On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 09:33:04AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
As a lurker here with lots of opinions on CoCs, I fully support the
moving in that direction. The question of enforceability should get
worked out there. So, whatever is desired to be just best-practice
ideals should not be in a CoC but can be in an aligned accessory
document. Whatever is meant to be really enforceable can go in a CoC.
I've been meaning to write out meta blog-post stuff on it, but for
Snowdrift.coop we worked through all the best resources on CoCs to come
up with what we feel is the next-generation that's really needed, and
it's ironically very relevant to HBR:
The whole issue is that back-channels *are* the appropriate place for
much CoC issues. When CoC stuff is too public, there's all sorts of
face-saving defensiveness and signalling about sides instead of
resolution. Restorative and Transformative Justice ideas emphasize
mediated resolutions with adequate privacy and context.
So, it's really important that HBR ideas have the right scope and don't
pull in radical-transparency dogma where it is dangerous.
For reference on our CoC:
Hope that's helpful perspective here. Happy to clarify or discuss any
On 2019-04-18 9:01 a.m., Richard Fontana wrote:
> Hindering Backchannels Rule[tm] cure:
> Yesterday I spoke with Bradley Kuhn. We noted that copyleft-next never
> adopted a code of conduct -- as I put it (paraphrasing),
> "copyleft-next is so *old* that it largely predates the contemporary
> FOSS concern regarding adoption of codes of conduct". Leaving aside
> the fact that copyleft-next has been a bit dormant for quite some time
> (something which I am hoping may change in the near future), I believe
> copyleft-next ought to adopt a Code of Conduct. As I think Bradley
> said in the conversation yesterday, it may be that the Hindering
> Backchannels Rule properly belongs within a Code of Conduct.
> Incorporating HBR in a Code of Conduct may address concerns about
To a certain extent I just want to express my utter fatigue with the fad of adopting Codes
of Conduct. At work I already have the honor and pleasure of dealing with three separate
ones that aren't congruent issued by the President of the United States, the Secretary
of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Each succeeding code
introduces stricter requirements than the prior one and occasionally new requirements the
prior one didn't based on order in the chain of command. The Commissioner's is
the most micro-managing of the three. Beyond that I also have the Office of Special
Counsel (the independent statutory establishment, not Mr. Mueller) watching over me
enforcing the Hatch Act. I feel fairly over-regulated as an actual bureaucrat of the
As the quote misattributed to Napoleon Bonaparte puts it: "A constitution should be
short and obscure." I've seen enough nightmarish messes of legalism from too
many F/LOSS projects that I refuse to consider participating in them as I feel compelled
in certain cases to hire counsel to determine what on earth is being intended.
Considering that I grapple with the Internal Revenue Code for 1040-related issues during
the day, its application, and having to explain to taxpayers how they made mistakes it
isn't that I'm weak in spirit or composure. Some of these are just utter messes.
I would have more to say but I'm on the duty roster tomorrow so I need some sleep. I
don't like being as senior as I am in my unit after all the personnel losses we took
enterprise-wide during the 35 day government shutdown.
Stephen Michael Kellat
DISCLAIMER: Nothing herein represents the policies, views, or positions of the United
States Government nor should it be construed as binding any agencies or official in the
course of their dealings. I am not an official authorized to make policy commitments or
sign contracts on behalf of my employing bureau. These are my own personal views.