Closed bhousel closed 6 years ago
bhousel
commented
8 years ago Also worth mentioning: This issue is not in response to any specific incident, or ticket, or person, etc. It's been in the back of my mind for months, and I feel like now is a good time to bring it up, having just wrapped up the State of the Map conference in Brussels where inclusivity and community building is at the front of a lot of people's minds.
woodpeck
commented
8 years ago Can you share in how far adding the code of conduct to ID has increased your workload as a maintainer (since you say it is basically a list of things "you must do")?
If there is agreement to add this code of conduct, I would suggest making it clearer that being added here means it applies to the openstreetmap-website repository only, not to OSM as a whole or even all repositories in the "openstreetmap" GitHub account. (Or if it was intended to introduce a project-wide code of conduct, then a GitHub pull request is probably not the ideal place to have the discussion.)
bhousel
commented
8 years ago Can you share in how far adding the code of conduct to ID has increased your workload as a maintainer
If anything, added workload means that:
So, that code of conduct is in the back of my mind more frequently now, and I think that's a good thing.
I would suggest making it clearer that being added here means it applies to the openstreetmap-website repository only,
Yes, just to clarify, this is just for adopting a CoC for this repository only. If an OpenStreetMap-wide Code of Conduct is something people want, I think that would be great too, but like you said GitHub is not the way to introduce that.
pnorman
commented
8 years ago We adopted a code of conduct with osm-carto. In doing so I came to the conclusion that there is no one size fits all code of conduct and the one chosen needs to fit the problems encountered, size of project, and norms of behaviour of the project. For example, we had problems with derailing of discussions so needed a code that would cover that. We ended up with one based on the Go code, with reporting modified for our small project size.
See gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto#2289 for my thoughts at the time.
simonpoole
commented
8 years ago My main issue with this specific CoC that support of a specific organisation and it's agenda is inferred by adopting it (which is naturally why they created it and are pushing it in the 1st place).
An adapted version of a CoC from a non-political organisation as Paul suggests would be far less problematic.
bhousel
commented
8 years ago Thanks @pnorman and @simonpoole - Agree that modifying the CoC to suit our needs is totally fine.
The one that I use for iD and other projects is shorter and bullet-pointed, not because of any political issue with http://contributor-covenant.org/, but more because I felt that people are more likely to read it if it's short and to the point. But as such it looks nothing like the original.
Anyway, I'll drop some links here so they are all in one place. If anyone wants to add anything, feel free and I'll update this comment.
In use:
Templates:
ppawel
commented
8 years ago How about skipping all this and adopting the simplest CoC possible - "just do it"?
https://github.com/ciafwywcoc/ciafwywcoc/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT
Also, read this: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
Regarding "Contributor Covenant", anything that spends first paragraph on dissing meritocracy should be immediately suspicious.
PS. Sorry if this post triggered anyone.
woodpeck
commented
8 years ago It appears to me that @ppawel's post demonstrates why @simonpoole might be right - I wasn't aware that the Contributor Covenant has a political subtext that gets people up in arms (literally, I might add, in the case of ESR). My take on adopting CoCs for software projects is "huh, do we really need that?" but I don't think doing it should be constructed as any form of "surrender". In the end it just means that you codify that you don't want people to behave like an asshole. In my work for the OSMF DWG, we sometimes had to tell people off who were contributing really good data to OSM but were at the same time so abrasive that others decided to leave. When that happens, it is easier to have a written rule you can point people to. Meritocracy is good but your merit needs to be viewed holistically - it's not just what code you contribute, but also how you do it.
The one thing I am skeptical about is how different social groups across the planet have different sensibilities. For example, in the USA whenever someone says "fuck" on TV they over-beep that, whereas in France nobody would ever do that because it's just not that offensive. That doesn't make Americans the politer people. Will a large international project with a shared code of conduct have to move towards ever more restricted communications that conform to the highest common denominator of what someone might find offensive?
But I don't see why this should be handled in a dogmatic fashion. We're all hackers, we can try something and kick it out if it doesn't work. One could just add a code of conduct and if it doesn't work as intended, its demise is just a pull request away.
ppawel
commented
8 years ago To be frank, I don't care too much either way, there are projects that I respect (like Spring Framework) that (to my surprise, I'll admit) adopted this specific CoC thing. I just didn't want this PR to pass without discussing the "dangers of CoC" angle.
Perhaps something along the lines of this article:
EDIT:
More reading from different point of views:
https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-new-normal-codes-of-conduct-in-2015-and-beyond http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/01/25/ruby-hackers-in-revolt-after-sjws-attempt-to-impose-politically-correct-code-of-conduct/
simonpoole
commented
8 years ago To expand a bit on @woodpecks comment: while we clearly want people to polite, fair and even handed in their communications and behaviour throughout the project (this would be my fav CoC btw), this cannot and should not in itself exclude people from different cultures and backgrounds from participating.
Case at hand are the continuing complaints from the US community that the talk list (as it is now, not way back) is "hostile" and we should apply a strict US-styls CoC to it, which would then exclude essentially everybody from areas with a direct culture if they do not subscribe to US style communications.
dieterdreist
commented
8 years ago sent from a phone
Il giorno 27 set 2016, alle ore 11:36, Simon Poole notifications@github.com ha scritto:
Case at hand are the continuing complaints from the US community that the talk list (as it is now, not way back) is "hostile" and we should apply a strict US-styls CoC to it, which would then exclude essentially everybody from areas with a direct culture if they do not subscribe to US style communications.
I also see the whole CoC concept as an US-style concept, and would suggest to adopt it for the US lists (if not done already). No need for cultural US imperialism on the rest of our communication channels.
I don't believe at all that having a CoC would save us from undesirable behavior, e.g. a dispute between 2 US citizens on the diversity-talk-list (sic!1!!) comes to mind (which since then is basically dead), fought in best politically correct style ;-) It would only give some bureaucrats the power to temporarily block people for writing things that might be offensive in some parts of the world and not in others. When dealing with people from different cultural contexts, the most important thing IMHO is tolerance. Imposing your own cultural codes on everyone else might be perceived as hostile as well, even if you do it with the best intentions. This is still a nice project, let's not empower the bureaucrats https://youtu.be/MIaORknS1Dk
migurski
commented
8 years ago The objective of a code of conduct as I've considered it is to make spaces like the Talk list effective rather than polite. Politeness and culture are both nice, but the Talk list should be a place where work can get done, and part of that work is ensuring that many more participants than the current “direct culture” people can do that.
A good set of baseline expectations for conduct in OSM can help that happen!
The OSM Carto and iD documents seem fine. Paul and Simon’s objections to the specific Contributor Covenant one also seem fine — I don’t have a strong opinion on this, but I defer to Simon’s opinion about adhering to a particular agenda. One thing I’d like to see is some description of who’s expected to do the enforcing. For example, does authority for this code comes from the OSMF Board, and do they appoint a moderator for community spaces?
bhousel
commented
8 years ago One thing I’d like to see is some description of who’s expected to do the enforcing. For example, does authority for this code comes from the OSMF Board, and do they appoint a moderator for community spaces?
With any code of conduct, normally the project administrators do the enforcement unless stated otherwise. So this would fall on project admins like @tomhughes, @Firefishy, @gravitystorm, @zerebubuth to do the enforcement.
I think they are doing a fine job, and I don't want to force anything on them that they don't want to do.. ("if you are seated in an exit row.."), so here are some options:
Whatever the outcome, I'm glad we're talking about it! Given recent requests for help with openstreetmap-website, I would love to see more people get involved.
tomhughes
commented
8 years ago To summarise my position here, I have no objection to a CoC in principle, but I'm not particularly comfortable taking on the decision of whether or not to have one and if so which one to have as a personal decision taken unilaterally by me.
The problem of course is that we have long had the problem of not having a defined mechanism for making consensus decisions in this project...
That problem, of essentially only having one real maintainer and no defined core community with equal powers and a right to vote in some sort of consensus of course also goes to the problem of who should deal with complaints.
pnorman
commented
8 years ago When I get home I can post some notes that I have from an evaluation of many codes of conduct. It would help if we could first define what the conduct issues are. For osm-carto, the biggest one was people dragging issues off-topic.
bhousel
commented
8 years ago Hey @dieterdreist, thanks for your comments..
I also see the whole CoC concept as an US-style concept, and would suggest to adopt it for the US lists (if not done already). No need for cultural US imperialism on the rest of our communication channels.
That's a fair concern. I am not trying to enforce US-style cultural norms or morality on this project. That would just be fucking pointless. 😄
Maybe a better way of looking at it is: Pretend there are 100s of people reading this discussion right now, all from different parts of the world, mix of genders, ages, races, religions. Maybe they are trying to decide if they want to get involved with openstreetmap-website, or OpenStreetMap in general. If we are disrespectful to each other or if we casually disrespect certain groups of people, at least some of those people watching from the sidelines will leave.
This hurts the project. (As @tomhughes already mentioned, he could use some more core community to help him out). So, even if we take the admins out of the picture - I could call you names and if nobody steps up to say anything about it, people leave and the project suffers, and that's bad for everyone (especially Tom, who is really just trying to do his best to keep osm.org running).
I don't believe at all that having a CoC would save us from undesirable behavior,
You're absolutely right that a CoC does not prevent bad behavior. Every project of any importance gets its share of trolls and vandals.
It would only give some bureaucrats the power to temporarily block people for writing things that might be offensive in some parts of the world and not in others. When dealing with people from different cultural contexts, the most important thing IMHO is tolerance.
The admins already do have the power to block people. Adding a CoC doesn't grant them any special powers - it's really just a written down list of things that they already are doing. Having it written down reminds everybody be respectful to each other, and clears up some of the grey areas around "should I say something or not", and encourages people who are unsure about contributing that it's safe for them to do so.
And really, blocking should be used as a last resort. In most cases, commenters forget that their words are being seen by lots of people, and a gentle reminder to be respectful is all that's needed.
migurski
commented
8 years ago The admins already do have the power to block people. Adding a CoC doesn't grant them any special powers - it's really just a written down list of things that they already are doing.
I want to echo this, because it is super important. The alternative to a CoC is not “no rules” or “no consequences,” it’s unwritten rules and unpredictable consequences.
ppawel
commented
8 years ago it's really just a written down list of things that they already are doing.
Then why write it down if they are already doing it?
The alternative to a CoC is not “no rules” or “no consequences,” it’s unwritten rules and unpredictable consequences.
No, it's not. The alternative to some arbitrary CoC in any sane project is common sense and that's how it worked in the last few decades. CoC is a recent trend which some people are overly obsessed with. It may make sense in really huge projects for different (political) reasons but it can also quickly suffocate small- and medium-sized ones for no apparent added value.
jfirebaugh
commented
8 years ago I support adding a CoC. @bhousel said it really well:
Having it written down reminds everybody be respectful to each other, and clears up some of the grey areas around "should I say something or not", and encourages people who are unsure about contributing that it's safe for them to do so.
It isn't going to suffocate development of the OSM website.
migurski
commented
8 years ago The alternative to some arbitrary CoC in any sane project is common sense and that's how it worked in the last few decades. CoC is a recent trend which some people are overly obsessed with. It may make sense in really huge projects for different (political) reasons but it can also quickly suffocate small- and medium-sized ones for no apparent added value.
With 3m accounts and 40k monthly active users, OSM has been a huge project for many years. “Common sense” in this context is a common fallacy! We know we have a few different cultures represented, such as Simon's mention of “direct” culture, so it’s reasonable to write down the kinds of behaviors that we choose to support and those we choose to discourage.
Paweł, you may be interested to check out @ashedryden’s excellent CoC 101 & FAQ document for some background on the kinds of situations, arguments, and behaviors which tech communities have developed codes of conduct to handle.
ppawel
commented
8 years ago With 3m accounts and 40k monthly active users, OSM has been a huge project for many years.
Those are users, not contributors to the OSM website code which is what is discussed here.
Paweł, you may be interested to check out (...)
Yeah...
You are more than welcome to make jokes as long as they don't create a harassing or dangerous atmosphere for other attendees.
Thanks but no thanks for conduct rules like that. I guess I'm from a completely different planet than people who write or support this kind of stuff.
EOT from my side, I see your points, I won't ever agree with them. I spoke up because even though I've been inactive as a code contributor for a long time I still care about the project and it kind of hurts that OSM would do something like this.
ImreSamu
commented
8 years ago imho:
(in the future) The OSM "Robot/A.I. Mappers" must follow the Laws of Robotics ( Satya Nadella's laws )
Satya Nadella's laws
"A.I. must be designed to assist humanity" meaning human autonomy needs to be respected.
"A.I. must be transparent" meaning that humans should know and be able to understand how they work.
"A.I. must maximize efficiencies without destroying the dignity of people".
"A.I. must be designed for intelligent privacy" meaning that it earns trust through guarding their information.
"A.I. must have algorithmic accountability so that humans can undo unintended harm".
"A.I. must guard against bias" so that they must not discriminate people.from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_robotics#Satya_Nadella.27s_laws
tomhughes
commented
8 years ago @ImreSamu we're discussing a CoC for the web site code, not anything to do with mapping as such.
ImreSamu
commented
8 years ago @tomhughes : sorry for my misunderstandings
re-checking my root of misunderstandings, maybe it is worth to mention in the new "CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md" file that, "OpenStreetMap maintains a number of code of conducts" For example :
And maybe my original comment about the OSM "Robot/A.I. Mappers" - related more with the "Automated Edits code of conduct"
Wuzzy2
commented
8 years ago I disagree.
Here are two questionable things which are considered “bad” under the suggested code of conduct:
The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances
“Sexualized language”? So basically even something as harmless as saying “Fuck!” is outruled?
Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting
This is weasel wording at its best. What this means: If the Powers That Be consider something to be inappropriate, you are in danger of being banned if you commit such an act. What the Powers That Be consider to be “inappropriate” will of course be highly arbitrary, therefore giving the Powers That Be justification to kick out anyone.
Also, the CoC seems to be deliberately vague. There are just “examples”, no actual definitions.
This is a very reasonable code of conduct that has been adopted by over 10,000 open source projects.
Something does not become good, right or correct only if many people do it. If 10000 people claim that 2+2=5 it still won't be true. ;-)
Besides, I don't really see why OSM needs a code of conduct in the first place. Have there been a large number of serious abuses recently? Is there an urgent need for one?
bhousel
commented
8 years ago Besides, I don't really see why OSM needs a code of conduct in the first place. Have there been a large number of serious abuses recently? Is there an urgent need for one?
The right time to adopt a CoC is before abuses happen. I see it as a sign of project maturity.
migurski
commented
8 years ago There’s another reason to adopt a CoC in the absence of demonstrated abuse: people looking to join new projects or attend new conferences are starting to cite one’s existence as a minimal bar to clear, and in many cases skipping participation. My evidence for this is unfortunately anecdotal but the trend I’ve observed is clear. A code of conduct in 2016 is becoming a sign of maturity as Bryan points out, similar to code test coverage or use of a version control system. Just things you do because they’re what serious projects do now.
“Sexualized language”? So basically even something as harmless as saying “Fuck!” is outruled?
Whether it’s harmless depends on the context. Saying “Fuck!” when frustrated is common enough that it’s lost its sexualized meaning. Using the term to describe actual sexual imagery is inappropriate. Writing this down in a document makes it possible to have a conversation about whether something qualifies. Currently, the Powers That Be have decided that any form of direct discourse is acceptable, which has the effect of turning away valuable potential participants before they even make it into our various discussion forums. “Not trying is a signal,” as my friend @danhon says. We’re poorer for it as a community.
zerebubuth
commented
8 years ago A code of conduct in 2016 is becoming [...] Just things you do because they’re what serious projects do now.
Just because something is popular doesn't necessarily mean it's good (or bad).
Currently, the Powers That Be have decided that any form of direct discourse is acceptable, which has the effect of turning away valuable potential participants before they even make it into our various discussion forums.
You believe that it has that effect. As you acknowledge earlier in your comment, the evidence is anecdotal. Until there's firm evidence, please don't state it as if it were a fact.
My personal belief is that a short, lightweight CoC which is resistant to vexatious litigation could be beneficial. However, many CoCs, including the proposed one focus more on how to exclude contributors than on how to be inclusive. I think it's worrying that there's no discussion in the proposed CoC of tolerance or forgiveness, as I feel that both of these are crucial requirements for a humane and open-minded community.
dieterdreist
commented
8 years ago 2016-10-02 20:02 GMT+02:00 migurski notifications@github.com:
There’s another reason to adopt a CoC in the absence of demonstrated abuse: people looking to join new projects or attend new conferences are starting to cite one’s existence as a minimal bar to clear, and in many cases skipping participation.
This seems again culturally dependent. Just put your favorite CoC here https://openstreetmap.us/community/ in a visible way, and people looking for it can see how mature OSM is. People I have talked to about OSM were always measuring the maturity of OSM by the quality of our data, not the bureaucracy created around it.
Just things you do because they’re what serious projects do now
+1 to Matt here: popularity doesn't mean something is good
“Sexualized language”? So basically even something as harmless as saying “Fuck!” is outruled?
Whether it’s harmless depends on the context. Saying “Fuck!” when frustrated is common enough that it’s lost its sexualized meaning. Using the term to describe actual sexual imagery is inappropriate.
I tend to agree, although there's not so much if not almost no sex at all in OSM, as far as I am aware of. The only ever sexually connected topic I can remember is a short exchange about this: http://cdn01.androidauthority.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/android-apple-710x484.png And it is only sexually explicit if you adhere to certain practises, otherwise it could be seen as simple brand humiliation ;-)
Writing this down in a document makes it possible to have a conversation about whether something qualifies. Currently, the Powers That Be have decided that any form of direct discourse is acceptable, which has the effect of turning away valuable potential participants before they even make it into our various discussion forums.
can you give any real examples where this happened, from our lists, especially the international ones (talk, dev, tagging)? Can you explain how a CoC would have helped to deal with these occasions better than how it was done then?
Cheers, Martin
gravitystorm
commented
8 years ago can you give any real examples where this happened, from our lists, especially the international ones (talk, dev, tagging)?
Can we please stay on-topic on this issue. We're discussing a CoC for the development community around the openstreetmap-website codebase, not for any other part of the OpenStreetMap community.
pnorman
commented
8 years ago I reviewed the code of conduct from Contributor Covenant when proposing the OpenStreetMap Carto code of conduct and rejected it because it did not reflect the conduct problems we were having. openstreetmap-website has different conduct and expectations, but I think this is a issue both projects have in common.
Reviewing this issue, it appears there is no general agreement about adding this code of conduct to openstreetmap-website. I recommend closing this issue and taking a step back to consider what we want from a code of conduct, what conduct problems we have or are likely to have.
If a code of conduct is adopted, the openstreetmap-website community needs to decide on a reporting mechanism and whomever is receiving code of conduct reports would need to agree to it. This is largely independent of the code of conduct chosen, and the failure to do so was an issue with #1300.
bhousel
commented
8 years ago Reviewing this issue, it appears there is no general agreement about adding this code of conduct to openstreetmap-website. I recommend closing this issue and taking a step back to consider what we want from a code of conduct, what conduct problems we have or are likely to have.
I agree. Thanks for your comments everyone!
mikelmaron
commented
8 years ago Disappointed you closed this issue so quickly @bhousel. I only caught with the discussion this morning after the weekend. Among project maintainers and a number of comments, there appears to be support in principal for a Code of Conduct on openstreetmap-website, but as @pnorman points out, discussion to be had on what the approach and wording of the CoC, as well as the reporting mechanism. I think we could be fairly close here.
Let's open a new ticket soon, with a summary of ideas from this thread, and get to work on wording that fits what we hope to achieve with the CoC.
tomhughes
commented
8 years ago I agree that I think we should keep this open (the actual PR can remain closed given we haven't agreed on which CoC we want) though I have to say the discussion hasn't been entirely helpful so far in allowing me to determine what CoC people might prefer...
migurski
commented
8 years ago Since there are a few folks in this thread looking for evidence of existing harm, I thought I should address that. The specific harm I’m hoping we head off is not some sexually-charged abuse incident on the lists, because that would be a sign we’ve already missed the boat. I’m worried about a harm that’s harder to perceive, the non-participation of people who look for a CoC as a sign of maturity when deciding whether to get involved. We already have CoC’s for in-person events, and there’s plenty of evidence of people who treat it as a minimal bar to clear, such as John Scalzi’s 2013 campaign.
Reputations are a pain to change. I rang the bell on this topic a few months ago because I believe that there is strong indication that OSM as an organization is on the wrong path, and that its decisions have rendered it incapable of perceiving this or reasoning about it. Adapting the CoC we already use for in-person events to virtual spaces like code repositories and hopefully other forums would be an important signal that we don’t tolerate the kinds of incidents common to the tech industry in our world-changing, critical project. There is nothing else like OSM; people can’t just pick another conference or worldwide street-scale dataset to contribute to.
Zverik
commented
8 years ago I support introducing CoC for this repo. I don't think it would attract more people, but it won't make anything worse.
Thanks @migurski for the CoC 101 link, it inspired me to finally write CoC for the Russian OSM telegram channel.
severak
commented
8 years ago @migurski had very good point, there is nothing else like OSM.
Also - from my point of view: (generic) COC is just same thing as rules (or terms of services) which every single internet forum has. (also see The Universal Rules of Civilized Discourse)
woodpeck
commented
7 years ago @DelanoJ84 are you involved with OpenStreetMap in any way, or have you just landed here because you have an axe to grind with someone at ContributorCovenant and want to maximize publicity? Personally I feel that the text of the Contributor Covenant should be evaluated (critically evaluated by all means) if we want to adopt it, but I don't care if any of the C.C. contributors are racist or toxic or whatever - it has no bearing on the suitability of the document for this here project.
rindeal
commented
6 years ago @bhousel https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/1299#issuecomment-249623294:
If anything, added workload means that:
- I try to take a few more minutes revising my thoughts before posting on the issue tracker, mailing lists, twitter.
- I try to take breaks and go for a run when I get angry
- I sometimes get contacted via private email about iD and OSM, or in person at events. Sometimes these conversations turn to personal frustration about OSM and I try to provide whatever help I can.
- banned one person temporarily because of a personal attack, but this is the event that encouraged me to adopt the CoC in the first place.
In the issue you linked to I noticed that you told the OP that the reason for banning him was that he "is becoming a pest", who is bothering you with an unimportant work. Could you please tell us how exactly did your CoC helped you to resolve the situation? And whether you called him that before or after you went for a run?
woodpeck
commented
6 years ago @jbruchon, your comments are not helpful. There are too many people from outside of OSM telling us what they think we should be doing already. OSM, and OSM-related software projects, are not a battleground-for-rent for people who don't care about OSM. This is something where the OSM community and the communities in OSM-related software projects have to find their own way, rather than importing grief and strife from elsewhere. One of your linked documents talks about not wanting "people coming into our communities and creating issues for others that amount to a mob of people coming after them". You must realise that while one person doesn't yet make a mob, your message is at odds with that?
jbruchon
commented
6 years ago @woodpeck Very well. I understand now that my thoughts aren't welcome. I am retracting my comments and leaving your project to set its own course.
bhousel
commented
6 years ago I realize this discussion has been open for over a year with no resolution.
To be more precise - I closed it after a week with no resolution. It should not take so long for whoever is leading the project to just decide on something and put it in place.
That this issue got reopened and ignored for over a year only reinforces my opinion that this community is not mature enough for such a thing. I'm tired of reading the same arguments about why or why not.
I'm closing this again, and I'm still disappointed. 😞
tomhughes
commented
6 years ago @bhousel My apologies - the problem is that I don't feel it's up to me to unilaterally impose a particular CoC but I equally don't know how to determine what (if any) we should use.
Obviously we now have a second maintainer on board so maybe @gravitystorm and I should discuss it...
tomhughes
commented
6 years ago I do have one question - who exactly would count as the "community" that any CoC would apply to?
I mean we're quite unusual in that there's only really two of us currently with any power and who are permanent fixtures capable of having a CoC enforced against them?
Or is it meant to somehow apply to everybody that opens a PR or issue? But how would we enforce that?
bhousel
commented
6 years ago I do have one question - who exactly would count as the "community" that any CoC would apply to?
The CoCs all have a "Scope" section. It will say something like "This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples include blah blah".
Community in this case means everyone who interacts with the openstreetmap-website repo in some way. For example: It does apply to everyone who opens a PR or an issue. It doesn't apply to random shouty people on the HOT mailing list or the person who gets too drunk at a mapathon (those spaces should have their own CoCs).
I mean we're quite unusual in that there's only really two of us currently with any power and who are permanent fixtures capable of having a CoC enforced against them?
I don't think that's unusual, but certainly anybody is capable of having a CoC enforced against them. Again, CoC is for future abuses, not to deal with anybody currently.
It's like unit tests for the community. Person A calls person B a racist name? Fail. A is dealt with swiftly and booted. Having the test in place is useful, even if racist name calling is not currently a problem. (If your community grows 10x, will it be?)
the problem is that I don't feel it's up to me to unilaterally impose a particular CoC but I equally don't know how to determine what (if any) we should use.
I would far prefer for you to be a leader and unilaterally impose a CoC that works for you and @gravitystorm than to just wait indefinitely for someone to tell you what to do.
It's leadership's job to impose it, and then to enforce it once in place. These are easy but important jobs that you will need to do rarely, compared to the daily grind of writing code and repo gardening.
Not everything in OSM is a democracy. We don't need to have a working group or a survey to give everyone their input on how much name calling is allowed on a mailing list, or how much ass grabbing is allowed at a conference.
jbruchon
commented
6 years ago @bhousel "Again, CoC is for future abuses, not to deal with anybody currently." - So you acknowledge that there is no actual need for it in the first place. I have some questions for you!
Please feel free to elaborate. Of course, you always have the option of dismissing me as "an outsider" as @woodpeck saw fit to do--what a welcoming community you have there--which would conveniently avoid answering these questions. I'm sure @tomhughes and @gravitystorm would be interested in the answers or the decision to avoid answering.
I apologize to @woodpeck for the next bit since I disagree strongly with the idea that these codes of conduct are good or necessary and I also don't think @woodpeck did anything wrong, but this really needs to be done. We're going to apply the proposed code of conduct to this conversation.
According to the latest version of the proposed Contributor Covenant @woodpeck's comment to me has violated "Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences" and "Gracefully accepting constructive criticism" and possibly the personal part of "Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include...Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks" by painting me as an outsider and saying "my comments are not helpful" based on that. The Contributor Covenant also says that "Project maintainers...are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior." Will @woodpeck be corrected appropriately and fairly for violating your code of conduct, as required by your code of conduct?
Take it a step further. The Contributor Covenant says "This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community." If @woodpeck were to hypothetically write a blog post on an external site complaining about me coming here where I don't belong, will @woodpeck then be corrected for making that post despite it being a personal opinion expressed on a personal blog that is not directly related to the project?
I DEMAND that you enforce the code of conduct for the safety of others in this project!
...not really, but welcome to the world of politically correct "codes of conduct" where we really should just treat one another like grown adults and use a healthy dose of common sense. Remember, @woodpeck didn't actually do anything wrong even though the Contributor Covenant can be interpreted to show that @woodpeck is in violation, so should @woodpeck really be punished? I'd have a valid complaint under the new rules, but not one worth entertaining.
Codes of conduct are ripe for exploitation by unsavory parties. There is a lot of value in using your executive discretion instead of putting it in the hands of anyone who walks by your project and can rules lawyer things in their favor.
jbruchon
commented
6 years ago This bonus comment is the part of the hypothetical discussed above above where I call out on Twitter for reinforcements and your project ends up with a LOT of unwanted attention from non-contributors that shame you for not applying the code of conduct in the adverse manner I've interpreted it. Lots of name-calling ensues. Reactionists arrive. 4chan, Tumblr, and Reddit pick up on the drama and either grab their popcorn or start throwing it at others in the thread. 900 comments later, you give in and sanction @woodpeck to shut me and my ilk up and lock the thread.
http://contributor-covenant.org/
This is a very reasonable code of conduct that has been adopted by over 10,000 open source projects. I would be very pleased to see OpenStreetMap added to the list of well known projects that have adopted it.
Here's why I think this is a good idea:
Also want to share my experience with adding a Code of Conduct to iD. The one that I use is adopted from Contributor Covenant but uses simpler language and goes a little further in some ways (e.g. mentioning plagiarism on the unacceptable list).
I'm going to be honest, I also used to think that these codes of conduct were more for show than anything. But adopting the language forced me to think more about my own conduct as a maintainer (which has not been perfect), and it helps me to strive to be better at doing my job.
Put another way: The code of conduct is less for the community, and more for the leadership team.
This was surprising to me. I originally thought of it as a list of things "you must not do", and ended up thinking of it a list of things "I must do". I now add this language to all projects that I maintain, and I feel better having it there.
I now think of adopting a CoC like adding automated unit tests to a project. As we know, adding tests won't cover all cases or find all bugs, but it will expose things in the code that are broken. And having comprehensive tests in place saves me time as a maintainer. Similarly, a code of conduct helps to spell out the things that I as a maintainer should do to maintain a welcoming environment for everyone. Unit tests help me keep the code healthy, the CoC helps me keep the community healthy.