[python-uk] Code of Conduct

[John Lee]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Steve Holden wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 9:13 PM, John Lee <jjl at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> I remember Dan Ariely reporting research in which some students were asked
>> to sign the MIT honour code before taking a test (in his book "Predictably
>> Irrational" I think).  It was found those students cheated less than a
>> control group.  But, MIT doesn't *have* an honour code (according to
>> Ariely, at the time)!  The hypothesis is that we need reminding about these
>> things to behave better -- and the code itself is not so important.
>>
>
> In which case if more people did what Daniele did, and called out
> unacceptable behaviour, we would get reminded but only after something at
> least mildly unacceptable had happened.

Yeah.  Some of that is inevitable I suppose.

FWIW I have to admit I always cringe just a bit at "unacceptable" in this 
sort of context.  I prefer "bad".  Less authoritarian, but clear (my 
philosophy: the truth is out there, but it's hard to find, and we might 
always be wrong).  IIUC some people on this list genuinely think being a 
little disrespectful here to recruiters is the right thing to do when they 
are perceived to be being disrespectful themselves.  Though I think that's 
a mistake, as usual I have to try and remember it might be ME who's 
mistaken, that merely telling people they are mistaken is, and should be, 
unpersuasive, and so trying to force them to behave my way is in the long 
run ineffective and possibly harmful.  (hope that doesn't sound like a 
personal slight, not intended)


> Many mailing lists (used to) publish a monthly FAQ, a practice neither
> python-list not this one has ever adopted. I wonder if this might be a
> low-bandwidth way to discourage high-bandwidth incidents?

Maybe so


> Of course this solution is now about thirty-five years old, and I realise
> you young kids like the shiny we stuff, but it might actually give us an
> impersonal way of setting everyone's expectations before things get out of
> hand. If they do so quickly, we can always take the sting out of any
> response by pointing to a web copy of hte FAW and saying :you may not have
> yet been am member of the list long enough to see this."

On the principle above, it could just say "Be good"

<0.5 wink>


> After all, we aren't looking to discourage *people* here, but behaviours.

+1