Request for Comment: Stacks Code of Conduct (Beta)

[joberding]

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

• Potential for stalled decision making.
• Failure to represent all members of the community.
• Too broad or too narrow in scope.
• Need to repeatedly update.
• Lack of acceptance by the community.

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:

• Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people
• Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences
• Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback
• Accepting responsibility and apologizing to those affected by our mistakes, and learning from the experience
• Focusing on what is best not just for us as individuals, but for the overall community

Examples of unacceptable behavior include:

• The use of sexualized language or imagery, and sexual attention or advances of any kind
• Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
• Public or private harassment
• Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or email address, without their explicit permission
• Offensive comments related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neuro(a)typicality, physical appearance, body size, age, race, national origin, ethnic origin, nationality, immigration status, language, religion or lack thereof, or other identity marker.
• No racist, sexist, cissexist, ableist or otherwise oppressive behavior is allowed, casual or explicit. This includes any harmful language, behavior, or action toward people of color, trans folks, disabled and other marginalized identities in our community. These are violations of the Code of Conduct.
• Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

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

[RagnarLifthrasir]

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.

You're creating rules for people who don't know they exist.

Again, there is NO "we" in an open protocol. Ever.

[ianBanksia]

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.

my constructive feedback is to leave as it is... appreciate you all efforts, but allow me to say that Stacks is fine without it. focus this great energy towards greater decentralisation, such as mining pools.

mine (or your) views don't matter. point is being against ANY regulation. we only can't be evil by not allowing ourselves to define evil.

that's what attracted me to build in Stacks in the first place. (and probably a few other builders) if Stacks wants to become a gated community, that's fine. there are other places to trade, other chains to build, and other repos to fork.

but that's my take. you are entitled to yours, and I'll fight for you to be free to say it.

[ianBanksia]

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.

last comment before I go.

two underlying issues on above paragraph: 1- who decided community need this? Can you point me to the voting pool decision on this matter? Maybe lets vote that instead. 2- who is deciding what's good feedback and therefore welcomed... you? a commite?

proposal is not even live and we have this behaviour. imagine yourself with power to censor?

that can't be good.

[badonyx]

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. stacks-network/stacks-blockchain@38847fc 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.

I do not see a problem here.

[wileyj]

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.

last comment before I go.

two underlying issues on above paragraph: 1- who decided community need this? Can you point me to the voting pool decision on this matter? Maybe lets vote that instead. 2- who is deciding what's good feedback and therefore welcomed... you? a commite?

proposal is not even live and we have this behaviour. imagine yourself with power to censor?

that can't be good.

These are not arguments against doing something like this - if you have valid concerns with the proposal, i'd suggest reframing your argument as to why a generalized approach like has been suggested is objectively "bad".

Personally, I can see some areas of the proposal that should be worked on or changed - but this argument I keep seeing of "le censorship" isn't a valid argument. it's objectively done in bad faith and in this context is absolutely a strawman argument. i'm not interested in arguing why this ins't "censorship" only to have the goalposts moved.

We censor things in the world everyday that we've all decided are not in good taste. Scammers in our chatrooms, spam PR's, worse things, etc. These are all handled on a case by case basis and under the discretion of whomever is addressing the undesired behaviour. a code of conduct simply codifies what is already being done today, and can be referred to as a guiding document for how to handle cases where action needs to be taken, that we all can use to inform how we address specific situations (rather than using our own personal opinions).

imagine yourself with power to censor? - we all have this power and we all exercise it for various nuanced reasons. this proposal is no different than things we decide personally, or as a society have decided we don't want to see.

this is not a zero-sum argument - it isn't "there is censorship or there isn't", it's a nuanced argument about what types of behaviour we're all willing to tolerate and that we're not willing to tolerate, documenting what's not acceptable as a whole for the community and how to address it when it arises.

to address your distinct questions:

1- who decided community need this? Can you point me to the voting pool decision on this matter? Maybe lets vote that instead.

I would imagine the author saw a need and tried to fill it. nothing more, nothing less - they probably felt this proposal would help give us a "guiding light" on how to address some specific scenarios. There is usually no vote on what proposals to create - anyone can craft a proposal and it may be voted on. suggesting a pre-vote vote is simply absurd.

2- who is deciding what's good feedback and therefore welcomed... you? a commite? all feedback is welcome! however if the argument being made is simply "we don't need this" "le censorship" or other talking points, there's no discussion to have. this is a proposal with a lot of nuance, and those are simply not arguments that are worth debating.

if you want to suggest why the proposal won't work or isn't needed - back up your argument with why. for example, you could make an argument that the proposal simply isn't enforceable because how can you "ban" someone from interacting with an open blockchain? or who would be empowered to make that decision and how would malfeasance be prevented? what corrective actions could be taken if a "ban" (per the wording of the proposal) were enacted improperly?

Arguments around these points, or the intent of the proposal are absolutely welcome. strawman arguments of "centralized censorship" is not something i'm willing to engage in.

tl;dr - if you don't like the proposal, explain what about the proposal is unworkable (ideally with suggestions on how to improve it). likewise, if you think we don't need this as a community - provide reasons we don't need this.

[ianBanksia]

@wileyj we agree on one thing: anyone can open an issue. https://github.com/stacksgov/pm/issues/199

(guess you can say that's one of the perks of decentralised program without anyone to say what's good or bad, hey?)

[badonyx]

Why should the entire ecosystem of users and creators adhere to some egregiously modified guidelines for source code contributors?

This proposal is nonsense. Recommend closing as spam.

[john-neoswap]

I support closing this topic as spam.

Already the advocates of the proposal are appointing themselves arbiters of what are and are not valid arguments.

This intolerant behavior will only intensify if they get their way.

I also recommend closing as spam.

[sjc5]

The fact that this has even a modicum of support makes me literally embarrassed for our ecosystem.

[mrwagmibtc]

"Its not an attempt to define, but to classify." "Attempts to codify." "If I'm feeling harassed by the proposal."

My gosh, it doesn't matter which way you wordsmith it - we don't need or desire your protections. We don't need or want rulers. We want freedom. The blockchain provides the guardrails.

Free markets decide. "Free" markets.

I support closing this topic as spam.

[HodlSTX]

The code of conduct is not a good idea, for any changes to happen the community needs to be convinced its needed and a positive for our space. Bitcoiners are rebels not hall monitors, if companies in the space want to create punitive codes for their employees thats their imperative. The employees will be forced to be a professional (at all times) not a community member. I also welcome them to create anon accounts and come enjoy freedom. We honestly are a good community here (I would know) , we don't need marriage counseling or a PIP plan. We have a good moral fiber. It is unnecessary to create codes with punitive measures, when we all have the freedom of (dis)association already. Remember we are a layer on Bitcoin, if it has a successful future it will be a bumpy road and need a lot of resilience from the community. If this is scraped the community will operate like it has for the 2+ years I've been here, it will keep on being the best place in crypto. Sincerely, hodlstx

[sjc5]

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.

last comment before I go. two underlying issues on above paragraph: 1- who decided community need this? Can you point me to the voting pool decision on this matter? Maybe lets vote that instead. 2- who is deciding what's good feedback and therefore welcomed... you? a commite? proposal is not even live and we have this behaviour. imagine yourself with power to censor? that can't be good.

These are not arguments against doing something like this - if you have valid concerns with the proposal, i'd suggest reframing your argument as to why a generalized approach like has been suggested is objectively "bad".

Personally, I can see some areas of the proposal that should be worked on or changed - but this argument I keep seeing of "le censorship" isn't a valid argument. it's objectively done in bad faith and in this context is absolutely a strawman argument. i'm not interested in arguing why this ins't "censorship" only to have the goalposts moved.

We censor things in the world everyday that we've all decided are not in good taste. Scammers in our chatrooms, spam PR's, worse things, etc. These are all handled on a case by case basis and under the discretion of whomever is addressing the undesired behaviour. a code of conduct simply codifies what is already being done today, and can be referred to as a guiding document for how to handle cases where action needs to be taken, that we all can use to inform how we address specific situations (rather than using our own personal opinions).

imagine yourself with power to censor? - we all have this power and we all exercise it for various nuanced reasons. this proposal is no different than things we decide personally, or as a society have decided we don't want to see.

this is not a zero-sum argument - it isn't "there is censorship or there isn't", it's a nuanced argument about what types of behaviour we're all willing to tolerate and that we're not willing to tolerate, documenting what's not acceptable as a whole for the community and how to address it when it arises.

to address your distinct questions:

1- who decided community need this? Can you point me to the voting pool decision on this matter? Maybe lets vote that instead.

I would imagine the author saw a need and tried to fill it. nothing more, nothing less - they probably felt this proposal would help give us a "guiding light" on how to address some specific scenarios. There is usually no vote on what proposals to create - anyone can craft a proposal and it may be voted on. suggesting a pre-vote vote is simply absurd.

2- who is deciding what's good feedback and therefore welcomed... you? a commite? all feedback is welcome! however if the argument being made is simply "we don't need this" "le censorship" or other talking points, there's no discussion to have. this is a proposal with a lot of nuance, and those are simply not arguments that are worth debating.

if you want to suggest why the proposal won't work or isn't needed - back up your argument with why. for example, you could make an argument that the proposal simply isn't enforceable because how can you "ban" someone from interacting with an open blockchain? or who would be empowered to make that decision and how would malfeasance be prevented? what corrective actions could be taken if a "ban" (per the wording of the proposal) were enacted improperly?

Arguments around these points, or the intent of the proposal are absolutely welcome. strawman arguments of "centralized censorship" is not something i'm willing to engage in.

tl;dr - if you don't like the proposal, explain what about the proposal is unworkable (ideally with suggestions on how to improve it). likewise, if you think we don't need this as a community - provide reasons we don't need this.

Your proposed locus of the burden of proof is precisely backwards.

[JakeBlockchain]

Thanks for putting this together @joberding. This clearly took a tremendous amount of time.

I’ve read through most of the proposal as well as the more recent comments. It’s not clear to me what purpose this proposal is solving for that isn’t already handled by the Stacks community as it is.

“ We pledge to act and interact in ways that contribute to an open, welcoming, diverse, inclusive, and healthy community.” This seems like the Stacks community now.

Is there something sparking this idea? A group that isn’t currently being served and would benefit from this code of conduct? If there are examples, I’m open to hearing them. Currently I side more with the folks above that the potential negative effects outweigh the positive.

[DocHolliday637]

I remember helping with/ listening in on placing a code of conduct for Stacks Advocates only! I do not believe such code of conduct shall be initiated for the ecosystem as a whole!

Freedom of Speech shall never be hindered even a little bit, all regulations in history of such freedoms have always started out small but made themselves much larger in cringing on rights! This is not something I would like to see imposed. Please close topic as spam!

[alexrudloff]

Code of Conducts in opensource projects are fairly common, right? This doesn't strike me as new ground.

The question is what defines 'community.' If it's limited to active contributors of the opensource project participating in official capacities (running a twitter account or representing Stacks at a conference), then this is a fairly reasonable/responsible approach that seems inline with other projects.

If community is defined as, let's say, people using Stacks altogether... Then I'm not sure what the point is, as its all unenforceable anyway.

My read on the initial proposal is that its limited to the community of active, code submitting contributors -- and most of the strong voices speaking out are not that. I'm not either.

[JakeBlockchain]

I had similiar questions @alexrudloff.

Looks like it it’s current scope it would apply to people who represent Stacks in an official capacity, as well as community spaces like Discord.

“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.“

Specifically I asked about how it might apply between my podcast and my work as an analyst at STX VC. Juliet said it was more for STX VC work.

[RagnarLifthrasir]

Code of Conducts in opensource projects are fairly common, right? This doesn't strike me as new ground.

The question is what defines 'community.' If it's limited to active contributors of the opensource project participating in official capacities (running a twitter account or representing Stacks at a conference), then this is a fairly reasonable/responsible approach that seems inline with other projects.

If community is defined as, let's say, people using Stacks altogether... Then I'm not sure what the point is, as its all unenforceable anyway.

My read on the initial proposal is that its limited to the community of active, code submitting contributors -- and most of the strong voices speaking out are not that. I'm not either.

Absolutely NO ONE represents Stacks. Certainly NOT the Foundation. Stacks is code. That's it. People who run the code can form whatever groups they want. But that's THEIR community. Not THE Stacks community.

I support closing this matter.

[alexrudloff]

I had similiar questions @alexrudloff.

Looks like it it’s current scope it would apply to people who represent Stacks in an official capacity, as well as community spaces like Discord.

“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.“

Specifically I asked about how it might apply between my podcast and my work as an analyst at STX VC. Juliet said it was more for STX VC work.

Yea that makes sense to me. A well crafted CoC can reduce politics instead of increasing them by making expectations around behavior crystal clear.

For me, a lot hinges on the definition of 'community'

But that's THEIR community. Not THE Stacks community.

Which is why I'm asking for clarification on the definition.

Every court room on the planet would suggest that the person running the official twitter account is representing Stacks in that moment. Certainly every civil court room in the US, if not legal one, would recognize someone sent to a conference using foundation money as representative if they, for instance, raped someone.

So clearly "one of" the communities in Stacks has good reason to consider this, right?

I support closing this matter.

Nothing says "free speech advocacy" like shouting down people who disagree and moving to close discussion, amIright?

There's a voting process in place for all this stuff already, gentlemen.

[alexrudloff]

In an attempt to provide constructive feedback, and as a sign of good faith towards @joberding who appears to be approaching this more thoughtfully than people want to give them credit for, I'll offer an adjusted scope that I think might help narrow / clarify the CoC's intent.

Scope

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

I do not know if the SF is the appropriate entity, but I assume other entities within our decentralized ecosystem have a choice as to whether or not they wish to accept grant money.

It also clarifies that appointed representatives at events are of the foundation, not Stacks as a whole, since none of us can speak for Stacks as a whole.

Both modifications offer choice to participate in the CoC or not participate in the CoC, as they see fit (because people have a choice to work with the SF or not work with them), and both put a limitation on the word 'community' (otherwise, imho, it gets messy and out of control and just leads to general insider vs outsider politics.)

[RagnarLifthrasir]

Both modifications offer choice to participate in the CoC or not participate in the CoC, as they see fit (because people have a choice to work with the SF or not work with them), and both put a limitation on the word 'community' (otherwise, imho, it gets messy and out of control and just leads to general insider vs outsider politics.)

You're missing the point. The Stacks Foundation is not a private company. It is a public non-profit that serves every single person and organization that uses Stacks software. These include people of all religions, ethnicities, political identities, and personal philosophies. Until and unless you can demonstrate that individuals and organizations from all of the above support the specified Code of Conduct, you lack consensus and are obligated to abandon this idea.

Furthermore, if you're creating a Code of Conduct for the Foundation, you are creating a Code of Conduct for every single person and organization that uses Stacks software. You cannot separate the Foundation from its users. The Foundation serves its users. And the users have overwhelmingly opposed it, in this GitHub issue, on Twitter, and other places.

The opposition to this proposal is not a question of narrowing the scope. The opposition is to the very premise of a Code of Conduct.

[RagnarLifthrasir]

If a group of Stacks software users wants to agree to a code of conduct, they should start a Discord server. And enforce the code there.

[alexrudloff]

Both modifications offer choice to participate in the CoC or not participate in the CoC, as they see fit (because people have a choice to work with the SF or not work with them), and both put a limitation on the word 'community' (otherwise, imho, it gets messy and out of control and just leads to general insider vs outsider politics.)

You're missing the point. The Stacks Foundation is not a private company. It is a public non-profit that serves every single person and organization that uses Stacks software. These include people of all religions, ethnicities, political identities, and personal philosophies. Until and unless you can demonstrate that individuals and organizations from all of the above support the specified Code of Conduct, you lack consensus and are obligated to abandon this idea.

Furthermore, if you're creating a Code of Conduct for the Foundation, you are creating a Code of Conduct for every single person and organization that uses Stacks software. You cannot separate the Foundation from its users. The Foundation serves its users. And the users have overwhelmingly opposed it, in this GitHub issue, on Twitter, and other places.

The opposition to this proposal is not a question of narrowing the scope. The opposition is to the very premise of a Code of Conduct.

"Non-profit" is tax code. Nothing more. The entire point of decentralization is to allow flexibility for multiple entities to operate however they'd like.

If someone wants to start another foundation that doesn't have a CoC, or maybe a different CoC, or maybe even as an outright hate group - they'd be allowed.

Freedom is choice, and choice goes both ways.

We're about 5 years removed now from the tech industry going through a pretty heinous reckoning regarding harassment and abuse. This isn't a solution in search of a problem, and it's not unreasonable to consider ways to prevent it from derailing projects.

The goal would be to make sure CoCs can't be weaponized in ways that completely remove someone's participation.

The foundation - imho - provides a natural and reasonable entity to offer such a thing simply because none of us are owed anything from them. They are not collectively owned and they have no obligation to work on behalf of everyone. That's not what they are (or should be, for the same 'freedom' and decentralized reasons). Working with them or without them is a choice we're all free to make.

[G1ne]

Firstly if like to say great work proposing this @joberding and I know it must have taken a while to compile and propose it all.

Looking over a lot of this proposal I would disagree that this should be extended to the entire community. However to clarify for the points making it relatable to Advox COC - Advocates is a part of the community yes, but has its own internal processes and scope only that fits inside advocates member/leader activity to which that COC applies.

For 'pockets' of or official representatives of Stacks Foundation etc...again something like this is at discretion of their team and their project scope, but across the whole ecosystem is not a "free and open" system and sounds a lot more like a federation, which is a lot more susceptible to the problems noted, such as gatekeeping and hung decision making.

Certainly against this right now and feel that there are other more important issues being faced in the ecosystem at the moment anyways.

That being said again, thanks for the effort this has taken.

[RagnarLifthrasir]

The goal would be to make sure CoCs can't be weaponized in ways that completely remove someone's participation.

The purpose of a code of conduct is to remove someone's participation.

If someone wants to start another foundation that doesn't have a CoC, or maybe a different CoC, or maybe even as an outright hate group - they'd be allowed.

OK, start a different Foundation.

Telling people who don't agree with this Code of Conduct to leave and start their own Foundation is not being inclusive and welcoming of diverse opinions. Thus, the Code of Conduct defeats itself.

[john-neoswap]

I once again move to flag this topic as spam and close discussion.

Stacks needs to be talking about sOrds and miner decentralization.

Any time spent arguing about speech codes (which is what a code of conduct for an online community amounts to) is a waste of time, energy, and resources.

Speech codes are DOA for a permissionless community.

[G1ne]

I once again move to flag this topic as spam and close discussion.

Stacks needs to be talking about sOrds and miner decentralization.

Any time spent arguing about speech codes (which is what a code of conduct for an online community amounts to) is a waste of time, energy, and resources.

Speech codes are DOA for a permissionless community.

Yes John, also nodes and accessibility to mining/node running.

These issues were covered quite a lot in yesterday's Purple Pill Fridays.

[khanatkahan]

Close as spam

[muneeb-ali]

Hey everyone!

Thanks for this discussion here! I wanted to share my two cents. I think that this code of conduct can be more narrowly scoped as a "Stacks Foundation code of conduct." The Foundation is a legal entity; it actively works with the community and can decide to have a code of conduct as an independent entity. What does that mean? That means that if the Foundation is organizing an event or hosting a meeting (like over Zoom), they have every right to say, "we have a code of conduct, and if you don't play by the rules, we'll remove you." However, the Stacks ecosystem is decentralized, and no one can stop a bunch of community members from hosting another event or meeting where they want to follow a different code of conduct (or no explicit code of conduct). Practically speaking, it's impossible to enforce any code of conduct globally anyway, given the decentralized nature of this project and community.

This discussion is useful, and I see important points here. A subset of community members want to define a grassroots, bottoms-up code of conduct -- which is understandable. Another subset is saying that there cannot be any "global code of conduct," and I also see that point.

What is important to remember is that Stacks Foundation is not the Stacks community. The Stacks Foundation is one legal entity that works with a subset of the Stacks community and helps in various aspects of the open-source project. There are many other players/entities in this decentralized ecosystem, which is the fundamental tension at play here.

Clearly defining this code of conduct effort as a Stacks Foundation code of conduct resolves the tension. The Foundation code of conduct can serve as a template and blueprint for any chapter or group to use (or not use). People can fork/modify it as they see fit or not use it at all if they want to. However, for any activities that the Foundation is organizing, they have every right to uphold a code of conduct, and I'm sure we all can respect that right. Taking that argument a step further, if a working group decides that they want to use the Stacks Foundation code of conduct, they can opt into it. Another working group might decide that we want to fork this and modify it as it fits their working group better—freedom of choice in a truly decentralized ecosystem.

[john-neoswap]

If the Foundation independently decides that they want to implement a code of conduct, that is their business. I still think that would be a mistake and would be bad for Stacks in the long run, however, that's their choice.

In any case, we should close this topic as a general discussion as it does not apply to the ecosystem as a whole.

[pstan26]

100% agree with Muneeb here. Let the foundation use this for whatever is actually relevant for their functioning as a productive entity… i.e balance creating rules of civility with needlessly creating surface area for unproductive hall monitors to graft themselves onto your culture. Think this is a high trust community, so let’s have fun and be productive and civil.

[badonyx]

This proposal is about a code of conduct for the entire community of developers, creators, and users. Muneeb's comment does not change what was proposed here.

If this is to be re-scoped then it must be re-written and re-submitted to reflect that.

[sjc5]

"The foundation is free to enact a Code of Conduct if it wants."

Technically true, and entirely besides the point.

Per its own words, the Stacks Foundation sees itself as governing "the Stacks project and ecosystem" and the "the Stacks blockchain."

If the foundation wants to enact a Code of Conduct that is strictly limited to its own agents and to its owned controlled online spaces – with that clear cultural delineation – great. I truly couldn't care less about that.

But don't pretend this is a "community" thing then. And certainly don't do it as a SIP, which is (at least ostensibly) "ratified by the community."

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

[alexrudloff]

Hey everyone!

Thanks for this discussion here! I wanted to share my two cents. I think that this code of conduct can be more narrowly scoped as a "Stacks Foundation code of conduct." The Foundation is a legal entity; it actively works with the community and can decide to have a code of conduct as an independent entity. What does that mean? That means that if the Foundation is organizing an event or hosting a meeting (like over Zoom), they have every right to say, "we have a code of conduct, and if you don't play by the rules, we'll remove you." However, the Stacks ecosystem is decentralized, and no one can stop a bunch of community members from hosting another event or meeting where they want to follow a different code of conduct (or no explicit code of conduct). Practically speaking, it's impossible to enforce any code of conduct globally anyway, given the decentralized nature of this project and community.

This discussion is useful, and I see important points here. A subset of community members want to define a grassroots, bottoms-up code of conduct -- which is understandable. Another subset is saying that there cannot be any "global code of conduct," and I also see that point.

What is important to remember is that Stacks Foundation is not the Stacks community. The Stacks Foundation is one legal entity that works with a subset of the Stacks community and helps in various aspects of the open-source project. There are many other players/entities in this decentralized ecosystem, which is the fundamental tension at play here.

Clearly defining this code of conduct effort as a Stacks Foundation code of conduct resolves the tension. The Foundation code of conduct can serve as a template and blueprint for any chapter or group to use (or not use). People can fork/modify it as they see fit or not use it at all if they want to. However, for any activities that the Foundation is organizing, they have every right to uphold a code of conduct, and I'm sure we all can respect that right. Taking that argument a step further, if a working group decides that they want to use the Stacks Foundation code of conduct, they can opt into it. Another working group might decide that we want to fork this and modify it as it fits their working group better—freedom of choice in a truly decentralized ecosystem.

Thank you, @muneeb-ali. This is the exact clarification I was hoping for (and expected). I personally think cleaning up the scope a bit resolves the issue for me personally. I offered my suggestions above for consideration.

In any case, we should close this topic as a general discussion as it does not apply to the ecosystem as a whole.

@john-neoswap nothing but love for you, but repeatedly trying to shut down the conversation when you know some of us are trying to engage in good faith strikes me as unnecessary and unproductive.

"The foundation is free to enact a Code of Conduct if it wants."

Technically true, and entirely besides the point.

Per its own words, the Stacks Foundation sees itself as governing "the Stacks project and ecosystem" and the "the Stacks blockchain."

If the foundation wants to enact a Code of Conduct that is strictly limited to its own agents and to its owned controlled online spaces – with that clear cultural delineation – great. I truly couldn't care less about that.

But don't pretend this is a "community" thing then. And certainly don't do it as a SIP, which is (at least ostensibly) "ratified by the community."

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

@sjc5 What's community governance for, if not to debate ideas and put them to a vote, which is exactly what this process is about?

If you don't agree, vote against it. If the vote doesn't go your way you can take the L and move on, or take your ball and go home. All of us have agency but none of us have the right -- nor should we even have the audacity to suggest -- that we should shut down competing ideas from being discussed.

OK, start a different Foundation.

@RagnarLifthrasir I'm not the one proposing this. My instinct is that this sort of thing should be org level and not protocol level, and @muneeb-ali seems to have clarified that intent. In other words -- it doesn't really apply to me, just to people involved with the foundation.

And, I hate to break it to all of you, but it likely already works this way. I highly doubt people acting like jerks are going to receive grants or be asked to represent the community or run the twitter account. This just clarifies those expectations. Clarification is a good thing.

This proposal is about a code of conduct for the entire community of developers, creators, and users. Muneeb's comment does not change what was proposed here.

If this is to be re-scoped then it must be re-written and re-submitted to reflect that.

@0xbabo I agree, and suggested a rewritten scope section to offer that clarity. In my opinion it'd render all but the most extreme positions around this moot.

[sjc5]

Hey everyone! Thanks for this discussion here! I wanted to share my two cents. I think that this code of conduct can be more narrowly scoped as a "Stacks Foundation code of conduct." The Foundation is a legal entity; it actively works with the community and can decide to have a code of conduct as an independent entity. What does that mean? That means that if the Foundation is organizing an event or hosting a meeting (like over Zoom), they have every right to say, "we have a code of conduct, and if you don't play by the rules, we'll remove you." However, the Stacks ecosystem is decentralized, and no one can stop a bunch of community members from hosting another event or meeting where they want to follow a different code of conduct (or no explicit code of conduct). Practically speaking, it's impossible to enforce any code of conduct globally anyway, given the decentralized nature of this project and community. This discussion is useful, and I see important points here. A subset of community members want to define a grassroots, bottoms-up code of conduct -- which is understandable. Another subset is saying that there cannot be any "global code of conduct," and I also see that point. What is important to remember is that Stacks Foundation is not the Stacks community. The Stacks Foundation is one legal entity that works with a subset of the Stacks community and helps in various aspects of the open-source project. There are many other players/entities in this decentralized ecosystem, which is the fundamental tension at play here. Clearly defining this code of conduct effort as a Stacks Foundation code of conduct resolves the tension. The Foundation code of conduct can serve as a template and blueprint for any chapter or group to use (or not use). People can fork/modify it as they see fit or not use it at all if they want to. However, for any activities that the Foundation is organizing, they have every right to uphold a code of conduct, and I'm sure we all can respect that right. Taking that argument a step further, if a working group decides that they want to use the Stacks Foundation code of conduct, they can opt into it. Another working group might decide that we want to fork this and modify it as it fits their working group better—freedom of choice in a truly decentralized ecosystem.

Thank you, @muneeb-ali. This is the exact clarification I was hoping for (and expected). I personally think cleaning up the scope a bit resolves the issue for me personally. I offered my suggestions above for consideration.

In any case, we should close this topic as a general discussion as it does not apply to the ecosystem as a whole.

@john-neoswap nothing but love for you, but repeatedly trying to shut down the conversation when you know some of us are trying to engage in good faith strikes me as unnecessary and unproductive.

"The foundation is free to enact a Code of Conduct if it wants." Technically true, and entirely besides the point. Per its own words, the Stacks Foundation sees itself as governing "the Stacks project and ecosystem" and the "the Stacks blockchain." If the foundation wants to enact a Code of Conduct that is strictly limited to its own agents and to its owned controlled online spaces – with that clear cultural delineation – great. I truly couldn't care less about that. But don't pretend this is a "community" thing then. And certainly don't do it as a SIP, which is (at least ostensibly) "ratified by the community."

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

@sjc5 What's community governance for, if not to debate ideas and put them to a vote, which is exactly what this process is about?

If you don't agree, vote against it. If the vote doesn't go your way you can take the L and move on, or take your ball and go home. All of us have agency but none of us have the right -- nor should we even have the audacity to suggest -- that we should shut down competing ideas from being discussed.

OK, start a different Foundation.

@RagnarLifthrasir I'm not the one proposing this. My instinct is that this sort of thing should be org level and not protocol level, and @muneeb-ali seems to have clarified that intent. In other words -- it doesn't really apply to me, just to people involved with the foundation.

And, I hate to break it to all of you, but it likely already works this way. I highly doubt people acting like jerks are going to receive grants or be asked to represent the community or run the twitter account. This just clarifies those expectations. Clarification is a good thing.

This proposal is about a code of conduct for the entire community of developers, creators, and users. Muneeb's comment does not change what was proposed here. If this is to be re-scoped then it must be re-written and re-submitted to reflect that.

I agree, and suggested a rewritten scope section to offer that clarity. In my opinion it'd render all but the most extreme positions around this moot.

If the leading revised proposal regards a constructively unilateral outcome, then this discussion is at best silliness and at worst dishonest.

[alexrudloff]

If the leading revised proposal regards a constructively unilateral outcome, then this discussion is at best silliness and at worst dishonest.

There's no need for ad hominem attacks.

I saw people freaking out on twitter only to come over to git and notice that the intent didn't seem to match what was being portrayed on the bird site. It seemed to me it could be addressed through further clarification, and as far as I'm concerned it now has been.

You either think the Foundation ought to have a code of conduct, or you don't. At this point if this is to move forward it's a matter of finalizing language in prep for it being considered by a wider audience.

[sjc5]

If the leading revised proposal regards a constructively unilateral outcome, then this discussion is at best silliness and at worst dishonest.

There's no need for ad hominem attacks.

I saw people freaking out on twitter only to come over to git and notice that the intent didn't seem to match what was being portrayed on the bird site. It seemed to me it could be addressed through further clarification, and as far as I'm concerned it now has been.

You either think the Foundation ought to have a code of conduct, or you don't. At this point if this is to move forward it's a matter of finalizing language in prep for it being considered by a wider audience.

Ad hominem means to make an argument based on a fact about a person. Honest/dishonesty is a question of behavior and intent, not personality.

[alexrudloff]

If the leading revised proposal regards a constructively unilateral outcome, then this discussion is at best silliness and at worst dishonest.

There's no need for ad hominem attacks. I saw people freaking out on twitter only to come over to git and notice that the intent didn't seem to match what was being portrayed on the bird site. It seemed to me it could be addressed through further clarification, and as far as I'm concerned it now has been. You either think the Foundation ought to have a code of conduct, or you don't. At this point if this is to move forward it's a matter of finalizing language in prep for it being considered by a wider audience.

Ad hominem means to make an argument based on a fact about a person. Honest/dishonesty is a question of behavior and intent, not personality.

Most people would consider charges of dishonesty to be personal attacks, but you do you.

What I'd hope you agree with is that if you all had succeeded in literally closing this conversation when first attempted, Muneeb himself wouldn't have been able to chime in.

You've made your point, I've made mine (along with suggested edits in an attempt to actually be constructive). No need to assign meaning or intent to people who simply disagree with your idea and not with you.

[sjc5]

If the leading revised proposal regards a constructively unilateral outcome, then this discussion is at best silliness and at worst dishonest.

There's no need for ad hominem attacks. I saw people freaking out on twitter only to come over to git and notice that the intent didn't seem to match what was being portrayed on the bird site. It seemed to me it could be addressed through further clarification, and as far as I'm concerned it now has been. You either think the Foundation ought to have a code of conduct, or you don't. At this point if this is to move forward it's a matter of finalizing language in prep for it being considered by a wider audience.

Ad hominem means to make an argument based on a fact about a person. Honest/dishonesty is a question of behavior and intent, not personality.

Most people would consider charges of dishonesty to be personal attacks, but you do you.

What I'd hope you agree with is that if you all had succeeded in literally closing this conversation when first attempted, Muneeb himself wouldn't have been able to chime in.

You've made your point, I've made mine (along with suggested edits in an attempt to actually be constructive). No need to assign meaning or intent to people who simply disagree with your idea not with you.

An implicit assumption of this entire conversation is that it is by and for the community. I am claiming that is false, and in that sense the discussion is – again – at best silly, and at worst dishonest. That is not a personal attack. It's a claim that the assumption underlying the discussion is false.

[alexrudloff]

If the leading revised proposal regards a constructively unilateral outcome, then this discussion is at best silliness and at worst dishonest.

There's no need for ad hominem attacks. I saw people freaking out on twitter only to come over to git and notice that the intent didn't seem to match what was being portrayed on the bird site. It seemed to me it could be addressed through further clarification, and as far as I'm concerned it now has been. You either think the Foundation ought to have a code of conduct, or you don't. At this point if this is to move forward it's a matter of finalizing language in prep for it being considered by a wider audience.

Ad hominem means to make an argument based on a fact about a person. Honest/dishonesty is a question of behavior and intent, not personality.

Most people would consider charges of dishonesty to be personal attacks, but you do you. What I'd hope you agree with is that if you all had succeeded in literally closing this conversation when first attempted, Muneeb himself wouldn't have been able to chime in. You've made your point, I've made mine (along with suggested edits in an attempt to actually be constructive). No need to assign meaning or intent to people who simply disagree with your idea not with you.

An implicit assumption of this entire conversation is that it is by and for the community. I am claiming that is false, and in that sense the discussion is – again – at best silly, and at worst dishonest. That is not a personal attack. It's a claim that the assumption underlying the discussion is false.

And we've asked the question on the intent, and Muneeb chimed in with that intent, and I've offered language to help clarify that intent.

Have you?

[sjc5]

If the leading revised proposal regards a constructively unilateral outcome, then this discussion is at best silliness and at worst dishonest.

There's no need for ad hominem attacks. I saw people freaking out on twitter only to come over to git and notice that the intent didn't seem to match what was being portrayed on the bird site. It seemed to me it could be addressed through further clarification, and as far as I'm concerned it now has been. You either think the Foundation ought to have a code of conduct, or you don't. At this point if this is to move forward it's a matter of finalizing language in prep for it being considered by a wider audience.

Ad hominem means to make an argument based on a fact about a person. Honest/dishonesty is a question of behavior and intent, not personality.

Most people would consider charges of dishonesty to be personal attacks, but you do you. What I'd hope you agree with is that if you all had succeeded in literally closing this conversation when first attempted, Muneeb himself wouldn't have been able to chime in. You've made your point, I've made mine (along with suggested edits in an attempt to actually be constructive). No need to assign meaning or intent to people who simply disagree with your idea not with you.

An implicit assumption of this entire conversation is that it is by and for the community. I am claiming that is false, and in that sense the discussion is – again – at best silly, and at worst dishonest. That is not a personal attack. It's a claim that the assumption underlying the discussion is false.

And we've asked the question on the intent, and Muneeb chimed in with that intent, and I've offered language to help clarify that intent.

Have you?

Muneeb as far as I know is not in control of the foundation, nor does he control the accounts that are promoting this SIP.

[alexrudloff]

If the leading revised proposal regards a constructively unilateral outcome, then this discussion is at best silliness and at worst dishonest.

There's no need for ad hominem attacks. I saw people freaking out on twitter only to come over to git and notice that the intent didn't seem to match what was being portrayed on the bird site. It seemed to me it could be addressed through further clarification, and as far as I'm concerned it now has been. You either think the Foundation ought to have a code of conduct, or you don't. At this point if this is to move forward it's a matter of finalizing language in prep for it being considered by a wider audience.

Ad hominem means to make an argument based on a fact about a person. Honest/dishonesty is a question of behavior and intent, not personality.

Most people would consider charges of dishonesty to be personal attacks, but you do you. What I'd hope you agree with is that if you all had succeeded in literally closing this conversation when first attempted, Muneeb himself wouldn't have been able to chime in. You've made your point, I've made mine (along with suggested edits in an attempt to actually be constructive). No need to assign meaning or intent to people who simply disagree with your idea not with you.

An implicit assumption of this entire conversation is that it is by and for the community. I am claiming that is false, and in that sense the discussion is – again – at best silly, and at worst dishonest. That is not a personal attack. It's a claim that the assumption underlying the discussion is false.

And we've asked the question on the intent, and Muneeb chimed in with that intent, and I've offered language to help clarify that intent. Have you?

Muneeb as far as I know is not in control of the foundation, nor does he control the accounts that are promoting this SIP.

We all seem to be debating and asking questions around the scope of this proposal, right? And proposals can change?

Make a suggestion for improved language that would help clarify the intent and limit things in a way that you're comfortable with.

Or don't, but it sure does seem like a great opportunity for you to use your rather unique background to help better the community, and that seems a lot more positive than calling people dishonest.

[john-neoswap]

Alex and Sam,

At this point it is clear that the measure is dead, and that the Foundation will take it up if they are interested.

Hence there is a little point in continuing the conversation as only damage to personal relationships can occur from here on out.

I move that we close the topic.

[sjc5]

If the leading revised proposal regards a constructively unilateral outcome, then this discussion is at best silliness and at worst dishonest.

There's no need for ad hominem attacks. I saw people freaking out on twitter only to come over to git and notice that the intent didn't seem to match what was being portrayed on the bird site. It seemed to me it could be addressed through further clarification, and as far as I'm concerned it now has been. You either think the Foundation ought to have a code of conduct, or you don't. At this point if this is to move forward it's a matter of finalizing language in prep for it being considered by a wider audience.

Ad hominem means to make an argument based on a fact about a person. Honest/dishonesty is a question of behavior and intent, not personality.

Most people would consider charges of dishonesty to be personal attacks, but you do you. What I'd hope you agree with is that if you all had succeeded in literally closing this conversation when first attempted, Muneeb himself wouldn't have been able to chime in. You've made your point, I've made mine (along with suggested edits in an attempt to actually be constructive). No need to assign meaning or intent to people who simply disagree with your idea not with you.

An implicit assumption of this entire conversation is that it is by and for the community. I am claiming that is false, and in that sense the discussion is – again – at best silly, and at worst dishonest. That is not a personal attack. It's a claim that the assumption underlying the discussion is false.

And we've asked the question on the intent, and Muneeb chimed in with that intent, and I've offered language to help clarify that intent. Have you?

Muneeb as far as I know is not in control of the foundation, nor does he control the accounts that are promoting this SIP.

We all seem to be debating and asking questions around the scope of this proposal, right? And proposals can change?

Make a suggestion for improved language that would help clarify the intent and limit things in a way that you're comfortable with.

Or don't, but it sure does seem like a great opportunity for you to use your rather unique background to help better the community, and that seems a lot more positive than calling people dishonest.

My proposal is this: The Foundation should just go ahead and enact any Code of Conduct that they desire, and apply it to themselves and spaces they control. They should not pretend it's by or for the community at large.

[alexrudloff]

@sjc5 @john-neoswap I think there's plenty of merit to this language being crafted by the community given the foundation's influence on the community. It's a way to create both buy in and shared understanding instead of exerting perceived top down control.

I personally think this is the correct approach, and I appreciate the transparency this method provides.

Alex and Sam,

At this point it is clear that the measure is dead, and that the Foundation will take it up if they are interested.

Hence there is a little point in continuing the conversation as only damage to personal relationships can occur from here on out.

I move that we close the topic.

Disagreeing with ideas isn't personal. If someone takes it personally, that's on them. That does not mean that transparency and process shouldn't happen.

While you guys don't like this proposal as written, it's clear that other people do. I'd support it with amendment.

[sjc5]

@sjc5 @john-neoswap I think there's plenty of merit to this language being crafted by the community given the foundation's influence on the community. It's a way to create both buy in and shared understanding instead of exerting perceived top down control.

I personally think this is the correct approach, and I appreciate the transparency this method provides.

Alex and Sam, At this point it is clear that the measure is dead, and that the Foundation will take it up if they are interested. Hence there is a little point in continuing the conversation as only damage to personal relationships can occur from here on out. I move that we close the topic.

Disagreeing with ideas isn't personal. If someone takes it personally, that's on them. That does not mean that transparency and process shouldn't happen.

While you guys don't like this proposal as written, it's clear that other people do. I'd support it with amendment.

I am more or less fine with the language (or at least don't really care) assuming the revised scope proposed by you, Muneeb, and others here in the last several hours. I still think it's inappropriate to frame / propose as a SIP.

[mrwagmibtc]

Question. I'm assuming the Stacks Foundation (separate from the community) which provides projects in the ecosystem education, grants, etc. would then have the ability to enforce their Code of Conduct on developing projects as a part of receiving grants, education, etc? If so, I foresee this becoming sour, however, opportunities will arise for other foundations to provide the same value with more freedom.

[JakeBlockchain]

I’ll add one meta point.

If DAOs are ever to take off and be useful. These kinds of situations will almost certainly be one element of them. If we don’t find more amicable ways to discuss them, and not shut them down for “spam” or something similiar. Organizing in a decentralized way will probably have local maximums.

These topics are social evolution at work, and we lack the tools to make them scale.

Again. That’s not to say this particular proposal is the right one to push forward. But the idea of discussing code’s of conduct being foolish…. That’s foolish.

[ianBanksia]

if this is "Stacks Foundation" only, related to their own limited private interest and not at all enforced to the Stacks community and blockchain, I have no business with it.

my only suggestion will for this SIP to be close and if Stacks Foundation private agents have the will and time, they can find a private place to discuss and define their own practices.

[jcnelson]

I'm glad to see this getting so much attention! It seems that despite the differing opinions in this conversation thread, everyone seems to be converging on a revision to this document: that the CoC proposed here be limited in scope to offline and online spaces facilitated or owned by the Stacks Foundation. Is that understanding correct? @joberding Is that what you had in mind here, or am I misreading this?

---

At a meta-level, there seems to be a general concern that a CoC is an instrument of censorship and oppression, and its adoption would lead to a reduction in user freedoms. I think that the opposite is true, because this stance ignores the status quo without a CoC. Without a CoC, there are zero checks on the power that influential community members hold. Moderators can ban anyone they don't like; evangelists can smear anyone they don't like; core devs can belittle and reject PRs from anyone they don't like; etc. Resolving conflicts devolves into struggle sessions for legitimacy.

That does not sound like a freedom-respecting status quo to me, nor does it sound like a fertile ground upon which bottom-up community governance can flourish. The Stacks community is fortunate in that there do not yet seem to be any high-influence members who use their positions of authority to harm others. But, I say "yet" because as the community grows, it's a statistical certainty that this will not always be the case. In my opinion, it would behoove us to prepare for this eventuality before this happens.

In my mind, the true purpose of a CoC is that of a peace treaty. A good CoC will restrain the power that influence brings in order to stop it from being wielded to harm others. The purpose isn't to muzzle everyone or police everyone's activity here and elsewhere. Instead, it's to make sure that the folks who find themselves in positions of influence within the community are held accountable for how they wield the power that this influence brings. The more power they can wield, the higher the standards to which the community ought to hold them.

What would such CoC look like? It would do the following:

• Define a "bill of rights" for community members. For example, community members have a right to not be harassed by other community members.

• Define a procedure for identifying and impartially investigating possible violations of a member's rights. For example, community moderators could offer a private (but auditable) email address to which concerns could be submitted.

• Define a procedure for resolving any such investigations, including (this is important) the set of permissible actions that can be taken by those who wield the power of influence to resolve them. For example, a mod must suspend a user who unwittingly links to a scam website, but they cannot ban them for that on the first offense (or their mod privileges would be revoked).

This largely already happens today. All a CoC would do is codify it, so we all know what we all can expect from one another, and we can collectively distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate uses of all the forms of soft and hard power community members can accrue and wield here.

[john-neoswap]

@jcnelson The proposal should not be revised, it should be withdrawn altogether and the topic should become a Stacks Foundation internal matter.

This is a repo is for the governance of the Stacks project, not for the governance of the Stacks Foundation.

If the proposal stays here limited in scope, at some point what will happen is someone will try to increase the scope and we'll be back to spending our time and energy on this argument again.

The proposal needs to be withdrawn completely.