Code of Conduct.

[mikeal]

Governance and contribution policy are now in #13

Code of Conduct is now in #14

I was about to comment on the new threads about core governance when I realized that all of them presume some knowledge of the structure we've adopted and have been using for some time in Node Forward.

Without discussing and being able to link to some kind of ongoing documentation I don't think the conversation threads will be very fruitful so I've gone ahead and written them up in this pull request.

They are adapted from Node Forward's fork where they are sections in the CONTRIBUTING file. Here I've put them in to their own files for clearer separation. All direct references to Node Forward have been removed so that this can be adopted by any project without confusion.

The premise is simple: the project employs a simple governance structure that can be the "final word" on contentious issues and, most importantly, owns the contribution policy. The contribution policy is intended to be somewhat fluid and adapt over time to the needs of the project. The current one is geared heavily towards growing the contributor base of the project because that's the biggest problem. You can imagine that after the project grows a large cohort of contributors this policy would change to adapt the challenges of distributing work among a larger contributor base.

This separation between contributor and TC member is a necessary one. Liberalizing the contribution policy has been an effective tool at growing new contributors in Node Forward and in other projects that have been employing similar policies for some time. Of course, contributors who spend a fair amount of time in the project and want to take on additional responsibilities will find themselves on the TC but the direct correlation of commit rights to being part of a sometimes boring and bureaucratic process of managing the project at a higher level is an unnecessary barrier to growing contributors.

[mikeal]

@totherik I'll point to where I believe some of the current documentation for this is so that you can suggest improvements.

Beginning here we state what the TC governs: https://github.com/joyent/nodejs-advisory-board/pull/11/files#diff-898e7f1ceacb493c024554f5a7c87bdfR26 This should probably be amended to include the nodejs website and some future GitHub org (probably nodejs).

Here we state explicitly that the TC owns its governance model and can iterate on it if necessary https://github.com/joyent/nodejs-advisory-board/pull/11/files#diff-898e7f1ceacb493c024554f5a7c87bdfR32 It may be a good idea in the future to limit the number of seats, for example, and the governance document can be amended in order to do that.

This is how people are added to the TC https://github.com/joyent/nodejs-advisory-board/pull/11/files#diff-c1f8484a7bd248a67b2cd680f19baf8fR20 It is at the TC's discretion what criteria to use when adding new members. I think that is important because the needs of the TC may change over time. Right now it's heavy with people with a history in core because we're getting it up and running but you can easily imagine a future scenario where you would want someone on the TC who is also at ECMA and even though they have little to no track record in core code, bridging the TC and ECMA would be a worthy reason to add them. Additionally, @rvagg has been on the TC calls as a non-voting member but once the build infra is up it would make a lot of sense for him to be a voting member even if he's never contributing to core. These are all smart things the TC should be able to do at its own discretion without guidelines or limitations on membership being written in to concrete today.

In regards to the meeting agenda, I'm actually the one who proposed the new format citing the impossibility of scheduling a meeting with people in Russia, Australia, America and Europe :) But, I think that for the first few meetings it's good to have everyone there and work out whatever schedule needs to be worked out. The first few of these meetings were highly productive because everyone was there. Now the Node Forward work is singing along smoothly and there is less need for everyone to be on a call together. I would hold off on modifying the meeting format/agenda until after a few meetings of the newly formed TC. But, once that change is adopted, it should go in to this document. These policies are all editable, we're never going to get this perfect on the first try, and what works today for Node may be unmanageable a year from now.

In regards to roadmap, the important thing is that the TC owns the releases process, which should be called out explicitly (it isn't in there right now because Node Forward hasn't been doing releases). We've been floating lots of ideas on how to improve the process and get releases back on track but that process, probably more than anything else we're talking about, needs to be iterated on for the lifetime of the project. I think we'll find a great process early on but a year from now when automation is much improved it opens the door to all kinds of new strategies that will need to be explored.

The question that continues to come in both in the Advisory Board and in the community is "how does the broader community participate in the roadmap?" This is a good question and one we're exploring in the roadmap repository in GitHub Issues https://github.com/node-forward/roadmap I believe strongly that the only sustainable way for the broader community to participate in the roadmap is to organize them outside the TC/core in a place and process that they own. The node core project and the TC already work with and even defer to other projects (like npm and v8) so I'm confident that once the community is organized around this that we can create a good relationship between the projects. This is a long way off but luckily there's a long list of obvious and immediate things Node needs to do and release which will give the community plenty of time to think about the long term plans. So the short term answer is "the TC owns the roadmap" and the long term answer is "the TC may choose to adopt a roadmap or participate in a roadmap process with a project which harnesses input from the broader community."

[mikeal]

@totherik oh, one thing I forgot to mention. The reason I used should rather than must language for the video recordings is that I was afraid technical issues might prevent them from recording properly and I didn't want to commit to them working yet. Having done a few on hangouts I'm ready to try an alternative method for the meetings and would still caution against strong committal language :) But, once we've done a bunch and are confident it all works it should be changed to must.

[totherik]

Thanks @mikeal, but what I'm hearing is effectively that by not explicitly stating them, any future rights or decisions are reserved, carte blanche. My specific ask was that the governance document explicitly address some of the points I raised. There are answers as to how the proposed TC should function and @isaacs provided them, so I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be included (and based on this proposal they aren't binding or concrete as the TC could change them at any time). You state that the TC owns the governance model, but from what I can tell (based on the provided link) said model consists of 5 bullet points, once of which is "governance" itself. I'm merely asking for more detail as to how the TC will operate and govern itself in addition to Node.js.

Thanks for linking to the contribution policy regarding nominating TC members. I missed that. Perhaps that should be covered in the governance document as "non-voting" participation is already covered there, so the symmetry may be helpful. Also, to be clear I'm not asking that there are criterion for the nominee (the @rvagg example) but that the process as undertaken by the TC is outlined, even at a high level.

Regarding an agenda, I appreciate that it has been fluid. That doesn't preclude a need to have one and if there's a plan for accounting for agenda proposals from the community it would be good to at least outline it at this stage.

I'm not sure I asked about roadmap or releases, so I can't comment on that. I assume that's at the discretion of the TC and any future project management process/policy that will be put in place.

I guess all said, I'm not totally comfortable with publishing a deliberately ambiguous governance model such that the group can operate with impunity. If the guidelines that @isaacs mentioned were agreed upon, they should be documented. At least then there would be a baseline against which proposed changes can be measured once the TC is active in this capacity.

[mikeal]

@totherik I've been trying to adapt what @issacs has been saying in to additional text in the document and have been finding it difficult since, as you may have noticed, a large amount of it has just been informal. Alternatively, I decided to document the points of process that aren't outlined and also improve a bit on them, rather than just describe what has been happening. Let me know what you think about this section being added to governance:

## Agenda

Items are added to the TC agenda which are considered
contentious or are modifications of governance, contribution
policy, or release process. The intention of the agenda is 
not to approve or review all patches, that should happen
continuously on GitHub.

Any community member or contributor can ask that 
something be added to the next meeting's agenda by 
logging a GitHub Issue. Any TC member or the moderator
can add the item to the agenda by a simple +1. The
moderator and the TC cannot veto or remove items.

Prior to each TC meeting the moderator will email the 
Agenda to the TC. TC members can add any items they like
to the agenda at the beginning of each meeting. The 
moderator and the TC cannot veto or remove items.

When an agenda item has appeared to reach a consensus
the moderator will ask "Does anyone object?" as a final call
for dissent from the consensus.

If an agenda item cannot reach a consensus a TC member 
can call for either a closing vote or a vote to table the issue 
to the next meeting. The call for a vote must be seconded by a
majority of the TC or else the discussion will continue. Simple
majority wins.

As I've stated elsewhere, we want votes to be rare and to continue incentivizing people to persuade their peers. I'd like to avoid people calling for votes spuriously rather than working towards consensus so I made it relatively difficult. Basically, a majority has to agree to end the discussion by tabling the issue or calling for a final vote.

I'm interested in people's thoughts. Like I said before, in Node Forward we've never needed a vote and have found easy consensus or the people proposing issues have just dropped and reformulated them, so all of this stuff around voting is new and untested.

@totherik I'm also copying the nomination process to the governance document. Can you let me know any other issues that are still undocumented even if this were added.

[mikeal]

Oh, I should also add a paragraph to the bottom:

The moderator is responsible for summarizing the discussion of each agenda item
and send it as a pull request after the meeting.

[andrewdeandrade]

We've effectively created an environment where @gramergrater only feels comfortable participating anonymously. What needs to be done to create an environment when people like gramergrater would feel comfortable making the comments he made under his real name? This is a hard question that I don't have an answer to, but I think it's an important question that we should at least attempt to answer.

There are many examples of other communities—famously—having fostered a negative environment for new or young contributors by responding to attempts at contributing or engaging with snark, incredulity, or otherwise equally unproductive commentary. (@jasisk)

Writing off gramergrater's contributions wholesale because some believe him to be trolling qualifies as the same kind of unwelcoming behaviors we're trying to address with the CoC. Put yourself in gramergrater's position for a moment. Assume that you're a guy with a contrarian view (whatever that may be). Would you feel comfortable participating in this discussion except anonymously? If the answer is no, then we are failing to create an environment that is welcoming and inclusive.

The irony here would be amusing if it weren't so depressing :(

[mbonaci]

IMHO we should state explicitly that everything TC does must be done publicly. The recording venue should be chosen with that in mind. From the get go.

The only thing I'm not sure about is meetings chat. Perhaps you should decide whether to publish the transcript or read out loud the important stuff, as someone suggested. But whatever you decide should also be stated explicitly in the governance section, along with who is responsible for doing that and in which time frame.

[mikeal]

@malandrew half of gramergrater's comments had to be removed by the moderator, why exactly are you interested in making people feel good enough about behaving that way that they don't have to do it anonymously?

I am not concerned in the least that an environment more acceptable to marginalized groups is hostile to behavior that would offend or continue to marginalize them. Creating an inclusive environment means you exclude people who perpetuate a homogeneous environment. You don't get to have it both ways.

[mikeal]

@mbonaci

The recording venue should be chosen with that in mind.

The meetings are not in person, they are entirely virtual, we're using software that is designed to record the meetings. The problem is: software breaks, especially Google hangouts. I'm looking in to alternatives and once we find something reliable you are right, everything should be public and the contribution policy should be modified to state as much.

Violations of the governance model should have consequences, if the rules aren't followed we should invalidate any decisions the way we would a commit that shouldn't have been merged. With that in mind, I would like to refrain from committing to publicized recordings until we have a reliable solution so that we aren't forced to invalidate an entire meeting's decisions if the recording doesn't work. That does not mean that every effort won't be made to record and publicize every meeting in the meantime.

[andrewdeandrade]

@mikeal Well that's unfortunate. I wish we had HN's downmodding system that muted people instead of of squelching them entirely. I'm late to the conversation and missed out on any other comments made by gramergrater, so I can't judge based on information I don't have. What I do know is that of those comments that are left are unpopular, but perfectly reasonable positions to hold.

What's wrong with the following suggestions made?

Suggestion: replace with "we don't tolerate discrimination of any kind". This way it's not weasel-worded and gets the point across.

I would have no issues with a CoC that simply reads "don't be a jerk". This clearly isn't that.

... and what is incorrect about the following observation?

We'd be in for more melodrama if at the slightest hint of any misconduct this file is harpooned at the prime suspect. That itself isn't friendly and welcome, so that's why I consider the intent of any misconduct at least as important as the misconduct itself.

I am not concerned in the least that an environment more acceptable to marginalized groups is hostile to behavior that would offend or continue to marginalize them. Creating an inclusive environment means you exclude people who perpetuate a homogeneous environment. You don't get to have it both ways.

That's a false dichotomy. The majority of the men who "perpetuate a homogenous environment" do so unintentionally, and all they need is some positive reinforcement on how their behavior could be better. A simple "that's not cool" is usually enough to improve the social norms that perpetuate homogenous environments. Positive reinforcement is far more effect than the threat of punishments. Those people who are genuine jerks with ill intent should most certainly be excluded, but you and I both know that the biases against women in this industry do not come from a few bad apples. You're giving those few people far too much credit for the status quo. It's the unintentional and hidden biases we should be worrying about. The majority of men that don't know when they've done something inappropriate do far more to create a hostile environment than the jerks. The jerks are obvious. They're easy to deal with and purge.

I have no idea if women would agree that the jerks are most damaging or whether its the implicity cultural biases that are damaging. Honestly, I doubt you'd find consensus [0]. Some might agree. Some might disagree. Some might be on the fence. Women are not a hive mind. Neither are men. There is diversity of opinion and its important to understand that if you paint the world as black and white, you'll get exactly that. You'll start labeling things as all right or all wrong, when that couldn't be further from the truth. There are all shades of grey and it's important to not to foster a polarizing atmosphere where people choose like they have to choose sides.

One day I plan to have kids. Who knows if they will be a boy or girl (maybe they'll adopt a gender identity beyond the binary. Hopefully society becomes that civil by the time they come of age). All I know, is that regardless of their biological gender or chosen gender, if it is different, or both. Assuming a gender binary (for the sake of argument because I couldn't think of a gender neutral way to convey my next point), if that child is a girl, I don't want them to feel discriminated against, and if they are a boy I don't want them to feel that their guilty/culpable for the transgressions of prior generations. Kids generally adopt their parents' biases and we're creating an environment that encodes those biases in writing instead of focusing something simpler, gender neutral guidelines like "don't be a jerk. don't make people uncomfortable. be open and accepting of feedback when you're informed that you have made someone feel uncomfortable. If you've been made to feel uncomfortable, try to give the benefit of the doubt if their is any ambiguity. When in doubt, seek a mediator. Communicate. Communicate. Communicate.". I can't support any CoC where communication is not the central value and the primary method of resolution.

If you create conditions where that majority, instead of being encouraged to behave better through safe positive encouragement, instead feel attacked, then you're fostering resentment which is highly counter-productive to inclusion. The worst thing you can do for inclusiveness is create resentment. A quiet brooding, resentment is one of the hardest social ills to cure.

Here's a perspective of someone who's been around open source for far longer than you or I with a much more experienced take on all aspects of the issue of gender and open source. I highly recommend it: http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/girls-and-software

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8591882

[mikeal]

@malandrew

... and what is incorrect about the following observation?

I believe I addressed that already. "Don't be a jerk" is a great TLDR but by itself is too subjective to an effective policy.

That's a false dichotomy. The majority of the men who "perpetuate a homogenous environment" do so unintentionally, and all they need is some positive reinforcement on how their behavior could be better. A simple "that's not cool" is usually enough to improve the social norms that perpetuate homogenous environments.

What you describe is how the current IRC conduct policy is enforced for small offenses already. I would expect something very similar for the enforcement section of this CoC once it is written. My comment about "exclude people who perpetuate a homogeneous environment" for which you claim is a false dichotomy is not in regards to that kind of behavior but the kind present in the comments which needed to be moderated which I previously mentioned, as well as much worse behavior we've moderated at times in other forums.

Look, I don't think either of us are interested in creating a nurturing environment for hate speech. There is a spectrum of bad conduct with death threats on one end and the accidental use of gendered pronouns on the other. The reaction to one end is simply to correct the behavior quickly and move on while the reaction to the other end is expulsion and legal action if possible. It's not binary, it's a spectrum and the goal of what method you use to correct the behavior (moderation to expulsion) should be the one that makes those effected negatively by the behavior feel safe again rather than the well being of the person responsible for the offense.

[bnoordhuis]

half of gramergrater's comments had to be removed by the moderator, why exactly are you interested in making people feel good enough about behaving that way that they don't have to do it anonymously?

@mikeal I have @gramergrater's comments sitting in my inbox and, while you may not like their viewpoint, there is nothing trollish or rude about their comments. Your Twitter comment is not becoming of someone who is involved with the TC.

[mikeal]

@bnoordhuis how I feel about them, and how you feel about them, is not as important as how women felt about them that informed @isaacs and I on twitter and in private emails about their concern with them. This is why they were moderated, which IMO was the appropriate reaction. Are you actually offended that I used the term "crazy" in a subtweet and that it may have been directed at someone who required multiple moderations? (it wasn't about him btw, the private messages i'm getting about this are far worse that anything here. but even if it was, i don't see how this is the biggest concern you could have in this thread.)

[andrewdeandrade]

I believe I addressed that already. "Don't be a jerk" is a great TLDR but by itself is too subjective to an effective policy.

I know it's merely a TLDR. What I'm saying is that that should be the spirit of a CoC. @gramergrater did a much more elegant job on expounding on what that spirit/sentiment should be in the comments where he explained why going with a "don't be a jerk" approach is better.

is not in regards to that kind of behavior but the kind present in the comments which needed to be moderated which I previously mentioned, as well as much worse behavior we've moderated at times in other forums.

Then at least give us more details in the CoC on how more ambiguous behaviors will be handled constructively. Right now, everything I'm hearing makes me feel unsafe here.

Look, I don't think either of us are interested in creating a nurturing environment for hate speech. There is a spectrum of bad conduct with death threats on one end and the accidental use of gendered pronouns on the other.

Correct. I absolutely don't want to nurture such an environment. But I'm also no interested in nurturing an environment where white men needlessly need to suffer from context switching. I refuse to accept that there aren't more constructive ways to make so that neither people of other genders and race nor white men have to context switch. Many kids grow up this way and it's not until they are introduced into the adult world that they are subjected to this injustice.

Are you actually offended that I used the term "crazy" in a subtweet and that it may have been directed at someone who required multiple moderations?

I'm not offended, but I find such comments worrisome. It doesn't make me feel safe. Someone on twitter began a peanut gallery lynch mob using a comment out of context without linking to the original source so that people could come here and investigate for themselves what all the hubbub was about. Instead of participating like you did, I would expect someone trying to enforce the spirit of the CoC impartially to have messaged the person privately to tell them "that's not cool". Encouraging on that kind of behavior doesn't make me feel safe. Those are exactly the kinds of tweets that blow up a small issue into a massive melodrama that all the tech rags decide to write about.

[mikeal]

@bnoordhuis let me apologize for my confrontational tone in that last message. It's been a long day and I'm clearly getting stressed out.

[rlidwka]

how I feel about them, and how you feel about them, is not as important as how women felt about them

It's importance is exactly the same.

That's what "welcoming community" is. It's about treating everybody the same, regardless of who they are. If I'm talking in a channel, I'm not talking to men or women. I'm talking to developers, same as myself. Code of conduct should just remind me, that they could be not who I expect them to be, in order not to say something offensive.

Sorry, but by saying "his feelings are not as important", you're introducing discrimination instead of fighting it. It doesn't seem a good way to go.

[andrewdeandrade]

let me apologize for my confrontational tone in that last message. It's been a long day and I'm clearly getting stressed out.

The stress you're feeling is perfectly natural and acceptable. It's the stress of feeling like you're being attacked from multiple sides, despite the fact that deep down you're trying to do the right thing. I know you are. That stress is also the exact same stress that I'm feeling from all this. Please don't foster an environment where lots of people need to be subject to that same stress needlessly.

This quote from that article by Susan Sons I linked to merits citing:

Do not punish the men simply for being here. "Male privilege" is a way to say "you are guilty because you don't have boobs, feel ashamed, even if you did nothing wrong", and I've wasted too much of my time trying to defend good guys from it. Yes, some people are jerks. Call them out as jerks, and don't blame everyone with the same anatomy for their behavior. Lumping good guys in with bad doesn't help anyone, it just makes good guys afraid to interact with women because they feel like they can't win. I'm tired of expending time and energy to protect good men from this drama.

[andrewdeandrade]

That's what "welcoming community" is. It's about treating everybody the same, regardless of who they are. If I'm talking in a channel, I'm not talking to men or women. I'm talking to developers, same as myself. Code of conduct should just remind me, that they could be not who I expect them to be, in order not to say something offensive.

Sorry, but by saying "his feelings are not as important", you're introducing discrimination instead of fighting it. It doesn't seem a good way to go.

This. A thousand times this. Earlier today I was lamenting how things were back on the internet in 94 where all you had was POP access, no one had digital cameras, no one had scanners and there were few local communities besides dial-up BBSs. Furthermore, most people were still pretty cautious about using their real identities on the internet. You never knew who you were talking to and you had no way of really finding out. If you really wanted demographic information about a person, the best you could do is ask "a/s/l?" and even then you had no way to confirm the veracity of that answer. You could be anyone, and it was so incredibly freeing. Sometimes I was myself. Sometimes i was someone else. I had dozens of alter egos.

How I wish we could go back to a time when there was only text. It was so much simpler. You couldn't even reliably assume someone's demographics from their behavior because there were no norms about how to behave and so many people adopted a different identity.

Honestly, I'd love it if someone could reliably make a module that human hashes ( https://github.com/zacharyvoase/humanhash ) identity in the software engineering community across all contexts so that you could reliably know you're talking to the same person across multiple contexts, but never know their gender or race until you actually met them in real life or decided to willingly divulge such information in a side channel.

I honestly wish I had picked a long time ago a unique genderless internet handle because my race and gender have become a liability in some contexts. This thread is illustrative. I've read numerous times in this thread that my opinion on certain issues matters less because I'm not a woman. Two anonymous posters, presumably men, sharing their experiences and concerns have had most of what they've said largely dismissed. Now you have three non-anonymous men, myself, @bnoordnuis and @rlidwka stating in no uncertain terms that we're not comfortable with how this is handled because we don't feel like our opinions are being considered simply because we're already included in the group because we're not under-represented.

If the degree to which I share characteristics with historically privileged groups of people is criteria for giving less gravitas to my opinion, then I do not feel safe.

One's an incident. Two is a coincidence. Three is a pattern. There are now more than three of us.

[dshaw]

At this point, I would like to propose that we refine this pull request to only focus on the Code of Conduct portion of it, since that's where most of our discussion has been focused. A CoC is an important tool to help us grow the contributor community and build greater diversity amongst that group. We should have one. There are some reasonable points of refinement that need to be made per @ashedryden and @othiym23 suggestions.

At present, the project deeply needs to address governance. Let's create independent PRs for the governance and contribution policies and start addressing those as well so we can iterate toward something that can be made normative.

[aredridel]

:+1:

[aredridel]

@malandrew What does 'unsafe' mean to you? What is the reality of that? What decisions do you make when you feel unsafe? What are the alternatives?

The problem is that when we are harassed, we often cannot participate. And in fact, it may contribute to us exiting the industry entirely: Enough harassment and this is what happens. Burn-out and a retreat. It's not being asked to pipe down, but systemic, pervasive oppression. A code of conduct that tries to remain neutral of the people it covers will fail, because we have not had an equal stance to start from.

[MattRogish]

The reality is there are far more unsafe people that are unable or unwilling to participate than there are unsafe cis-white-men.

If you feel unsafe for being asked to consider the feelings of others, try feeling unsafe when you're continually de-personalized and treated like an object.

If you feel unsafe being asked to express empathy for others, try feeling unsafe when an entire culture tells you that you're unwelcome.

If you feel unsafe when an organization recognizes the disadvantage others have, try feeling unsafe in every other moment in your life when that disadvantage is acutely used against you.

If you feel unsafe when asked to live a life examined, when asked to look critically at the system that gives and takes, try feeling unsafe when that system is designed to be used against you.

If you feel your voice is slightly less heard, try considering having people who have no empathy for you, or your situation, continually stepping in front of your podium and discussing your problems and leaving your voice out.

The privilege we have as (white) men is undeniable. And yes, individually we may face adversity and challenge and prejudice. But where our challenge differs from others is that ours is not systemic. Our social and societal system is not designed to hold us back.

White male privilege is not that we're all lighting cigars with $100 bills in our overstuffed leather chairs, conspiring how to keep the disadvantaged down. It is that the system (not "Illuminati Big S System"; the cultural and behavioral expression of prejudice) is set up to favor us in almost every step of the way (education, job seeking, politics, money, power).

In the very least, we're net-neutral when everyone else is starting from a deficit.

We are a part of the problem and we cannot take a starring role in the solution. I understand this is frustrating to a culture of men used to being in charge. Used to having their voice always heard above all others. I cringe at the staggering lack of self-awareness in "Women in Tech" panels full of men.

No one is saying you should feel ashamed. No one is saying you should feel guilty. I know I used to feel ashamed and guilty when I'd inadvertently hurt others' feelings or make them feel unsafe or unwelcome. And that shame and guilt when I was made aware of my hurt would turn to anger and defensiveness and blinded me to my role. It took me a lot of effort to set that aside and truly connect with, feel empathy with, and understand people.

I realized no one was asking me to feel bad. No one wanted me to feel guilty or ashamed or angry. They were just asking me to stop being careless. To pay attention to what I was doing. If I was walking down the street and accidentally - without any malice or intent - stepped on someone's foot, I'd apologize and pay closer attention to where I was going. Why were my verbal and non-physical interactions any different?

Equality-minded folk are asking that we now start to live our lives aware of other people and the dis/advantages conferred to certain groups by a society operating on autopilot or past prejudices. As a white dude, it's something I used never consider; I never had to consider it. That's the essence of white male privilege: ignorance is bliss.

The videos of women being harassed walking down city streets, the Gators on Twitter, the inappropriate conference attendees, the meetups' after-events at bars and, more horrifically, the rapes and murders - all of these things have been going on for a long, long time (if not literally then metaphorically). We're just now waking up to their existence, precisely because before the Internet, we never had to.

We didn't start the fire, but it's our responsibility, once made aware it's burning, to help put it out. We cannot live safely in ignorance any more. We have to take the red pill.

And if that means that a set of people that have a systemic advantage (i.e. me) are slightly handicapped to a more level playing field so that those disadvantaged better get their needs met? How can we possibly argue with that?

[othiym23]

There is a lot of speculation going on in the discussion of the Code of Conduct, most of it non-constructive. I'm working on refining the language today, and then we will have a tangible document to argue over. Or not! Not arguing about it would be great too.

@dshaw I think it would have been best if @mikeal had posted these three documents as separate PRs, but as-is, even with all the discussion of the CoC, much of my and @totherik's contributions to this thread have about the language in the contribution and governance documents. I suppose those comments can be copied onto new threads, but that sounds like ~effort~.

[othiym23]

@mikeal @isaacs I agree with @ashedryden that it's a good idea to include a list of individuals that can be contacted with concerns about conduct (I also think it would be fantastic to have some women on that list, although I'm not going to put anyone on the spot); I can add a placeholder list in there, but @totherik's concerns about the TC process apply to the abuse team as well – who should be in that list, and what's the process for selecting them? Should it be the the TC to start?

[dshaw]

@othiym23 I fully realize that. Happy to help.

[hackygolucky]

"Don't be a jerk" is the lowest common denominator to expect, and we are better than that as a community.

I'm delighted that so manyboeople have been able to eloquently state the relevance of this particular CoC as well as defend the semantics. These words are deliberate. They protect those feeling uncomfortable as well as those accused. They give those reported to a guideline for how to fairly address an occurrence while removing as much subjectivity as possible. There's always room to improve executing these guidelines, and it looks like we are making room for this discussion, too.

As a member of an underrepresented group in node and a conference organizer, I feel I can speak from experience in sharing that a detailed CoC is both necessary and welcoming. I've had too many conversations around how we shouldnt have to police one another. I agree! We also should all be kind a lot more but that doesnt always happen. It will challenge how I treat people, too. We aren't perfect. We all have cranky days. This sets a level of expectation for everyone.

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014, 6:53 PM Dan Shaw notifications@github.com wrote:

@othiym23 https://github.com/othiym23 I fully realize that. Happy to help.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/joyent/nodejs-advisory-board/pull/11#issuecomment-63181224 .

[ashedryden]

If you're new to the idea of Codes of Conduct, I've written a 101 and FAQ that answers a lot of questions. I'm one of the CoC experts in open source spaces, so I've provided a lot of information: http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/codes-of-conduct-101-faq

On Nov 15, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Tracy notifications@github.com wrote:

"Don't be a jerk" is the lowest common denominator to expect, and we are better than that as a community.

I'm delighted that so manyboeople have been able to eloquently state the relevance of this particular CoC as well as defend the semantics. These words are deliberate. They protect those feeling uncomfortable as well as those accused. They give those reported to a guideline for how to fairly address an occurrence while removing as much subjectivity as possible. There's always room to improve executing these guidelines, and it looks like we are making room for this discussion, too.

As a member of an underrepresented group in node and a conference organizer, I feel I can speak from experience in sharing that a detailed CoC is both necessary and welcoming. I've had too many conversations around how we shouldnt have to police one another. I agree! We also should all be kind a lot more but that doesnt always happen. It will challenge how I treat people, too. We aren't perfect. We all have cranky days. This sets a level of expectation for everyone.

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014, 6:53 PM Dan Shaw notifications@github.com wrote:

@othiym23 https://github.com/othiym23 I fully realize that. Happy to help.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/joyent/nodejs-advisory-board/pull/11#issuecomment-63181224 .

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[netpoetica]

@isaacs @totherik In regards to committee membership:

New TC members are added via nomination and consensus of the TC. No more than 33% can share an employer.

Just a quick point - add some language to consider the case where a member from employer A moves to an employer B who is also represented in the committee already. If employer A has 33% share and B also has 33% share, and this person moves from A to B, they are losing their membership and every other represented party also loses a member (I'm calculating but I could have this logic wrong).

It seems strange to me to tie representation to employer and not individual, but I also believe that no single company should have a majority representation. Just a thought.

[Fishrock123]

@netpoetica in that case, the rule still stands that no employer can hold more than 33% and the situation you described would play out to, as you said: "they are losing their membership and every other represented party also loses a member.".

[isaacs]

@malandrew There's a lot of equivocating around "safe" here. I am assuming that your comments are coming from a good and compassionate place, and I hope that you take my response in kind.

Yes, it would be lovely if all people of all genders and ethnicities and so forth were treated with 100% equal access in all parts of our society. Failing that, it would be lovely if we achieved that equality in our open source projects, at least. There is a vision that OSS or the internet is somehow "set apart" from the "real world" where sexism, racism, ableism, and ethnocentrism are institutional and inescapable.

However, OSS is not set apart, and access is very far from equal.

For the men in this conversation, the complaints about "safety" are largely about the following sort of situation: If you say something offensive or treat someone disrespectfully, then your comment may be deleted, or your patch rejected. If the admin decides that your behavior was an honest mistake, and that you are unlikely to repeat it, they will address it and ask you to please be more careful in the future. If you are repeatedly abusive, intentionally or not, you will be banned from participation in the project.

That's scary! You might lose the ability to participate in Node.js. What if you completely accidentally offend someone? You might be made to feel bad about it. That's so unfair! If you do it again and again, you might lose the right to participate in Node.js and that could impact your career, even!

Too bad. Your responsibility is to behave yourself. You may lose some privileges if you don't behave nicely. Welcome to adulthood! It is a life sentence, so get used to it!

For the women in this conversation (and some not in this conversation, who have been scared off by the male supremacist connotations in @gramergrater's choice of anonymous actually-about-ethics-in-games-journalism pseudonym), the "safety" concern is very different. They are worried more about triggering a concerted attack on their OSS participation from dozens or hundreds of anonymous accounts on multiple vectors, including GitHub, twitter, facebook, linkedin, and of course, actual in real life attacks at conferences and other professional social gatherings. They are worried about DDoS attacks at their employers' websites, petitions demanding they be fired from their jobs, threatening notes left at their front door, and threats of mass murder at venues where they make public appearances. None of this is hypothetical; these are all real things that have happened to real women in the real world. Even in less extreme examples, they are harassed with unwanted advances, sexual comments, and seen as objects rather than full participants.

We cannot make tech safe for them. What we can do is publicly state that at least we support them, that we value their participation, and that we are willing to back up that support with the way we run this little corner of the internet, and that we won't tolerate attacks in this specific venue.

A Code of Conduct—by design—makes certain behaviors "unsafe", usually imposing some penalties on those who engage in that behavior. The traffic code, for example, makes it unsafe to run red lights, even when no one is around, because you might get a ticket, or even lose the right to drive. As another person using that road, I want you to feel as unsafe as possible running red lights! If you do it once by accident, and no one gets hurt, ok, fine; the punishment should fit the crime. But the prospect should be terrifying! You should feel unsafe about that behavior, even if only because of the threat of repercussions.

A project CoC is similar. The reason why it "unfairly" addresses the concerns of women, minorities, etc., is because the concerns are inherently unfair. White men are participating just fine in Node.js already. However, there are comments from incredibly talented and accomplished developers (some of them colleagues and employees of mine who have been using Node for many years), saying that they have avoided participating in node core because it is unsafe. (That is, the real "fear for my physical well being" sort of safety, not the "I don't feel safe expressing my unpopular politics" sort.) If a CoC rebalances things so that they are more comfortable participating, then great.

Don't worry. A CoC will not make white dudes stop participating in Node.js. We're doing just fine.

[andrewdeandrade]

@aredridel you asked:

What does 'unsafe' mean to you? What is the reality of that? What decisions do you make when you feel unsafe? What are the alternatives?

If you haven't done so, go read the article I linked to Susan Sons. I'm going to cite the same relevant portion again:

Do not punish the men simply for being here. "Male privilege" is a way to say "you are guilty because you don't have boobs, feel ashamed, even if you did nothing wrong", and I've wasted too much of my time trying to defend good guys from it. Yes, some people are jerks. Call them out as jerks, and don't blame everyone with the same anatomy for their behavior. Lumping good guys in with bad doesn't help anyone, it just makes good guys afraid to interact with women because they feel like they can't win. I'm tired of expending time and energy to protect good men from this drama.

She's obviously talking about some very real phenomena that she's encountered again and again and again, so much so that she feels the need to explicitly call out some particular behavior where the men that she considers friends are being attacked repeatedly and in a way that she does not think is merited.

What she's talking about is real. I've experienced it. I've known others that have experienced it. Participating in any environment that refuses to acknowledge and address that such things actually do happen especially when the court of public opinion is particularly harsh to those who are privileged as @mikeal pointed out, makes me feel unsafe.

Someone also linked to a post earlier by Amanda Blum about how we all lost in a previous incident our community has experienced, but it looks like the comment was deleted. In that post by Amanda, she talked about Adria Richards who had a pattern of repeatedly bullying other people in our community and that donglegate was not the first time such melodrama had happened involving Adria, but merely the final episode in a long list of unacceptable events.

I want to participate. I want to help out people who haven't had the same the same privileges as me due to physicals characteristics that are no fault of their own. But I will not participate in any event or forum that doesn't acknowledge and condemn people who take their case to the court of public opinion to sacrifice someone to their crusade without cause or concern for how their behavior hurts a lot of people.

Personally, I prefer the approach @gramergrater suggested of trying to be as neutral as possible in the language and not pointing out specific provisions for people with particular characteristics. I would prefer we abstract out from those undesirable behaviors and figure out what behaviors are undesirable and encode them in the CoC in such a way that all people enjoy those protections equally.

However, if we decide to take the alternative approach where we specifically enumerate the issues that the groups we want to want to include feel safe, that we also enumerate that bullying in the court of public opinion without making a reasonable attempt to fully investigate any incidents will not be tolerated either.

[Fishrock123]

Do not punish the men simply for being here. "Male privilege" is a way to say "you are guilty because you don't have boobs, feel ashamed, even if you did nothing wrong", and I've wasted too much of my time trying to defend good guys from it. Yes, some people are jerks. Call them out as jerks, and don't blame everyone with the same anatomy for their behavior. Lumping good guys in with bad doesn't help anyone, it just makes good guys afraid to interact with women because they feel like they can't win. I'm tired of expending time and energy to protect good men from this drama.

@malandrew The reality is the proposed CoC does not punish us.

[aredridel]

@malandrew Exactly: You don't respond that you are forced not to participate for your safety because of these concerns. That's the difference: you're privileged enough to argue this in the abstract, while some of us are forced to live this reality.

[andrewdeandrade]

The reality is the proposed CoC does not punish us.

It doesn't protect anyone from this other form of bullying either. Yes, such bullying towards men is rarer, but almost certainly due to base rates. As the ratio improves over time, which I hope it does, there will not only be more people like Amanda Blum involved but unfortunately more people like Adria Richards involved in open source as well. And as more of those bullies show up that cry foul publicly at every opportunity, the likelihood that myself and more people I consider friends will find themselves as the victims of such bullies increases. Yes, I said more. This is no longer some abstract occurrence. It's happening with greater and frequency with each passing year and what I'm seeing here is that no one is willing to address it now. Instead we prefer to wait until it becomes a larger problem.

You respond that you aren't forced not to participate for your safety because of these concerns.

Not yet. Buts it's increasingly feeling that way, especially if this other form of bullying is not addressed as well. I give it a few years tops before I decide to no longer participate if its not addressed because if we succeed in making open source far more inclusive than it is, and I hope we do, this risk in aggregate will reach the point where these occurrences are no longer isolated incidents.

@aredridel This is not abstract. I assure you that this is very much real. It's not an abstract thing for Susan Sons, so why would you automatically assume that I'm arguing in the abstract? Fortunately, it's still relatively rare, but it's definitely increasing in frequency. Regardless of how common it is right now, do you or do you not agree that its undesirable, and if it is undesirable for all the reasons Amanda Blum pointed out, what harm is there in enumerating it now as a preventative measure?

[rockbot]

Hi friends.

I like to think I'm a fairly active member of the Node ecosystem. I'm particularly active at the community level (conferences, meetups, etc), in large part because of the Codes of Conduct that are in place. These CoCs have given people like me a safe way to interact with others - we know what's expected, we understand what the rules are, and when (not if, alas) something goes awry, we know exactly who to talk to and how to move forward. It's not a perfect system, but it's far better than any simple "don't be a jerk" policy.

I don't contribute to Node core. It's not that I can't or that I don't want to; it's because there's no system in place for me to make sure that I'm heard and that my contributions will be considered. We look back on that pronoun argument with a bit of a chuckle, but I can tell you that was enough to keep me (and people like me) from contributing at the highest levels of the project.

Here's the thing: people like me [A] use Node. But people like me aren't in Node core. They're not on the Advisory Board or the Technical Committee (TC). This Code of Conduct is necessary for encouraging people like me to contribute to Node core. As they contribute, they'll hopefully move into the Advisory Board and Technical Committee. Then, maybe, just maybe, the overseers of the Node project might actually represent its users in an equal and fair manner.

With a Code of Conduct, people like me will not only know that they can contribute, but also that their contributions will be welcome and considered with equal weight.

With a Code of Conduct, people like me will contribute, and the Node project will be stronger and better for it.

[A] women and underrepresented minorities, for those not in the know

[Fishrock123]

> It doesn't protect anyone from this other form of bullying either.

@malandrew Please point out where it doesn't - the CoC clearly says any form of harassment is not tolerated. https://github.com/mikeal/nodejs-advisory-board/commit/ce5da08beb0cf3a190f0608c0fd0fcaf6dd776f8

bleh, see below.

[aredridel]

@malandrew The CoC covers this. However, it doesn't put people who are usually fine in the center. And that's okay.

[andrewdeandrade]

@Fishrock123

Please point out where it doesn't - the CoC clearly says any form of harassment is not tolerated.

The problem isn't the CoC. The problem is the attitudes expressed by numerous people in this thread to legitimate concerns with the language of the CoC that show that they clearly don't interpret the CoC the way it is written.

Many people were upset over the inclusion of non-gendered pronouns in libuv. Several people in that thread defended the change to ungendered pronouns because the nuance of language matters and interpretation of that language may have a very real and very detrimental on certain people. The simple fact that this conversation is such that I have been referred to as privileged because of my gender and the color of my skin by many people in this thread and even by myself creates the exact same deleterious effects as if we had kept gendered pronouns in libuv. I'm honestly shocked that people don't see that this is the same side of that same coin.

I'm sure that someone will defend this language of "privileged vs marginalized" because I'm privileged. I feel unsafe because at every single opportunity since stating so, people have doubted that I could feel this way over and over again. Instead they put words in my mouth telling me that I am feeling unsafe about a whole slew of other things that absolutely are not the reason I feel unsafe. None of those things are true. This pervasive doubt of my experience because I'm privileged is as deplorable as the problem we're trying to solve with the CoC. The reaction is not one of "Cool, I didn't know some people are concerned about that, let's see how we can accommodate those concerns while still address the concerns of these other groups that the CoC is meant to help".

Next time public drama unfolds, will those in charge of executing the CoC condemn with equal vigor any bullying in the court of public opinion prior to conducting a thorough investigation. I absolutely do not feel that will happen. It has already happened in this thread with two tweets referring to the content of this thread. Those tweets were not acceptable and I have yet to see anyone actually acknowledge that those tweets were not cool. This is the CoC being applied unilaterally. @mikeal has said in no uncertain terms in my opinion that this kind of lopsided execution is okay because I'm part of a privileged group. Heck the simple fact that we're talking about people based on characteristics that put them in privileged and marginalized groups as a matter of fact makes me extremely uncomfortable. I can only imagine that if I or any other white males I know were ever caught up in such melodrama that we would automatically be be assumed guilty by association, because that's the attitude the CoC promotes and that's the interpretation I've seen people repeatedly defend in this thread.

[andrewdeandrade]

There's a lot of equivocating around "safe" here. I am assuming that your comments are coming from a good and compassionate place, and I hope that you take my response in kind.

Using the word equivocating suggests that it is assumed that my comments are not coming from a good and compassionate place. No I don't feel unsafe physically. Not because I'm white or male, but because I'm 6'5" and 250", thus bigger than 99% of the generable population, and I wrestled competitively for many years. I feel safe in pretty much any environment except when cycling on the road with cars, because I can defend myself from most threats encountered daily except 3 tons of steel.

I don't feel safe because I'm white and I'm male. In fact, it's because I'm white and I'm male that I feel unsafe. I've had the opportunity to spend years of my life in environments where I was one of few males in a dominantly female environment (I double majors in (1) textiles and fashion and (2) psychology in school, which are both fields of study where most of my peers were female). I've lived abroad twice, during which time I was the only foreigner at four different jobs in three industries. I've been the only white male once for 6 months. I've now been in software for about 5 years now (this is the third industry I've worked in since graduating) and it's the only professional environment in which I constantly feel marginalized because I share characteristics with the dominant groups, males and white people.

I know what it's like to feel safe so I have something to compare to relative to the environment we're creating. This environment does not feel safe, especially when I compare it to the other experiences I've had in my life.

This is by far the most unsafe professional experience I've ever had and the only one where I share characteristics will all three dominant groups: men, white people and Americans (even though I'm actually a foreigner, but no one can tell)

[aredridel]

@malandrew That is, by definition, not marginalized.

[andrewdeandrade]

That is, by definition, not marginalized.

I was the fat kid until I was ~16 or so. In elementary school, I was made fun and cried on the bus on many many occasions. My copying mechanism was self-deprecation by becoming the class clown. I think I can speak from experience on what marginalization feels like. What we're discussing now may not look like classic marginalization and it may not be universal marginalization across all circumstances, but what we're certainly are marginalizing people in certain circumstances because precisely because they are white and male.

[aredridel]

No, that's the thing: White men are not marginalized, not based on those factors. There are other intersections that lead to oppression, but those two are not. That's why we need a CoC.

[andrewdeandrade]

No, that's the thing: White men are not marginalized, not based on those factors. There are other intersections that lead to oppression, but those two are not. That's why we need a CoC.

Yes, white men by and large are not marginalized in open source. However the moment there is any conflict around gender or race at all, no matter how severe or minor, we're assumed to be guilty/wrong immediately and the severity almost universally assumed to be extreme before any investigation has commenced. And even when things turn out not to be as bad as it initially seemed, no one cares about the truth anymore. Innocence until proven guilty is something we don't have here. Please, tell me why I don't deserve that right because I'm white and male. Would you feel safe living in a country where innocence until proven guilty was not a basic right applied to all people equally?

[andrewdeandrade]

A Code of Conduct—by design—makes certain behaviors "unsafe", usually imposing some penalties on those who engage in that behavior.

Is public shaming by an alleged victim a behavior that is considered safe? Or is that right reserved exclusively to a group of peers that will investigate thoroughly, determine culpability and true severity of any infraction and release their findings? How will those responsible for carrying out the CoC respond to someone who publicly shames someone without following proper procedure. What guarantee do I have that the process will be an adversarial one where there are people responsible for advocating on behalf of the both the accused and the accuser? Will there be a dissenting opinion if warranted?

[aredridel]

"Guilty until proven innocent" is not what the CoC proposed says.

And no, men don't generally have to avoid conferences or stop participating in projects because their bad actions are broadcast to the world. But it's not a bad idea, now that you mention it.

[rvagg]

@mikeal would we be able to split off Governance and Contribution Policy to a separate issue and leave this one as CoC? There's far too much going on in here for people with limited time on their hands to make meaningful contributions and getting feedback on the first two is kind of important.

[andrewdeandrade]

"Guilty until proven innocent" is not what the CoC proposed says.

And no, people don't generally have to avoid conferences or stop participating in projects because their bad actions are broadcast to the world. But it's not a bad idea, now that you mention it.

Thanks for illustrating my point succinctly. "But it's not a bad idea, now that you mention it" is highly suggestive of an attitude that presumes guilt.

I'm fine if "bad actions are broadcast to the world", if the broadcasting is done solely by a group of peers that have determined that bad actions occurred after careful investigation.

[aredridel]

Anyway, is this relevant to the actual proposed CoC, @malandrew ?

[mikeal]

@malandrew

However the moment there is any conflict around gender or race at all, no matter how severe or minor, we're assumed to be guilty/wrong immediately before any investigation has commenced.

The problem we're trying to solve is the male domination of a particular space. Men like you and I benefit from that domination every day, even if we didn't ask to or take an active role in discriminatory practices. Moving towards a world where that space is less male dominated necessarily requires that we lose something. The privilege that we currently experience is immoral but is the current state of the world. The "discrimination" felt by people like us with privilege and power can be interpreted as a moral one if it leads to a space in which we have equal power and privilege to everyone else. That discrimination is but a fraction of what is felt by those without privilege and you could define a space that is indiscriminate as one where all people are required to consider their effect on others. The weight of being expected to make that kind of consideration is what is being interpreted as discriminatory only because it falls on a specific group but the fact that this new responsibility falls solely on one group based on race and gender does not mean it is discriminatory if the result of such responsibility is an environment of less sex and gender based privilege.

To quote Howard Zinn "You can't be neutral on a moving train." To protest a particular effect on those with privilege without taking in to account the effect that doing nothing has on those already actively discriminated against by the status quo is to passively support the continued state of white male domination. The question you might want to ask yourself is "are these new negative consequences for white men equal to or greater than the existing negative consequences for those who are not?" I believe the honest answer is "no" although perhaps you disagree.

[andrewdeandrade]

Anyway, is this relevant to the actual proposed CoC, @malandrew ?

Other than the more neutral suggestions made by @gramergrater, no, I don't have any for the CoC.

All I want is acknowledgement from the community organizers that they've heard my concerns, given them the gravitas they deserve, and a promise that public shaming and participation in a lynch mob prior to a thorough investigation will not be tolerated by anyone.

That's it. Due process is all need to feel safe. Is that too much to ask?