Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by address@hidden)

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> writes:

> Here are my thoughts, in stream-of-consciousness order:
>
> 1. There were times ca. 2014–2017 (which was a rather tough time in my
> life) in which my list behaviour should certainly have triggered an
> "issue" under any reasonably-constructed CoC. Looking back, I wish
> there *had* been a codified CoC that people (e.g., moderators) could
> have pointed me to in order to "call me in" on that behaviour.

I am afraid that to some degree I am oblivious of out-of-line behavior
unless it hits me in the face.

> 3. Just a few days ago, we were all excitedly speaking of the surge in
> development activity that arose after the [wonderful!] Salzburg
> conference; now I feel like we’re holding our collective breath
> wondering if that bubble is about to burst over a discussion of the
> benefits and drawbacks of a CoC. I take Mike’s note as the canary in
> that coal mine, and I’m personally crushed to see that it came up from
> the mine-depths dead in its bucket.
>
> 4. I really need to avoid using and mixing strange analogies and
> metaphors when I’m writing on mailing lists, especially those with
> significant international membership.  =)
>
> That’s it, really. IMO we could avoid having a CoC — at least for now
> — *and* keep developers from jumping ship (or slowly drifting away) if
> there were just a clear and agreed-upon path through/around potential
> blocked gates.

There are multiple factors at play here.  Some concern what tools to
move forward to, some concern how the human interaction or its avoidance
should be structured for best effect.  If necessary, getting roadblocks
eliminated.  The tooling and project structure and architecture are not
entirely independent from the roles assigned to humans, so the blocked
gates are also connected to persons' roles and characters.

> I can’t begin to suggest what that might look like, but my instinct
> says there are enough smart and experienced people on this list that
> we should be able to design and implement such a "safety valve" pretty
> quickly and painlessly.

I am not in the position where I feel I could leave the project in good
conscience without reneging on reasonable expectations of people
supporting me.

-- 
David Kastrup