[python-committers] Proposal for procedures regarding CoC actions

[Paul Moore]

On 2 April 2017 at 06:59, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> And from the point of view of the impact on folks suspended and/or
> banned, "I got suspended/banned from <channel> due to my inability to
> follow explicit directions regarding my communications style" doesn't
> seem to me all that different from "I got suspended/banned from
> <channel> due to my inability to be respectful and kind towards my
> fellow participants".
[...]

In principle, I agree with pretty much all of what you said. However,
the one point I disagree on is that describing someone as having
violated the code of conduct is no big deal. In your quote above, you
avoid the term "Code of Conduct", and I think that's pertinent.

While the Python community is the focus here, I think it's naive to
ignore what other parts of the technical community, and even wider
observers of that community, think. From what I can tell, people in
general are aware that the technical community has identified an issue
with how we handle diversity - openness to contributions from people
outside of the "white male technical geek" stereotype. The means that
technical communities have chosen to address that issue is perceived
as the adoption of explicit codes of conduct that clarify that
exclusive behaviour is unacceptable, and not to be tolerated.

As a result, the public perception of a "code of conduct violation" is
that someone has harassed, or otherwise made a community member
uncomfortable, specifically because they don't conform to the
stereotypical norm. That's not necessarily what any specific code of
conduct might say, but it's how the public perceives such things (and
high-profile blog entries that expose exclusive behaviour, and cite
codes of conduct and how they help and where they fail to, simply
reinforce that perception).

We may not like the fact that a simple term like "Code of Conduct"
gets appropriated in the public perception in such a way, but denying
the reality of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

As Raymond said, the health of the community must always come first,
and respecting all parties second. But we should *also* ensure that we
don't inadvertently harm the perpetrator of any violation - and to my
mind, referring to their behaviour using a term that means something
much more serious outside the Python community than it does
internally[1], is precisely the sort of inadvertent harm that we can,
and should, avoid.

Certainly, sometimes people are annoying, or are idiots. I know I can
be. Certainly, some people are persistently like that, and that's a
problem. But *anyone* can be like that - not just white, male
technical geeks. In my view, the point of the CoC should be that we
deal with everyone equally and respectfully, *including* how we deal
with them when they are being annoying idiots. And that means that we
need processes for handling such people that we can apply within the
context of our commitment to inclusivity (to the extent, for example,
that we have to be *really* careful to ensure that we don't
mis-characterise genuine behavioural issues as "being an idiot", but
we still have means to help people with behavioural issues to interact
effectively with us). Moderation processes need to work alongside the
CoC, rather than being subsumed by them.

In summary, though, I think the issue here is simply one of how we
describe things. I think that as a community we do a good job, and
we're continually seeking to do better, which is great. But perception
is key, and terms can be loaded in ways that we may not agree with,
but have to deal with.

Paul

[1] And I think that one of the clear points from this thread is that
even internally, perceptions are not all the same.