Code of Conduct: looking for help

[Mitchell Baker]

I personally see value in setting out how we should treat each other and
understand the desire for a statement of principles.

One thing I don't yet understand is how such a statement would change
the kinds of setting that raised the discussion.

-- A community member made a post in his blog unrelated to Mozilla
regarding a contentious and deeply emotional social issue.
-- Many people were offended and angered.
-- The author decided both to remove the post and to limit future
posts to this Mozilla forum to Mozilla specific activities.

What would a code of conduct say to either avoid this setting or make it
better? Something like: Don't raise such topics (similar to the Forum
guideline of "stay on topic")? Raise them respectfully? Delete them if
it's very controversial?

**Please note** I'm not challenging the idea of a code of conduct, or
asserting that it wouldn't help here. I'm looking for help in
understanding.

Mitchell

ps, It's important to note that for an answer to be effective over time
it needs to *not* reference the particular content of the blog post, or
your view of it. I explicitly make no comment over my view of the
content in question; I assert a code based on one's personal view of
that particular content is not an adequate guide.

[Majken Connor]

I think maybe trying to think of those things will make a code harder to
write. I think this case will be controversial no matter what because the
content is framed differently to different people, Mozilla would have to
take a stance on this issue to be able to prevent it with a code. I think
for the most part nothing will change because of the code, because for the
most part Mozillians are really great at treating each other well, not only
being inoffensive, but not taking personal offense or maturely handling it
when conflict arises. I have only skimmed one of the example codes, but
maybe this is also a good place to codify how we treat newcomers?

> ______________________________**_________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>
>

[Ben Bucksch]

On 12.03.2012 17:14, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> One thing I don't yet understand is how such a statement would change
> the kinds of setting that raised the discussion.

> ...

> What would a code of conduct say to either avoid this setting or make
> it better? Something like: Don't raise such topics (similar to the
> Forum guideline of "stay on topic")? Raise them respectfully? Delete
> them if it's very controversial?

I would propose to simply codify a friendly conflict resolution:
I.e. explicitly state that:
1. We should resolving conflicts in a

* private
* friendly and
* constructive

manner.

2. If these fail, there should be a defined higher authority (some
"module owner" maybe) to go to to resolve the conflict, in a private and
reasonable way.

Note that these rules could also be used to resolve disagreements about
patches, minus the "private".

Ben

[Gijs Kruitbosch]

On 12/03/2012 17:14 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> I personally see value in setting out how we should treat each other and
> understand the desire for a statement of principles.
>
> One thing I don't yet understand is how such a statement would change the kinds
> of setting that raised the discussion.
>
> -- A community member made a post in his blog unrelated to Mozilla regarding a
> contentious and deeply emotional social issue.
> -- Many people were offended and angered.
> -- The author decided both to remove the post and to limit future posts to this
> Mozilla forum to Mozilla specific activities.
>
> What would a code of conduct say to either avoid this setting or make it better?
> Something like: Don't raise such topics (similar to the Forum guideline of "stay
> on topic")? Raise them respectfully? Delete them if it's very controversial?
>

> <snip>

I have always been partial to Wikipedia's policy "Assume good faith". I think it
would help to defuse contentious situations, as something that we try to live up
to as a community. Any form of reaction (by policy OR otherwise!) to a post,
statement or other expression should be merit-based, rather than putting
people's motives into question, even if that were to seem reasonable to an observer.

Put differently, I am not willing to believe that anyone in our community is
actively trying to insult, attack, marginalize or otherwise negatively impact
anyone else. I think that may sometimes happen inadvertently, I think people may
in some cases need to be made aware of the effects of their actions (or words),
but in the end I feel it is massively important not to react to perceived
intent, and rather react to content and impact.

~ Gijs

PS: and yes, I think that the debate that was had in the community over the past
week on the specific issue would have been better if people had been more
generously assuming good faith on all sides.

[Michelle Luna]

Hi,

I think that the act of developing a code as a community will help us
to avoid this setting and make it better in the future.

Here's a draft to start from that would have links to the various
documents referred in the content:

Mozillians are driven by a common mission to promote openness,
innovation and opportunity on the web as described in the principles
outlined by the Mozilla manifesto. We are a global community, so we
ask that everyone follow the basic rules of engagement for harmony:

-Have fun and do new things.

We create a positive and loving environment for doing things we've
never done before with people who care about the web.

-Be excellent to one another.

We are inclusive and welcoming to contributors new and old and we
don't tolerate discrimination or harassment of any kind.

-Remember the Manifesto.

We are expected to communicate things which will make other Mozillians
proud and which will motivate them to continue.

-Don't go silent.

We notify our project teams if we are unable to meet our commitments
so others may build on our work to keep the Internet an open platform.

-Resolve conflicts with maturity.

We limit conflicts by adhering to published rules of etiquette, module
governance structures and the above rules. Help is available from
condu...@mozilla.com.


Let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Michelle Luna

[Majken Connor]

I think the "of any kind" needs to go. This opens up to divisive
arguments like we've already seen about overreaching the definition.

I really don't see how we can do this without Mozilla making some
definitions about it considers discrimination and harassment.

We can't always go off of intent. Gerv is advocating for a law based
on sexual orientation. His arguments amount to segregation: basically
that they have the same rights they just have them over there under a
different name.

We can respect Gerv and his right to his opinions and his intent and
still call it discriminatory. I just don't see how i could look
someone in the eye and tell them it's not or ask them to care more
about his intent than the unintended effects his actions would have on
their civil rights.

You *can* unintentionally discriminate.

On 3/12/12, Michelle Luna <michelle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 9:14 am, Mitchell Baker <mitch...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

[Majken Connor]

To add a bit more constructive content i agree that assume good faith
should be in there too. We communicate mostly with text and people
often get passionate and or rush a reply to the point where it seems
rude or argumentative. Many times people just need a chance to reframe
their statements to resolve conflict.

On 3/13/12, Majken Connor <maj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the "of any kind" needs to go. This opens up to divisive
> arguments like we've already seen about overreaching the definition.
>
> I really don't see how we can do this without Mozilla making some
> definitions about it considers discrimination and harassment.
>
> We can't always go off of intent. Gerv is advocating for a law based
> on sexual orientation. His arguments amount to segregation: basically
> that they have the same rights they just have them over there under a
> different name.
>
> We can respect Gerv and his right to his opinions and his intent and
> still call it discriminatory. I just don't see how i could look
> someone in the eye and tell them it's not or ask them to care more
> about his intent than the unintended effects his actions would have on
> their civil rights.
>
> You *can* unintentionally discriminate.
>
> On 3/12/12, Michelle Luna <michelle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 12, 9:14 am, Mitchell Baker <mitch...@mozilla.com> wrote:

[Gervase Markham]

On 12/03/12 16:14, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> One thing I don't yet understand is how such a statement would change
> the kinds of setting that raised the discussion.

I have the same question.

Yesterday, I reviewed a large number of documents in the "code of
conduct" style which have been mentioned in recent threads. By my
understanding of them, I didn't violate a single one. (Although perhaps
other participants in these discussions would disagree...)

The code of conduct, if it comes to exist, is unlikely to be nearly as
important as the question of who makes the judgements about what
violates it. Ubuntu has a Community Council which takes this role; we
don't have an equivalent body.

> -- A community member made a post in his blog unrelated to Mozilla
> regarding a contentious and deeply emotional social issue.
> -- Many people were offended and angered.
> -- The author decided both to remove the post and to limit future posts
> to this Mozilla forum to Mozilla specific activities.

Just to clarify, and avoid confusion: the post was removed from Planet,
but remains on my blog, where discussion of the issue continues. And the
plan is not quite as stated, to limit syndication to Mozilla-specific
activities. My intent is that, unless there is a change in Planet policy
about what it accepts, I will syndicate all blog posts to Planet apart
from those which I think would cause significant distraction from the
smooth running of the project and the achievement of our mission. I am
saddened that this category exists at all, and I hope that eventually
the Mozilla community will be able to accept and live with difference.

Technically speaking, I am currently using a category-based feed, but
the technical implementation of the intent above may change. I would
like to have a "don't syndicate" tag rather than a "syndicate" tag, but
am investigating whether that's technically feasible.

> I assert a code based on one's personal view of
> that particular content is not an adequate guide.

+1.

Gerv

[Deb Richardson]

What I find offensive and hurtful is going to be different than
someone else. We cannot know what all of these situations are going
to be ahead of time. Trying to codify them into a detailed code of
conduct will just turn the whole thing into a game of rules lawyering.
That isn't useful and should be avoided.

Over the years I have witnessed a number of situations in which one
community member has been reduced to tears by the insensitivity and
words of another. I have been that person. The helplessness you feel
in that situation is unbelievable -- this is my job, this is my hobby,
and most of the time I love everything about this community. But
sometimes people get mean or angry or insensitive -- for whatever
reason -- and when that happens right now there is absolutely nothing
you can do about it. Without written guidelines for behaviour it
really looks like "anything goes" and that hurtful behaviour is
acceptable within our community.

So, I would like to see us to develop two things:

1) A general set of written guidelines that are aspirational rather
than proscriptive. Rather than "don't do this" and "don't do that", I
think we should emulate the Ubuntu code and talk about how people
should behave and what they should do.

* http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/conduct
* http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/leadership-conduct
* http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/diversity

A code of conduct like this gives people a way to step back and have
constructive conversations with one another about their behaviour.
Having this stuff written down, even if it seems really basic, is
immenesely important as a cultural artifact.

2) A simple set of concrete actions that can be taken if someone finds
themselves in a situation where they are hurt, offended, or feel that
another community member is acting inappropriately. I don't know what
these actions should be -- I am not an expert in conflict resolution
or our HR rules -- but i strongly believe that these must include some
way to escalate the issue to a higher level group whose role is to
help mediate these situations when they arise.

We need to set things in place so people know that our community is
not a simple free-for-all, and that there is a clear way to escalate
things when there are problems. At no point should anyone in our
community feel like they are expected to accept or tolerate the
offensive or hurtful behaviour of others. But without a written code
of conduct and some clear method for escalating more serious issues,
the only options we have are to:

a) suck it up and accept it
b) try to resolve it on your own (which is often not a real option), or
c) leave

We need a fourth option.

Anyhow, bringing it back around to the original question: how would
this help in this particular situation?

1) The code of conduct would make it clear that diversity and equality
are things deeply valued by Mozilla as a whole, and that we believe in
the importance of protecting vulnerable people and groups within our
community.
2) It would give offended people a concrete and agreed upon way to
approach the problem, including escalating it to a group of people
whose role is specifically to listen, try to understand, and help
resolve things.

Currently we have neither of these things.

~ d

[Michelle Luna]

Hi,

Thanks for the comments on the draft, here is a revision to remove 'of
any kind', make conductors a more obvious escalation path and add good
faith.

-Have fun and do new things.

We create a positive and loving environment for doing things we've
never done before with people who care about the web.

-Be excellent to one another.

We are inclusive and welcoming to contributors new and old and we

don't tolerate discrimination or harassment.

-Remember the Manifesto.

We are expected to communicate things which will make other Mozillians
proud and which will motivate them to continue.

-Don't go silent.

We notify our project teams if we are unable to meet our commitments
so others may build on our work to keep the Internet an open platform.

-Resolve conflicts with maturity.

We limit conflicts by adhering to published rules of etiquette, module

governance structures and the above rules. If you are unable to
resolve a conflict amicably, report it to
conductors at mozilla dot com to get help.

-Assume good faith.

We assume good faith when dealing with violations; we will only warn
or ban users who repeatedly or blatantly violate the rules.

[Mitchell Baker]

A couple of additional things.

We should separate very clearly what happens inside the Mozilla project
from (a) discrimination in life outside the project, and (b) how much
one can one mention / advocate for things outside the Mozilla project
that feel exclusionary and hurtful to other Mozillians.

Second, Mozilla is based on opportunity for all. We are a
nondiscriminatory organization based on inclusion.

Third, in our broader life we **do** discriminate in a variety of ways.
Many sports teams are gender-based. Some sports are different based
on gender -- gymnastics and ice-skating for example. Some churches do
not allow women in specified positions of authority. Girl Scouts and
Boy Scouts are gender-based. Ever participate on "bring your girls to
work day?" or a "mother-daughter" event or "father-son" or
"mother-son" event? Clearly gender -based.

Some of us may not like these things. Should we say that anyone who
positively mentions any such event their kids participate in is
promoting discrimination? Maybe. Should we get upset at anyone who
mentions their life in a church that only allows men in some positions?
Some might. Should we bar anyone from mentioning any of these things
in a Mozilla context? Is this the same as practicing discrimination
*within* Mozilla? I think not.

Obviously, some kinds of comments are more disruptive than others. Some
will rise to the level we've seen this week. Each of us should strive
to avoid doing this.

The questions we have are:

-- should we institutionalize a way of responding when things rise to
this level (the code of conduct idea); and
-- should we have a Planet-like stream of info that is by default
Mozilla-activities, in addition or instead of the current definition of
"on-topic" for Planet.

And also, each of us should try to let a certain level of things slide
by. There are some aspects of life that I know some Mozillians adhere
to that I personally find disturbing. That's part of the greatness of
Mozilla -- I have enough of my dreams in common with these Mozillians
that we're able to respect each other and find common ground. If I
were to get upset every time I'm aware of these aspects of their lives
this would not happen. So I would like to see a code of conduct that
suggests we should all work to figure out when discomfort rises to a
level that it's appropriate to ask the project to deal with it.

Those times will come up, as we've seen this week. Ideally the goal
of not causing this to happen, and a known way of responding will help
us keep the number of times this happens very low.

Mitchell

[Axel Hecht]

On 13.03.12 17:53, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> A couple of additional things.
>
> We should separate very clearly what happens inside the Mozilla project
> from (a) discrimination in life outside the project, and (b) how much
> one can one mention / advocate for things outside the Mozilla project
> that feel exclusionary and hurtful to other Mozillians.
>
> Second, Mozilla is based on opportunity for all. We are a
> nondiscriminatory organization based on inclusion.

Thanks for the pitch, Mitchell :-)

I actually experience Mozilla to be an organization where some form of
discrimination happens every day, including me.

Say, Chibi and me in a room full of people. That's always going to be
discriminatory. Either the folks in the room speak Japanese, and I will
hardly say a word, or the other way around.

Peoples access to education in the English language is a rather
arbitrary boundary to having impact as a Mozillian.

Wealth in large parts of the world gates your access to computers,
and/or online time.

Cultural differences matter, people that aren't used to deal with
Western traditions in conversation are bound to be uncomfortable, and
not as efficient as equally talented and passionate folks who do get
western communication.

Often, we don't see the people we discriminate against at all, and if we
do, often there's little we can do. But I do think it's there.

Axel

[Asa Dotzler]

On 3/13/2012 5:06 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > My intent is that, unless

there is a change in Planet policy
> about what it accepts, I will syndicate all blog posts to Planet apart
> from those which I think would cause significant distraction from the
> smooth running of the project and the achievement of our mission.

This.

- A

[Nicholas Nethercote]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>
> The code of conduct, if it comes to exist, is unlikely to be nearly as
> important as the question of who makes the judgements about what violates
> it. Ubuntu has a Community Council which takes this role; we don't have an
> equivalent body.

We have Mitchell as the ultimate decision-maker for non-technical
issues; AIUI that's been true for over a decade. And it's been
suggested that a Code of Conduct module be created; if that happened
the owners and peers of that module would be a lower authority. So,
one possible process:

1. If person A thinks person B violated the code of conduct, they tell
them directly.
2. If it doesn't get resolved, it goes up the chain to the Code of
Conduct owners and peers.
3. If it still doesn't get resolved, it goes up to Mitchell.

The Code of Conduct module would be new, but if you have that the rest
follows according the existing Mozilla governance rules, right?

Obviously, option (1) is *vastly* preferable to (2) and (3). The Code
of Conduct could even explicitly state that people should try option
(1) before options (2) and (3).

Nick

[Majken Connor]

It could even include some form letters to help the person speak up in
situation 1. That might help it not come across as an accusation.

[Justin Dolske]

On 3/12/12 9:14 AM, Mitchell Baker wrote:

> One thing I don't yet understand is how such a statement would change
> the kinds of setting that raised the discussion.

I don't think it necessarily should. That's part of why I've tried to
separate the issues of "that one blog post" and "general policy
changes." Setting out to create a policy (or law) to target one isolated
incident just seems like the wrong way to go about things.

[Of course, this isn't to say that a code of conduct must _not_ address
the original blog post, just that that shouldn't be a goal.]

> What would a code of conduct say to either avoid this setting or make it
> better? Something like: Don't raise such topics (similar to the Forum
> guideline of "stay on topic")? Raise them respectfully? Delete them if
> it's very controversial?

I see three broad areas that would have be helpful to have some
consensus / shared understanding of:

1) What is the intended purpose (or scope) of various communication
channels such as Planet?

Obviously people had different impressions of what Planet was for.
Clarity of purpose would have started off discussion in a different way.

2) Learning how issues effect our diverse community.

There is a terrifying amount of brain-power is this thread and in our
community. But we also come from vastly different backgrounds, and are
starting on different pages and with different standards. Issues like
"please sign my petition" or "lol, brogramming" can seem pretty sterile
and abstract unless you understand how it actually impacts people.

3) A sense of community standards

It really troubles me that some felt "unwelcome at Mozilla"
(paraphrased) as a result of just one post, and even with the widespread
rejection of its views. I don't know how to rectify that, but a even
code of conduct that reaffirms merely the "obvious" (see #2!) seems like
a good start.

Justin

[Dao]

On 13.03.2012 17:53, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> A couple of additional things.
>
> We should separate very clearly what happens inside the Mozilla project
> from (a) discrimination in life outside the project, and (b) how much
> one can one mention / advocate for things outside the Mozilla project
> that feel exclusionary and hurtful to other Mozillians.
>
> Second, Mozilla is based on opportunity for all. We are a
> nondiscriminatory organization based on inclusion.
>
> Third, in our broader life we **do** discriminate in a variety of ways.
> Many sports teams are gender-based. Some sports are different based on
> gender -- gymnastics and ice-skating for example. Some churches do not
> allow women in specified positions of authority. Girl Scouts and Boy
> Scouts are gender-based. Ever participate on "bring your girls to work
> day?" or a "mother-daughter" event or "father-son" or "mother-son"
> event? Clearly gender -based.
>
> Some of us may not like these things. Should we say that anyone who
> positively mentions any such event their kids participate in is
> promoting discrimination? Maybe. Should we get upset at anyone who
> mentions their life in a church that only allows men in some positions?
> Some might. Should we bar anyone from mentioning any of these things in
> a Mozilla context? Is this the same as practicing discrimination
> *within* Mozilla? I think not.

I'd draw the line differently but come to the same conclusion for the
cases you mention. They seem /mostly/ innocent and I wouldn't expect
them to cause grief.

You can't expect everyone to be an activist all day. There's a
difference between unreflectingly mentioning an event where segregation
obviously takes place and lobbying for the segregation, treating it as
something god given that must not be subverted e.g. when a father wants
to go to a mother-daugther event.

[Gervase Markham]

On 13/03/12 08:21, Majken Connor wrote:
> I think the "of any kind" needs to go. This opens up to divisive
> arguments like we've already seen about overreaching the definition.
>
> I really don't see how we can do this without Mozilla making some
> definitions about it considers discrimination and harassment.

Does "this" in this paragraph refer to the inclusion of "of any kind",
or to the creation of a code of conduct in general?

If you mean the former, I think the problem is still present even if the
words are removed. If you mean the latter, I agree - either the code
would need to contain some definitions or people would need to be
appointed who interpret the code.

> We can't always go off of intent. Gerv is advocating for a law based
> on sexual orientation. His arguments amount to segregation: basically
> that they have the same rights they just have them over there under a
> different name.

The trouble with discussing this specific case is that I deny the
accuracy of your formulation of the situation, in particular the use of
the word "segregation". However, to be more specific than that would be
to reopen the discussion, which we don't want to do. But I just want to
note my disagreement with this para.

Gerv

[Gervase Markham]

On 13/03/12 13:27, Deb Richardson wrote:
> What I find offensive and hurtful is going to be different than
> someone else. We cannot know what all of these situations are going
> to be ahead of time. Trying to codify them into a detailed code of
> conduct will just turn the whole thing into a game of rules lawyering.
> That isn't useful and should be avoided.

What principles would you apply to balance the subjective and the
objective in a code of conduct?

The objective (make a list of what's good or bad) has the advantage that
everyone knows where they stand. It has the disadvantage that if people
are so inclined, they might try and rules-lawyer. On the other hand, the
point of boundaries is that you can go up to them but not over. If you
can't go up to the boundary, then the boundary isn't actually the
boundary. Objective criteria also may not be able to take into account
new or unforeseen circumstances.

The subjective (someone has to judge) has the advantage that it can take
account of circumstances. It has the disadvantage that it can appear
arbitrary, or that particular people or groups are being picked on.
Those accused of violations can reasonably claim that they didn't know
what they did or said was covered. Depending on whose subjective opinion
it is, it can also admit partisanship. Without some part of the standard
being objective, decisions are entirely arbitrary, or based only on
previous case law decided by the same people.

How does one balance the two, in your view?

> At no point should anyone in our
> community feel like they are expected to accept or tolerate the
> offensive or hurtful behaviour of others.

This seems to me, on its face, to be a very strong statement indeed.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting it, so correct me if I'm wrong. It reads as
if you are saying that the fact that someone is offended or hurt should,
without exception, lead to community action. In other words, the
decision of whether there has been an offence against the code is 100%
subjective, and the decider is the person who was hurt. If they say they
are hurt, that in itself means the person speaking did something wrong,
and it needs to be addressed by action involving that person. To do
nothing, or nothing involving that person at least, would be expecting
acceptance or toleration of something hurtful from the person hurt.

Is that what you are advocating?

Gerv

[Lukas Blakk]

On 3/13/12 11:19 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
> It could even include some form letters to help the person speak up in
> situation 1. That might help it not come across as an accusation.

OK that is a great idea because every time I hear the "you should just
be able to approach the person yourself" sentiment I think that
sometimes there are situations where that may not feel possible for
someone (if it's their manager, for example) but having a template in
place is certainly a way to help someone see that there is a system in
place that anyone can expect to see used as needed.

[Gervase Markham]

On 14/03/12 02:34, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Gervase Markham<ge...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>>
>> The code of conduct, if it comes to exist, is unlikely to be nearly as
>> important as the question of who makes the judgements about what violates
>> it. Ubuntu has a Community Council which takes this role; we don't have an
>> equivalent body.
>
> We have Mitchell as the ultimate decision-maker for non-technical
> issues; AIUI that's been true for over a decade.

That is true; however, AIUI this system's effectiveness and her sanity
rely on appeal to her being a pretty rare event. Would that be so if we
were to make her the authority in interpreting the Code of Conduct?

> And it's been
> suggested that a Code of Conduct module be created; if that happened
> the owners and peers of that module would be a lower authority.

Right, so instead of a Community Council, we would need to create a
body. That was my point. :-)

Gerv

[Lukas Blakk]

On 3/14/12 8:33 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 13/03/12 13:27, Deb Richardson wrote:
>

>> At no point should anyone in our
>> community feel like they are expected to accept or tolerate the
>> offensive or hurtful behaviour of others.
>

> This seems to me, on its face, to be a very strong statement indeed.
> Perhaps I am misinterpreting it, so correct me if I'm wrong. It reads
> as if you are saying that the fact that someone is offended or hurt
> should, without exception, lead to community action. In other words,
> the decision of whether there has been an offence against the code is
> 100% subjective, and the decider is the person who was hurt. If they
> say they are hurt, that in itself means the person speaking did
> something wrong, and it needs to be addressed by action involving that
> person.

It doesn't always mean the person speaking did something "wrong" and
their intent may not have been to hurt anyone directly, but what is so
terrible about trusting and believing someone when they tell you they
are hurt by something? At the very least it is a learning opportunity
towards a goal of becoming aware of how your words (and actions) impact
people and it gives the person who is hurt (indeed, 100% subjective but
why should that be a bad thing?) the chance to air their concerns and
feel like it is OK to do so. Interpersonal and inter-cultural relations
do not have to be all about policing. We have the choice to focus on
proactively creating safer spaces for people to express the things that
they might keep bottled up inside if they have to assume that the
majority of people around them do not care that it caused them hurt. The
fear that "everyone will be hurt all the time" and that we'll dissolve
into some sort of ultra-sensitive and ultra-ineffective group is very
unlikely and is an easy go-to for trying to dismiss these sorts of
discussions. The possibility that we can all learn from each other and
develop trust along with stronger communication chops is high - let your
imagination run wild with what the net positive could be if we adopt a
well thought out code instead of how people would 'abuse' the standards
we are hoping to create.

-Lukas

--
*-*-*-*-*
Release Manager, Mozillian
http://mzl.la/LukasBlakk

[Boris Zbarsky]

On 3/14/12 9:32 AM, Lukas Blakk wrote:
> It doesn't always mean the person speaking did something "wrong" and
> their intent may not have been to hurt anyone directly, but what is so
> terrible about trusting and believing someone when they tell you they
> are hurt by something? At the very least it is a learning opportunity
> towards a goal of becoming aware of how your words (and actions) impact
> people and it gives the person who is hurt (indeed, 100% subjective but
> why should that be a bad thing?) the chance to air their concerns and
> feel like it is OK to do so. Interpersonal and inter-cultural relations
> do not have to be all about policing. We have the choice to focus on
> proactively creating safer spaces for people to express the things that
> they might keep bottled up inside if they have to assume that the
> majority of people around them do not care that it caused them hurt. The
> fear that "everyone will be hurt all the time" and that we'll dissolve
> into some sort of ultra-sensitive and ultra-ineffective group is very
> unlikely and is an easy go-to for trying to dismiss these sorts of
> discussions. The possibility that we can all learn from each other and
> develop trust along with stronger communication chops is high - let your
> imagination run wild with what the net positive could be if we adopt a
> well thought out code instead of how people would 'abuse' the standards
> we are hoping to create.

Wholeheartedly agreed.

-Boris

[Zack Weinberg]

On 03/13/2012 07:34 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
>
> 1. If person A thinks person B violated the code of conduct, they tell
> them directly.
> 2. If it doesn't get resolved, it goes up the chain to the Code of
> Conduct owners and peers.
> 3. If it still doesn't get resolved, it goes up to Mitchell.

There needs to be an alternative for this procedure in situations where
person A is in a position where they feel they cannot either directly
confront person B or make a public complaint. This is very likely any
time person B has more authority or more community trust than person A
-- person A may feel that any direct or overt complaint will be ignored
or worse. I have enough trouble getting people to file *bugs* because
they think they'll be ignored!

An appropriate alternative, IMHO, would be a designated individual who
volunteers to field concerns related to the code of conduct. This
person would carry out your steps 1-3 on the reporter's behalf,
concealing the reporter's identity.

Since this person acts as a gatekeeper, they need to be both highly
respected in the community *and* to have demonstrated by actions over a
long period of time that they are not going to minimize or dismiss
something real. Appropriate candidates, to my mind, include Lukas
Blakk, Luis Villa (Vila?), David Baron, and Boriss.

Since they hold backstop decision-making authority, Mitchell and Brendan
should *not* take this role. It might be okay for this role to be
filled by a Code of Conduct peer or owner, but I think it would be
better if they were seen as formally independent of the decision-making
process in steps 2 and 3.

zw

[Fred Wenzel]

On 3/14/12 10:27 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On 03/13/2012 07:34 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
>>

>> 1. If person A thinks person B violated the code of conduct, they tell
>> them directly.
>> 2. If it doesn't get resolved, it goes up the chain to the Code of
>> Conduct owners and peers.
>> 3. If it still doesn't get resolved, it goes up to Mitchell.
>

> There needs to be an alternative for this procedure in situations where
> person A is in a position where they feel they cannot either directly

> confront person B or make a public complaint. [...]

>
> Since this person acts as a gatekeeper, they need to be both highly
> respected in the community *and* to have demonstrated by actions over a
> long period of time that they are not going to minimize or dismiss
> something real. Appropriate candidates, to my mind, include Lukas Blakk,
> Luis Villa (Vila?), David Baron, and Boriss.

How about these folks: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Conductors ?

~F

[Zack Weinberg]

If they're all willing to take on the extra responsibility, it seems
like an appropriate venue to me.

zw

[Majken Connor]

I haven't heard about these people until these discussions, I guess this
was probably discussed on another thread in governance? I like the concept,
but I'd want to know more about how they're chosen (just volunteer?) and if
they have any sort of guidelines or if they've just offered to be
explicitly listed on the page. I would want it to be more formal than just
volunteer, because we should be able to approach anyone in the community we
trust. eg what happens if the conductor thinks you're wrong in the
situation? Is there a process or guidelines for the conductors to make sure
they're not taking sides?

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Zack Weinberg <za...@panix.com> wrote:

> On 03/14/2012 10:48 AM, Fred Wenzel wrote:
>

>> How about these folks: https://wiki.mozilla.org/**Conductors<https://wiki.mozilla.org/Conductors>?

>>
>
> If they're all willing to take on the extra responsibility, it seems like
> an appropriate venue to me.
>
>
> zw

> ______________________________**_________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>
>

[Zack Weinberg]

On 03/12/2012 09:14 AM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> I personally see value in setting out how we should treat each other and
> understand the desire for a statement of principles.
>

> One thing I don't yet understand is how such a statement would change
> the kinds of setting that raised the discussion.
>

> -- A community member made a post in his blog unrelated to Mozilla
> regarding a contentious and deeply emotional social issue.
> -- Many people were offended and angered.
> -- The author decided both to remove the post and to limit future posts
> to this Mozilla forum to Mozilla specific activities.
>

> What would a code of conduct say to either avoid this setting or make it
> better?

Earlier I proposed the rule: No political advocacy in any Mozilla-hosted
forum on any topic not directly related to Mozilla's mission. This
would be *in addition to* a statement of principles regarding how we
treat each other in general.

The rationale here is, even if everyone acts from the best of intentions
and goodwill, political advocacy is *inherently* going to provoke anger,
disappointment, and hurt. I expect that everyone here has at least one
deeply-held political belief which would stir up just as much
controversy and loss of mutual respect if we advocated it in a Mozilla
forum. When the topic is directly related to Mozilla's mission, well,
maybe it's *worth* having that argument, it might help us accomplish our
goals better! (Case in point: the current dev-platform thread about
video codecs.) But when it isn't, it isn't.

----

Having said that, I also want to say that it's not *only* about
off-topic political advocacy. There are people in this community --
senior, respected people -- who habitually discuss everything in a
confrontational, abusive manner, to the point where I honestly believe
we'd be better off without them. They do this while staying 100% on
topic. They do this in technical conversations about how to fix bugs,
for crying out loud.

If we could resolve *that* problem with this community code of conduct,
I would say we'd accomplished something, whether or not we also address
off-topic arguments.

zw

[Stuart Parmenter]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Majken Connor" <maj...@gmail.com>
> To: "Zack Weinberg" <za...@panix.com>
> Cc: mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:01:40 AM
> Subject: Re: Code of Conduct: looking for help
>
> I haven't heard about these people until these discussions, I guess
> this was probably discussed on another thread in governance? I like the
> concept, but I'd want to know more about how they're chosen (just volunteer?)
> and if they have any sort of guidelines or if they've just offered to be
> explicitly listed on the page. I would want it to be more formal than
> just volunteer, because we should be able to approach anyone in the
> community we trust. eg what happens if the conductor thinks you're wrong in the
> situation? Is there a process or guidelines for the conductors to
> make sure they're not taking sides?
>

Do we really need to over-engineer this now? There is no way for us to set out a set of rules that will apply to every situation and that will always make everyone happy. We're dealing with people and people problems.

I propose (based on what others have written in far more detail than I'm going to do here):
* We make a short set of community guidelines (have faith in others, be excellent to each other, etc)
* We have a set of people who can be contacted if/when people feel hurt. (This already exists, no need to change).
* People are encouraged to talk directly with those that have offended them and try to understand their views better
* If this is not possible, talk to the group above
* If you feel a more public response is necessary, take some time to think about it, and don't break the guidelines set forth above (no personal attacks, no threats, etc).

Lets keep this simple and add to our guidelines as we go forward.

stuart

[Majken Connor]

confrontational and abusive are different. When you say abusive do you mean
that they degrade the person? IMO that's not staying on topic.

This touches on a bigger issue for me because of my experiences with people
with ASD. It's really easy to assume a confrontational person is a jerk,
but in those cases, the person really has no clue. Lack of empathy or
trouble with it is a symptom of Asperger's, Autism, and I believe Adult
ADHD to name the ones I know. We also know that people with these disorders
tend towards and thrive in technical positions like engineering and
software development.

Which isn't to say at all that I advocate putting up with it (that would be
hypocritical!), but I think we need to really support all our community
members, and "kicking them out" should always be a last resort.

[Majken Connor]

I don't think it's over-engineering. I think that if they are just people
in the community then it's over-engineering to point to a "formal" group.
If we're pointing to them as the desired people to approach in these
situations then they shouldn't be random people. In fact it could be a
worse idea than approaching a friend.

[Deb Richardson]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Zack Weinberg <za...@panix.com> wrote:
> There are people in this community -- senior, respected
> people -- who habitually discuss everything in a confrontational, abusive
> manner, to the point where I honestly believe we'd be better off without
> them.  They do this while staying 100% on topic.  They do this in technical
> conversations about how to fix bugs, for crying out loud.
>
> If we could resolve *that* problem with this community code of conduct, I
> would say we'd accomplished something, whether or not we also address
> off-topic arguments.

This is one of the situations I think would be addressed by having an
aspirational (rather than proscriptive) Code of Conduct for our
community & a concrete way to address them and escalate serious issues
to a group who can help resolve them.

~ d

[Deb Richardson]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Stuart Parmenter <stu...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Lets keep this simple and add to our guidelines as we go forward.

I concur. I think we have a pretty clear path forward at this point
unless I'm missing something.

1) Create an aspirational CoC
2) Devise a short set of concrete guidelines for dealing with issues that arise
3) Have a group of respected community folk in place who can help
resolve more serious issues that arise

I do not know if the Conductors should be that group -- I'm not sure
those folks signed up for this when agreeing to take on that role, and
I'm not sure how many Mozillians are actually aware that group exists.

~ d

[Mitchell Baker]

On 3/14/12 11:05 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:

>
> Having said that, I also want to say that it's not *only* about
> off-topic political advocacy. There are people in this community --
> senior, respected people -- who habitually discuss everything in a
> confrontational, abusive manner, to the point where I honestly believe
> we'd be better off without them. They do this while staying 100% on
> topic. They do this in technical conversations about how to fix bugs,
> for crying out loud.
>
> If we could resolve *that* problem with this community code of conduct,
> I would say we'd accomplished something, whether or not we also address
> off-topic arguments.
>
> zw

Yes, we have 2 related but different kinds of issues. The explosive
sort of issue we've seen this last week or so, and the on-going
confrontational manner that is wearing on a more daily basis.

The "conductors" group was organized explicitly to deal with the latter.
Lucy, see:
the thread started 11/15 by me on this topic.
official module at: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/Activities
Stormy's post:
http://stormyscorner.com/2012/02/how-to-foster-productive-online-conversations-mozilla-conductors.html

So whether or not the Conductors have an official role in any CoC
process, i hope they have an unofficial role. Getting advice from a
Conductor on a daily "on-topic but difficult style" issues will develop
relationships where Mozillians have experience in who we have confidence
works well with me in my issues. That's a good place to start for a
potentially explosive issue as well.

mitchell

hese folks should be trusted as good advisors in communications issues
-- if not, the module us unsuccessful.

[Mike Connor]

On 2012-03-14, at 8:33 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:

>> At no point should anyone in our
>> community feel like they are expected to accept or tolerate the
>> offensive or hurtful behaviour of others.
>
> This seems to me, on its face, to be a very strong statement indeed. Perhaps I am misinterpreting it, so correct me if I'm wrong. It reads as if you are saying that the fact that someone is offended or hurt should, without exception, lead to community action.

I don't believe that's a correct reading. What I took away from it was that individuals must be empowered to take/seek action if they feel that is the right action. There should be no pressure or expectation that individuals "suck it up" or "have thicker skin" in response to negative behaviour on the part of others. On the other hand, the aggrieved party can decide it's not worth it to _them_ and move on.

IOW, the aggrieved party makes the call based on whether to seek a resolution, and should be fully supported in their choice, without pressure either way.

> In other words, the decision of whether there has been an offence against the code is 100% subjective, and the decider is the person who was hurt. If they say they are hurt, that in itself means the person speaking did something wrong, and it needs to be addressed by action involving that person. To do nothing, or nothing involving that person at least, would be expecting acceptance or toleration of something hurtful from the person hurt.

This comes back to "assume good faith" for me. If I say or do something that hurts or offends someone, that doesn't automatically mean anyone is right or wrong. It should mean that someone and I have a direct, honest conversation and attempt to resolve the problem, with an escalation/mediation path if that fails.

If an individual is hurting and/or offending fellow community members, intentionally or not, I have no problems with an expectation that the individual will work in good faith to attempt to address those problems, if the aggrieved party wants to seek a resolution. If that individual is unwilling to work to resolve this type of issue, I would likely question their desire to be a positive contributor to the project and to the community. Obviously not every situation will find a happy resolution, but if all parties operate in good faith and make the effort to resolve problems, that should result in a much stronger and healthier community for everyone.

-- Mike

[Deb Richardson]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzba...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 3/14/12 9:32 AM, Lukas Blakk wrote:
>>

>> It doesn't always mean the person speaking did something "wrong" and
>> their intent may not have been to hurt anyone directly, but what is so
>> terrible about trusting and believing someone when they tell you they
>> are hurt by something? At the very least it is a learning opportunity
>> towards a goal of becoming aware of how your words (and actions) impact
>> people and it gives the person who is hurt (indeed, 100% subjective but
>> why should that be a bad thing?) the chance to air their concerns and
>> feel like it is OK to do so. Interpersonal and inter-cultural relations
>> do not have to be all about policing. We have the choice to focus on
>> proactively creating safer spaces for people to express the things that
>> they might keep bottled up inside if they have to assume that the
>> majority of people around them do not care that it caused them hurt. The
>> fear that "everyone will be hurt all the time" and that we'll dissolve
>> into some sort of ultra-sensitive and ultra-ineffective group is very
>> unlikely and is an easy go-to for trying to dismiss these sorts of
>> discussions. The possibility that we can all learn from each other and
>> develop trust along with stronger communication chops is high - let your
>> imagination run wild with what the net positive could be if we adopt a
>> well thought out code instead of how people would 'abuse' the standards
>> we are hoping to create.
>
>

> Wholeheartedly agreed.

+1 - Lukas explained this better than I could :)

~ d

[Gervase Markham]

On 14/03/12 14:32, Lukas Blakk wrote:
> It doesn't always mean the person speaking did something "wrong" and
> their intent may not have been to hurt anyone directly, but what is so
> terrible about trusting and believing someone when they tell you they
> are hurt by something? At the very least it is a learning opportunity
> towards a goal of becoming aware of how your words (and actions) impact
> people and it gives the person who is hurt (indeed, 100% subjective but
> why should that be a bad thing?) the chance to air their concerns and
> feel like it is OK to do so. Interpersonal and inter-cultural relations
> do not have to be all about policing. We have the choice to focus on
> proactively creating safer spaces for people to express the things that
> they might keep bottled up inside if they have to assume that the
> majority of people around them do not care that it caused them hurt.

So are we creating safe spaces for everyone, or only some people? Is
Mozilla currently a safe space? I expressed myself in it, and it led to
people calling for me to be fired. To be clear: in my book, that's
entirely their prerogative, and I strongly defend their right to an
opinion. But by your formulation, how does that make the space "safe"
for me? Are you saying that that sort of thing would also be against the
code of conduct?

> The
> fear that "everyone will be hurt all the time" and that we'll dissolve
> into some sort of ultra-sensitive and ultra-ineffective group is very
> unlikely and is an easy go-to for trying to dismiss these sorts of
> discussions.

What makes me concerned is that rules / laws / guidelines on what can
and can't be said have a tendency to be used against people like me. In
the UK, there is a law, the Public Order Act, which says:

"a person is guilty of an offence if he ... uses threatening, abusive or
insulting words or behaviour ... within the hearing or sight of a person
likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

The inclusion of the word "insulting" in that law is particularly bad.
That law leads to things like this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

Leaving aside my personal views on the subject for which Mr McAlpine was
arrested for speaking about, incidents like this makes me very nervous
of laws, rules or guidelines which prohibit "insulting" speech,
particularly those which can be subjectively interpreted.

I'm sure the LGBT community has laws it doesn't like because, however
they are written, they think that in fact the law ends up discriminating
against them particularly. There is an analogy here.

If you were me, given the 'unofficial' reaction that a polite invitation
to sign a petition got, would you not be slightly nervous about the
possibility of facing official community sanction for expressing your
opinion?

Gerv

[Gervase Markham]

On 14/03/12 18:05, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Having said that, I also want to say that it's not *only* about
> off-topic political advocacy. There are people in this community --
> senior, respected people -- who habitually discuss everything in a
> confrontational, abusive manner, to the point where I honestly believe
> we'd be better off without them. They do this while staying 100% on
> topic. They do this in technical conversations about how to fix bugs,
> for crying out loud.
>
> If we could resolve *that* problem with this community code of conduct,
> I would say we'd accomplished something, whether or not we also address
> off-topic arguments.

I'm not sure we necessarily need a code of conduct to address this; why
not start with a concerned email to the Mozilla Conductors, with names
and examples?

Gerv

[Zack Weinberg]

On 03/15/2012 08:42 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 14/03/12 14:32, Lukas Blakk wrote:
>> It doesn't always mean the person speaking did something "wrong" and
>> their intent may not have been to hurt anyone directly, but what is so
>> terrible about trusting and believing someone when they tell you they
>> are hurt by something? At the very least it is a learning opportunity
>> towards a goal of becoming aware of how your words (and actions) impact
>> people and it gives the person who is hurt (indeed, 100% subjective but
>> why should that be a bad thing?) the chance to air their concerns and
>> feel like it is OK to do so. Interpersonal and inter-cultural relations
>> do not have to be all about policing. We have the choice to focus on
>> proactively creating safer spaces for people to express the things that
>> they might keep bottled up inside if they have to assume that the
>> majority of people around them do not care that it caused them hurt.
>
> So are we creating safe spaces for everyone, or only some people? Is
> Mozilla currently a safe space? I expressed myself in it, and it led to
> people calling for me to be fired. To be clear: in my book, that's
> entirely their prerogative, and I strongly defend their right to an
> opinion. But by your formulation, how does that make the space "safe"
> for me? Are you saying that that sort of thing would also be against the
> code of conduct?

You can't have it both ways.

To include people of all races, the community must exclude racist opinions.
To include people of all genders, the community must exclude
gender-essentialist opinions.

To include people of whatever private sexual preference, the community
must exclude the opinion that some such preferences are "sinful".

> What makes me concerned is that rules / laws / guidelines on what can
> and can't be said have a tendency to be used against people like me.

Those rules/laws/guidelines are having precisely the effect they should
have: they convey the message that "people like you" hold opinions which
are no longer socially acceptable.

If that places you in an awkward personal position, well, I have _some_
sympathy, but not much, since I think you are wrong according to the
teachings of your own espoused religion (but let's not have that
conversation here, please).

If you object to social sanctions of unpopular opinions in general, I
can sympathize more with that, but I think there's a time and a place
for general political advocacy and Mozilla isn't it.

In any case, no one has proposed that to remain a member of this
community you have to _change your mind_, only that for the sake of its
continued smooth operation you have to keep this particular opinion of
yours to yourself. Which is a thing we all do every day.

zw

[Zack Weinberg]

I feel like I'd just wind up back in this thread if I did that now, and
also I don't really have time to assemble evidence at the moment.

zw

[Deb Richardson]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote:
> I'm not sure we necessarily need a code of conduct to address this; why not
> start with a concerned email to the Mozilla Conductors, with names and
> examples?

For the same reason I stated many messages ago, in that a CoC is
immensely important and valuable as a cultural artifact.

If we'd already had a CoC in place, most of this kerfuffle could have
been avoided because we could simply have pointed at the CoC and said
"Gerv is speaking solely for himself in this matter -- Mozilla as a
whole deeply believes in diversity and equality, and understands the
importance of protecting vulnerable people and groups within our
community."

Similarly for cases where people are being abusive or demeaning in
their interactions with others, even when "on topic". A CoC will
outline what we collectively believe is appropriate, making it clear
that abusive behaviour is not considered acceptable and does not need
to be tolerated. Knowing that is extremely important when you are the
one being abused or demeaned, for a whole bunch of reasons.

The "what now?" part of the kerfuffle could have been avoided by
having a clear set of concrete actions we recommend people take in
these situations starting with "just try talking to the person" up
through a more formal escalation involving a community council of some
sort.

A CoC is really something we should have put into place years ago, and
as the Mozilla project grows larger and more diverse the more
important a CoC becomes. We have an opportunity here to do something
extremely valuable for the future of our community, and I strongly
believe it's time we took this step.

~ d

[Robert Accettura]

I doubt it would have done anything regarding last week… but 100%
agree on all the rest. It's time to take this step. Like you said,
it should have been put in place years ago.

--
Robert Accettura
rob...@accettura.com

[Graydon Hoare]

On 3/15/2012 9:30 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On 03/15/2012 08:42 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> So are we creating safe spaces for everyone, or only some people? Is
>> Mozilla currently a safe space? I expressed myself in it, and it led to
>> people calling for me to be fired. To be clear: in my book, that's
>> entirely their prerogative, and I strongly defend their right to an
>> opinion. But by your formulation, how does that make the space "safe"
>> for me? Are you saying that that sort of thing would also be against the
>> code of conduct?
>
> You can't have it both ways.
>
> To include people of all races, the community must exclude racist opinions.
> To include people of all genders, the community must exclude
> gender-essentialist opinions.
>
> To include people of whatever private sexual preference, the community
> must exclude the opinion that some such preferences are "sinful".

Yes. Independent of your earlier post (re: community tone), I don't want
to see this discussion lose sight of the more-specific problem.

The specific problem is behavior towards oppressed groups. Tolerance for
discrimination and abuse concerning specific characteristics. I'll again
quote our existing harassment policy:

... pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, race,
religious creed, color, gender, national origin or ancestry,
physical or mental disability, medical condition, marital status,
registered domestic partner status, age, sexual orientation ...

These are not listed by accident. They have a long history, are often
deadly serious. People are sensitive to them for good reason.
Unfortunately the free sw community, and mozilla, shows a pattern of
tolerating, explaining-away and defending casual and overt
discrimination and abuse over these issues. That's bad.

We should take a proactive stance against this pattern, not dodge its
specificity. A code of conduct we adopt should say explicitly that we
welcome, value and will protect diversity in these characteristics, and
not tolerate discrimination or abuse over them. Broadly.

This is a question of values. Mozilla often acts based on values that
are not a literal reading of the letter of the law of our manifesto. Our
manifesto does not oblige us to fund democracy experiments or public
parks. Yet we do anyways because we feel it's right. Protecting
oppressed groups -- actively protecting, actively welcoming -- is right.
We should be doing it.



Concerning religion:

That list includes "religious creed" as protected. That's correct.
Religious persecution -- including anti-Christian persecution[1] -- is
real. It plays a large role in the history of pluralism, and despite the
privileged status of Christians in the US and UK, there are many places
where religion is risky.

But I feel I should clarify how this does and does-not relate to Gerv. I
hear many wrongly conflating "protection of homosexuals" with
"persecution of Christians". I don't know if religion motivated Gerv. I
don't care. Some responses to him have been religious insults; those are
not acceptable. But many responses to him are direct criticism of his
act, and they are not religious persecution. Concretely:

- Telling him Christianity is bad, or suggesting he be disciplined
for being Christian, would be religious persecution.

- Telling him he did something wrong, even suggesting he be
disciplined for that act, is not religious persecution. Unless
you wish to make the argument that Christianity is defined-as
or necessarily implies the act.

Gerv's problematic act was publishing anti-homosexual[2] advocacy via
the organization's servers, not vaguely "expressing himself" or "being
Christian". We all knew he was Christian before. He makes no secret of
it; his Christianity is not relevant to evaluating this act. Being
Christian does not imply doing what he did, and a non-Christian who did
the same thing would also face a critical response.

-Graydon



[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#Current_situation_.281989_to_present.29

[2] Please, please do not reply that a marriage-prohibition petition is
"not anti-homosexual". Making a claim like that is disingenuous in the
extreme; it's crossing the line of "can't seriously even have this
conversation anymore" for many of us. I'm trying hard to remain clear
and civil. Please don't go there.

[Gervase Markham]

On 15/03/12 18:40, Deb Richardson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Gervase Markham<ge...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>> I'm not sure we necessarily need a code of conduct to address this; why not
>> start with a concerned email to the Mozilla Conductors, with names and
>> examples?
>
> For the same reason I stated many messages ago, in that a CoC is
> immensely important and valuable as a cultural artifact.

Your trimming makes it look like my message was a general denial of the
need for a CoC; was that your understanding of what I said? It wasn't;
it was merely a comment that we do have some existing things in place to
deal with the sort of behaviour Zack describes, and I suggested that he
use them, whatever we do about a CoC.

> If we'd already had a CoC in place, most of this kerfuffle could have
> been avoided because we could simply have pointed at the CoC and said
> "Gerv is speaking solely for himself in this matter -- Mozilla as a
> whole deeply believes in diversity and equality, and understands the
> importance of protecting vulnerable people and groups within our
> community."

That sounds like it would come with the implied rider and criticism...
"but Gerv doesn't". And that seems to me like Mozilla taking a position
on things outside of our core mission, which Mitchell is suggesting we
don't do.

I would say that, if anyone asked what Mozilla thought, the response
instead should be:

"Gerv is speaking solely for himself in this matter. Mozilla as a whole
is a diverse organization and so does not have opinions on matters
outside the scope of its mission."

Also, it would help if you clarified what you believe "vulnerable people
and groups" should be protected from. For myself, I believe that
everyone, not just particular groups, should not have to put up with
actual or threatened violence, and that all conversations should be
conducted with gentleness and respect for the other person. (The reason
I believe these things is that people are created in the image of God,
and so all have equal and intrinsic worth and value, regardless of their
particular characteristics.) But I don't believe anyone should be
protected from, in the sense of us creating by force a community
environment where they cannot be exposed to, opinions or behaviour (of
any sort - political, religious, cultural or technical) contrary to or
different from their own.

This is because, by its nature, such protection cannot be even-handed.
It is never "we are protecting everyone from opinions which might upset
them", it is always "we are suppressing expression of a certain set of
opinions to protect a subset of people from opinions which might upset
them; people not in that subset receive no such protection, and have to
put up with the free expression of things they don't agree with while
being prevented from engaging with those ideas."

Gerv

[Gervase Markham]

On 15/03/12 16:30, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On 03/15/2012 08:42 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> So are we creating safe spaces for everyone, or only some people? Is
>> Mozilla currently a safe space? I expressed myself in it, and it led to
>> people calling for me to be fired. To be clear: in my book, that's
>> entirely their prerogative, and I strongly defend their right to an
>> opinion. But by your formulation, how does that make the space "safe"
>> for me? Are you saying that that sort of thing would also be against the
>> code of conduct?
>
> You can't have it both ways.

Well, quite - but then let's not use the language of "safe spaces" in a
way which suggests that they are neutral, and therefore a great thing
and affirming for everyone. They aren't.

> To include people of all races, the community must exclude racist opinions.
> To include people of all genders, the community must exclude
> gender-essentialist opinions.
>
> To include people of whatever private sexual preference, the community
> must exclude the opinion that some such preferences are "sinful".

Let me extend your line of thinking a little more:

To include people of all religions, the community must exclude the
opinion that any one religion is false.

To include people of all religions, the community must exclude the
opinion that any one religion is true.

To include people of all religions, the community must exclude any
criticism of actions taken on religious grounds.

To include people of all cultures, the community must exclude criticism
of any particular culture or any cultural practice.

Would you say that these statements are parallel to yours, and therefore
would hold in a community where yours were held?


Also, in the following scenario, who is working more for an "inclusive
community", person A or person B?

Person A says "I refuse to be in a community with anyone who tells me,
even in a polite way at an appropriate moment, that a particular action
I am taking is morally wrong and I should stop."

Person B says "I'm happy to be in a community with anyone, whatever
their opinions about me or anything else. I find it valuable to discuss
differences with others, and am always interested in their views. I
treat everyone with politeness and respect."

>> What makes me concerned is that rules / laws / guidelines on what can
>> and can't be said have a tendency to be used against people like me.
>
> Those rules/laws/guidelines are having precisely the effect they should
> have: they convey the message that "people like you" hold opinions which
> are no longer socially acceptable.

That's a very sweeping statement, particularly if you are saying that it
should be Mozilla's view.

It seems to be that you are saying that a particular set of social
attitudes and opinions (a 'culture') is superior to others, and so
should be privileged within the Mozilla community. Is that right?

Gerv

[David Tenser]

I think it definitely falls under the responsibility of Conductors as
described in the Modules page[1]:

"Promotion of productive communications styles within Mozilla, where
"productive" means simultaneously honest and civil.

As for how many Mozillians are aware of the group, this discussion is
one way of creating that awareness.

[1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/Activities

[David Tenser]

On 2012-03-14 19:29, Deb Richardson wrote:

[David Tenser]

On 2012-03-16 13:06, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 15/03/12 16:30, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> To include people of whatever private sexual preference, the community
>> must exclude the opinion that some such preferences are "sinful".
>
> Let me extend your line of thinking a little more:
>
> To include people of all religions, the community must exclude the
> opinion that any one religion is false.
>
> To include people of all religions, the community must exclude the
> opinion that any one religion is true.

As I understand it, the point of the CoC is not to decide what anyone's
personal opinion should be, but to limit the public discussion of such
opinions if they fall under these categories. And yes, religion is one
of those categories so within reason, your extended line of thinking
makes sense.

So, it's not about excluding people, but rather to limit the discussions
around topics where people may feel offended or discriminated.

[Gervase Markham]

On 15/03/12 23:13, Graydon Hoare wrote:
> The specific problem is behavior towards oppressed groups. Tolerance for
> discrimination and abuse concerning specific characteristics. I'll again
> quote our existing harassment policy:
>
> ... pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, race,
> religious creed, color, gender, national origin or ancestry,
> physical or mental disability, medical condition, marital status,
> registered domestic partner status, age, sexual orientation ...

....

> Protecting
> oppressed groups -- actively protecting, actively welcoming -- is right.
> We should be doing it.

We should be actively welcoming everyone, whether they are in one of the
above groups or not. You'll find no argument from me there.

But what does "actively protecting oppressed groups" mean, specifically?
Many of the groups you list are "all of us" - everyone has e.g. a race,
a colour, an age, and (I would argue, and am happy to discuss offline) a
religious creed. Substituting the full list into your sentence makes no
sense for many of the list items.

If you are saying that no-one in the Mozilla community should be
harassing anyone else in the community because they are old, or Latino,
or gay, then you'll find no argument from me. (And I challenge anyone to
find an instance of me doing that.) But I think you mean more than that,
because I think you think that such a policy would cover me talking in a
Mozilla community context about my support for a particular definition
of the word "marriage" in UK law.

> Concretely:
>
> - Telling him Christianity is bad, or suggesting he be disciplined
> for being Christian, would be religious persecution.
>
> - Telling him he did something wrong, even suggesting he be
> disciplined for that act, is not religious persecution. Unless
> you wish to make the argument that Christianity is defined-as
> or necessarily implies the act.
>
> Gerv's problematic act was publishing anti-homosexual[2] advocacy via
> the organization's servers, not vaguely "expressing himself" or "being
> Christian". We all knew he was Christian before. He makes no secret of
> it; his Christianity is not relevant to evaluating this act. Being
> Christian does not imply doing what he did, and a non-Christian who did
> the same thing would also face a critical response.

This question is important enough that I've posted a new top-level
message to address it.

> [2] Please, please do not reply that a marriage-prohibition petition is
> "not anti-homosexual". Making a claim like that is disingenuous in the
> extreme; it's crossing the line of "can't seriously even have this
> conversation anymore" for many of us. I'm trying hard to remain clear
> and civil. Please don't go there.

This is poisoning the well. If I don't respond, I've implicitly admitted
to being "anti-homosexual". If I do respond, you're going to withdraw,
regardless of the merit of the argument.

If my position were anti-homosexual, presumably no out homosexuals would
support it, right?

Gerv

[Dao]

On 16.03.2012 16:29, Gervase Markham wrote:
> If my position were anti-homosexual, presumably no out homosexuals would
> support it, right?

It might require some serious brainwashing to get there, but a
homosexual can certainly think she was pestilently sick and thus support
stigmatizing strategies.

Jewish anti-Zionism? Anti-feminine women? That something reads like an
oxymoron doesn't mean it can't be real.

[Graydon Hoare]

On 16/03/2012 8:29 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:

> We should be actively welcoming everyone, whether they are in one of the
> above groups or not. You'll find no argument from me there.

Again, nice sentiment, but non-specific and allows dodging the question
of specific groups, specific protections. Which matter.

> If you are saying that no-one in the Mozilla community should be
> harassing anyone else in the community because they are old, or Latino,
> or gay, then you'll find no argument from me.

Yes. Because those are forms of _being_ we should be protecting.

> But I think you mean more than that,
> because I think you think that such a policy would cover me talking in a
> Mozilla community context about my support for a particular definition
> of the word "marriage" in UK law.

No, because that is a form of _doing_ that contravenes the protection
granted to gays.

> This question is important enough that I've posted a new top-level
> message to address it.

I've answered such there. I think it's nonsense.

> This is poisoning the well. If I don't respond, I've implicitly admitted
> to being "anti-homosexual". If I do respond, you're going to withdraw,
> regardless of the merit of the argument.

Here, unlike your other message, you are failing to differentiate
"being" from "doing"[1]. What you _did_ was anti-homosexual. I'm not
telling you what you _are_. What you are is not my concern. This thread
is entitled "code of conduct", not "code of being".

> If my position were anti-homosexual, presumably no out homosexuals would
> support it, right?

You are, however, correct in that by responding to my plea with an
"argument" on this point, you've blown my incredulity budget. This is
the line, right here. Won't dignify this part with a response. Sorry.

-Graydon

[1] More clarification: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc

[Zack Weinberg]

On 03/16/2012 05:06 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 15/03/12 16:30, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> On 03/15/2012 08:42 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>> So are we creating safe spaces for everyone, or only some people? Is
>>> Mozilla currently a safe space? I expressed myself in it, and it led to
>>> people calling for me to be fired. To be clear: in my book, that's
>>> entirely their prerogative, and I strongly defend their right to an
>>> opinion. But by your formulation, how does that make the space "safe"
>>> for me? Are you saying that that sort of thing would also be against the
>>> code of conduct?
>>
>> You can't have it both ways.
>
> Well, quite - but then let's not use the language of "safe spaces" in a
> way which suggests that they are neutral, and therefore a great thing
> and affirming for everyone. They aren't.

No, they're not neutral, but they are a _bad thing_ only for people who
object to having to care about less-privileged classes of people.

> Let me extend your line of thinking a little more:
>
> To include people of all religions, the community must exclude the
> opinion that any one religion is false.

Yes, although I would write it more narrowly: The community must protect
its members from _accusations_ of practicing a religion which is false.

> To include people of all religions, the community must exclude the
> opinion that any one religion is true.

Again, more narrowly: the community must protect its members from
evangelization. For instance, I don't have a problem with Robert
O'Callahan's scriptural .sigfiles or the title of your blog, even though
both clearly express the opinion that a particular religion is true,
because neither of you is trying to persuade me to convert.

> To include people of all religions, the community must exclude any
> criticism of actions taken on religious grounds.

No. In fact, the opposite is true: actions taken on religious grounds
must _not_ be exempt from criticism on secular grounds. What must be
excluded is _criticism on religious grounds_, except when it is
criticism of an actor's hypocrisy with respect to their _own_ religion,
and even then it's rude.

Concrete examples:

* Warren Jeffs' splinter LDS church's practice of plural marriage may be
criticized on the grounds that it was (is?) a vehicle for sexual abuse.
It may _not_ be criticized on the grounds that mainstream LDS churches
(now) practice only monogamous marriage.

* It is fair, but impolite, to point out that despite calling myself
Jewish I do not bother practicing _kashrut_. It is _not_ fair to object
to my non-observance of Ramadan, because I never claimed to be a Muslim;
however, if I was eating in front of a bunch of people who _were_
observing the fast, it would be appropriate to tell me that I was
committing a /faux pas/ and I should stop.

> To include people of all cultures, the community must exclude criticism
> of any particular culture or any cultural practice.

Roughly the same rewrite applies here. Cultural practices may be
criticized on acultural grounds -- however, people ought to tread with
caution, because often people *think* they are making an acultural
criticism when they are actually assuming that their own cultural
practices are universals. (This can happen with religion too, but it
seems to me to be less of a problem in practice.)

Conversely, you can only get dinged on cultural grounds for failing to
comply with your _own_ cultural norms, and even then it's rude.

> Also, in the following scenario, who is working more for an "inclusive
> community", person A or person B?
>
> Person A says "I refuse to be in a community with anyone who tells me,
> even in a polite way at an appropriate moment, that a particular action
> I am taking is morally wrong and I should stop."
>
> Person B says "I'm happy to be in a community with anyone, whatever
> their opinions about me or anything else. I find it valuable to discuss
> differences with others, and am always interested in their views. I
> treat everyone with politeness and respect."

The answer may be either A or B depending on the circumstances of the
statement.

>>> What makes me concerned is that rules / laws / guidelines on what can
>>> and can't be said have a tendency to be used against people like me.
>>
>> Those rules/laws/guidelines are having precisely the effect they should
>> have: they convey the message that "people like you" hold opinions which
>> are no longer socially acceptable.
>
> That's a very sweeping statement, particularly if you are saying that it
> should be Mozilla's view.
>
> It seems to be that you are saying that a particular set of social
> attitudes and opinions (a 'culture') is superior to others, and so
> should be privileged within the Mozilla community. Is that right?

I am not saying that the particular set of social attitudes and opinions
I (and others) are advocating in this conversation are _superior_ on any
grounds other than empirical effectiveness at inviting the largest
possible set of people to participate; however, I suppose I _am_
nonetheless saying that it should be privileged.

zw