search

stacksgov / pm

Project management related to stacks governance
https://pm.stacksgov.com/
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
14 stars 7 forks source link

Request for Comment: Stacks Code of Conduct (Beta) #132

Open joberding opened 3 years ago

joberding commented 3 years ago

Abstract

The following is an RFC for the Stacks Code of Conduct (Beta Version). Please review, make comments and suggestions on the proposed code of conduct. Prior work on the Code of Conduct and relevant documents can be found at https://github.com/stacksgov/pm/issues/119. The proposal and relevant milestones can be found at https://github.com/stacksgov/Stacks-Grants/issues/27.

Stakeholders

Stakeholders include all members of the Stacks community. Community members can be generally identified as members, contributors and leaders.

Problem

There is not an official code of conduct for the Stacks community that has been reviewed or voted upon by the community at large. On April 17, 2020, the Blockstack PBC team adopted a Code of Conduct based on the Contributor Covenant model. https://github.com/blockstack/stacks-blockchain/pull/1436/commits/38847fcf63894f3620320b67c2efe8fbe0cd9cea While the Contributor Covenant model is widely used in open source communities, there was no review or adoption of the April 17th code of conduct by the Stacks community at large. Even if the April 17th code of conduct is adopted by the community, there is no code of enforcement in existence. A code of conduct without a code of enforcement is useless.

Solution

The creation, adoption or adaption of a code of conduct submitted to the community for review and decision making via voting mechanism as proposed by the Governance group grant proposal. https://github.com/stacksgov/Stacks-Grants/issues/27

Anticipated Difficulties

Freedom of Speech An important potential problem is how wide the scope of enforcement should apply given freedom of speech issues. Some code of conduct models espouse enforcement related to communication outside the community. In addition, some members of our community believe that enforcement and removal should apply if community members engage in bad behavior in another public space.

Public Participation One anticipated difficulty is encouraging community participation in the code of conduct review and decision making process.

Risks

Stacks Code of Conduct - Beta

Purpose A primary goal of Stacks Community is to be inclusive to the largest number of contributors, with the most varied and diverse backgrounds possible. As such, we are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, ability, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and religion (or lack thereof). This code of conduct outlines our expectations for all those who participate in our community, as well as the consequences for unacceptable behavior. We invite all those who participate in the Stacks Community to help us create safe and positive experiences for everyone.

Open Citizenship A supplemental goal of this Code of Conduct is to increase open citizenship by encouraging participants to recognize and strengthen the relationships between our actions and their effects on our community. Communities mirror the societies in which they exist and positive action is essential to counteract the many forms of inequality and abuses of power that exist in society. If you see someone who is making an extra effort to ensure our community is welcoming, friendly, and encourages all participants to contribute to the fullest extent, we want to know.

A Can’t Be Evil Ethos A root ethos of the Stacks community is “Can’t Be Evil’. This rallying cry represents a deep core belief in a user owned internet flanked by the pillars of privacy and self sovereign identity. We strongly believe in individual rights together with decentralization. This ethos is a centerpiece of our community and development.

Our Pledge We as Stacks community members pledge to make participation in our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation. We pledge to act and interact in ways that contribute to an open, welcoming, diverse, inclusive, and healthy community.

Our Standards Examples of behavior that contributes to a positive environment for our community include:

Examples of unacceptable behavior include:

Enforcement Responsibilities Community moderators are responsible for clarifying and enforcing our standards of acceptable behavior and will take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any behavior that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful. Community moderators have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, and will communicate reasons for moderation decisions when appropriate.

Scope This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces, and also applies when an individual is officially representing the community in public spaces. Examples of representing our community include using an official e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event.

Enforcement Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported to the community leaders responsible for enforcement at moderator@stacks.org. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated promptly and fairly. All community leaders are obligated to respect the privacy and security of the reporter of any incident.

Enforcement Guidelines Community leaders will follow these Community Impact Guidelines in determining the consequences for any action they deem in violation of this Code of Conduct:

  1. Correction Community Impact: Use of inappropriate language or other behavior deemed unprofessional or unwelcome in the community. Consequence: A private, written warning from community leaders, providing clarity around the nature of the violation and an explanation of why the behavior was inappropriate. A public apology may be requested.

  2. Warning Community Impact: A violation through a single incident or series of actions. Consequence: A warning with consequences for continued behavior. No interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, for a specified period of time. This includes avoiding interactions in community spaces as well as external channels like social media. Violating these terms may lead to a temporary or permanent ban.

  3. Temporary Ban Community Impact: A serious violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior. Consequence: A temporary ban from any sort of interaction or public communication with the community for a specified period of time. No public or private interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, is allowed during this period. Violating these terms may lead to a permanent ban.

  4. Permanent Ban Community Impact: Demonstrating a pattern of violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior, harassment of an individual, or aggression toward or disparagement of classes of individuals. Consequence: A permanent ban from any sort of public interaction within the community.

Attribution This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 2.0, available at https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/0/code_of_conduct.html.

Community Impact Guidelines were inspired by Mozilla’s code of conduct enforcement ladder.

Language was incorporated from the following Codes of Conduct: Citizen Code of Conduct licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. LGBTQ in Tech , licensed under a Creative Commons Zero License Django Project Code of Conduct, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Rust Code of Conduct

References

General Our Culture The Guide to Allyship Creative Commons: When we share, everyone wins

First Amendment Does Freedom of Speech Exist in Cryptocurrency Communities? First Amendment and Censorship | Advocacy, Legislation & Issues Mahanoy Area School District v. BL - SCOTUSblog

Participation Working Open & Public Participation Open Leadership Training Series : Working Open IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation Blockchain for Cities - A systematic literature review

Codes of Conduct http://safetyfirstpdx.org/resources/code_of_conduct.html Open Leadership Training Series : Write or Choose a Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/ Your Code of Conduct HOWTO design a code of conduct for your community https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/ https://github.com/rust-lang/rust https://zcash.readthedocs.io/en/latest/rtd_pages/code_of_conduct.html https://electriccoin.co/code-of-conduct/ https://github.com/stumpsyn/policies/blob/master/citizen_code_of_conduct.md https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/0/code_of_conduct/ https://lgbtq.technology/coc.html

Moderation & Enforcement How We’re Making Code of Conduct Enforcement Real — and Scaling it. https://github.com/mozilla/inclusion https://github.com/mozilla/inclusion/pull/257/commits/dd8e90dee2ddbf94f65f1ca44069fcc5cc0dd77c?short_path=cc202f7#diff-cc202f7c9ffb912918fe950a7752b1a44e05396bf8a2c3f962eeb36acdfb3eaf Centralisation is a danger to democracy — Redecentralize.org Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech

jcnelson commented 3 years ago

Wow @joberding, this looks very thoroughly researched and thought out. Great work on this!

jcnelson commented 3 years ago

Just copying over a comment I put on the corresponding forum post:

The only (minor) comment I had on this pertained to the Scope section:

Scope This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces, and also applies when an individual is officially representing the community in public spaces. Examples of representing our community include using an official e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event.

This might be already implicitly covered by the language, but I think that it may be a good idea to state that for people who hold an official role in the Stacks community (e.g. a channel moderator, a designated role in the SIP process, membership in a working group, employment at the Foundation, etc.), the scope broadens to all your public activities – both offline and online. The rationale is that by holding that role, you officially represent the community 24/7 for the duration of your tenure. Building on this, I think it might also be a good idea to state that violating the code of conduct may result in you being removed from that position, in addition to being temporarily or permanently banned.

What do you think?

joberding commented 3 years ago

I agree in part because if a person holds an official role (or holds oneself out as having an official role) within the community then they become the face of the community and can impact the opinion about the community, etc by their actions. My reservation is that it could become broad so the language needs to be precise. Also, there are a number of legal issues relevant to employment - but in principle I agree that there should be the potential for loss of position while acting as a community representative.

Cap1966 commented 3 years ago

This looks fine to me. I believe that we are all old enough and mature enough to play nice. If certain individuals cannot be respectful then there are consequences. The proposed code of conduct here seems sufficient and not over reaching or excessive. I say move forward with this and if need be, make revisions via a governance vote.

joberding commented 3 years ago

@jcnelson, I agree in part because if a person holds an official role (or holds oneself out as having an official role) within the community then they become the face of the community and can impact the opinion about the community, etc by their actions. My reservation is that it could become broad so the language needs to be precise. Also, there are a number of legal issues relevant to employment - but in principle I agree that there should be the potential for loss of position while acting as a community representative.

joberding commented 3 years ago

@Cap1966 - Thanks for your comments!

louiseivan commented 3 years ago

Reposting my comment here from the forum to add more visibility to this proposal which is much needed.

First of all, thank you so much for putting this together. Your work speaks a lot of volumes when it comes to your passion within the community. A very well-thought-out proposal that is ready for implementation. This is much needed in all our social spheres (Discord, Telegram, Twitter and beyond) as we’re always having a hard time punishing bad actors in the ecosystem.

Question: What’s the next action item here, how can we move it forward and implement it in our ecosystem?

zrixes commented 3 years ago

Thats a really really detailed write up on Stacks code of conduct! I personally find it very well written and covers all the essential aspect of the community and definitely sets the expectations going forward for community members.

Just one minor thought and hopefully not find ourselves in such circumstances, In terms of interpretation of the code of conduct, due with the nature of the community where its made up of a diverse set of members with different backgrounds & cultures, the interpretation of certain norms, behaviours, criticism could be subjective in varying context.

Thus just wondering in the event of disagreement in the interpretation due to the above, what forms of mediation can be used to resolve the differences?

The first thought I had would be "our pledge", where it will form the fundamental core values that all decision making will fallback on?

Many thanks @joberding for the code of conduct write up, it's a really great initiative! Ethan

paradigma-cl commented 3 years ago

The pledge could be the "oneness of humanity". There should not see each other as strangers, we are one organism.

john-light commented 3 years ago

Overall I think this is a great CoC, with reasonable and well defined standards and enforcement guidelines.

A few questions:

This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces

What is a "community space"? Is Twitter a "community space"? How about a local hosted meetup? It might help to be more explicit here about which spaces this code of conduct applies to. Another idea here is to simply say something like "This CoC applies to any community space that formally adopts this document as their CoC". Speaking in lawyerly terms here, this section seems to be trying to define the "jurisdiction" where this CoC is enforceable, and to me it seems like the only spaces where this CoC can apply is in spaces where the owner of the space has explicitly adopted this CoC and stated they will be enforcing it in their space.

Another comment on scope, it says:

also applies when an individual is officially representing the community in public spaces. Examples of representing our community include using an official e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event.

What does "official" mean in a decentralized community like Stacks?

joberding commented 3 years ago

Thanks for all of the input and comments! Given the recent comments here, on the forum and elsewhere, I'll make an additional revision of the COC and post the updated version here by Monday, April 5, 2021.

whoabuddy commented 3 years ago

I like the idea of it being a part of the voting / decision making process work from @HaroldDavis3!

joberding commented 3 years ago

@whoabuddy I think this is a great way to test the decision making process and ratify the COC as Jude mentioned in today's governance call

hozzjss commented 3 years ago

I like the idea of it being a part of the voting / decision making process work from @HaroldDavis3!

This could be a document within policykit, it's up but I'm wondering about the process of voting that in, who are the voters and how should we approach this?

I have not got the time yet to read it through and maybe translate it into policies, but I'm hoping to hear your feedback about the test instance in the advocates test server here All you need to do is join this server and then click on login with discord in the policy kit page

From there you could discover writing community documents as the simplest entry point and you can get complicated with platform and constitution policies.

whoabuddy commented 2 years ago

Update: this could be passed through the consensus process of the advocates program, will be some small onboarding so people can register to vote (to prevent spam).

joberding commented 2 years ago

I like the idea of it being a part of the voting / decision making process work from @HaroldDavis3!

This could be a document within policykit, it's up but I'm wondering about the process of voting that in, who are the voters and how should we approach this?

I have not got the time yet to read it through and maybe translate it into policies, but I'm hoping to hear your feedback about the test instance in the advocates test server here All you need to do is join this server and then click on login with discord in the policy kit page

From there you could discover writing community documents as the simplest entry point and you can get complicated with platform and constitution policies.

@hozzjss Is this something that we could still implement? Does it make sense now?

Fyi, I am setting it up for the SIP process now.

hozzjss commented 2 years ago

@joberding It would be localized to advocates, that’s the only issue, we could open it up to everyone but we don’t have an agreed upon mechanism for that community wide thing

joberding commented 2 years ago

@hozzjss I think a first step in the process could be to localize to advocates. Would that also be a helpful test of the consensus mechanism? Then we can get to the community wide mechanism. Let's talk about it in a team mtg.

hozzjss commented 2 years ago

I’m down

joberding commented 2 years ago

After spending significant time reviewing the SIP process . It appears that there is no type that fits a Stacks Code of Conduct SIP. The only thing close is Informational . However, the informational type states that it "does not require any action to be taken on the part of any user". A code of conduct most definitely requires action on the part of users by requiring conformity to the code. If I am correct, the first step is a Meta SIP to create a new type. Thoughts? Am I missing something?

joberding commented 2 years ago

I like the idea of it being a part of the voting / decision making process work from @HaroldDavis3!

This could be a document within policykit, it's up but I'm wondering about the process of voting that in, who are the voters and how should we approach this?

I have not got the time yet to read it through and maybe translate it into policies, but I'm hoping to hear your feedback about the test instance in the advocates test server here All you need to do is join this server and then click on login with discord in the policy kit page

From there you could discover writing community documents as the simplest entry point and you can get complicated with platform and constitution policies.

@hozzjss Are the links above still working? Wanted to take a look and see what I can do with the COC

hozzjss commented 2 years ago

Give it like a week for the consensus flow to get ratified and do it through that with a proposal i can help with that def yo @joberding

joberding commented 2 years ago

Just wanted to let everyone know who is interested in the Code of Conduct, that I am currently writing the SIP for the formalization of the Stacks Code of Conduct. I will be posting the initial draft in the Stacks Discord Web3Gov channel upon completion and will ping everyone here. Thank you for your feedback and support.

igorsyl commented 2 years ago

Thanks for putting this together! Could a ban extend to participation in the stacks blockchain as well? Should we make this inclusion or exclusion explicit?

joberding commented 2 years ago

@igorsyl This is an excellent point. After listening to the discussions on upcoming SIPs relevant to miner centralization combined with your post above - I realize that the COC can be applied much more broadly. It relates to bad actors within community groups and discussions and those acting in bad faith on the blockchain. This should be made explicit, IMO.

HaroldDavis3 commented 1 year ago

We will open this again once changes that reflect the comments have been applied, then reopen for comment or passage through advoxDAO gov flows for exposure.

joberding commented 1 year ago

Re-opened as this is still under work. A SIP is currently in process.

joberding commented 1 year ago

@whoabuddy Is there another label we can use so this doesn't end up on the governance agenda.

whoabuddy commented 1 year ago

Sure, we could remove the mtg-action label which would stop it from coming up in the meetings as an action item, but is that what we want?

The label and fact it comes up in meeting was to help report on WIP and track progress - and if a SIP is currently in the works then we can announce that as the status in the meeting and move on, ideally linking the SIP once it's created then closing the issue (as it'd flow through the SIP/CAB process at that point).

@joberding what do you think?

joberding commented 1 year ago

I think the code of conduct should have it's own repo within Stacksgov to give it more visibility for the community at large. This allows others to contribute to it, to interact with the project.

Currently, it is difficult to find and all links by others in the community go to my Google doc file which is not optimal.

Your thoughts?

owenstrevor commented 1 year ago

How will this affect my twitter fights with toxic bitcoin maxis? 😅

I generally take the "intolerant of intolerance" approach. Is that ethos reflected here?

jcnelson commented 1 year ago

You may be asked to disengage with them, or to use non-violent communication techniques when engagement is necessary.

Similarly, maxis may be booted from the community (or kept out) if they can't abide by this CoC.

We don't tolerate intolerance within the community.

joberding commented 1 year ago

@owenstrevor @jcnelson - Thanks for jumping into the discussion.

You both raise good points reflected by some of the comments above regarding "Scope". In particular, previous participants have asked what is defined as the community, and also where and when does the COC apply?

I agree with the "intolerant of intolerance" approach. It's sensible and easy for everyone to understand. I think it should be included in the language to give clear guidance to the community.

While I like non-violent communication as a concept, Marshall Rosenberg's NVC technique is not that easy to understand and takes considerable effort to apply to daily communication. It would be a big hurdle to expect people in the Stacks community to comply with NVC guidelines. There are so many cultural layers in our communication that what one person believes to be non-violent may feel like an attack to another person. Let's keep it simple.

Hero-Gamer commented 1 year ago

Hi Juliet, I was listening to a Bitcoin/Lightning podcast last weekend, came across an interesting topic..

I think @wileyj will be interested in this topic as he deals with the bug hunt program afaik. I think might be worth defining if there isn't already which could be added to the Stacks Code of Conduct. It might exist already who knows! See what others think about this :)

wileyj commented 1 year ago

Hi Juliet, I was listening to a Bitcoin/Lightning podcast last weekend, came across an interesting topic..

I think @wileyj will be interested in this topic as he deals with the bug hunt program afaik. I think might be worth defining if there isn't already which could be added to the Stacks Code of Conduct. It might exist already who knows! See what others think about this :)

not sure if something like that falls into this SIP. "responsible disclosure" should be done via private channels, bug bounty programs etc - but i'm hesitant to say it should be included here.

not all issues that people have are valid bugs or even problems - in fact, it's quite the opposite. very few meet the bar we've set for recognition as a valid bug report.

defining irresponsible disclosure is also very challenging - not all bugs are the same, and the person who discovers them doesn't always know they're a bug (or how critical they are). and then you have to decide if the person's intent was irresponsible (good luck with that!).

i think we could add something if it's generic enough - pointing out that there is a bug bounty program where reports are accepted for responsible disclosure.

Hero-Gamer commented 1 year ago

Thanks for the insight into that world. Yes I agree no need to define it, particular irresponsible disclosure, can get very tricky and circumstantial. The guys on the podcast also struggled to come to a consensus. Mention of bug bounty program sounds good! Found a couple of links:

  1. https://stacks.org/immunefi
  2. https://immunefi.com/bounty/stacks
joberding commented 1 year ago

@wileyj @Hero-Gamer Thanks for info on Responsible Disclosure. I just got a full lesson on Responsible Disclosures and the potential for exploits.

What would a generic statement look like and is it necessary given the current language of the CoC?

joberding commented 1 year ago

Happy New Year !

wileyj commented 1 year ago

@wileyj @Hero-Gamer Thanks for info on Responsible Disclosure. I just got a full lesson on Responsible Disclosures and the potential for exploits.

What would a generic statement look like and is it necessary given the current language of the CoC?

i would think that something covering blockchain specific bugs,( i.e. a duplicate tx or nonce ) could be added as a line, linking to the bug bounty program here: https://immunefi.com/bounty/stacks/

i'm not sure of the exact language to capture the intent, but the explorer keeps it simple: Found a bug in the Stacks Blockchain?.

the caveat is that bugs in wallets, apis, etc aren't applicable - but it's not always easy to tell if the bug is from the wallet or the blockchain itself (it rarely is, but i think of some scenarios where it could be).

joberding commented 1 year ago

Read my recent article on Sigle to learn more about the benefits of a code of conduct: https://app.sigle.io/juliet.btc/II7y2IgIo4gWuHFdnDMUm

Hero-Gamer commented 1 year ago

Re: bug reporting ethics I have created a line which Jw is OK with (commented on Discord): "We encourage security researchers to responsibly disclose any vulnerabilities they find in our project. Please follow our public bug bounty program such as on Immunefi to help us keep our project secure and protect our users." Anybody not ok with it pls shout.

In addition I'd like to see if it is possible to add something about being "intellectually honest", here is a possible line: "Intellectual honesty is highly valued in discussions related to cryptocurrency technology and architecture. Participants are encouraged to strive for accuracy and transparency in their statements and arguments. This involves avoiding spreading misinformation, acknowledging potential weaknesses in the technology, and being transparent with data and research. By upholding these principles, we can cultivate a productive and respectful dialogue that benefits the entire crypto community."

Please let me know if you have any thoughts on above.

john-neoswap commented 1 year ago

“Codes of conduct” result in speech codes which have a chilling effect on innovation and creativity.

Terrible idea.

I unequivocally condemn and oppose it.

mrwagmibtc commented 1 year ago

Creating powers is dangerous. The community and law is already sufficient enough in monitoring everything. Reputation platforms will naturally emerge linking to our verified credentials. This will naturally de-amplify hostile or rude voices and amplify balanced, truthful, and thoughtful voices. To me, this is centralized thinking and I don't need anyone telling me how to think or speak. If what I say, you don't like, don't listen. If no one listens to me, thats my fault for being inconsiderate on something. But, at least, I have a choice and not a muzzle. I oppose this. Just my two sats. Peace and love. Wagmi out.

ianBanksia commented 1 year ago

Stacks should NOT have anything like that. I oppose it even if it's good.

(and btw: that's the concept behind the "A Can’t Be Evil Ethos", not having it attached to a set of rules)

**updated to include below link https://medium.com/@muneeb/cant-be-evil-bc5ec16c6306

wileyj commented 1 year ago

Respectfully, I'm thinking that you're missing the overall point here @ianBanksia @mrwagmibtc @john-neoswap .

There are already softly enforced community guidelines we all adhere here when we participate. The attempt here is to codify those existing standards into something tangible that can be referred to and updated as the need arises.

if anyone feels threatened or harassed by this proposal, i would invite them to consider why that is and what views you hold that may be considered hostile to this proposal.

As a community grows, it's no longer viable for every member of the community to self-police each other as they see fit without a set of guiding principles. This proposal is to define and codify what those principles are, developed and voted on by the community that would follow them.

i'm not interested in debating what is meant when i read between the lines of some of these comments - but if you have constructive criticism or alternative suggestions to what's being proposed: those are welcome.

saying something like result in speech codes which have a chilling effect on innovation and creativity is not something we can debate in good faith because the statement itself is a bad faith argument.

john-neoswap commented 1 year ago

I have said my piece, and that is all I have to say. I have already spent too much time on this topic, and now I'm going to get back to building.

RagnarLifthrasir commented 1 year ago

There's no "we" in a purported decentralized system.

And attempting to define proper behavior for everyone worldwide from different faiths, backgrounds, etc, who run the software is a tyranny of hall monitors. It's centralized censorship.

I suggest scrapping this idea altogether.

wileyj commented 1 year ago

There's no "we" in a purported decentralized system.

And attempting to define proper behavior for everyone worldwide from different faiths, backgrounds, etc, who run the software is a tyranny of hall monitors. It's centralized censorship.

I suggest scrapping this idea altogether.

I disagree entirely. this is not an attempt to define "proper" behaviour, but to classify what isn't proper as our community sees it. the different backgrounds of community members don't matter here in the slightest. and to be clear, this already happens in society as a whole, in other communities, and in the stacks community. the attempt here is to codify what that means for this community.

if you'd like to see text added for what you'd like to see allowed in the proposal, please add it here.

and by no means is this "centralized censorship" - there will be a proposal that would be voted on.

attacking an idea because "centralized censorship" is not an argument, it's a talking point and leaves nearly no room for debate on what that even means.

if you consider this proposal to be "centralized censorship" - by all means, please add some tangible examples where if this proposal were accepted, it would result in "centralized censorship".

RagnarLifthrasir commented 1 year ago

The correct approach is opt-in, bottom-up, where people and organizations choose values for themselves and who they want or do not want to work with.

A "Code of Conduct" is a tool for control. Which is fine as long you're the one determining the code. But over time, your enemies can gain control of this tool and make new rules. Ones antithetical to your rules. This is the story of politics since the beginning of time. If you never have a central point of control (Code of Conduct), you remove the ability of your future enemies to gain control.

wileyj commented 1 year ago

The correct approach is opt-in, bottom-up, where people and organizations choose values for themselves and who they want or do not want to work with.

this is correct, and this is precisely what this proposal is attempting to do. someone took the time to put this together, based on existing guidelines we all softly adhere to.