Re: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 132, Issue 4

[Jean Louis]

* Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> [2021-04-04 20:18]:
>    On Sunday, April 4, 2021, Danny Spitzberg <[1]stationaery@gmail.com>
>    wrote:
> 
>    Luke, you say “the” purpose of a code of conduct is to destroy
>    communities.

In my opinion, I understand the above not as purpose, rather as
"common outcome".

Purposes are good, people are in general good, and they wish to bring
about understanding.

I believe people have good intentions and do not know how to handle
conflicts, so they as groups, implemented Code of Conducts to better
the socialization. Over the time, we can observe that Code of Conducts
in various communities are abused especially by managers of those
groups. They do not function.

Now, RMS has GNU Kind Communication Guidelines, if we find somebody
speaking undecent or offending other people, we reference to GNU Kind
Communication Guidelines, and taking observation from mailing lists
this works well and we don't expell people for being temporarily upset
about something, we strive socialization and understanding between
participants.

However, managers cannot abuse GNU Kind Communication Guidelines, and
not necessary discussion about behavior of people is
minimized. Imagine now if there would be a definition of certain
improper behavior, then people would start discussing if that was the
case or not, that deviates from purpose of discussing free
software. There would be discussion about expelling people for reasons
of improper behavior. Heaven thanks, I have not observed this in GNU
mailing lists or on websites, apart from few attempts to do so.

This practically means, if somebody speaks badly or is offended or
makes few "fucks" here and there, person will not be considered for
censorship, cancellation, removal as member, or similar. He will be
reminded, consulted, advised. Life moves on.

There is quite nice tone and social discussion on GNU mailing lists.

Howeve, every organization has its terms, when somebody does illegal
activities, managers can, without any Code of Conduct, remove whatever
they want.

GNU organization is under someone's authority. FSF is under someone's
authority. So it is with all organizations. They need not have and
codes to expell somebody or even sue somebody for wrongdoings, there
is law for that.

> everyone treads on eggshells, interacting with others in constant
> fear that their actions and words are going to be misunderstood.

That may always happen, with or without any codes. Participants with
or without any code may be abusive and corrupt to its own code. We
know that from governments.

> you may have heard the story that when the EU mandated that anyone on
> scaffolding had to be harnessed in to rails: the result was that there
> were *more accidents and deaths*.
> 
> it is simply a fact of psychology that if you focus on fear and
> discrimination, you get.... fear and discrimination.
> 
> *whatever* you focus your attention on, that is what you get.

I do agree with you that on whatever you focus your attention it
becomes bigger and bigger, one starts thinking of it. But that is
general story, that has little practical application.

When I use harness on the steep roof when mounting solar panels, I
don't focus on harness neither on possibility that I can fall, I can
fully focus on work and freely move anywhere, almost run around
because I need not focus on insecurity.

When I use harness to ascend on top of the tree, I do not focus on
insecurities, I can enjoy. When I use it to descend into deep pits
with benches, I am secured and I focus on my work while hanging. Ask
any rock climbers using harness, you will find that they use safety
methods not have focus on safety. That is more practical.

One safety method we use on GNU mailing lists is GNU Kind
Communication Guidelines, it is published, referenced several times,
and people who wish or have conscious or unconscious intentions to
speak in more free manner, they think twice, that is why we do not get
people who annoy other people. But same person, including me, could be
very annoying on some other mailing list, depending of the subject.

> I say, there are many purposes- and one of them is to prevent
> harassment and harm.

Code of Conduct does not prevent harassment or harm. It is there to
punish those who break the Code of Conduct. Not for prevention.

I don't think we need to punish people who anyway are on mailing list
and have their good intentions. I think we need more exchange and more
understanding.

Example of impractical conversation between people:

        Person A: "You asshole. I would never come back to work with you."

        Person B: "You are in breach of Code of Conduct. Expelled!"

While the above may look quite right, it may be taken out of context,
without enough understanding between each other.

Here is example of more practical conversation between people:

        Person A: "You asshole. I would never come back to work with you."

        Person B: "What happened?"

        Person A: "John said that you fired me."

        Person B: "I have not said so, that is misunderstanding. Continue"

        And thank you.

In other words, upset people are upset about something, they have
almost in all cases same purpose and good intentions as other people
on the same mailing list. Talking more, not less, is good way to go.

Making useless Codes of Conducts is diverting attention from useful
work to non-useful, like there are so many people that are coming over
to be bad, that we need "Code of Conduct" -- ah, come on.

IMHO, Code of Conduct is main weapon for team manager.

> in fact, even the word "harassment" may be left out because it is
> redundant.  if someone is "harassed", in 100% of cases it may
> categorically be deduced that they have been "harmed", yes?  therefore
> why state it twice??

As harassment in many countries belong to offenses, it is improper for
a group to judge and take law in their hands. If somebody is harassing
within a group, find the person and sue the person. Or leave it. IMHO
in many cases those who harass they have been harassed.

Best is to ask is "How did I make you upset?" -- find out what happene
to make other person upset. Talk, exchange, bring about understanding.

>    there is however one thing missing from that innocuously simple
>    declaration: a corresponding *positive* statement.
> 
>    a positive statement encourages positive behaviour.

Well said.

>    i would like to see a code that very simply invites people to:
> 
>    a) do good, and
> 
>    b) never do harm.

No need for codes, we are mostly decent people, let us not make codes
and focus on how to capture negative negativity in future.

I do not see here on this mailing list anybody making
problems. Defaming of RMS does not fall under any Libreplanet mailing
list, is not related really. Molly de Blanc, etc. is not related, but
is welcome to join. I would not expell Molly de Blanc -- quite
contrary, I would like to hear what she says on debunking on those
accusations. Only so we could bring about more understanding.

It is very easy to say on a public page "He is guilty. Stone him." --
but when asked to bring about evidences, there are just few tweets,
rumours, nothing in particlar. Those issues do not fall into
harassment.

Finally, it would be the victim to say if victim feels harassed, not
other people.

Otherwise we are becoming thought police.

We do not want to be thought police.

We wish to promote free software.

>    this basically assumes AND TRUSTS, fundamentally, that people know the
>    difference between what is right and what is wrong.

It is different from person to person. But we know what is considered
decent behavior in public places.

If we need Code of Conduct to know that something is wrong, we are
immature babies.

So the only reason for Code of Conduct is to be a weapon for
managers. But managers shall know they have anyway authorities, there
is no need for thought police.

>    the interesting thing is that by them engaging with a community that
>    has such a simple compact it gives you, the other participants, the
>    right - the RIGHT - as well as the RESPONSIBILITY - to explain it to
>    people for whom, it turns out, do not actually know.
> 
>    (that right and resonsibility extends to ALL participants.
>    categorically including those subjected *to* "harm".  and all those
>    *witnessing* such "harm" occurring)
> 
>    all of that WITHOUT poisoning the entire community with some
>    proscriptive behaviours that literally terrorise and poison all
>    participants including those who dreamed up the toxic list.

By all means I understand you, you are right, except that Code of
Conduct is not needed. Libreplanet Code of Conduct is there, but there
are no sanctions defined, as I am sure that every manager in the
conference including security (if there is such), know when somebody
is annoying or making problems. Isn't it?

Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/