CoC report received #324
Comments
|
Here is an __archive.is snapshot__ of the reddit thread in case the original source is removed: http://archive.is/VEtHu
|
|
Is this a good place to discuss it publicly in the project?
After reading the complaint and relevant tweets - I don't think any of the issues in this report constitutes of a CoC violation at all. I think we should take this complaint seriously - but I don't see anything actionable here. It got a lot of upvotes though - Am I missing anything obvious? I'm sad looking at things like the following reported as a CoC violation and inclusivity barrier:
In my opinion it illustrates people don't really understand the challenges we face as a community and disadvantaged segments of the population in particular face. I think this is a communication problem and I'll open an issue in CommComm to discuss it in particular. |
|
@benjamingr I think the question to address here is whether the purpose of the CoC is to create a maximally inclusive environment and equal treatment *in general*, or whether its purpose is to advantage 'disadvantaged groups' (for lack of a better term).
In the former context, the quoted remark would absolutely be a CoC violation (racist/sexist remarks that reduce inclusivity unnecessarily), but in the latter it wouldn't be as, within anglophone culture, "white men" are generally not considered a disadvantaged group. However, if the purpose is the latter, I would expect that the CoC would be much less well-received by the Node.js userbase at large (myself included). I think there are probably some cultural differences to hash out here, as well - the current approach to 'inclusivity' seems very oriented around anglophone culture (and US culture in particular), and this introduces a lot of hard-to-understand polarization from the perspective of non-US users. |
It's been *correctly* pointed out that posting publicly on this issue was inappropriate given that it a moderation issue. I was attempting to be more transparent in the process, but believe I may have overcompensated. My apologies and no ill-will was meant. I will be collapsing my comments down accordingly.Original comment:
|
|
@benjamingr @joepie91 ... Discussions on how to improve the CoC and messaging around it are always welcome, but this thread is not likely the best place. A pr with some specific language that can be iterated on is far more valuable.
|
|
Hey @joepie91, thanks for explaining your perspective. As someone who does not live in US culture and whose (white, originally German/Polish) family has been subject to racism in the past - I'm very aware of the problem of being "US culture specific". I'm not saying I agree with everything (or anything for that matter) Ashley wrote, only that I do not feel that it is a CoC violation.
I don't think this is about promoting disadvantaged groups at all. Do you not see a difference between the two statements below?
Personally, from my non-US perspective (and do feel free to correct me here, I don't live in the US and don't know the political atmosphere):
I understand this is my personal point of view and how I'm reading this. The way I'm seeing it the CoC isn't about "fixing the world" - it's about making the informed decision to not let gender, religion, ethnicity, race or anything similar to be a factor so that people can contribute. I don't have a stake here, I don't know Ashley from before and I'm not a CommComm member. I have not been involved in the issue and am not a CTC or TSC member - I and am only a collaborator discussing what is visible to me and trying to understand why the report was made. If a group of people want to promote a certain minority (LGBT programmers for instance) then I think it's a positive initiative that we as a community should embrace - especially since it is not coming at the expense of anything. Inclusivity isn't about doing those initiatives - it's about enabling them in the first place so that Node.js isn't a locked garden like it used to be. I think working towards inclusivity has been a really positive factor in the project. I think the project is generally doing really well and that a lot of really nice features have landed in the past year - a lot of those features are by people who are not your "standard" open source collaborators. |
|
@jasnell the discussion is about the particular report. If there is anywhere (in the org) that is more appropriate for the discussion I'll gladly move it. So far I'm learning from the discussion with @joepie91 so if it doesn't bother you I'd like to keep it. I agree about the TSC or CTC not having an action item here (about the report). |
|
@benjamingr .. ok, no problem then :-) feel free to continue!
|
|
The code of conduct does not (and should not) grant a free pass that allows negative behaviour towards majority groups.
If you think that disparaging a group, or spreading harmful stereotypes about it, should be disallowed, then this needs to be applied universally. Why, you might ask? Because universal principles are the foundation for justice. Selective enforcement breeds resentment, as we know well from examples in history. The only way to achieve mutual respect between groups, is for the groups to behave respectfully towards each other. If group Y is constantly berated for their disrespect towards group X, but group X is allowed to disrespect group Y as much as they please, group Y will come to resent the rules, the system and group X. In short, if you are perceived to establish the precedent that rules only protects certain groups, you can’t expect the unprotected groups to respect the rules. |
|
@benjamingr I would personally say that neither of those two statements is acceptable or desirable. Even more so because there's no *reason* for either statement to be made; there's nothing to be gained from them as a community, they can only really be antagonistic in nature.
I have personally spoken to a number of people who, throughout the past several years, have been made to feel unwelcome in the Node.js community because of sexist/racist/otherwise-discriminatory remarks that served no constructive purpose. A recurring theme was that they felt their complaints about this weren't or wouldn't be taken seriously, because they weren't part of a 'disadvantaged group' - or not a part of the 'right' one, for the remark in question. Some expressed concerns of retaliation from "SJWs" (their words) because of this. I personally don't think that this kind of polarization should have a place in the community, regardless of which 'side' is speaking about which other 'side'. I also don't think it's the right choice to try and guess at whether people will feel excluded by particular remarks; everybody has their own unique set of personal experiences and worldviews, and their interpretation of a remark may differ wildly from that of somebody else in the same nominative 'group'. Rather than trying to assess whether there might be specific people who feel unwelcome because of them - which is difficult to do accurately, because often people will not speak out about it publicly - I think the better solution is to just consider any discriminatory remark undesirable under the CoC. If discriminatory remarks are considered unacceptable in general, I don't think there's a need to distinguish between 'groups' in the first place. As an aside; I've noticed that the polarization (on both sides) originates from a fairly limited group of actors, and that the broader userbase either doesn't care and ignores it, or gets increasingly irritated by it and tries to avoid the venues where the resulting drama plays out. I don't intend to name these groups publicly here, as this is likely to attract trolls, but I would be happy to discuss this privately.
I feel that this is the preferable (and most constructive) interpretation, but I also think that this needs to be enforced as such - that is, CoC violations should be taken seriously regardless of exactly who the intended target is, and without trying to guess at what the motives of the reporter are; assuming that there is sufficient evidence, of course. For example, I understand that this particular instance is not one for the TSC to handle due to non-involvement, but I think that dismissing the report on the basis of "it's part of a targeted harassment campaign against the reported individual" is the wrong thing to do; the report contains sourced statements that violate the CoC (if not in letter, then in spirit) and these speak for themselves. |
|
@joepie91 I certainly cannot disagree with any part of that. The whole conversation around CoCs is so charged with vitriol on every side that those of us who do try to enforce them as fairly and objectively as possible end up getting slammed and run through the mud consistently by one side or the other. It makes it difficult, but no less the right thing to do.
|
|
@joepie91
I agree, and I don't think it's particularly helpful in healing. I still I don't see how saying things like "never underestimate the wrath of a mildly inconvenienced white dude" consists of a CoC violation. I see a huge difference between that and a remark that has the potential to exclude members or make them feel unwelcome. I think there is a big difference between targeting 92% of all programmers and targeting 8%.
To be fair I've seen tremendous improvement over the last few years. All the feedback I've received when on-boarding contributors or discussing the community has been overwhelmingly positive - minority groups included. I acknowledge how much progress has been made in Node.js in the last few years under the current leadership in that regard. When I joined io.js after the split a lot of the reason why is because I felt I could make a difference where in Node.js I felt like I was being ignored. (I even spoke about it). I think Node.js got a lot better in that. If you do talk to people who feel discriminated against - please do bring that up.
My email is on the front page https://github.com/nodejs/node - if you'd prefer to discuss this privately I'll happily oblige.
I agree with that 100%. I am not calling this an attack (although the timing raises questions) and I don't think the motives should be second guessed - but I still don't see where the CoC is violated. I acknowledge some people might find other things I don't find as offensive - offensive and I guess we'll wait until the issue has been discussed in CommComm and see what the outcome is. |
|
At this point our CoC does not tolerate harassment in any form. Even if that harassment is towards a member of the so-called "majority group". IMHO there is no difference who is the target.
|
|
@mikl
First and foremost I think Node.js hasn't done a great job explaining what the CoC is for or engaging with these community members. Still, I think that context here makes a huge difference. You can't really "single out" a majority but it's very easy to accidentally single out a small minority. The part I disagree here with is that Ashley is spreading "harmful stereotypes" in her tweets here. I hope it's obvious I'm not saying Node.js should discriminate people based on them being in a majority group - had someone targeted a specific individual that just happened to be a part of that group I would feel very different. Also note that I am explicitly not voicing an opinion about what happened with Rod. I am not very happy with the way that was handled (not sure that in the way you'd expect). There are a number of silent people reading this issue and 👍 👎 ing comments. Please do speak up if any of you feel like Ashley's comments have excluded you or made you feel unwelcome in the project. I honestly don't see why "never underestimate the wrath of a mildly inconvenienced white dude" would exclude "white dude"s from the project. |
|
> I still I don't see how saying things like "never underestimate the wrath of a mildly inconvenienced white dude" consists of a CoC violation. I see a huge difference between that and a remark that has the potential to exclude members or make them feel unwelcome.
This has such a potential, though. This very clearly gives off a "white men are not welcome and/or their concerns will be trivialized" vibe to many people. I can't speak for this particular remark, but this type of remark certainly has played a role in the 'people feeling unwelcome' that I've mentioned before. Just like constant subtle insinuations about women being somehow inferior produces a toxic and unwelcoming environment for many women, this kind of remark does the same for many white men; even if there's no obvious 'smoking gun'. One group of people is no less emotionally affected by remarks like this than another group, especially if they are of an ongoing nature. It creates the appearance of an 'ingroup' or 'clique'.
I don't think the numbers matter here at all, really. The interpretation of social interactions is something that happens on a largely individual basis; somebody is going to be either offended or not offended by a remark, largely regardless of whether the arbitrary 'group' they've been classified as is the majority in any given situation or not. Idem for feeling welcome or unwelcome. In the end, people experience things on a personal basis, not as a homogeneous group; especially on a medium like the internet that doesn't involve a physical presence. It's just from the outside that it looks harmless, if you're not personally affected by it. This is why I always make an effort to speak to people personally in conflicts, even if I disagree with their views or claims.
I do agree that Node.js has been doing reasonably well overall, but there definitely are still some issues to fix; in particular those that aren't often mentioned (for eg. the fear-of-retaliation reasons I've described before). Nevertheless, I don't intend to make light of the work that has already been done in this area :) Unfortunately I cannot easily get in contact with those I've spoken to in the past, and their issues were often not specifically about the TSC but rather about various other aspects of the community; but I hope that this thread can serve as encouragement for people to report this kind of thing in the future, if/when it reoccurs.
I'm going to have to step out of this thread/topic for a while for work reasons, but I'll certainly shoot you an e-mail somewhere later this week. Thanks! |
|
Let me preface this by saying I'm only speaking from my perspective.
I don't think really anyone, myself included, is excluded by singular statements like I find it a bit distasteful. I was raised to not make stereotypical statements about anyone and especially not a whole group. I find it troublesome that it's permissible for a member of a community to write such things when I would get vigorously lambasted for daring to write something remotely similar. I would never extrapolate about an entire sex or race based on a few people; yet tweets like this are permissible because it's towards a majority? Whatever happened to two wrongs never make a right? More importantly, I get the sense that such a Code of Conduct will be applied much more harshly towards me than a minority, regardless of the allegations. I do feel discouraged from participating in this community. I get the sense that my concerns will not be taken as seriously because my skin color, orientation, sex, nationality, etc; attributes I have no control over, didn't ask for, and didn't get to choose. I also feel discouraged from participating in discussions because I feel like if I ever say something that is even slightly critical [like tweeting about potential downsides of CoCs], I may get witchhunted for it. So I don't talk that much. What I'm saying is If there is a Code of Conduct, it must be applied evenly to members within the community. (I'm not talking about this tweet in particular. Just in General) Anything else speaks volumes about this entity's leadership. Which is why I think people are upset: This is just an indicator of a larger problem. |
|
IMHO @jasnell's [comment](https://github.com//issues/324#issuecomment-325657295) on deferring the decision to the Community-Committee and the Board makes a lot of sense. The reported individual has minimal interaction with the Technical side of the foundation (in TSC, the T is for Technical), hence this should be considered in the forums they are active in.
|
|
@benjamingr
Straw man. No one talked about singling out anyone.
Another straw man. A statement doesn’t have to be strong enough to “exclude” anyone (if that was even possible), to be in violation of the rules. I guess you think of that as some sort of joke, but it still projects a stereotype that “white dudes” gets upset over small things, presumably because we have never known hardship. |
|
@jasnell -
Whenever these discussions occur, the dregs of society inevitably seep their way into the conversation. (By "dregs," I'm referring to anyone who uses nasty, hateful language that targets people based on their gender / orientation / religion / etc...). This entire controversy had its roots in some thoughtful discussions, but those have gone by the wayside. It has turned into a black / white, us / them issue for which there can be no middle ground for a lot of people. Personally, here's where I'm at: Given the events of the past several days, I think the need for a clear / concise / actionable CoC is plainly clear. I don't argue that point - I'm with you. My concern arises from the fact that so many of the crucial points that these CoCs outline are flagrantly broken by members of the Node / npm boards on an on-going basis. That's what this is about. That's it - nothing else! Before I continue - can we come to an agreement on one point (please)? At a bare minimum, can we come to an agreement that some of these individuals do in fact break these rules on an on-going basis? (At the moment, I'm specifically referring to Kat Marchán and Ashley Williams.) If you want specific examples, I can provide them, but I think that horse has already been beaten to death. Furthermore - If you want to debate the point as to whether their Twitter feeds constitute npm-centric communications, we can have that talk. But I'm not even referring to that right now. If you set that aside, and just consider the messages in and of themselves - do they break the rules that you have laid down? I believe the clear answer to that question is a solid yes - they do. Now, if we can at least agree on that point - let's talk about whether their Twitter feeds constitute messages that could be considered to be npm-centric communications. These individuals prominently list themselves as working for the npm organization and engage with members of the communication through these channels. I believe that to be a tacit endorsement by npm for what they say. When someone like Ashley Williams (who lists herself as working for npm and uses her account to engage with members of the community) says something like this:
or:
I believe that npm tacitly endorses these messages. I don't believe they are jokes. Sure, maybe they are sarcasm, but I perceive sarcasm within this context to be a vehicle that people use to say things they would not otherwise be allowed to say without having to take responsibility for their words. May I make a suggestion? These individuals should: 1.) Remove references to npm from their Twitter feeds and stop engaging with members of the community using these platforms. OR - 2.) These individuals should create separate Twitter accounts to be used specifically for npm-related matters. Any snide remarks, etc..., that they want to make could then continue to be made using their personal accounts. Am I being unreasonable here? |
|
> At this point of CoC does not tolerate harassment in any form.
I think this is really the key part. Harassment is harassment, no matter who it is directed at, and we absolutely must be fair and objective in how we enforce the CoC. However, we must also be aware that there are individuals in the community who feel that harassment of any form against {Insert Particular Group Name Here} is fully justified because {Insert Particular Group Name Here} somehow "deserves" it. Playing along with such harassment Unfortunately, this can end up being quite a subjective decision to make, so we need to look at more objective measures. In this particular case, the individual in question (a Foundation Board member and a CommComm member) is not a contributor to core. The TSC can choose to limit the individuals ability to participate in TSC-managed repositories by removing their write access to those but that is the extent of the action the TSC can take. We cannot ban the individual from all participation because the TSC does not have oversight over either the Board or the CommComm, and their participation in both grants the individual a certain level of access. That is a purely objective measure. I will say that this report is being looked at by both the CommComm and the Foundation Board, independently of the TSC, and it is being taken seriously. Aside from any targeted harassment campaign that may be occurring, this is not the first time we have received feedback from people in the community expressing concerns about the individual in question, I just believe that given the lack of active participation on the technical side of things, the TSC is not the correct venue for handling this particular case. My plan at this point is to at least raise this issue for consideration by the TSC/CTC during the private section of the upcoming meeting, with my personal recommendation that the issue should be deferred to the other committees. But I want to give the full TSC/CTC the opportunity to weigh in. |
|
I am not an invested party in this conversation, and if my comments are unwelcome, I am happy to retract them.
I want to make sure that we do not make the mistake in this issue of equating the way stereotypes or other forms of antagnosism affect a disadvantaged group, versus those which target an established majority. While, of course, malice or harrassment in any form is never welcome in a community, that is also not in question here, and there is a danger in equating them. Actions directed toward a majority have a disproportionate effect to actions directed toward a minority, and to ignore that is to ignore a very common form of oppression. Being ridiculed or mocked for being a member of a majority group may result in loss of face in argument, or blocked by someone on twitter. Being ridiculed or mocked for being a member of a disadvantaged group (or worse, defending yourself as a disadvantaged group) much more commonly result in things like job termination, dismissal in interviews, misattribution of achievements to others around them, and the list goes on. |
|
Once you have accepted the premise that "Harassment is harassment", whether directed at an individual or the dominant group in a community, you have okayed systematic oppression of minorities.
|
|
@tkambler
I can certainly agree that had any collaborator made these kinds of statements within the Node.js GitHub tracker they would be considered to be flagrant and obvious Code-of-Conduct violations. |
|
@benjamingr
As another person whose incidentally has the sex of the "majority group" (although not the skin color), those comments are indeed do make me feel ostracized from the nodejs community.
I would kindly request the administration to evaluate this report objectively, regardless of what certain members on Reddit say. Not all parts of Reddit are welcoming and I understand that, but the report itself has merit. |
|
@mikl I ask that you reconsider your previous comment and offer something that is more in the line of discussion instead of calling my arguments a "straw man". The context of this discussion is just a few comments above. |
|
@squarefractal and others, just to reiterate my comment [here](https://github.com//issues/324#issuecomment-325693240):
And, you have my assurances that I personally look at this report with the same objectivity that I look at all such reports (fortunately, we really do not receive that many) |
|
I agree it's time to close & move it to the board & commcomm
|
|
I'm having a hard time understanding how it is that some of you do not find this offensive. I do. I know I would not. I would also like to add https://archive.is/6fJ6E (why?) Please consider the CoC violation seriously |
After what happened to Rod (the twitter part), I feel like there needs to be a clarification:
IMHO: let Twitter be a private space (for all parties). |
|
As this was originally intended as a notice only here, I am going to lock and close this. Please create new issues for specific in regards to policies, if you feel so inclined. Edit: Going to leave open until it hits 24h. |
|
Please do not close this yet, I plan to raise the issue for TSC discussion during the private portion of the upcoming meeting. |
|
Closing the issue for now. |
If you have any questions, please talk with the @jasnell @mhdawson @williamkapke @hackygolucky about procedures moving forward.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: