Code of Conduct refresh

[vinniefalco]

The subject of a code of conduct has come up a few times, and this issue serves as a discussion thread. I hope that everyone will find the following statements uncontroversial:

1. Social spaces have rules, either stated or implied
2. Rules need to state clearly what is allowed and what is disallowed, so that people who may be interested in joining can determine if the culture is the right fit.
3. Rules need to be enforced
4. The Boost mailing lists already have rules
5. The rules for the mailing list are outdated
6. The rules for the mailing list are not particularly visible

There is value in refreshing the rules for the Boost mailing list, which are currently described here:

https://www.boost.org/community/policy.html

I think we should do the following:

• Update the rules to be relevant for 2024
• Make the rules visible on the sign-up and administration page for the mailing lists (at https://lists.boost.org)
• Consider renaming the rules to something other than "Boost Discussion Policy"
• Send a periodic announcement to the mailing lists reminding everyone of the rules. These could be timed to coincide with the releases (three times per year)

[Lastique]

5. The rules for the mailing list are outdated

I do not feel this way. What exactly is considered "outdated" and what exactly does it mean to make the rules "relevant for 2024"? In general, I would like to see more specifics as to what changes to the current discussion policy are proposed before I can comment. FWIW, I'm quite content with the policy we currently have, and the level of enforcement we currently excercise.

BTW, some people mentioned on the ML the term "flame wars" as being outdated, but I do not think so. Flame wars are still a thing, no matter the year, and are still unproductive waste of time. I agree with the current policy that those are discouraged.

Consider renaming the rules to something other than "Boost Discussion Policy"

I do not think this is needed. Specifically, I do not like the name of "code of conduct" for the reasons I expressed on the ML. In short, in my perception (and possibly not only mine), "code of conduct" has strong negative connotations as it is often (ab)used to prosecute and ban people. The name itself suggests that the document does not only regulate the discussion culture, but also other activities, possibly outside the project, which I find unacceptable.

[Lastique]

I do agree with that the discussion policy should be made more visible, especially for the first time posters. Perhaps, show the policy in a popup when the user joins the ML.

I'm not sure that periodic posts on the ML with the link to the policy is the right approach, though. Long-time community members are already aware of the document, and one-time posters will likely miss those posts anyway.

[vinniefalco]

I posted about another idea to send "welcome" message for new people. How about if we combine these two ideas? We could do this:

One week after each release (so, 3 times per year) a message is posted to the developer's mailing list with the following:

• A welcome message
• The name of each person who subscribed to the mailing list for the first time, since the previous release
• A link to the discussion policy

It would only be three times per year which is fairly light, it avoids the problem of sending too many messages (what if 30 people subscribe) and it creates an opportunity for the regulars on the mailing list to say hello to the new people or something.

Another idea I have, is when someone signs up for the first time we could ask them to give an introductory sentence like "hi my name is Vinnie and I am interested in writing concurrent network programs." And then in the welcome post, we can show this message next to their name.

[vinniefalco]

5. The rules for the mailing list are outdated

I do not feel this way. What exactly is considered "outdated" and what exactly does it mean to make the rules "relevant for 2024"?

For example, the current policy refers to the "comp.std.c++ newsgroup." These things died about 8 years ago so we might consider sending them to a new place, preferably with a hyperlink.

The current policy page needs a few rounds of editing to improve its presentation. There should be a couple of major section headings, maybe placing the topical policy elements first, and then the next section can discuss the rules around formatting and quoting. This puts the most important information first for people who are visiting for the first time.

In general, I would like to see more specifics as to what changes to the current discussion policy are proposed before I can comment. FWIW, I'm quite content with the policy we currently have, and the level of enforcement we currently excercise.

Yes that's fair and I think you are right. The policy we have is for the most part quite usable. However I think it can be presented better.

BTW, some people mentioned on the ML the term "flame wars" as being outdated, but I do not think so. Flame wars are still a thing, no matter the year, and are still unproductive waste of time. I agree with the current policy that those are discouraged.

Flame wars are still a thing, they are unproductive, and no one calls them that anymore:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%22flame%20wars%22&hl=en

In fact.. the term "flame" itself is rather outdated. We want to update the policy to use modern, recognizable terminology (and I'm not quite sure what that is, given that I too know what flame wars and flames are).

Consider renaming the rules to something other than "Boost Discussion Policy"

I do not think this is needed. Specifically, I do not like the name of "code of conduct" for the reasons I expressed on the ML. In short, in my perception (and possibly not only mine), "code of conduct" has strong negative connotations as it is often (ab)used to prosecute and ban people.

I don't much like the term "Code of Conduct" either. However we should still give the community an opportunity to consider alternatives, such as "Acceptable Use Policy." Or even "Discussion Policy" (i.e. drop the word Boost)

The name itself suggests that the document does not only regulate the discussion culture, but also other activities, possibly outside the project, which I find unacceptable.

I agree, and in practice documents named "Code of Conduct" do in fact try to regulate off-platform behavior.

[Lastique]

5. The rules for the mailing list are outdated

I do not feel this way. What exactly is considered "outdated" and what exactly does it mean to make the rules "relevant for 2024"?

For example, the current policy refers to the "comp.std.c++ newsgroup." These things died about 8 years ago so we might consider sending them to a new place, preferably with a hyperlink.

Newsgroups are mentioned in two places and in a non-normative context. We should update these references, but that shouldn't change the normative part.

I think, these are possible replacements:

• Requests for help getting non-boost code to compile with your compiler. Try Stack Overflow instead.
• Requests for help interpreting the C++ standard. Try the std-discussion mailing list instead.

The current policy page needs a few rounds of editing to improve its presentation. There should be a couple of major section headings, maybe placing the topical policy elements first, and then the next section can discuss the rules around formatting and quoting. This puts the most important information first for people who are visiting for the first time.

The Acceptable and Unacceptable Topics are already at the top. I would probably move Prohibited Behavior and Culture right under Unacceptable Topics, but other than that the document structure seems fine to me.

BTW, some people mentioned on the ML the term "flame wars" as being outdated, but I do not think so. Flame wars are still a thing, no matter the year, and are still unproductive waste of time. I agree with the current policy that those are discouraged.

Flame wars are still a thing, they are unproductive, and no one calls them that anymore:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%22flame%20wars%22&hl=en

In fact.. the term "flame" itself is rather outdated. We want to update the policy to use modern, recognizable terminology (and I'm not quite sure what that is, given that I too know what flame wars and flames are).

Well, if we can't come up with a better term known internationally then maybe there isn't one.

Consider renaming the rules to something other than "Boost Discussion Policy"

I do not think this is needed. Specifically, I do not like the name of "code of conduct" for the reasons I expressed on the ML. In short, in my perception (and possibly not only mine), "code of conduct" has strong negative connotations as it is often (ab)used to prosecute and ban people.

I don't much like the term "Code of Conduct" either. However we should still give the community an opportunity to consider alternatives, such as "Acceptable Use Policy." Or even "Discussion Policy" (i.e. drop the word Boost)

Why? "Acceptable Use Policy" doesn't make sense (we're not regulating use, we're regulating discussion participation), and dropping "Boost" seems to make it not Boost-related. We're not in position to regulate anything outside Boost. I guess, "Discussion Policy" would still work, I just don't see the point.

[vinniefalco]

I guess, "Discussion Policy" would still work, I just don't see the point.

I agree with you. And my interest here is only to engage the people who have a preference, get feedback, and see what a revision might look like. And we could use the review process to decide whether to accept it or not. Or we could use a less structured process if the changes are not significant.

The Foundation has brought up the topic of "Code of Conduct," and some people on the list have agreed. We should at the minimum explore this fully, with everyone given the opportunity to weigh in, even if the conclusion is to not to change anything.

The Foundation submitted a proposal which out of nowhere, decides that a new Code of Conduct is best for the project. There was no discussion and no involvement with stakeholders. I think there is value in having a do-over for the Code of Conduct topic, where we try to use the community-driven approach alluded to in the Boost mission. Then we can at least say that the topic was given proper consideration and thought.

[grafikrobot]

I started doing some editing of the "Discussion Policy" (see https://gist.github.com/grafikrobot/86e6de40a8b0f17a6a940b7fa6a00ebf). Some minor items now, more later when I have time:

• The "Discussion Policy" term is fine IMO. Dropping "Boost" is best, as it's redundant. Anything different implies more than what it is. About the only other term that could be appropriate would be "Discussion Guidelines". But that seem too vague to me.

• Automatically sending welcome messages to the list is a NO for me. It has too many drawbacks. One particular one being that it might take new subscribers by surprise and scare the more introverted ones away. It's hard enough to subscribe to a big list. Having a spotlight put on anyone makes that even worse.

• Finding ways to make the policy more prevalent is a good idea. My suggestion would be to: make a summary of it part of the signup process, and at least yearly reminders to the list(s) about it.

• Clean up the various lists there are. Perhaps retiring all but the main list. And make sure we have active moderators.

[vinniefalco]

• Dropping "Boost" is best

Yes, and this is a general principle. We must be incredibly aggressive with minimizing the use of the word "Boost." Otherwise, you end up with documentation that has the word Boost in literally every sentence. Sometimes twice in one sentence. It looks terrible.

Automatically sending welcome messages to the list is a NO for me

Yes this wasn't one of my best ideas :) There is already a "welcome" message but it isn't personal and probably shouldn't be. I wrote up some ideas on the list on how we can make that message more helpful.

[cmazakas]

The reason to call it "code of conduct" is because people are going to google " code of conduct".

They aren't going to google "boost discussion policy". "Code of Conduct" gives the utility in searching that we need.

[vinniefalco]

What exactly is the workflow? Someone types "code of conduct" into a Google search? Or do you mean on the website's full-text search box?

[vinniefalco]

Discussion of edits to the page is here: https://gist.github.com/grafikrobot/86e6de40a8b0f17a6a940b7fa6a00ebf