[TriLUG] META - Re: Code of Conduct

[Tanner Lovelace]

On 8/13/07, Warren Myers <volcimaster at gmail.com> wrote:
> What was the main reason this was brought about? I was under the impression
> that we *already* had a code of conduct that was summarized when we became
> members, the etiquette reminders for the list, etc.
>
> I haven't personally seen any reason to be *adding* things like this to the
> org, but would be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

Actually, the closest TriLUG has ever had to a code of conduct was
this section in the FAQ entitled "What is "appropriate content" for
each of the TriLUG lists?"

http://tinyurl.com/38qptb

There's also this section of the FAQ called "If the lists aren't moderated,
how can there be any rules?"

http://tinyurl.com/37hroo

We haven't really needed a code of conduct until now.  When there
were problems, the SC would eventually contact the main instigator
and ask them to stop.

My understanding that the reasons for the code of conduct now are that
there are several instances where people have been asked to stop and
they have refused.  Also, when TriLUG was first set up, there wasn't
anything like the Ubuntu Code of Conduct (which ours is derived from)
from which to draw.

> Also, as mentioned by some others, seeking to resolve differences in areas
> of opinion shouldn't really be a matter of the TriLUG community, in my
> opinion. I'm positive I disagree in material fashion on dozens of issues
> with other people in the group. In fact, I have found that it is precisely
> the divergent opinions represented on the list that makes for lively
> chatter.

I don't think the CoC should have any bearing on whether or not
people have different opinions or they disagree.  Disagreement
is a healthy thing. (Go Emacs! :-)  It's not disagreement that's
the problem, it's how people act.  Let's take a look at the CoC and
break it down.  I'll put sections of the CoC in quotes and then my
comments after them:

- "Be considerate" - i.e. if someone asks a question, don't treat
them with derision because they don't already know the answer.
Some people will think this means don't tell people to RTFM, but
I would maintain that replying something like, "Have you done a
google search for X, Y & Z and if so, what did that find?" can
be both considerate and a means to lead the person to the answer
rather than just giving it to them.

- "Be respectful" - Notice that later it says, "We may not always agree,
but disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour and poor manners."
So, right there it acknowledges that disagreement will happen.  (BTW,
Matt, we're in the U.S. so behavior shouldn't have a "u" in it!)  This
should go without saying, but unfortunately we do have to say it.
It's better anyway, I think, if it's written down than if everyone just
has to assume it because there will always be someone who assumes
something differently.  Better to have something concrete that we
can point to.

- "Be collaborative" - This is more applicable to a project like Ubuntu,
but I think it can apply to TriLUG too.  Basically, don't try to do
everything yourself and don't try to do things in secret.  This probably
applies more to the people in leadership positions more than anything.
One good example of how it could apply is this initiative to adopt a CoC.

- The next section is all about disagreements.  "The important goal
is not to avoid disagreements or differing views but to resolve them
constructively." - One way of doing this could indeed be "agree to
disagree".  I like emacs and KDE.  Others, poor deluded souls ;-),
prefer vim and Gnome.  There's nothing wrong with that.  And,
I'll maintain that there's nothing wrong with poking fun at our
differences.  That's not what the CoC is about.  However, saying
something like, "A is an idiot for using Vim" is a problem.  That's
what this is trying to avoid.  It also mentions forming other groups.
I think a good example here might be the newly formed NC Ubuntu
user group.  That's just more opportunities for people.  As the CoC
says: "TriLUG isn't worried about competing with other groups, but
wishes to assist and facilitate wherever possible and appropriate."

The next section says "When you are unsure, ask for help."  That
makes sense, right?  Also, as long as people remember the
"Be considerate" and "Be respectful" sections previously mentioned,
everything should be fine, right?

The next section deals with behavior on the mailing lists and IRC
(and should probably also have something added to cover any
future LUG communication platforms, i.e. suppose we set up
forums, or commenting on the website, or even the wiki).
The heart of this matter, I believe is this statement: "Please
avoid flamewars, trolling, personal attacks, and repetitive arguments."
Once again, this *should* go without saying, but at a certain
point, I believe, it needs to be said.  Of course, as long as
people remember the "be considerate" and "be respectful"
sections, this shouldn't be a problem, right?

Finally, the CoC deals with enforcement.  The steps to enforcement as
listed are (sans quotes, since I copy all four steps):

  1. Initial warning in writing/email.
  2. Reminder warning in writing/email.
  3. Public warning in writing/email to violator and the TriLUG discussion list.
  4. Removal of TriLUG membership privileges.

This is where I would probably change the most.  Here is my suggestion
of what this list should be:

1. First private warning in writing/email
2. Second private warning in writing/email
3. Public warning in writing/email to violator and TriLUG discussion list
4. Revocation of some or all of TriLUG privileges

I really think we need to have a discussion on just what exactly are
"TriLUG membership privileges".  For instance, we don't have to be an
official TriLUG member to subscribe to the mailing list.  However, I could
see one potential penalty being unsubscribed from the list, or possibly
moderated since we can moderate on a per-person basis.  What
about going to meetings?  Having a shell account?  Contributing
to the wiki?  A while back we almost did come up with something
similar to a CoC in relation to TriLUG services, but it was never
finished.  TriLUG provides a lot of value for both its members and
the Linux/FOSS community in general, and perhaps a more in-depth
discussion of that is in order too.

For my part, I think the CoC is a good idea.  It doesn't really change
anything since all of this has been silently assumed beforehand.
I think spelling it all out is a good thing, especially doing it like
this and letting everyone comment on it.  It's not a perfect document,
but I think it gives us something to work with.  Matt, we might want
to add something about making updates to it, since I'm sure that will
come up eventually.

Cheers,
Tanner
-- 
Tanner Lovelace
clubjuggler at gmail dot com
http://wtl.wayfarer.org/
(fieldless) In fess two roundels in pale, a billet fesswise and an
increscent, all sable.