We do not tolerate personal attacks, racism, sexism or any other form of discrimination.
“any other form of discrimination” is ambigious. Bigots can and occasionally will claim their bigotry is not discrimination - if it’s not explicitly addressed, it’s a gray area and might lead to misunderstandings as to the community’s values. Thus, gender identity, sexuality, disability, age and so on must be explicitly listed as protected.
“any form of discrimination” is also overly broad, since we actually want to be discriminating on the basis of political opinion, that is a package deal with disallowing attacks on minorities. Phrasing it as it is phrased currently gives bigots space for silly gotchas like “look, the code of conduct says you can’t discriminate against me for having a different opinion!”
There are several cases of this sort of problematic phrasing down the line:
respect for the views of others will go a long way to winning respect for your own view.
This makes sense for views on purely technical matters only; harmful political views do not need our respect. But again, here “views” is ambigious.
KDE is a pragmatic community. […] We are open to suggestions and welcome solutions regardless of their origin.
Then again, “pragmatic” is ambigious. It is typical of antiwoke types to make calls for “being pragmatic” and “focusing on the code” instead of inclusion and ethics. I shouldn’t need to read between the lines with the help of outside context to understand “pragmatic” here doesn’t mean “ignorant of ethics” as it so often does; rather, this part is pretty much only about avoiding bikeshedding on specific implementations, but the wording is erring on the side of questionable.
I don’t see how. The code of conduct also says “We do not tolerate personal attacks, racism, sexism or any other form of discrimination.” So if their opinion is a form of discrimination, they will not be tolerated.
Opinions that shouldn’t be platformed are not limited to direct discrimination. Support for harmful political causes in general is also deserving of skepticism, not protection.
The point I’m making is that this vagueness (“any other form of discrimination”) is suboptimal as it is way too open to free interpretation. It’s better if a code of conduct makes it clear that attacking minorities who don’t get a choice not to be the way they are is discrimination and showing the door to a bigot for the opinions they choose to hold is not for its intents and purposes. Hence, instead of falling back on a “etc.”, it’d make more sense to actually list the kinds of behaviours that are not tolerated.
Well, for a start ‘skepticism’ is hardly a role a software discussion forum ought be playing. How in earth would we express skepticism in a code of conduct?
Secondly, whilst it’s unquestionable that political causes which are harmful ought not be tolerated, the mere existence of the category ‘harmful political opinions’ doesn’t in of itself prove any given opinion is a member of it.
Your opinion of which political opinions are harmful might not be the same as another’s.
That’s why it makes sense to stick to widely agreed upon unacceptable views and not usurp the rules to impose any particular political agenda.
KDE is a German organisation, and therefore based in a country with a Romano-Germanic legal tradition, like the majority of European Union countries.
The text you quote is perfectly clear, understandable and applicable to a lawyer from continental Europe.
Your post is clearly influenced by the Anglo-Saxon (common law) legal culture, where everything must be specified down to the smallest detail.
The clarifications you are asking for are neither necessary nor appropriate in European legal systems, which favour general and impersonal provisions and their interpretation according to well-defined rules and techniques that cover all conceivable cases.
You’re missing the point of a CoC. The code of conduct is not a legal document, it’s a set of guidelines for people to follow, and it expresses the community’s political agenda without attempting to be objective or “apolitical” (which is impossible and does more harm than good to attempt).
While it’s not possible nor nessesary to avoid having a political agenda, I would like for that agenda to be a good one and reflected accurately in the code of conduct.
Man, I remember when codes of conduct amounted to “Be polite and respectful of others, and don’t do illegal things”, can we go back to those days?
It should not be a crime to hold a different, or even opposing, political opinion to the majority. Some of us remember what happened before when non-conformist political views were criminalised and would prefer not to repeat those events. Some of us see what is happening in America and would prefer not to import that.
So far as I can tell, the community’s core interest is not political advocacy but to make KDE better, political topics have been discussed here (including government plans to put targets on children and strip the rest of us of rights in the process) but that is not the main purpose of this forum, nor should it become such.
To close because I’ve typed more than planned, the current code of conduct is perfectly fit for it’s purpose. It is inclusive of all ideas and opinions relevant to KDE and exclusive to those that seek to harm, this is appropriate and should not be changed.
A code of conduct is what is known as ‘soft law’. It is not like a law passed by a parliament and directly enforced by a judge, but it is similar, particularly in terms of the techniques employed.
KDE e.V. is an association under German law with its registered office in Berlin, and it would therefore be for a German court to interpret this code of conduct, particularly if a person affected by a decision taken on its basis challenges it in court.
The code of conduct must therefore be understood and interpreted in accordance with German law and the case law of the courts of the State of Berlin.
For a European lawyer, the code of conduct is clear and comprehensible.
I’m not German, though I know some Germans - they can be misunderstood and they can misunderstand me also.
There are many other nationalities also, which also pose unique and varying degrees of communication issues, cultural and comprehension issues also.
The KDE Code of Conduct is a ‘fairly practical’ middle ground… and the Team behind it provide interpretation and enforcement.
So yes, there’s always tension between precision and flexibility, where flexibility could be 1. abused or 2. used to adapt to unforseen situations.
The written text is only a part of the system, the team’s judgement and community fill the gaps…
So even a deliberately pragmatic loophole isn’t a real problem - it means whatever the moderators consistently say it means in context.
My personal experience as a moderator is that, unless entirely confident, matters of moderation are usually flagged for moderation and then discussed in private and considered. CONTEXT is paramount.
So all the opinions expressed here are valid - to an extent… but the only real concern (in my mind) is the quality and judgement of the actual moderation team, which counts for far more than any silly Code of Conduct
Let me elaborate again: the very purpose of a code of conduct is to enforce a poltiical agenda. Wanting a code of conduct to avoid bringing up politics misses the point catastrophically.
Not being racist is political. Not being sexist is poltical. The point of having and enforcing a code of conduct is to show people with incompatible politics the door.
The notion that it’s unnessesary to bring up politics in a software project comes from a place of privilege, I’d imagine. Even if you aren’t interested in politics, politics is interested in you, and everyone around you, and you are part of the political enviroment whether you like it or not. Better to use this position to better that enviroment for everyone than simply sit back and let the leopards keep doing their thing, at the very least cause if you do ya know they’ll get to you eventually right?..
No, this is basic human decency, I know too many people are incapable of such basic human decency but that does not make it politics.
I am well aware of the famous poem, even though I cannot quote it verbatim, and I’m not going to wait for there to be nobody to speak up for me, but equally I will not sit by while people try to turn a desktop environment (and associated programs) into a vehicle of political activism in any direction.
You’ve probably not been on the internet (or, well, haven’t observed the less pleasant parts of it), because basic human decency is indeed political! That some people refuse and denounce it to the rest’s chagrin is what makes it so, pretty much by definition. Everything is political really, but in year 2026 basic decency especially so. That is why a code of conduct is nessesary in the first place.
I will not sit by while people try to turn a desktop environment (and associated programs) into a vehicle of political activism in any direction.
Ooooooookay well. Uh. Hell do i have a surprise for you! KDE is already a vehicle for political activism, the project runs enviromental initiatives and gosh they just unveiled a non-binary mascot in support of the queers. If that’s a problem, you need to be shown the door.
Telling other people they must sit by idly and speaking of it as a problem if they don’t is much worse than keeping an indifference to yourself. You’re trying to actively sabotage efforts to make the world a better place here for some reason.
I did “culture war” things for a few years back around 2016 and then thought to myself ‘you know, this everyone and everything has to be out to get me somehow and I have to see how and hate it is only making me miserable and being miserable all the time sucks’ and I’m glad I did because I’ve been much happier since.
Nowadays I take a far more “live and let live” approach but I still take issue with discrimination full stop, not discrimination against X, Y and Z, just discrimination. I was not aware of the mascot but is the mascot discriminating? It doesn’t seem that way to me. Nor do I consider environmental initiatives to be inherently political.
It has been said ad nauseam “diversity is our strength” and diversity of opinion, diversity of views, diversity of ideas are all strengths - strengths that are reduced when people exclude opinions, views and ideas because they differ from that person’s political desires.
I made this account to reply to this thread because I also have some concerns. The KDE code of conduct has a major flaw, it only acts as a note. There’s no way to report anyone. No e-mails, no forms. No dedicated code of conduct team.
Reports need to be private and the people reading and making decisions need to be separate from the regular leaders. A code of conduct team needs to be able to hold anyone, even themselves, accountable.
I strongly believe that GNOME’s structure is the one that should be adopted conduct gnome org
semi-anonymous reporting
a dedicated 6-people committee to avoid a single person making decisions
you can report people on the committee themselves conduct gnome org reporter-guide/
that’s not to say that I approve or disapprove of any of their actions, I have no knowledge on them, however their structure is well-thought-out and solid.
I would have edited my previous post to add this, but I can’t, I reject the premise that a “Code of Conduct” must be political in nature, to say “we expect you to conduct yourself (read behave) in this manner in this space” needn’t be political at all.
KDE’s version of GNOME’s code of conduct team is called Community Working Group.
Generally Moderators handle their specific domain (Forums, reddit, social media etc..), but there is also Moderation channel where we discuss things together.
To contact the CWG for any issues or situations that need help, write to community-wg@kde.org
That’s good but if I wanted to f.x. report Nate (since he is a prominent member), will he read it? Is my privacy being taken seriously? Who’s in the CWG? Would the CWG be able to hold Nate accountable if he’s in the wrong? What’s stopping the CWG from abusing their power if they can? Are there transparency reports?
“just send an e-mail” already creates too much friction. Not to mention that the wiki page is not known as it’s not linked on the code of conduct page.
