[scikit-image] Community guidelines

[Matthew Brett]

Hi,

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Josh Warner <silvertrumpet999 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have yet to feel that scikit-image needs a CoC, though that does not
> necessarily preclude looking into one.  Part of this is helped by keeping
> the focus on the code; when we're only talking about how to fix or make the
> package better, the path forward clears.  Other issues should fall into the
> background.  Even when we disagree, it's with the userbase in mind.  In
> brief, I believe the community we build should always be the one we
> exemplify, and in the vast majority of cases it could be left there.
>
> My main concern when it comes to this kind of framework, particularly in the
> last few years, is about the evolving underlying implications or even
> popular meaning of certain phrases or words.  As one example, 'safe spaces',
> which the SciPy CoC implies they are creating and shall be enforcing.  Safe
> from abuse, spam, harassment, etc.?  Laudable.  Safe from dissenting
> viewpoints, as it seems has become the more common usage about some if not
> many college campuses?  This I do not and will never support.  If my
> implementation is poor, that needs to be pointed out - everyone learns and
> the code gets better.  It takes a certain level of confident humility to
> submit your code for review, and there is no way to change that.  The
> excellent article 'The Coddling of the American Mind' is more eloquent than
> I on this matter:
> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/.

As Ralf said - we did do some work to try and remove references to
"safe", exactly because it refers to that particular culture, on which
we certainly do not have consensus.  But - if you think we didn't do
that effectively enough, please do feel free to give a PR to the Scipy
code of conduct, or put up a PR for your own version to scikit-image.
In this case, I do think it has a lot to do with wording.

I partly agree with you about letter compared to spirit.  My concern
is about the use of the code of conduct as a means of undermining or
removing people that you don't like.  To avoid that, we have to be
very transparent, and very explicit about what we don't allow, to make
it more difficult for a bad actor to label their target unfairly.  If
you haven't read it, I strongly recommend Ken Westhues' site on
Mobbing in Academia :

http://kwesthues.com/mobbing.htm

It gives many examples where groups of people in a department used
poorly framed subjective rules and not-transparent procedures to bully
and remove colleagues that the group had identified as undesirable.
He also points out that this is pretty common, in academia and in
other organizations.

Cheers,

Matthew