search

nipy / nipy.github.io

Main website for the Neuroimaging in Python community
http://nipy.org
8 stars 10 forks source link

First pass at a Code of Conduct #1

Closed arokem closed 9 years ago

arokem commented 9 years ago

This should be discussed

satra commented 9 years ago

be able to provide constructive criticism

larsoner commented 9 years ago

...ideally promptly, but that's hard to ask of people :)

arokem commented 9 years ago

That was certainly prompt! What do you think: should that be under the be collaborative heading?

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Eric Larson notifications@github.com wrote:

...ideally promptly, but that's hard to ask of people :)

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/nipy/nipy.github.com/pull/1#issuecomment-104355117.

larsoner commented 9 years ago

It could really go there, or under being considerate, but I think be collaborative probably makes the most sense

arokem commented 9 years ago

OK - added that. Let me know if you think it hits the point well. I left time-frame out of this formulation, for now, but if you have a good way of adding promptness of communication anywhere in here, we can talk about that.

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Eric Larson notifications@github.com wrote:

It could really go there, or under being considerate, but I think be collaborative probably makes the most sense

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/nipy/nipy.github.com/pull/1#issuecomment-104359387.

larsoner commented 9 years ago

At one point some folks menioned http://producingoss.com/ as a good resource, I'm going to try to read it at some point. Maybe there will be some recommendations in there.

larsoner commented 9 years ago

But yeah what you changed looks good

bthirion commented 9 years ago

Sounds good.

arokem commented 9 years ago

Sorry @satra and others - I noticed that "constructive criticism" appeared twice. I removed it from the first part, and strengthened it in the second. Let me know if this does not work for you.

satra commented 9 years ago

thanks - sorry i missed that in the first read.

matthew-brett commented 9 years ago

Thanks for doing this. I think there is good stuff in here - but I also hope we can avoid the flavor of some of these types of documents, which can come across as rather prissy and self-righteous. I would like to convey the impression that we take good and healthy communication very seriously, but that we also know how to enjoy our work and make a good space to let others do the same.

arokem commented 9 years ago

Thanks for the comments @matthew-brett !

Does it read better now?

I agree with you that it is quite easy to come across as prissy, self-righteous, and annoying. Especially if you let someone who's spent way too much time in Northern California (me) be the one writing this. I can see the eyes rolling on some people, with a "we've all got better things to do, haven't we?" expression on their faces.

I still prefer self-righteous and conscious, though, to somehow just bumbling along with no clear direction.

I do welcome more suggestions, edits, comments, from everyone.

matthew-brett commented 9 years ago

Ariel - I must admit my eyes rolled when I saw the title of the PR, but when I read it, it was mostly fine. I do agree, we should be explicit, but the doc mostly succeeds well at being recognizably human, as well as explicit.

Obviously, whenever we start sounding like lawyers we cease to be recognizable as humans...

arokem commented 9 years ago

Yes - we should try to avoid the legalistic parts, so that it reads like a code of conduct, not like a preamble to a law suit. Of cours, I've been a norteamericano for so long, so any document reads like a potential law suit to me :-)

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Matthew Brett notifications@github.com wrote:

Ariel - I must admit my eyes rolled when I saw the title of the PR, but when I read it, it was mostly fine. I do agree, we should be explicit, but the doc mostly succeeds well at being recognizably human, as well as explicit.

Obviously, whenever we start sounding like lawyers we cease to be recognizable as humans...

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/nipy/nipy.github.com/pull/1#issuecomment-105587057.

matthew-brett commented 9 years ago

I find http://blog.izs.me/post/30036893703/policy-on-trolling a nasty symptom of 'we are in charge, what we say goes', I'm glad you avoided that in your write-up.

Anything using the word 'troll' has that flavor, in my experience : http://nipyworld.blogspot.com/2012/06/define-troll.html

arokem commented 9 years ago

But I appreciate the hard line on certain, well-defined things. In particular, I like the idea that a community needn't tolerate any kind of speech, just in the name of freedom of speech. I think that it's important to maintain a welcoming environment for everyone. Which is why I still want something like "not acceptable" somewhere in there.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Matthew Brett notifications@github.com wrote:

I find http://blog.izs.me/post/30036893703/policy-on-trolling a nasty symptom of 'we are in charge, what we say goes', I'm glad you avoided that in your write-up.

Anything using the word 'troll' has that flavor, in my experience : http://nipyworld.blogspot.com/2012/06/define-troll.html

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/nipy/nipy.github.com/pull/1#issuecomment-105607326.

matthew-brett commented 9 years ago

Ah - sorry - you still have 'are not acceptable'. Do you think you can find a way of saying that, that doesn't appear to appeal to some higher authority?

arokem commented 9 years ago

How about this? It also suggests a specific kind of action one should (not) take when faced with harassment or exclusionary behavior.

matthew-brett commented 9 years ago

Sure, but that leads to a threatening tone that I don't think we need. Let's say that someone was in fact being nasty to someone else. Then one of us (or all of us) is going to say 'please don't do that, look at our CoC'. Adding the 'we won't tolerate' thing won't - I think - make any difference to the outcome, and in the meantime, makes us look as if we are taking ourselves (rather than our work) rather too seriously.

If this was a document spelling out what exactly was going to happen, and how it would be dealt with - then we should certainly write it differently, but I don't think that's the purpose here.

arokem commented 9 years ago

You've convinced me. See current state of affairs. I have also removed the redundancy about insults.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Matthew Brett notifications@github.com wrote:

Sure, but that leads to a threatening tone that I don't think we need. Let's say that someone was in fact being nasty to someone else. Then one of us (or all of us) is going to say 'please don't do that, look at our CoC'. Adding the 'we won't tolerate' thing won't - I think - make any difference to the outcome, and in the meantime, makes us look as if we are taking ourselves (rather than our work) rather too seriously.

If this was a document spelling out what exactly was going to happen, and how it would be dealt with - then we should certainly write it differently, but I don't think that's the purpose here.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/nipy/nipy.github.com/pull/1#issuecomment-105641273.