add wording to explicitly clarify which spaces the CoC applies in

[shadowcat-mst]

This was originally the wording @strand and I worked out previously, which @adambeynon recently commented he thought at least the concept of was useful. It's been tweaked since though so please read the whole thread to understand where it's coming from.

I'm happy to (continue to :) bikeshed the phrasing until everybody's happy - I just think we need to draw some sort of explicit line here.

@adambeynon @sarciszewski @jaen @webmaven thoughts if you have any, please

[shadowcat-mst]

Note that I'm not referencing other tickets intentionally and instead @-ing people to pull them over here. Hopefully that'll give us a head start to get some discussing done.

[Ajedi32]

Looks like you split a word here. I'm guessing that'll show up in the rendered markdown as a space. Might want to change that so the break is between words instead of in the middle of a word.

[meh]

Still too ambiguous to me, "associating with the project" is too broad.

One thing is speaking on behalf of the project, another is just saying "I'm a contributor" on a personal profile and stating their opinions on it, especially when the fact someone is a contributor is public.

[shadowcat-mst]

@meh if your public profile mentions specifically that you're a contributor to the project, then any messages sent under that profile can be expected to be at least partially associated with the project in the minds of the readers.

You don't have to like that this is true; I certainly don't - but it is, so we need to deal with that fact.

Please feel free - as I've repeatedly asked people to - to propose an alternative wording you would consider to be an improvement. At this point "too ambiguous" is about as useful as "too purple", and no, you cannot have the icon in cornflower blue.

[meh]

@shadowcat-mst that's just a prejudiced assumption, but the best way to deal with that fact is to go the other way, and state in the code of conduct that any opinions on personal profiles aren't of the project but of the person, regardless of their association with the project.

[Ajedi32]

I don't know, I think there could be some situations where a maintainer might assert something on behalf of the project using their personal profile. (E.g. "Release of 1.0 is scheduled for December 2015", etc.) The important thing is to note though is that almost always, opinions expressed on personal social media profiles are the opinions of the person the profile belongs to, not the opinions of any projects they contribute to, or other people in that community. Not sure the best way to express that in a CoC though. It seems to me it should be obvious, but apparently it's not.

[shadowcat-mst]

@meh @Ajedi32 I'm talking about how people will behave out here in the real world, and trying to find a balance that protects the project from further dramastorms, and gives contributors a way to avoid having their opinions attached to the project, and still allows people to report things that do need reporting.

If your profile identifies as "contributor to X", people will regard you as associating yourself with the project in that medium. To avoid this, "X on github" would not cause that association but would still make it easy to find your work.

You have to be realistic about these things.

[meh]

The code of conduct is to ensure people know how contributors are going to behave, stating that their opinions on their personal profiles are their own and don't reflect on the project is going to do exactly that.

People are free to associate with what they're a part of on their personal profiles.

[shadowcat-mst]

@meh however if they expliclty make that association, people will inevitably consider those comments to be associated with the project too. So there has to be a line drawn somewhere. If you'd like to draw it differently than I did, please propose an alternative wording.

Otherwise you're just shouting "I don't like this" without actually being constructive, and I've had enough of that from the SJWs already.

[meh]

They could assume that, or assume anything else, the code of conduct exists for this exact reason, to make clear this kind of thing, and it can state that regardless of association personal profiles are personal and don't express the opinion of the project or affect the behavior of the contributor in it.

Otherwise the very existence of the code of conduct would be meaningless.

[Ajedi32]

People ought to be allowed to say on their social media profiles what projects they contribute to, without having to constantly self-censor to avoid bringing down the wrath of the mob on those projects. I'd rather codify that in the CoC than sacrifice that freedom in the name of practicality. (Sorry, if that came out wrong. I'm having a bit of trouble expressing myself here.)

[Ajedi32]

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'd rather the CoC give us tools to deal with any mobs that might show up rather than restrict the freedoms of contributors in an attempt to avoid said mob... is that clear enough? 😕

[shadowcat-mst]

At the very least, any link to the project to the profile should say 'Personal X' any link from the profile to the project should say 'This is my personal account only, but I'm also a contributor to X'.

If you just say 'member of X core team' or whatever, then you're pretty much inviting people to consider that a direct association. I'm not asking anybody to sacrifice any freedom, I'm trying to produce language that allows them to still have that freedom without it resulting in problems. Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences, and I'm trying to figure out how to minimise the consequences without having to restrict the speech.

If somebody can propose a better wording, I'm all ears. Currently I don't believe the code of conduct does make this clear, hence believing the line needs to be both drawn and drawn explicitly.

[Ajedi32]

Maybe this is a bit of a question of principles vs practicality, idk. Personally I'm in favor of the principled approach. Maybe if this whole thing gets repeated again later I'd be willing to change my mind; I'm not really sure.

[shadowcat-mst]

@Ajedi32 in which case, how would you phrase the change to draw the line where you believe it should be drawn?

Bear in mind that currently we're not drawing a line explicitly at all, and that's not going to be a good answer for anybody.

[Ajedi32]

Hmm. Well, requiring a standard disclaimer of "the views expressed on this page do not necessarily represent the views of..." might be okay IMO, but then again I'm not sure that would have prevented this whole mess either.

I don't think Coraline actually believed Elia's views represented Opal when she made that first post; she just wanted him removed from the project for expressing an opinion she found offensive. No disclaimer would have prevented that.

The question then becomes, how many concessions are we willing to make to prevent this sort of thing? If Coraline had found out Elia was an Opal contributor via Google instead of a link on his profile, would we then force contributors to use pseudonyms here on GitHub to prevent statements made IRL from being associated with the project? I certainly hope not.

[shadowcat-mst]

@Ajedi32 however the combination of an explicit clause in the CoC and a disclaimer on the account would have allowed the admins to immediately reply with "here's why it isn't covered" and close and lock the issue, which seems to me to be pretty close to "prevented".

At the very least, that seems like it'd've involved a lot less effort and upset all round than what did happen, no?

[webmaven]

If whatever version of this gets adopted by Opal, (rather than the version created by the CoC project), I would suggest submitting it there as a possible minor version increment, and see if it gets accepted.

For myself, I think the suggested change is just fine.

[Ajedi32]

@shadowcat-mst True. Like you said, you've got to draw the line somewhere. Personally I'd draw it at, "contributors shouldn't explicitly insinuate that their personal opinions represent the views of Opal". (Not quite sure the exact way to word that.)

As for dealing with the mob, it sounds like you might want to codify something along the lines of what @meh said in the original issue:

Bring contributions, they will be accepted with open arms, bring morals and politics in here, and you will be shown the metaphorical door.

[shadowcat-mst]

@Ajedi32 fixed the whitespace error and updated the wording. @meh - better?

[meh]

@shadowcat-mst much better.

[shadowcat-mst]

@meh note that this wording is intended to strongly imply "FFS if you're going to link to the project and also have opinions that will be controversial make sure there's a 'personal opinion' disclaimer somewhere obvious", but, frankly, I'd argue that's a good idea anyway even if I wish we lived in a world where it wasn't.

[Ajedi32]

Yeah, this definitely seems like a reasonable change now. Though I currently don't interpret that wording as requiring an explicit disclaimer. If someone is using their name on an account and not the name of the project, then, to me, that's pretty clearly a personal account. An explicit disclaimer would only be required if it was otherwise unclear about who the profile belongs to. That's how I see it anyway.

[shadowcat-mst]

@Ajedi32 Right. But in the case where they do they link the project, the disclaimer should be there too.

[adambeynon]

I am much more comfortable with the new wording here. Any other comments, as I am happy to go ahead an merge this in? Also, this is a working document - its language can evolve over time if it needs clarity, but I do feel it shows the right intent as it is.

[shadowcat-mst]

@adambeynon we've got three acks from not-me so at this point I'd say "merge this one with the explicit understanding it can be tweaked later following further discussion"

[jaen]

So if I get the currently proposed wording right you can have an account described as, say:

Herp Derp.
A Ruby programmer, Opal transpiler contributor.
This is my personal account, opinions are my own.

which I think would fall both under explicitly associating his presence with project and being specifically marked as a personal account.
How would then one treat such an account in the light of currently proposed wording?
Which rule would take precedence here - explicit association with project, or being specifically marked as a personal account?

On a second reading though I noticed a slight difference from the wording proposed initially - the original proposal said:

in public spaces where an individual explicitly associates their presence there with Opal.

the currently proposed wording is:

in public spaces where an individual explicitly associates their presence there as representing the project.

Does that additional wording mean that in the case above having just Opal transpiler contributor in the profile description can't be construed as making their presence representing the project and thus making such an account exempt from the public space rule?

If the interpretation of the proposed wording in the case above can be clarified - if need be by additional wording - that such an account is exempt from the public space rule (I assume that was the intention?) this proposal sounds good to me.

[webmaven]

@jaen:

Does that additional wording mean that in the case above having just Opal transpiler contributor in the profile description can't be construed as making their presence representing the project and thus making such an account exempt from the public space rule?

In my opinion, no. Explicit association with project takes precedence. Having 'Opal transpiler contributor' in the profile description would be sufficient to require a disclaimer as well.

If you like, consider the case where the profile says 'Opal transpiler maintainer', instead.

[shadowcat-mst]

@jaen what I would hope would happen in that case is that the user is asked to add the disclaimer to their profile before any further complaints are made. I wrote the language that way to give people a chance.

[shadowcat-mst]

@jaen @webmaven basically identifying yourself as a core team member requires a disclaimer, mentioning you've sent patches shouldn't unless it causes an issue. Remember I'm working for pragmatism not moral perfection here.

[shadowcat-mst]

@adambeynon I'm afraid in my experience most projects don't specify their code's scope so generally wrongthink on twitter is dealt with by the process of "everybody screams at each other for several days until either somebody gets fired, quits the internet, or somebody manages to add the -gate suffix to the situation and thereby godwinate the entire thing".

I thought maybe you and the rest of the opal team might like to try something different :)

[shadowcat-mst]

@jaen did my rephrase work? if not, it's your turn to provide a wording because I've done the last five or so :)

[jaen]

@shadowcat-mst well, I did provide a sample wording in my last post though, but it wasn't nowhere as neat as what you've come up with here.

I think your proposed phrasing is considerably nicer than what I suggested there - it reads more humane, if that can be a thing.
I especially like the addition of the part starting with provided, since I wanted to include something to that effect - that a tweet/post/whatever which purports to be in official relation to Opal in it's content (or direct context, like tweet chain) would still fall under CoC even if made on a personal account - in my proposal above, but wasn't sure how to work it into the sentence and not sound awkward.

I think your choice of words works quite well, something like this could also work probably

(...) provided the statements in question don't refer to the project in official capacity.

but what you came up with is just as good to me.
A matter of preference, really.

You only have a typo inhowvever to fix up and I think what you propose will be a good wording to go forward with.

[shadowcat-mst]

Apparently I can't spell 'however' on the first try. FIXED (thanks)

[jaen]

Glad to could have been of help ; d

[shadowcat-mst]

@adambeynon @meh I think I've run out of bikeshedding here. Please have a look and merge if you're happy with it.

[Ajedi32]

The way this is worded right now, it sounds like maintainers aren't allowed to use their personal accounts for making official announcements. Was that intentional?

Maybe before deciding on the exact wording, it might make sense for everyone to weigh in on exactly what should or should not be covered by the CoC. (E.g. Let's make sure we all agree on what we want the CoC to say before we try to work out exactly how we want it to say it.)

[shadowcat-mst]

@Ajedi32 I read it as saying that the specific announcement would be covered but the rest of the account wouldn't.

We had like three threads' worth of everyone weighing in; the conclusion was "personal stuff no, project stuff yes, but make sure the former is expliclty marked to avoid confusion".

However every time I tweak the language somebody comes up with yet another edge case and I end up tweaking it again :)

[webmaven]

I'd still change the first "as representing" back to "with".

[jaen]

@Ajedi32 @shadowcat-mst
I interpret it as @Ajedi32 did - that is if you make even a single Opal-related announcement on your personal account, then your whole account is fair game to be CoC-enforced, not only Opal-related posts.
On the other hand my proposed wording ((...) provided the statements in question (...) ) would be interpreted the way you say here - they whole personal account is still outside of CoC's scope, but posts explicitly related to Opal are.
At least that's my take on it.

That said I don't see much of a problem with this wording and interpretation - it's a minor concession to make given that Opal has official twitter account anyway where official announcements can be made. Though on the other hand that seems to limit the contributor to actually discuss Opal on his account should he have expressed opinions that might be contentious, so maybe it could be problematic?

I agree with @Ajedi32 that it first should be agreed upon whether:
a) personal account is exempt from the public space clause if and only if there's NO Opal-related posts on it, otherwise the account is not exempt from the public space clause,
or
b) personal account is exempt from the public space clause CoC as the whole, but Opal-related posts made using the account fall under CoC
and then wording should be tweaked accordingly. Maybe someone else has strong feelings how it should work?

[meh]

I'd go with b).

[shadowcat-mst]

I would assume (b) since interpretation (a) seems insane to me. I've always been aiming for (b), I'm just trying to find a wording that people actually feel conveys it.

My latest attempt (pushed to the branch but repeated here for comments):

"This code of conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces whe
re an individual explicitly associates their presence with the project; non-project related material on accounts explicitly marked as personal should not be considered to be so associated."

[shadowcat-mst]

@meh @Ajedi32 @webmaven @jaen any more bikeshedding or did I get away with it this time?

[jaen]

@shadowcat-mst yeah, a) seems insane and I'm aware of your intentions, it's just how I think your previous wording could most likely be read as.
Your new wording seems to be most likely interpreted as b) and thus I think it's fine.

[adambeynon]

And.... merging. Thanks for your patience. I think we're all happy with this wording.

[meltheadorable]

So, am I to take this wording to mean that @elia can tweet as much bigoted content as he likes on the account where he's marked as an opal core contributor as long as he doesn't talk about opal in the body of the tweet itself?

[adambeynon]

@meltheadorable no, that's not how I read it.

[meltheadorable]

@adambeynon Then I think the wording probably still requires clarification, because

b) personal account is exempt from the public space clause CoC as the whole, but Opal-related posts made using the account fall under CoC

combined with the wording from the Code of Conduct itself

non-project related material on accounts explicitly marked as personal should not be considered to be so associated.

Makes it sound like, because @elia's account is personal, his bigoted posts are "non-project related" as long as he doesn't mention opal in them.

[adambeynon]

@meltheadorable I read it as if any contributor has a personal account which is not associated with opal, then those tweets are not covered by the CoC. I.e. a contributor could have 2 personal accounts, one associated with the project, and one which is not.

[meltheadorable]

@adambeynon If that's the intention here, we probably need to find a way to word this to clarify that then, because as written it definitely just says that only opal-related posts on personal accounts count as association -- I think it's because of the way "account" is used as an umbrella in the second part of the clause, if you reorder the phrasing the way I'm interpreting this might be more clear

Non-project related material on accounts explicitly marked as personal should not be considered to be associated [with the project]. This code of conduct applies ... in public spaces where an individual explicitly associates their presence with the project;

With this ordering I think you can see how "associated" gets implicitly defined as meaning "project-related material on accounts marked as personal" and exempts all material from personal accounts otherwise. The confusion might come from lack of clarity around whether we're discussing accounts or content.

rough attempt at a proposed change for clarity:

This code of conduct applies both within project spaces, to project-related material on outside accounts, and to material on accounts where a contributor claims affiliation with the project. Material unrelated to the project on personal accounts unaffiliated with the project are exempt.

[meh]

@adambeynon that's exactly what I was going for, and I think the same goes for the few that contributed to the bikeshedding for this pull request.

@elia doesn't need two different personal accounts just because he states something that's public knowledge in his description.

[meh]

To expand on that, the code of conduct merely states that the stuff he posts in his personal profile doesn't affect his behavior in the project spaces, and if he did it would be an infringement.

[meltheadorable]

@adambeynon @meh Seems the two of you disagree about the purpose of the current wording then, so I guess it's pretty clear that

1. We aren't quite done iterating here if two people agreed on language that they each thought meant opposite things
2. Somebody is going to need to make a final decision one way or the other if you have totally different purposes in mind and can't come to some kind of agreement

I think I've made it pretty clear where I stand, so I'm just gonna keep an eye on this and see where it goes unless somebody wants me to clarify something or I think of anything else I need to say.

[shadowcat-mst]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 02:54:41PM -0700, meh. wrote:

To expand on that, the code of conduct merely states that the stuff he posts in his personal profile doesn't affect his behavior in the project spaces, and if he did it would be an infringement.

As soon as he obeys the code of conduct by making it explicit, as required,
that a 'personal opinions only' is attached, or by removing the link to the
project, I agree.

So far he's done neither and as such is in violation of the clause as written.

I will defend to great extremes his right to hold the opinions he does, but
he needs to detach Opal from them and until he does, frankly, he's fair game
as "somebody who puts politics as more important than code". I consider code
to be more important.

Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue

http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/

Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our CPAN
commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team.

[jaen]

@meltheadorable well, I still don't see how @elia's content was bigoted - I even just checked my Collins' paperback dictionary to be sure what that means and it's not what he did - and I'm not sure why you keep using that word, but otherwise yes - you're entirely correct about the interpretation of the current wording and the fact that if @adambeynon thinks it means a), then iterating on it is not done.

As you probably noticed judging by your quote I specifically wrote down two interpretations a) and b) so people bikeshedding the wording could have an easier time getting it right.
The previous wording was strictly a) - that is you have to have two different accounts if you ever would want to state both Opal-related things and contentious opinions that could be construed as CoC violations by some - and as you can see some people like @meh and @shadowcat-mst think it's too much of a nuclear option.

I'm mostly indifferent - not being able to mention something you contribute to is a small price to pay for being protected from being hounded for your opinion, but I entirely understand not wanting to make such a concession and have option b) - after all a tweet saying I don't think is entirely different from Opal project thinks or even As an Opal contributor I don't think - and I think wanting to have your opinions exempt unless Opal is explicitly in the tweet or it's context (inserting your gay adoption opinion in a Opal-related tweet chain) is a fair position.

Anyway, I assumed @adambeynon's merge had meant that he agrees with going along with interpretation b), since I tried for it to be clear what the wording is aimed at. If he disagrees and think a) is the right interpretation, then reverting to the previous wording @shadowcat-mst proposed is probably the way to go, but since he's been amending the commit I can't give it offhand, but it read explicitly as a), if that's what you're after.

If that's not the case @adambeynon agrees with interpretation b) and @meh does, this need to continue until they work out a common ground, I suppose.

[webmaven]

@shadowcat-mst:

As soon as he obeys the code of conduct by making it explicit, as required,
that a 'personal opinions only' is attached, or by removing the link to the
project, I agree.

So far he's done neither and as such is in violation of the clause as written.

Yup, that's my interpretation too.