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

Switch to Contributor Covenant from Open Code of Conduct #8312

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Aug 11, 2015

Conversation

Projects
None yet
8 participants
@kevinsawicki
Member

kevinsawicki commented Aug 10, 2015

Switch to the Contributor Covenant from the Open Code of Conduct.

See https://github.com/todogroup/opencodeofconduct/issues/84 for more details.

See here for other projects using the Contributor Covenant.

/cc @atom/feedback

Closes #8206

@TFenby

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@TFenby

TFenby Aug 11, 2015

I gotta say the "level of experience" thing still concerns me. I very much prefer the Torvalds/Ramsay approach of being accepting of mistakes by those who shouldn't know better, but not accepting mediocrity from those who should know better.

TFenby commented Aug 11, 2015

I gotta say the "level of experience" thing still concerns me. I very much prefer the Torvalds/Ramsay approach of being accepting of mistakes by those who shouldn't know better, but not accepting mediocrity from those who should know better.

@f4w5yhq6z7bo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@f4w5yhq6z7bo

f4w5yhq6z7bo Aug 11, 2015

The author of the Contributor Covenant, Coraline Ada, is behind the OpalGate harassment and abuse scandal, and regularly contributes hate speech to former Neo-Nazi and current serial harasser and abuser Shanley Kane's blog, Model View Culture.

It would be very unwise for GitHub to be associated with such a cultural legacy, both PR-wise and legally.

OpalGate involved the modification of the Contributor Covenant and the weaponization of social media mobs specifically to bully a dev out of the Opal project because Contributor Covenant author Coraline Ada disagreed with his opinions.

Sources:

Coraline Ada at Model View Culture, The Dehumanizing Myth of the Meritocracy: https://archive.is/fobyL

Coraline Ada at Model View Culture, Codes of Conduct: When Being Excellent is Not Enough: https://archive.is/M3WCe

The Madness Of Queen Shanley: https://archive.is/cmx41

'Yes, I was a racist' admits Shanley Kane: https://archive.is/Zys1I

'I taught Shanley Kane how to troll, and I'm sincerely sorry': https://archive.is/hMqwa

Radical Feminist Shanley Kane Doxxes Milo Yiannopoulos: https://archive.is/FT7zK

Eric S. Raymond, the father of the open source movement, disavowing Shanley Kane and all Code-of-Conduct-based political entryism attempts: https://archive.is/6F9Yr

f4w5yhq6z7bo commented Aug 11, 2015

The author of the Contributor Covenant, Coraline Ada, is behind the OpalGate harassment and abuse scandal, and regularly contributes hate speech to former Neo-Nazi and current serial harasser and abuser Shanley Kane's blog, Model View Culture.

It would be very unwise for GitHub to be associated with such a cultural legacy, both PR-wise and legally.

OpalGate involved the modification of the Contributor Covenant and the weaponization of social media mobs specifically to bully a dev out of the Opal project because Contributor Covenant author Coraline Ada disagreed with his opinions.

Sources:

Coraline Ada at Model View Culture, The Dehumanizing Myth of the Meritocracy: https://archive.is/fobyL

Coraline Ada at Model View Culture, Codes of Conduct: When Being Excellent is Not Enough: https://archive.is/M3WCe

The Madness Of Queen Shanley: https://archive.is/cmx41

'Yes, I was a racist' admits Shanley Kane: https://archive.is/Zys1I

'I taught Shanley Kane how to troll, and I'm sincerely sorry': https://archive.is/hMqwa

Radical Feminist Shanley Kane Doxxes Milo Yiannopoulos: https://archive.is/FT7zK

Eric S. Raymond, the father of the open source movement, disavowing Shanley Kane and all Code-of-Conduct-based political entryism attempts: https://archive.is/6F9Yr

@izuzak

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@izuzak

izuzak Aug 11, 2015

Member

Thanks for the feedback, @f4w5yhq6z7bo. Just to make sure I understand -- you have no problem with the text of the Contributor Covenant, but rather with the author of the text?

And why exactly would it be legally unwise to use that Contributor Covenant for the Atom project? Pointing out specific problems is always helpful.

Member

izuzak commented Aug 11, 2015

Thanks for the feedback, @f4w5yhq6z7bo. Just to make sure I understand -- you have no problem with the text of the Contributor Covenant, but rather with the author of the text?

And why exactly would it be legally unwise to use that Contributor Covenant for the Atom project? Pointing out specific problems is always helpful.

@f4w5yhq6z7bo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@f4w5yhq6z7bo

f4w5yhq6z7bo Aug 11, 2015

I have a problem with all of it. The overarching problem is the insincere, malicious, and hateful motivations behind this entire Code of Conduct initiative, which Eric S. Raymond's piece makes clear. If you're going to read just one of the linked resources, read that one.

f4w5yhq6z7bo commented Aug 11, 2015

I have a problem with all of it. The overarching problem is the insincere, malicious, and hateful motivations behind this entire Code of Conduct initiative, which Eric S. Raymond's piece makes clear. If you're going to read just one of the linked resources, read that one.

@jayyoung

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jayyoung

jayyoung Aug 11, 2015

@TFenby I see your point, but the way I read it is that that section just encodes against harassment based on level of experience, which seems fine to me? I see how this kind of wording can lead to tricky situations though.

On first glance this CoC seems leaps and bounds better than the previous one, and for me is a clear improvement in terms of clarity of language and wordcount (1019 words previously to 270 for this one). Though I think the "no posting other people's e-mail addresses" bit is over the top, and I think it gets a bit authoritarian towards the end where it says project managers that don't enforce the CoC will be removed from the project.

jayyoung commented Aug 11, 2015

@TFenby I see your point, but the way I read it is that that section just encodes against harassment based on level of experience, which seems fine to me? I see how this kind of wording can lead to tricky situations though.

On first glance this CoC seems leaps and bounds better than the previous one, and for me is a clear improvement in terms of clarity of language and wordcount (1019 words previously to 270 for this one). Though I think the "no posting other people's e-mail addresses" bit is over the top, and I think it gets a bit authoritarian towards the end where it says project managers that don't enforce the CoC will be removed from the project.

@f4w5yhq6z7bo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@f4w5yhq6z7bo

f4w5yhq6z7bo Aug 11, 2015

If a CoC must be implemented at all, the NCoC will do.

The NCoC: https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

The NCoC, archived: https://archive.is/dGg16

The NCoC README and FAQ: https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC/blob/master/README.md

The NCoC README and FAQ, archived: https://archive.is/JgQrg

What are we trying to fix: https://web.archive.org/web/20150703012458/http://nocodeofconduct.com/what

f4w5yhq6z7bo commented Aug 11, 2015

If a CoC must be implemented at all, the NCoC will do.

The NCoC: https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

The NCoC, archived: https://archive.is/dGg16

The NCoC README and FAQ: https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC/blob/master/README.md

The NCoC README and FAQ, archived: https://archive.is/JgQrg

What are we trying to fix: https://web.archive.org/web/20150703012458/http://nocodeofconduct.com/what

@batjko

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@batjko

batjko Aug 11, 2015

Contributor

While I like the simple and succinct terminology of this covenant, I am not 100% on this sentence:

"Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct may be permanently removed from the project team."

It seems a bit harsh to encourage maintainers to be banished for not enforcing the rules enough.
Now, I know it's the spirit that counts and normally this wouldn't happen unnecessarily. But a better phrasing would be something like:

"Project maintainers who actively or negligently violate the code of conduct..."

Contributor

batjko commented Aug 11, 2015

While I like the simple and succinct terminology of this covenant, I am not 100% on this sentence:

"Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct may be permanently removed from the project team."

It seems a bit harsh to encourage maintainers to be banished for not enforcing the rules enough.
Now, I know it's the spirit that counts and normally this wouldn't happen unnecessarily. But a better phrasing would be something like:

"Project maintainers who actively or negligently violate the code of conduct..."

@kevinsawicki

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kevinsawicki

kevinsawicki Aug 11, 2015

Member

"Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct may be permanently removed from the project team."

Thanks for pointing this out but the key distinction here is may be vs. will be. The decision to remove a maintainer won't be taken lightly and there would be many many discussions between maintainers before this would ever occur.

Member

kevinsawicki commented Aug 11, 2015

"Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct may be permanently removed from the project team."

Thanks for pointing this out but the key distinction here is may be vs. will be. The decision to remove a maintainer won't be taken lightly and there would be many many discussions between maintainers before this would ever occur.

@lee-dohm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lee-dohm

lee-dohm Aug 11, 2015

Member

I want to go on record as saying I support this change. This new Code of Conduct makes it clear what the expectations are for contributors and maintainers so that everyone who cares to knows where they stand.

Member

lee-dohm commented Aug 11, 2015

I want to go on record as saying I support this change. This new Code of Conduct makes it clear what the expectations are for contributors and maintainers so that everyone who cares to knows where they stand.

kevinsawicki added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 11, 2015

Merge pull request #8312 from atom/ks-contributor-covenant
Switch to Contributor Covenant from Open Code of Conduct

@kevinsawicki kevinsawicki merged commit c26badc into master Aug 11, 2015

3 of 5 checks passed

atom Build #2237064 failed in 904s
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build failed
Details
atom-linux Build #2237065 succeeded in 308s
Details
atom-rpm Build #2237066 succeeded in 448s
Details
atom-win Build #2237067 succeeded in 720s
Details
@kevinsawicki

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kevinsawicki

kevinsawicki Aug 11, 2015

Member

🚢 Thanks for the feedback, merging this.

Member

kevinsawicki commented Aug 11, 2015

🚢 Thanks for the feedback, merging this.

@kevinsawicki kevinsawicki deleted the ks-contributor-covenant branch Aug 11, 2015

@go1dfish

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@go1dfish

go1dfish Aug 11, 2015

Just wanted to say I support this as well. It's way clearer and with less political baggage than the Open Code of Conduct.

But I'm curious if the word "fuck" is considered sexualized language for the purposes of this document?

go1dfish commented Aug 11, 2015

Just wanted to say I support this as well. It's way clearer and with less political baggage than the Open Code of Conduct.

But I'm curious if the word "fuck" is considered sexualized language for the purposes of this document?

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