, 2017

Collaborator

That doesn't officially exist yet but will be added when it does :)

@Ipstenu

Ipstenu Dec 3, 2017

Collaborator

That doesn't officially exist yet but will be added when it does :)

Show outdated Hide outdated guideline-03.md
@jessuppi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jessuppi

jessuppi Dec 3, 2017

While some of these changes are encouraging, a few of them reinforce the notion that WP.org staff see themselves as a sort of subjective morality police. Legally speaking, all of your Terms and guidelines should pertain solely to activity that occurs on your website -- unless the historical embrace of favoritism and personal interpretation is being regurgitated?

Harassment, threats, or abuse directed at any other member of the WordPress community

I assume this is aimed at plugin authors like myself who track down defamers and ask them to fix or remove their defamation, or face possible legal action. Once again, this displays hostility toward plugin authors it seems, rather than a clear, legally sound, and common sense TOS.

The most ironic part is that if we are bringing up "threats" then nobody would win in that category more than Matt Mullenweg himself, the founder of WordPress software. Automattic needs to decide whether or not WP.org users are "customers" or not, and then empower plugin authors to act in the very same manner that their company acts within this context.

For example, why is this "guidelines" repo not maintained by Automattic?

The focus should be on developing site-wide TOS, and/or "Code of Coduct" (great idea) and perhaps scale down the plugin guidelines to avoid duplicity.

jessuppi commented Dec 3, 2017

While some of these changes are encouraging, a few of them reinforce the notion that WP.org staff see themselves as a sort of subjective morality police. Legally speaking, all of your Terms and guidelines should pertain solely to activity that occurs on your website -- unless the historical embrace of favoritism and personal interpretation is being regurgitated?

Harassment, threats, or abuse directed at any other member of the WordPress community

I assume this is aimed at plugin authors like myself who track down defamers and ask them to fix or remove their defamation, or face possible legal action. Once again, this displays hostility toward plugin authors it seems, rather than a clear, legally sound, and common sense TOS.

The most ironic part is that if we are bringing up "threats" then nobody would win in that category more than Matt Mullenweg himself, the founder of WordPress software. Automattic needs to decide whether or not WP.org users are "customers" or not, and then empower plugin authors to act in the very same manner that their company acts within this context.

For example, why is this "guidelines" repo not maintained by Automattic?

The focus should be on developing site-wide TOS, and/or "Code of Coduct" (great idea) and perhaps scale down the plugin guidelines to avoid duplicity.

@aaronjorbin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aaronjorbin

aaronjorbin Dec 3, 2017

Member

@jessuppi The focus is on creating an environment that encourages constructive interactions. A single code of conduct for the entire WordPress project is in the works, but until that is completed, rule 9 is still needed. Plugin authors who feel that this is hostile towards them should ask themselves if the behavior they are engaged in is one that is constructive for the community.

Please also remember that WordPress is not a project of Automattic. Confusing it devalues the work of the community members, most of whom are volunteering because they believe in the goal of democratizing publishing.

You are absolutely correct that it makes sense for this not to live in the maintainer's personal account. I've just opened up #58 so this can be fixed and the repo can live under the WordPress organization.

Member

aaronjorbin commented Dec 3, 2017

@jessuppi The focus is on creating an environment that encourages constructive interactions. A single code of conduct for the entire WordPress project is in the works, but until that is completed, rule 9 is still needed. Plugin authors who feel that this is hostile towards them should ask themselves if the behavior they are engaged in is one that is constructive for the community.

Please also remember that WordPress is not a project of Automattic. Confusing it devalues the work of the community members, most of whom are volunteering because they believe in the goal of democratizing publishing.

You are absolutely correct that it makes sense for this not to live in the maintainer's personal account. I've just opened up #58 so this can be fixed and the repo can live under the WordPress organization.

@Ipstenu

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Ipstenu

Ipstenu Dec 4, 2017

Collaborator

FYI this repo is now officially under the WordPress account. Props @aaronjorbin @pento for making that finally happen!

Collaborator

Ipstenu commented Dec 4, 2017

FYI this repo is now officially under the WordPress account. Props @aaronjorbin @pento for making that finally happen!

@Ipstenu Ipstenu self-assigned this Dec 5, 2017

Ipstenu added some commits Dec 5, 2017

Update guideline-03.md
Words order were of out.
@Ipstenu

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Ipstenu

Ipstenu Dec 11, 2017

Collaborator

Until the WP community Code of Conduct is codified, guideline 9 will remain in place, complete with it's prohibition against harassment, abuse, and threats. FWIW, this guideline applies to developers and users. If a user is threatening a developer, they will summarily find themselves removed from the community too. The point here? Don't attack people. And if a number of people are telling you that your behaviour constitutes harassment, abuse, or threats, I'd recommend taking a moment to ask yourself why.

Collaborator

Ipstenu commented Dec 11, 2017

Until the WP community Code of Conduct is codified, guideline 9 will remain in place, complete with it's prohibition against harassment, abuse, and threats. FWIW, this guideline applies to developers and users. If a user is threatening a developer, they will summarily find themselves removed from the community too. The point here? Don't attack people. And if a number of people are telling you that your behaviour constitutes harassment, abuse, or threats, I'd recommend taking a moment to ask yourself why.

@jessuppi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jessuppi

jessuppi Dec 11, 2017

Until the WP community Code of Conduct is codified, guideline 9 will remain in place, complete with it's prohibition against harassment, abuse, and threats. FWIW, this guideline applies to developers and users. If a user is threatening a developer, they will summarily find themselves removed from the community too. The point here? Don't attack people.

In that case, please define specifically "harassment, abuse, or threats" because I'm fairly certain your personal definition (again, WP.org suffering from personal interpretation) is vastly different from the legal definitions of these terms. Also please specify if you consider legal action for defamation, etc, to fall under this prohibited category of behavior? If so, I look forward to Jetpack being permanently banned from the plugin directory the next time that Matt Mullenweg sues somebody -- or makes a snarky, insulting comment on someone's public blog post -- likely within weeks.

After all, it's made quite clear above that Automattic doesn't receive special treatment from WP.org.

jessuppi commented Dec 11, 2017

Until the WP community Code of Conduct is codified, guideline 9 will remain in place, complete with it's prohibition against harassment, abuse, and threats. FWIW, this guideline applies to developers and users. If a user is threatening a developer, they will summarily find themselves removed from the community too. The point here? Don't attack people.

In that case, please define specifically "harassment, abuse, or threats" because I'm fairly certain your personal definition (again, WP.org suffering from personal interpretation) is vastly different from the legal definitions of these terms. Also please specify if you consider legal action for defamation, etc, to fall under this prohibited category of behavior? If so, I look forward to Jetpack being permanently banned from the plugin directory the next time that Matt Mullenweg sues somebody -- or makes a snarky, insulting comment on someone's public blog post -- likely within weeks.

After all, it's made quite clear above that Automattic doesn't receive special treatment from WP.org.

@Ipstenu

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Ipstenu

Ipstenu Dec 11, 2017

Collaborator

In that case, please define specifically "harassment, abuse, or threats"

If I listed out specifically what those engender, I have no doubt in my mind that someone would use it as an excuse to move the line even further. They have in the past. They did this morning.

  • Harassment is aggressive pressure or intimidation.
  • A threat is a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
  • Abuse is to treat a person with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly.

If people are telling you that your personal actions are one of those, I would strongly recommend you take a long hard look at your own behaviour.

Also please specify if you consider legal action for defamation, etc, to fall under this prohibited category of behavior?

If you properly approach it via accepted legal methods (i.e. a lawyer sends a DMCA or C&D) then no, it's not prohibited. Properly filed legal action is properly filed legal action. Calling someone's boss on the phone, and I wish I was making that up as an example, would absolutely be prohibited.

Collaborator

Ipstenu commented Dec 11, 2017

In that case, please define specifically "harassment, abuse, or threats"

If I listed out specifically what those engender, I have no doubt in my mind that someone would use it as an excuse to move the line even further. They have in the past. They did this morning.

  • Harassment is aggressive pressure or intimidation.
  • A threat is a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
  • Abuse is to treat a person with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly.

If people are telling you that your personal actions are one of those, I would strongly recommend you take a long hard look at your own behaviour.

Also please specify if you consider legal action for defamation, etc, to fall under this prohibited category of behavior?

If you properly approach it via accepted legal methods (i.e. a lawyer sends a DMCA or C&D) then no, it's not prohibited. Properly filed legal action is properly filed legal action. Calling someone's boss on the phone, and I wish I was making that up as an example, would absolutely be prohibited.

@jessuppi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jessuppi

jessuppi Dec 11, 2017

A threat is a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

Wow, all of Automattic's plugins are going to be banned within days! This should be fun.

In all seriousness, I implore the WP.org staff to consult a proper TOS attorney in drafting this stuff. There are tons of lawyers who specialize in these things, and it's not very expensive. But this hodge-podge academic-sounding approach is only going to cause more conflicts.

jessuppi commented Dec 11, 2017

A threat is a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

Wow, all of Automattic's plugins are going to be banned within days! This should be fun.

In all seriousness, I implore the WP.org staff to consult a proper TOS attorney in drafting this stuff. There are tons of lawyers who specialize in these things, and it's not very expensive. But this hodge-podge academic-sounding approach is only going to cause more conflicts.

@Ipstenu

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Ipstenu

Ipstenu Dec 11, 2017

Collaborator

Again, we're holding this only until there's a CoC for WP.org, which is being worked on. It's not the best solution, but telling people "Do what you want" has literally ended with someone making death threats. I'm sorry you feel it's unacceptable. Maybe you should volunteer with the CoC folks to get that done faster :) I know I would be very appreciative, as I'd get to yank half this stuff!

Collaborator

Ipstenu commented Dec 11, 2017

Again, we're holding this only until there's a CoC for WP.org, which is being worked on. It's not the best solution, but telling people "Do what you want" has literally ended with someone making death threats. I'm sorry you feel it's unacceptable. Maybe you should volunteer with the CoC folks to get that done faster :) I know I would be very appreciative, as I'd get to yank half this stuff!

@Zodiac1978

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Zodiac1978

Zodiac1978 Dec 14, 2017

It would be great to have some more clarification on Guideline 11. What should we do with partially correct type of ads? What if an ad is dismissible, but is spamming the whole dashboard? Is this okay (because dismissible) or not okay (because spamming the whole /wp-admin)?

"should be limited" / "should be avoided" is not saying "must" - so how do we define what is okay and what's not? Could elaborate on this topic a little bit more?

Zodiac1978 commented Dec 14, 2017

It would be great to have some more clarification on Guideline 11. What should we do with partially correct type of ads? What if an ad is dismissible, but is spamming the whole dashboard? Is this okay (because dismissible) or not okay (because spamming the whole /wp-admin)?

"should be limited" / "should be avoided" is not saying "must" - so how do we define what is okay and what's not? Could elaborate on this topic a little bit more?

@Ipstenu

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Ipstenu

Ipstenu Dec 14, 2017

Collaborator

@Zodiac1978 It’s difficult to clarify because it depends on context and content and intent. That said, any ‘full page’ ad that is really and truly an ad would be outright bad. If you make the dashboard unusable unless your ad is dismissed, you’re doing it wrong. I’m leery at hard defining, as we used to have that and People would nit pick that they were on the border of right and wrong all the damn time. And to be honest, y’all darn well know when your ads are annoying. Don’t do that.

Collaborator

Ipstenu commented Dec 14, 2017

@Zodiac1978 It’s difficult to clarify because it depends on context and content and intent. That said, any ‘full page’ ad that is really and truly an ad would be outright bad. If you make the dashboard unusable unless your ad is dismissed, you’re doing it wrong. I’m leery at hard defining, as we used to have that and People would nit pick that they were on the border of right and wrong all the damn time. And to be honest, y’all darn well know when your ads are annoying. Don’t do that.

@Ipstenu Ipstenu merged commit ba5f3c3 into master Dec 28, 2017

@Ipstenu Ipstenu deleted the Nov-2017 branch Jan 11, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment