The step too far


#1

That is a step too far. This thread got locked without answer. Which was promised.
And there is a lot to answer for.

Starting in the wrong end, and calling that a discussion, when it is a working-group for implementation that otherwise didn’t need its own thread, is evidently not a discussion when what to put in it is limited down from what the original scope of discussion was.

IB4TL, there was this in the chat: (names redacted)

Summary

Y:
Jun 02 15:40
btw y’all, I’m reopening the discussion about the CoC here: Code of Conduct, creation and collaboration
Jun 02 15:49
apparently @3 created a vote on the CoC like… right before I opened my post I didn’t see it
apparently we’re both feeling motivated about it on this lovely summer day :grin:

Me:
Jun 03 06:48
@Y Moving on from whether it should exist to changing its form as it exists, only makes a logical leap out of the obvious. An impetus to explaining away why it exists as a concept, begs the question of why it exists in this form, and what observable characteristic is it trying to replicate. Among other things.

Y:
Jun 03 13:32
There’s two threads on this right now. Loic’s thread about "should one exist at all " and mine which is "should it exist at all, what form should it take"
I think enough people have expressed interest in having a CoC that there will likely be one, and I think the why has been addressed in a number of ways so further explaining here would be repeating myself and what others said.
but
In short, a CoC is necessary because social norms aren’t obvious and the infosec/tech/activist spaces have seen more than their fair share of abusers cause problems and force people out, so we’re preemptively doing this to ensure that at least our little slice of the world takes active measures to protect marginalized people and victims of harassment.
You have brought up concerns about the exact language of the CoC and how it’s enforced, and I started the thread to try to move the discussion towards building a CoC that addresses the many needs of the many different members of the SecureDrop community

Jun 03 13:38
As we move towards a final draft of the CoC (which again, is assuming we all vote that way), if you want to prevent overly broad language or remove ambiguity, your critiques are welcome

Me:
Jun 04 14:24
I just want to put myself in the mindset of someone who thinks this is a good idea, that it helps, or that this is a honest way of going about it. None the wiser.
Why don’t we need overseers that can make sure any communication is deemed OK before anyone ever sees it?
In my view, you are letting abusers dictate your ways, in ways that don’t prevent, but actually empower them. For reasons why signalling virtue is deemed appropriate for ad populous reasons.
Social norms are called unwritten rules for a reason, they are extremely obvious. If you lack this basic upbringing, a textfile is not going to help you. However other things might.

Jun 04 14:29
Just shutting people that have trouble, or otherwise problems reading into or behaving in socially acceptable ways, is a network effect that creates monsters.
In practice, the language used is full of illogical, moralizing and other problems. Chief among which is having to know social norms to read into them their intended meaning.
I could think of no worse way to facilitate people with for example Aspergers, or other types of autism. That is the unintended audience here.

Jun 04 14:35
Why did we end up here? The process of instating a CoC is clear as mud, but it was not by having a CoC. I am not saying it was by not having a CoC, but it is a more likely scenario, as it is time tested.
The act of change is just as likely to have any of the negative effects observed in communities that have instated them. Show me data on avoiding harassment or over-representation of abusers/abusive behaviour.

Jun 04 14:40
I have many problems to bring up about the effects of CoCs, but they are fairly secondary to arguing the above.
There are actually three threads now, and there is no reason yours couldn’t have been in the first. You did however strictly make the opposite impossible. A vote doesn’t dodge debate any better.

O:
Jun 04 15:40
hey @me - i understand where you are coming from - having a list of rules won’t solve the problem of harassment completely and may have unintentional consequences. At the same time, the status quo at tech conferences is problematic. If you don’t agree that the current status quo at tech conferences is problematic … nothing I say or do will convince you further. While personally as a lanky white dude I find CoCs silly I understand that they are important to others and they present an image of here at securedrop events we do not tolerate assholes which makes some people feel more welcome. I’m not going to stand in the way because they are super important to others in the community. I think an alternative avenue here is for you to propose additional ways to make the SD community more inclusive. At this point the CoC seems like it’s going forward - you can either make it better or propose something else. Not trying to be a dick but this debate is counter productive at this point. I don’t want to read anymore walls of text about how the CoC is going to lead to the breakdown of civilization. it’s super boring to me and I want to get back to coding.

M:
Jun 04 15:43
In my opinion if we have to ask if we want CoC, means we already failed.

A:
Jun 04 15:47
@M what did we fail?

M:
Jun 04 16:06

@A Asking that question about if we need a CoC, that should not be a question.

A:
Jun 04 16:07
Well, it’s kind of against the CoC to assume everyone agrees with me so… :wink:

M:
Jun 04 16:08
hehe, I am not saying you did anything wrong, but, as a community we should not ask this question.

(M here in great personal difficulty, so take that into account.)

What troubles me isn’t the abhorrent disregard for ones own (edit: suggested) rules, it isn’t the logic implied or utilized.
It isn’t my admin rights silently removed, ad populist arguments, forcing the issue, or anything else.
What troubles me is silencing dissent.

You leave yourself without a voice to speak out. I am not afraid, but what does it matter?
Nevermind following any of it, or ensuring nobody is clever enough to abuse it,
you don’t have anyone to do anything about it.

To paint a picture of where my sense of honour commands me, you all sat idly by when someone brave enough to share her views was called a “rape apologist”. Dachary, I give you the benefit of the doubt, as you voiced unpleasantness with the ordeal.

I will sit idly by as you write your CoC, when it is published, I will critique it. The person whose questions you didn’t answer beforehand. I will have had nothing to do with it, as my suggestions for what to put in it has gone on equally deaf ears.

My reasons for not offering a critique on a more general level is i feel at this point that would miss the mark, and also

You turned Code of conduct into a flamewar. Could you please stop? This is disruptive. It does not bring anything of value to the debate.

Was sent to me privately.


Code of conduct
#2

A post was merged into an existing topic: Code of conduct


#3

#4

#5

@kingu

TL;DR: please stop opposing the Code of Conduct, this is disruptive and drives people away from the SecureDrop Community.

I added this post as a reply to the closed Code of conduct thread because it is related.

I understand you are opposed to the existence of a Code of Conduct. I think it is fair to say that most of the two month debate in the the Code of conduct thread is about your opinion on the matter. Many members of the SecureDrop community took time to debate. It became very large and drove away some people. It also upset others.

Out of respect for the diversity of opinions a poll was created, solely to give you a chance to oppose the existence of the Code of Conduct. While this is understandably upsetting to some members of the SecureDrop community, it would be wrong to silence your voice and pretend there is consensus when that is not the case. Not surprisingly the vote result is in favor of the existence of the Code of Conduct and the work on its wording was resumed.

If you keep opposing the Code of Conduct despite the desire of the majority and keep participating in the writing although you oppose its very principle, you will:

  • drive SecureDrop Community members away
  • upset SecureDrop Community members who are working on the Code of Conduct

I am kindly asking you to accept that the SecureDrop Community feels differently than you do on that topic. I know your intentions are not to disrupt the SecureDrop Community but in my humble opinion this is what you are doing.

P.S. You did not have admin rights on the forum. You had rights allowing you to edit the topic of the translation category. It is now possible for such a topic to be in wiki mode and you still have rights to edit it.


#6

#7

This topic is marked Unlisted so that the discussion can continue but is not prominently displayed on the home page because it is upsetting to some SecureDrop Community members. The post was also moved from the General category to the Site Feedback category for the same reasons.