meta: explicit exclusion for outside social media posts #327
Conversation
Moderation-Policy.md
Outdated
| venue *may* be ignored. | ||
|
|
||
| All Collaborator's are cautioned, however, that any statements made publicly by | ||
| members of the Node.js GitHub Organization *will* be interpretted by readers |
Moderation-Policy.md
Outdated
| All Collaborator's are cautioned, however, that any statements made publicly by | ||
| members of the Node.js GitHub Organization *will* be interpretted by readers | ||
| as reflecting on the project as a whole, despite the statement above. It is | ||
| therefore important for Collaborator's to remain cognizant of how their |
| responsibility of the Node.js Foundation, TSC, or Community Committee are | ||
| explicitly not covered by this policy unless the individual is explicitly acting | ||
| or commenting on behalf of the Node.js Foundation, TSC or Community Committee | ||
| in an official capacity. The statements, views, and opinions contained in such |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
isn't "in an official capacity" anywhere they've declared their affiliation?
In other words, If i were to stick "node.js TSC member" in a social media profile while actually being a TSC member (which i'm not, ofc), isn't that entire profile and its contents acting and commenting on behalf of the foundation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think so. I have that I work for Microsoft in my social media, but I don't act on behalf of them at all. I think the 'my tweets do not reflect my employers' bio stuff is just precautionary, because obviously your personal accounts don't have anything to do with the corporate entity you're a part of.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm - I guess it's surprising to me that social media posts that explicitly mention my affiliation would be exempt from the CoC.
If I wanted to, for example, ensure that my twitter comments were out of scope for Airbnb to be able to have comments on, I'd remove any mention of Airbnb from my profile. I'd expect the same for node affiliation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i expect a confusion to exist here as the twitter bio is mutable. for example: i do not usually list npm or node in my bio, however, because of the current situation, i added it, so people would know people to reach out to and why.
twitter does not track what your bio is at time of tweeting. therefore, in a situation where tweets are looked at, say 2-3 years later, there is no way to know what someone's twitter bio said at the time.
in general, i think this is a complicated and flimsy distinction. i totally empathize with ya'll that this is a difficult definition to pin down, but a twitter bio is not an appropriate way to tell, in my opinion.
EDIT: typo, clarify strange wording
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fair point.
I'm concerned about the loophole for people to be able to violate the CoC in spirit by tweeting their abuse (as opposed to posting it on github), even if it doesn't violate the letter of the policy.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same. I think as it is written it's good, really agree with @ljharb's statement above- just wanted to clarify about twitter bios.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, this should still leave room for the case by case determination. If the language can be strengthened there, please let me know.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree it makes a reasonable balance here and I think we should handle any additional expectations for people in the org in a discussion like #311
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wouldn't adding an out here ("case-by-case") just be ripe for trolling, like the current situation (e.g. "it says in your policy you can do something about this person tweeting, why aren't you doing anything?", etc.)? IMHO just leaving someone's personal social media messages as their own no matter what, would help to avoid that kind of stuff better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think it's practical to do that. If one is affiliated, and one makes a problematic statement anywhere, that can reflect poorly on the project. That doesn't mean there's an easy way to clearly limit it, nor that it's practical to do so, but the reality is that if you want complete freedom to say anything in any arena, then that's just not compatible with leadership in a project that wants to be inclusive.
|
It looks good to me. My only concern might be how we're going to determine 'acting in an official capacity', but I guess we can cross that bridge when the time comes. |
|
Can we add a special mentioned of cases when a person directly harasses a member of the Node community? I would like to differentiate between someone tweeting frustration at a group of people and someone who directly tweets at a person in ways that make them feel unsafe to continue participating in the Node community while that person is being tolerated. Does that make sense? |
| views of the Node.js Foundation, TSC or Community Committee. | ||
|
|
||
| Moderation requests based solely on the content of comments made in any such | ||
| venue *may* be ignored. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have the strong feeling that this will only exacerbate the current situation.
The primary critique seemed to be:
Why does
person A's twitter post violate the CoC, but notperson B's inflammatory twitter post?
@jasnell at the end of the day: non-github, personal social media posts need to be either in-scope or out-of-scope for CoC enforcement. (Personally I think it should be out-of-scope)
Selective enforcement is the problem
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I absolutely get this. I have a distinct feeling that most people would like to be able to give a blanket statement that says what you post to your own twitter account is your own business, but unfortunately that is just not realistic because people will associate the comments with the entire project no matter what our policy says. So we need to find the right balance and ensure that it is applied equally across the board. This is just a first draft attempt at getting to that.
The underlying idea here should be simple. Basically it is: Posts to social media outside the Node.js project are outside the scope of this policy unless they obviously aren't.... Except, of course, defining that unless they obviously aren't part that becomes the most difficult. What is the right threshold? What would the community consider to be the right threshold.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Case in point. If we say that posts to social media are out of scope, then I immediately jumped on twitter making high derogatory claims against specific fellow collaborators because hey, those don't count, would I be in violation of the code of conduct or not? By the letter of the law, sure, but definitely not by the spirit. We have to do better than that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we say that posts to social media are out of scope, then I immediately jumped on twitter making high derogatory claims against specific fellow collaborators because hey, those don't count, would I be in violation of the code of conduct or not?
People on twitter making unfounded claims is what started the twitter firestorm with Rod. I support a collaborators right to have a negative opinion about me(in a non-professional space). What do you think someone could say that wouldn't be against Twitters ToS?
The problem starts when derogatory claims make their way into a professional space. That's the part you can control.
because hey, those don't count, would I be in violation of the code of conduct or not?
In a perfect world:
- No it should not be.
- Block them and move on.
If you do this, people will just make throwaways to post such things...It already happened yesterday: https://www.reddit.com/user/node_in_peace
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jakeNiemiec you and @mscdex make similar points (#327 (comment)) so I'll address them both at once here: Yes, you're both absolutely correct. Giving the "out" here and allowing it to be case by case does open a loophole. So does not giving the out, unfortunately.
@jakeNiemiec ... your comment "That's the part you can control" is absolutely spot on. Unfortunately, it's not the comments made within the arena we can control that cause the most problems, it's nearly always the comments that are made on Twitter, or Reddit, etc. Those are the channels that most Node.js users pay attention to and have the most visibility on. More people pay more attention to my personal twitter feed than they do my comments in the issue tracker.
But then, I know, and I think everyone understands and accepts, that whenever I post something about the current political situation in the United States to my personal twitter that I am expressing my own personal opinion. There's just something fundamentally different about such posts, just as there is something fundamentally different about the various PSA: Something happened in Node.js posts I make to the exact same channel. They are rightfully perceived differently. The posts have different intent and goals. The PSA posts I make cannot be wholly separated from me acting as a member of the core project. And that is where the complication lies.
Back when I worked at IBM, a long long time ago I helped write the very first version of the company social media guidelines for employees. The most difficult thing we went back and forth on was the idea about whether an employee tweeting on their personal account represented the company or not, and we landed on it just being a giant grey area. Whatever you say will be associated with whatever organization you are associated with. Period. In a perfect world, that's not fair, but it is the reality. Another reality is that people do not give their words enough consideration or measure.
|
I think what we should focus on here is potential outcomes and the impact of statements regardless of where they are made. If someone who is involved with Node.js and its official bodies makes statements in social media that are non-inclusive or derogatory to groups or individuals within the Node.js community, the impact and potential outcomes are likely to be similar than if they made it directly in an official Node.js GitHub repository. I don't believe that we can expect the Node.js community to be able to disambiguate personal vs. official as easily as what is implied here. The outcome is likely to be the same: as a member of the community, I will be less likely to want to be involved with the project. We should hold representatives of Node.js to a higher standard regardless of where that presence is. (Really we should hold all of ourselves to a higher standard than what we are seeing right now within GitHub and on social media) It doesn't matter if you've declared your affiliation or not. You are affiliated and your actions do reflect on Node.js, whether you intend them to or not. I believe that's part of the commitment you make by becoming someone working in an "official" capacity for Node.js. I like the caution section, but is it too gentle? Negative statements on social media actively work against Node.js and shrink its potential rather than grow it. If a member is actively doing that, is that ok? Should the TSC or foundation take action to protect Node.js and the Node.js community? I feel there should be some language that gives affordance for proactively addressing these kinds of issues. Is the language here enough? |
|
@ktrott ... thank you... I think the way you structure the argument here is excellent and has my wheels turning on how to improve this statement further. What you describe here exactly strikes the the right cord. There is a desire, one that has been explicitly expressed, to say that what Node.js people say in Twitter is their own business but we all know that is not the case. However, we also cannot control or limit what people say and we are almost entirely dependent on people simply making good choices while being at the mercy of people who simply... don't. Hmmm.... you've got my wheels turning on this more, which is precisely the kind of feedback I was hoping for.... |
|
@jasnell @ktrott I would like us to consider the "Moderation Policy" as a technical tool for keeping the communication inside the org clean, harmless and welcoming. |
|
it may be worthwhile to consider the prior art that exists in the Board Director's Guide: https://github.com/nodejs/board/blob/master/Onboarding_Guide_for_Directors.md#public-statements |
|
@ktrott.... Yep... agree. I'm trying to figure out the right scope. On the one hand I've had TSC members ask if we can simply ignore Twitter posts outright. On the other hand, reality is telling us Nope, No You Cannot. |
|
@ashleygwilliams ... that language certainly works for Directors on the Board who have a legal fiduciary responsibility to uphold. It's not clear at all to me if the same can be applied to core contributors who are are volunteers and who have no such fiduciary burden. Grr... this stuff is hard. |
|
@ktrott because IMHO the conflation of the two concepts caused underuse of the moderation policy, which in turn made subsequent uses way more dramatic, and eventually it became the only tool. tl;dr "CoC Violation" != "Moderatable Act" != "Harassment (or simply being a Jacka$$)" each should have it's own tool. |
|
totally @jasnell. i figured i'd group whatever existing stuff we had, because additionally, i think it would be odd if the TSC/CommComm leadership were held to stricter standards than Board members, which (and i may be mistaken) might be something that is being suggested! ideally, these should probably align, at least a little. though i agree, this stuff is Very Hard, and relies heavily on many context-laden squishy subjects that are hard to legislate. thanks for your efforts. |
@jasnell I could try to word an amendment to the "Collaborators' Guide" |
|
I really like where this discussion is headed. I would def +1 these changes. |
|
@mhdawson, can I please ask you to take this pr over? |
|
Is it appropriate that @ashleygwilliams, who is currently under investigation for CoC [violations](https://github.com//issues/324) using social media is participating in this process? This participation is a conflict of interest.
One cannot expect to impartial when under investigation for social media offenses while engaging in a PR that could potentially exclude social media participation from the CoC. At a minimum, this individual should recuse themselves from this PR and any activities related to CoC discussions while there is an active investigation. I do not feel safe submitting this comment with an identified account due to the risk of becoming the target of slander, mischaracterization, and harassment. |
I felt the heat of this yesterday, I hope that leadership will allow it. Don't give into the fear though, I had a few individuals (some from this thread) reach out in a positive way too.
PR that @NodeNoOne What changes would you propose then? Do you agree with my take on things above? I feel that in general, there is strong confusion/contention on:
|
|
Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done. While I support this change (social media exclusion) and @ashleygwilliams's participation so far has been entirely unproblematic, I agree there is a conflict of interest and she should recuse herself, and do not comment here any more. I personally think it's a bit stupid, but sometimes stupid things are necessary. |
|
@ashleygwilliams @jasnell On the prior art in the Board Director Guidelines, I agree that there's content in the guidelines that gives credence to the idea that representatives of Node.js should not undermine the project's goals or efforts: Onboarding Guide for Directors: Support of Board Decisions Specifically, the language to accept and publicly support Board decisions and act as an ambassador in the community, not undermine the decisions or actions of the Board:
This language ties back to what I was saying above that those representing Node.js should be accountable to promote Node.js and grow it, not take actions in the public that serve to undermine it. My main driver for commenting is that I'm concerned that the language proposed in this PR will tend toward not holding members accountable for actions in the public sphere that serve to undermine the project. |
|
Can we just put @ktrott in charge of all the things? |
|
I still do not think that jurisdiction should extend to social media unless people are explicitly posting about things that are happening in the node organization, or undermining actions that are happening in private. All that's going to lead to is monitoring of all accounts with someone waiting to report the first thing they don't personally agree with. I wouldn't work for an organization that scrutinized everything I said online, and I personally wouldn't feel comfortable spending my spare time volunteering for one either. edit, more clarifications: Basically, if we extend the CoC to cover social media I hope everyone is fully prepared to have your entire online presence went over with a fine tooth comb from anyone that disagrees with things you say. (Which is something a lot of us deal with anyway). I don't think worrying about something like that is conducive or even healthy to be able to be productive and makes changes where it matters. |
@rachelnicole - I'd like to ask for some clarification here. Are you saying that jurisdiction should not extend to any given social media post, unless that specific post is referencing Node / community business? For example, I'm assuming you would agree that the following Tweet would be inappropriate:
However, would the following two Tweets posted separately, in succession, also be considered inappropriate, or no?
(10 minutes later) ...
Furthermore, if an argument is to be made that these tweets would indeed be considered inappropriate due to their close proximity, what amount of time must pass (hypothetically) between these two posts until they would be considered appropriate? I apologize if this is considered crass, but this is not a rhetorical question. I seriously want to know. Thank you in advance. |
|
@tkambler could you please edit your post. Discussing an active CoC complaint is not on topic, and even referencing it on a public TSC policy issue is unecessarily inflammatory. |
|
@rachelnicole I removed the sentence that vaguely made reference to the violation you are referring to. I only included that information so as to ensure that fellow commenters knew that I was not randomly pulling foul language out of thin air (I don't want to offend anyone). |
| as reflecting on the project as a whole, despite the statement above. It is | ||
| therefore important for Collaborators to remain cognizant of how their | ||
| statements will be interpreted and what impact such statements may have on | ||
| the project. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for this line. Humans are not robots and it is unreasonable to expect them to separate the person from their specific role. We've seen how this plays out in other situations.
I wonder if this sentence can be strengthened to include something about social posts potentially leading to ramifications for their status on the committee even if it's not a strict CoC violation.
Meaning, e.g. you can still be asked to resign, or whatever it is Node does as a punitive action these days, even if it's not under the banner of CoC enforcement.
|
Question: it seems a common thread that this idea is not for Node to control or limit a person in what they say, correct? Surely you have that backwards? By someone (voluntarily!) joining the community and a leadership position in it they are themselves agreeing to limit & control what they say, no? Much like a company CEO or board member would be expected to on Twitter/FB/etc - I don’t see how this is different. Now granted, this has not been the case until now so past behavior would obviously be excluded, and the intent & goals of the CoC should absolutely always overrule the letter of them so I’m not sure this fixes anything anyhow (its micromanaging language vs fixing enforcement) but still... the “we shouldn’t limit them” thing seems an odd stance to take given that’s not how it ever works anywhere else... |
I would like to quote Go Community Code of Conduct Rationale:
This seems very reasonable to me, and I believe the current PR is of the same spirit. |
|
@abritinthebay Actually it is, or it seems to be. Ron social media tweets had been originally reported in #310 . Given context it seems the intention is that depending on some hard to grasp variables (at least for outsiders), you get to be able to speak your mind on social media or not. |
I believe that is a large point of contention and one that there is value in clarifying, versus creating exclusionary language that protects specific channels. Clarify the definition of what behavior is related to Node. Some of the questions I think should be clarified in place of the PR as it currently stands:
Regarding the second question, examples were brought up where an individual might repost official Node announcements on their personal social media accounts and engage with discussions amongst the community there. In that scenario, should their personal channel of communication be considered official as a representative of the organization? As an aside, I believe this topic is hotly contested as it mimics the situation happening within the US right now where Twitter users are suing the President over their accounts being blocked. The heart of the issue is the same, as the President's stance is that it's a personal channel of communication, while some believe it qualifies as an official channel of communication for the government based on how he has chosen to use the account. I'm happy to fold this if it's too off-topic, but it seems related enough to the discussion at hand to mention. |
@truthfulKoschei @abritinthebay I think it is important to keep the reactions to the original #310 (that called for accountability) in mind for this PR: Discussion: CoC Violations & Accountability : Node's future nodejs/community-committee#111
|
|
I think the motivation for this PR was to help make expectations clearer. There has been lots of good discussion so far and I think we want to focus on how we'd like things to work going forward as opposed to what has occurred in the past. It is clear that we don't have consensus on what those expectations are but its important to figure that out so keep all the ideas/comments coming. My thoughts align with @ktrott in that it is difficult to separate our "Node.js involvement" and our other public activities. For those who are seen as leaders in the community (TSC, CommComm members etc.) we need to work hard to avoid even the impression that we don't support the community values, processes etc which have been agreed to by the Node.js community. I also think its important that we set expectations in advance so that people joining the groups know what is expected. As was mentioned earlier its a choice to get involved and part of that should be agreeing to live up to the expectations being set. As with other moderation discussions the expectations we set on our leaders should be used in a constructive manner. They should be used as context for a discussion where hopefully the concern raised can be acknowledged and agreement that the behavior will be avoided in the future. We all make mistakes and as long as we can acknowledge them we have a path forward. I also think that if we can define these expectations, they should be forward looking. ie we should not go back and look at past behavior only that going forward. In respect to this specific PR, from the discussion so far it's clear we still don't have consensus on what level of expectations we should have for our leaders so I'm not going to suggest updated text until we get closer to consensus (re @jasnell request for me to pick it up). |
|
After paging through the linked resources, something stood out:
This has become (painfully) apparent in the Node.js community in the past week. With social media becoming more and more divisive by the day, this can not go unaddressed. We don't all love each other's politics, but we all love Node.(We should focus on the later) |
I agree, which was what my point about goals was addressing.
Only if that doesn’t create a space that’s exclusionary (which appears to be the goal of the CoC). Otherwise that is just asking for trouble. |
|
@jakeNiemiec i agree with your sentiment, but let's please not pretend that exclusionary beliefs are simply "politics". There's plenty of things categorized as "politics" that in fact are incompatible with node succeeding, and that's what the CoC and related policies are hoping to ensure. |
|
@ljharb, how about: We don't all love each other's
The problem: the more outrageous and divisive, the better it tends to do on social media. This behavior feeds on its own momentum.
Node will never succeed over social media. In 2 years time, there will be new Separate what you can control ( |
|
@jakeNiemiec To give you some context, our PR manager created a report looking at Node.js' activity on Twitter vs. other programming languages, and we're twice as heavy in use as any other group in OSS. In fact, I've also had colleagues who were user researchers really excited and intrigued by the way developers use platforms such as Twitter to advance their professional skills, such as coding. It is not used that way by other industry verticals. We're extremely active as a community, and while there are silly conversations that happen about each of our day to days there, it is also a place where folks are talking about the problems they have writing Node.js, learning it, and sharing good resources for it. |
|
Freedom of speech versus shouting 'fire!' in a crowded Node theater is an impossible balancing act that the Node Foundation is unlikely to master, so fresh thinking about future policy and amnesty for past transgressions seems in order. But it smacks of moving the goalposts, to accomodate those who were caught in their own net when they invoked the CoC with regard to @rvagg. As an outsider, I don't know what went on. But I wonder. If the rules are changed now, would it be appropriate for the Node Foundation to publicly apologize to @rvagg (and others?) for holding him (them?) to a different standard, that was then determined to be unreasonable? |
|
Rule changes would not apply to past actions, so it would not be appropriate for anyone to either vilify nor apologize to anyone, solely as a result of the new rules. |
|
@ljharb Then one could supposedly go out, search every single member of node on social media and compile their past transgressions and report them, and the new ruling wouldn't matter. Everyone would still be liable because past actions would be judged by the past rules, wouldn't it? |
|
I'm sure one could always rules lawyer to attempt to find reasons to report someone; the point of having humans make decisions is that they're able to determine when a report is trolling versus legitimate. All my previous comment is saying is that tomorrow's rules are not necessarily judgements on today's actions, and that it's specious reasoning to try to make inferences that aren't there. |
|
I think the opposite is also true. One could do lots of rule lawyering to get scot free from legitimate complains. Even reaching the point of changing rules to not be affected by their own rules. I think It's quite embarrasing that I know(because I just did) I can go and perform a quick social media search with some usual divisive buzzwords on people supporting this, and find... well, the people posting here already knows what I have find. Either social media can represent you or not. You shouldn't be able to express your hateful Ideas just because the ingroup thinks the ends justify the means. People on the same ranks should be liable to the same rules. Not "may" or "could" depending on the case and how much we like them. |
|
> search every single member of node on social media and compile their past transgressions and report them
@ljharb @truthfulKoschei 😕 Truth is stranger than fiction (please do not take these at face value):
(Edit: @rachelnicole I am not linking these as reputable sources necessarily, I was going for an "It has already begun, there is no need to talk speculatively")
|
|
@jakeNiemiec that gist you linked to does not have all of the information about the situation as details about that deeper are dealt with in private, and is pretty speculative of 'the community committee wanted him out'. I also don't see the relevance in sharing the tech_blacklist account. You might want to edit that out? |
|
The conversation on this has not progressed on this, unfortunately, and much of it seems to be going around in circles. What @ktrott has said here several times is 100% absolutely spot on. Just as Board Directors are considered officers of the Foundation, TSC members likely should be considered so also. They hold an official position within the Foundation that is fundamentally different and more significant than that of "regular" collaborators. They are also TSC members voluntarily, accepting the invitation to become a TSC member should mean accepting the greater responsibility that it entails. As such, I would be +1 to adopting language that is more aligned with the Board's own code-of-conduct, putting a higher bar of responsibility on the TSC members to conduct themselves with professionalism in the community no matter what the venue. |
|
>I also don't see the relevance in sharing the tech_blacklist account. You might want to edit that out?
@rachelnicole The back-and-forth above my comment was assuming that What I was getting at: Do we want to move toward a system where all contributors/leaders have to be on a social media list....so people can police CoC violations?*In fact, why don't we put Want to contribute to Node.js? Congrats, you are now part of the list and will be treated as a public figure.**(Like I stated before, I personally would like to see us move toward the Go Community Code of Conduct (social media being a personal space)) |
|
I believe that there are no personal public spaces anymore; use a separate account if you don't want to be associated with your identity everywhere else. |
|
@ljharb Look at the many throwaway accounts in this very PR. Is this better? |
|
I am closing this PR. @nodejs/tsc members: it would be good to get some language around this put together soon. |
@nodejs/tsc @nodejs/community-committee ... please take a look.
This introduces a specific exclusion for posts made to outside social media in the moderation guidelines. I want to make sure the language and the handling of this is correct.
Note that this says quite intentionally may be ignored, because it is important for us to still have the option of handling obvious abuses.