Documentation: Improve 'On ideologically motivated changes'

[n0toose]

From my previous interactions with the Serenity community, it was clear to me that this rule (for better or worse) was introduced by the author that wanted to focus on the code and not let an open-source operating system project be used as a 'political vehicle' and so as to not have to possess a political science degree to operate the project thought to be a technical exercise, like building a sandcastle.

For better or worse.

Unfortunately, the wording as-is can be interpreted as a dogwhistle in the direction of "keep politics out of tech", which has been present in communities like, as of recently, NixCPP - and this seems to have caused the problems that Serenity has been intentionally trying to avoid.

It might also disregard cases of technical arguments, arguments involving how people treat each other within the community as well as how to change the wording in documentation with the sole intent of making the project more attractive to more contributors.

Given recent commits and governance changes, I decided to rewrite the rule to make it more clear and encourage people to be "more excellent to each other", while not compromising on what I see as the original meaning.

[n0toose]

I understand that this subject might be very touchy, but I hope that it is understood that this change is made in good faith and that I just want to help (after seeing https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/24648).

I tried to explain instead of leaving lots room for ambiguity - while still leaving some room - because as-is, the project unintentionally got itself involved in a future culture war. I modified the paragraph on how I interpreted the "why the drama from yesterday happened" - given that I understand both perspectives to some degree because of my previous (short) involvement here as well as in other projects. I was mildly dissatisfied with the way the rule was practically enforced in the past despite understanding its nature (I'm only trying to explain its nature), and I also believe that some people took it too far with the accusations against an entire community, especially given that the "ex-BDFL"-author is not involved anymore.

My goal here is to help, and I am definitely open to a discussion if you folks wish to have one - after all, I have not been involved in a while and my interpretation may be a bit one-sided.

Best, :^)

[thiemowmde]

Exclusively addressing males is an ideology I do not support.

[n0toose]

Exclusively addressing males is an ideology I do not support.

I'm on your side and have to say that this is not the intention - this is intended to be a continuation in the spirit Ryan's change, they are non-binary. I believe I have to make it clear that I am an outsider here despite the "Contributor" tag and do not represent the project.

[n0toose]

There are lots of people in the SerenityOS community - some of them are friends of mine - that are non-binary or started identifying as queer during their involvement. I find the vibe by the ex-maintainer from 3 years ago bad - and it's among the reasons why I stopped being involved back then, I have very strong opinions on the subject and insist on using gender-neutral language in other projects. In this context, I think such a change makes perfect sense, given it's not just males that are involved - and this fact is community-specific and "not some sort of an external political influence".

The aforementioned Pull Request changed what you just brought up, @thiemowmde. The question is "How do we all learn from a bad situation and move on from here?". What do you think?

[fogti]

@thiemowmde In regards to e.g. #24647, afaik most, if not all of the problematic cases were fixed by #24648 (https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/commit/a2a6bc534868773b9320ec3ca7399283cf7a375b)

[EvelynSubarrow]

As an outsider too, it's good to see genuine efforts being made, instead of brigading.

[thiemowmde]

While I agree the proposed rewording is much better, the core message is largely the same as before. (Sorry, I understand this is the idea of this pull request.) Particularly, what does "purely technical" mean? Do the project owners have an agreed on understanding of what they consider a "culture war", when it's "external", and what it means to be "external"?

Documentation addresses real people. Writing inclusive documentation is an art form. It's certainly not "purely technical" and something a project can "reject" just because "we" (who exactly?) "feels" (feels what?) a change might "be sensitive" (to whom?).

@fogti I have seen that, thanks a lot!

[gmta]

Hi @n0toose ! Thanks for thinking with us on the wording, very much appreciated. We're currently in process of reviewing how our policies are effectively expressed, which can definitely be improved. We'll get back to this PR soon.

[n0toose]

While I agree the proposed rewording is much better, the core message is largely the same as before. (Sorry, I understand this is the idea of this pull request.) Particularly, what does "purely technical" mean? Do the project owners have an agreed on understanding of what they consider a "culture war", when it's "external", and what it means to be "external"?

Documentation addresses real people. Writing inclusive documentation is an art form. It's certainly not "purely technical" and something a project can "reject" just because "we" (who exactly?) "feels" (feels what?) a change might "be sensitive" (to whom?).

OK, now that is something something that I find constructive and that I (and others) can absolutely work with. I am not sure if I agree on "the core message being largely the same as before" (because some interpreted it as a dogwhistle meaning that "only straight males should contribute btw your existence is political lol" - and I 100% would interpret it this way myself if it weren't for the fact that I've been previously engaged with this community).

Despite aiming for some "ambiguity", you're right that my sentence is very unclear. All of these points are 100% valid and should be addressed - the cause of the problem was that I was also trying not to make the changes excessively long so as to not scare maintainers (that are possibly on high alert) away and increase the chance of getting "one step further" and not cause even more disruption as an outsider.

[n0toose]

We're currently in process of reviewing how our policies are effectively expressed, which can definitely be improved.

@gmta, keep in mind that this PR was created with what I perceived to be the current status quo in mind. You're free to modify it (or just let me know if I can help), but I have a feeling that @thiemowmde's feedback here may actually help out.

Have a great Wednesday!

[sdomi]

the general view is good, and those changes highly reflect what I wanted to change in this document myself later down the line. but if those were to be accepted, we have to deeply think about how all of this can be read and misread, and also about taking a specific position as a community/project.

[n0toose]

I think that the recent feedback shared here seems to share a general view that I have to be more explicit about how I mean things - I wasn't 100% sure how to do it myself.

I will ultimately leave the change untouched for the time being as I believe that any progress that I'd make at this point in time has a high risk of being dismissed - given that there's an upcoming policy change that seems to be pending. I believe that the feedback of my attempt (which somewhat attempted to both-sides this issue) can still be helpful for the person that will pick this up at a later point in time (I'd be happy to help too!) and I totally like a constructive discussion from people with different perspectives taking place in public.

[Puppercino]

I'm not too experienced in Serenity OS but I have a great appreciation for how far this OS project has come. :)

Basing on this PR conversation and the current version of the On ideologically motivated changes section, it feels like this is trying to solve something that might be better addressed by a Code of Conduct, in my opinion.

It's pretty difficult to enforce a policy of no drama and no ideology, when disagreements are basically guaranteed when collaboration is happening at this scale. A Code of Conduct won't fully stop disagreements or drama, but my perspective is that it'll at least put guard rails in place, making clear how everyone should behave when contributing to Serenity.

[Puppercino]

@incrediblyimpressiveusername I understand that people would want contributions to be completely technical, though the second half of your comment sounds like you want Serenity to be a political vehicle for your homophobia but that's just my opinion. 😀

[gmta]

Please do not feed the trolls.