Saying “Be polite and respectful” is codifying against unpleasant behaviour. Saying “Thou shalt not discriminate” is codifying against discrimination. I support both of these statements as they are apolitical and essentially say “we expect basic human decency”. This is what I believe a Code of Conduct should do, it should not care about your politics, it should care about your conduct in the space it governs.
Thus, to use your later example of “fascist homophobes who punch grannies for a hobby”, so long as they behave in a polite and respectful manner within the space governed by a document that says “be polite and respectful”, they are more than welcome - the police can charge them with assault as per their job for their granny punching.
The “everything is politics” refrain clearly misses the point.
We could dismiss everyone who isn’t a post-third-wave radical feminist anarcho-syndicalist. I think everyone would agree that would be too restrictive.
We could allow everyone, no matter what they have to say. I think everyone would agree that would be too tolerant.
So clearly, whether it’s officially “politics” or not has nothing to do with it.
The entire question is 'how far away from what you personally think is right are you going to tolerate a difference of opinion on. That’s it.
What’s happening here is that some people want to tighten that window.
I think the metric of ‘what the majority of people would agree with’ is a perfectly good one for a public organisation aiming to be inclusive. We don’t need to pick a political party, just stick to common decency (where ‘common’ here really does mean common).
That would be pretty based actually, though not the best solution here since most people who aren’t that mean well regardless and can be “uplifted” so to say with more good done than harm in the process.
What’s happening here is that some people want to tighten that window.
Exactly! And it’s nessesary too, see AdamKafei’s remark that (largely) bolts down to “fascist homophobes are more than welcome”; arguably this kind of attitude is one that should not be tolerated, yet the CoC is loose enough to leave room for it.
We don’t need to pick a political party, just stick to common decency
You’re falling down the exact same hole; what counts as “common decency” is subjective and extremely political! And again, a code of conduct exists to boot people with obnoxious political views for the whole community’s betterment, there’s nothing apolitical about that.
You’re falling back to “focus on the code, not politics!” rhetoric, at which point you might just wanna admit you’d rather there not be a code of conduct at all, which typically goes hand in hand.
I am bewildered by what I’m witnessing here. Most certainly there is a problem in the community on this forum if bringing up some of what you’d think are minor gripes summons the very dubious types a code of conduct is supposed to show the door to to immediately derail the thread.
You’re falling back to “focus on the code, not politics!” rhetoric, at which point you might just wanna admit you’d rather there not be a code of conduct at all, which typically goes hand in hand.
Well, seems like someone has difficulty with “Be polite and respectful of others”, and go to personal attacks in no time.
Others have replied to most of your critiques here already, but I’ll respond to some of the points which haven’t been addressed yet.
a dedicated 6-people committee to avoid a single person making decisions
It’d be great to have more people on the CWG! However whether it be due to other life events or other reasons, working group members often drift away or resign over time. The responsibilities of the CWG are also rather unglamorous, which means that there aren’t many KDE e.V. members signing up for it.
puts on CWG hat
We do have some plans for recruiting more people, both online and in-person. However, we cannot talk about them more at this time.
you can report people on the committee themselves
This is still possible via the CWG mailing list, however members should step aside just like with any other conflicts of interest.
Only the CWG can read emails sent to the CWG mailing list. We generally do not discuss CWG-related tickets with anyone, unless absolutely necessary. Others have already linked the CWG page that has the list of members; but yes hi there, I am one of the CWG members! The CWG has broad authority over KDE Community moderation (although we’re not day-to-day moderators) and can indeed take appropriate actions against anyone not following the KDE Code of Conduct, regardless of their status.
The CWG’s charter talks more about our policies and procedures in greater detail.
We have received the email from @hsza and we will respond to the concerns raised in private, as per our standard procedures.
puts away CWG hat
Hopefully these answers have been reassuring! I don’t often talk much on here (often on Matrix instead), but I felt like this was one of those times that it was important to say something.
Look at the literature. Tell me if you find many (or any) respected, normal members of society defending racism or sexism. There are none.
Now tell me honestly if there is a reasonable debate in academic literature about conservatism, identity politics, alternative sexuality, religion, ‘traditional values’, immigration, foreign policy, … . There’s tons.
It’s really not difficult, or marginal. No one who’s taken seriously supports racism, sexism, or any other form of overt discrimination.
There is, however, tons of respectful, and serious disagreement on the minutiae of the ‘long list’ of political views you want to ostracise.
It’s not a fine line, or an arbitrary division. It’s a yawning chasm between what is merely ‘disagreed on’ in well-respected circles and what’s ‘absolutely beyond the pale’.
I was going to step back from the thread because Isoperia is making much the same argument as I but I figured I should say something about this. The attitude you would not tolerate tolerates both fascist homophobes and the opposite extreme equally so long as they behave in the appropriate manner within the forum.
If my filesystem is made by a dyed in the wool, swastika wearing fascist, I might find his politics distasteful but when he’s telling me how to fix my filesystem I’m gonna sit down and listen. Same thing the other way, if I’m having a problem with my network, the person who wrote that code hypothetically being a hardline communist is irrelevant when they’re telling me how I broke their code.
My personal opinion is that current system is working.
While I disagree with the position “if it’s a good programmer, we should keep them even if their views are harmful” in the case if the prominence gathered by this programmer is utilized by them to spread those views, and if they also have any actual importance in the project (not just two commits ten years ago), which is held by some people in this discussion, I think that current Code of Conduct enforcement deals with such cases without any problems.
Yes, of course there are gotchas. But I think that’s why we have humans looking after this. Not everything should be written in big bold letters, especially if we follow European idea - by which courts may interpret laws themselves instead of relying on the code to have every single exception written into it.
I also believe that this discussion got in a wrong way. What is the matter of discussion now seems to be rather far from the original point.
There’s a big hole in the code of conduct right now that allows fascists that are “nice” and technically not openly racist or sexist to stick around without violating any rules, and while enforcement is of course at the team’s discretion and you can hope for them to act in good faith it’s uncomfortable to have such a large gray area between a strict interpretation of the code of conduct and the team/project’s actual ethics.
The problem is actually illustrated very well by no moderation action being taken against the “no politics” trolls that derailed this thread in the first place, I suppose because they aren’t technically acting counter to the rules, falling into that gray area. But like, if the notions of “fascist homophobes should be more than welcome to contribute” and “it is reasonable to disagree with trans rights” don’t violate any rule, it is very clearly nessesary to add more.
I hope the CWG comes to that conclusion in their internal discussion.
How would anyone know if you never expressed it? Are the CWG now supposed to become thought police?
You’re asking for specific rules against people whose only offense is holding views you dislike - views they haven’t actually expressed in the community… and it’s starting to sound more like a ‘thought policing’ exercise.
Enforcement is by discretion, CWG’s role is described broadly, not specifically… and so a significant amount of judgement is required…
The result is a broad principles based document and a group given broad discretion, which is a different model to a strict, inflexible rulebook.
I was fascinated by your quoting the line “it is reasonable to disagree with trans rights” suggesting perhaps a strong agenda and demanding rules be put in place to effectively outlaw such a suggestion.
I fully defend my right to be sceptical about certain trans rights, and to also disagree with certain trans rights. However, this has no bearing about their treatment in this context or forum.
This is not to say that offense is never given, in a recent (other forum) thread, a heated argument arose about the inclusion of a Pride Button in a piece of software, which some find extremely offensive, others less so, yet more perhaps slightly annoying… but the majority accept that it is a valuable and functional activity (similar to the colours on the Vim landing page…) and that opposing it is perhaps more of a self-condemning move than ignoring it.
I’m aware a leftist’s favorite past time is accusing other leftists of not being leftist enough and thus clearly fascist, but where exactly is this supposed to end in?
Will I have to authenticate with my antifa corp. issued ID card before being allowed to participate in KDE projects?
I get the feeling all you’re trying to do is get KDE’s COC to bend in away to get the power to exclude people that don’t agree with your very own idea of left ideals, or maybe just said something somewhere some time ago you did not like.
Be aware: I am muting this thread now. If anyone still has a five cents on why they think fascists should be welcomed in the KDE community and how evil I am for wanting to censor their very valuable views, please keep it to yourself.
The CWG has broad authority over KDE Community moderation (although we’re not day-to-day moderators) and can indeed take appropriate actions against anyone not following the KDE Code of Conduct, regardless of their status.
