Online spaces like the IRC and slack group will have to follow these codes as well to be officially endorsed by the Go team. I use the go-nuts IRC very often and find it to be one of the easiest and fastest ways to engage with the community. I imagine others do as well and it is unfortunate when situations like the one you described take away from that experience.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Peter Kleiweg <pkle...@xs4all.nl> wrote:I don't think I like this.Any part in particular?
I appreciate the endeavor, but how does this trickle down to the online spaces. A few weeks ago I called out a user for a racist handle on IRC and I was booted for not talking about Go. I was not degrading the user I was just trying to explain to someone who obviously did not understand their handle was racist.
I think removing the anonymity from the equation does wonders for having people choose their words carefully. Even some of the noblest of people can get out of hand when given an audience and anonymity.
Who gets to decide what is racist? And even whether or not racist is a bad thing?
The morals of which country determine what is good conduct?
On the contradictory, I want to propose an anonymous reporting mechanism and a responsibility chain to review and address these concerns.
This is type of response I get every time I am trying to talk about
about sexism. Tech community is not diverse and always crying out loud
that someone is playing the victim rather than acknowledging the
ongoing problems.
After a certain size, most of the communities need some type of "code of conduct" (Otherwise why we have all the laws and rules in real life). This is a good start. I totally support it.
But as the proposal says, make it something we aspire and not force.
My more deeply held concerns are around repercussions. Because that is
what actually matters at the end of the day. Rules and consequences are
paired. Depending on the consequences some of the things decided by the
"review board" regarding the Go Code of Conduct could be career
destroying (or worse), and yet the way communities tend to handle this
is to have it "investigated" by a bunch of untrained, biased, personally
involved software engineers hearing a subset of the facts then rendering
a verdict, which unsurprisingly often finds on behalf of the person they
like more or know better.
The Django reporting (https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/reporting/)
is an example of such a system. Now most of the consequences are
relatively trivial until you get to things like "banning" or "public
reporting"... because those can impacts peoples career or whole lives,
and in that case I would very much like to know who exactly gets to make
those decisions. Who are the "judges" and who picks them? What are the
core principals for deciding guilt or innocence? If you want to run a
mini-justice-system -- these are the things that have to be answered...
Presumption of innocence? Right to face your accuser? Rights to
fact-finding? Repercussions for false reports?
This is great. Thank you.
-josh
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
If by "peanuts" you mean "actions that only harm a few people" then I
think it's a fine goal to run a peanut-free community.