[cabfpub] Informal discussion of Code of Conduct Ballot

Gervase Markham gerv at mozilla.org
Tue May 2 12:54:23 UTC 2017

On 01/05/17 21:13, Virginia Fournier wrote:
> Sure, provided that the discussion continues to be meaningful.  However, the pushback on a reasonable code of conduct is confounding.

Perhaps the meta-discussion is a distraction, but: the wide range of
Codes of Conduct out there are indicative of the fact that it's not a
one-size-fits-all thing. Regulating how humans interact with each other
is a sensitive and difficult thing, particularly in groups with
structural power imbalances (which are intended and recognised).

There is also the secondary factor that engineers have a tendency to
treat all problems as engineering problems, and when it comes to writing
English, this can manifest itself as, er, "careful" wordsmithing and
scope definitions. This is not looking for loopholes, it's attempting to
provide certainty.

Take for example Jeremy's points about "demeaning" and "inappropriate".
You wrote: "Do Forum members need to reserve the right to engage in
certain types of demeaning and inappropriate conduct?" Well, no I don't,
not by my own definition of "inappropriate". But one person's
"inappropriate" may not be the same as another's, and we don't all get
to be the final judge of our own compliance to the Code of Conduct.

No-one, I am sure, disagrees with the general notion that we should all
be civil to each other. But I hope you can understand that we want to
make sure we encode that in writing in a way which works for our group
(some of whom have known each other for a very long time).


More information about the Public mailing list