search

EthicalSource / contributor_covenant

Pledge your respect and appreciation for contributors of all kinds to your open source project.
http://www.contributor-covenant.org/
Other
1.87k stars 1.17k forks source link

"Harassment" #788

Open chrisgraham opened 4 years ago

chrisgraham commented 4 years ago

The Contributor Covenant predominantly talks about "Harassment".

According to dictionary.com, the definition is: "to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute. to trouble by repeated attacks, incursions, etc., as in war or hostilities; harry; raid."

Basically, ongoing targeted behavior.

IMO there are common abusive behaviors that do not fit most people's definitions of harassment. For example, there are certain awful words you can call people once that are totally unacceptable.

I suspect what is going on here is there is a social justice oriented understanding of harassment that differs a bit from the dictionary definition. I do, however, feel the dictionary definitions of things should be given precedence for a public document like this that needs to have broad understanding and consent.

I don't think I should jump in suggesting specific alternative wording at this point, as I think first it would be great to clarify what the intent is, and if we agree there is room for improvement.

chrisgraham commented 4 years ago

(My colleague @Lovinity and I are discussing this, but they cannot log in due to a GitHub issue, so I am going to quote them)

That actually makes sense. Instead of a harassment-free framework, maybe it should just be a framework to foster an enjoyable collaborative and learning environment. Or, maybe not "enjoyable", a better word would be "productive"

CoralineAda commented 4 years ago

I know you mean well, but you've opened over a dozen issues today. I'm not looking for the kind of help you're trying to offer right now, but I appreciate the interest.

chrisgraham commented 4 years ago

Sorry if it was overwhelming to you. From where I'm sitting, I am just trying to be responsible. I want our community to follow best practices in the sense of having a CoC and it being an industry standard, but also to do what I can to ensure it is as good as it reasonably can be by collaborating in the spirit of OSS. Possibly you found some of my comments pedantic. I just want to make things as watertight as possible given how contentious CoCs can be; I don't want there to be space for misinterpretation (unintentional or willful), for example.

I have a couple of notes to my existing issues that came up with me discussing with my colleague, and I'll simply edit them into what I originally posted to avoid further noise.

If nobody on Contributor Covenant's end wants to discuss the 10 issues I opened here that's fine (I'm not here expecting anything). In that event I'll likely make my own draft of a v3 (not a hard fork, just for the purposes of our community) and bring it to our community whether to move forward with that (in the hope of resynching later), the current v2, or something else.

CoralineAda commented 4 years ago

Contributor Covenant is licensed such that modifications can be made with attribution, and in fact modifications are encouraged to adapt to the community that adopts it. There’s no need to fork or try to write your own v3. However, the language has been very carefully written, hardened, and proven over the past 6 years, and I strongly recommend consulting with someone well-versed on the issues for the kinds of modifications you’re considering. Constructing a good code of conduct is not as simple or straightforward as you may think it is, and not a problem to solve from first principles.