Mozilla Code of Conduct: next steps

503 views
Skip to first unread message

Deb Richardson

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 9:05:59 AM3/22/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Good morning,

Mozilla is going to explore developing a Code of Conduct for our
community and contributors, using the Ubuntu project Code of Conduct
and supporting documents as an initial template. We're looking to
create something aspirational rather than proscriptive, and the Ubuntu
documents provide a tried and proven starting point.

The next step, I believe, is to look at those documents and see what
we need to do to adapt them to work for the Mozilla project. For
this, I need your help.

As we cannot use the Ubuntu Code of Conduct verbatim [1], I have taken
the liberty of merging the three primary documents into a single wiki
page and have modified the text slightly so it talks about Mozilla
rather than Ubuntu.

The result is here:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Code_of_Conduct/Draft

You can see the changes I have made to the original text here:
http://mzl.la/GEAtl0

==========
Next Steps
==========

Step I: If you want to help, please closely and carefully read through
the draft and consider the following questions:

1) Is there anything that should be added? Is there anything we need
to add for the document to apply to all of the situations, people and
groups we want our Code of Conduct to address?

2) Is there anything that should be removed? Are there things in the
document that simply to not apply to Mozilla or that we do not want
our Code of Conduct to address?

3) Is there anything significant that should be changed? At this
point, please do not include grammar issues, nits, typos,
wordsmithing, etc. -- we can deal with any needed rewrites and tweaks
once we have all the raw content sorted out.

4) Is there anything should change in the document to make it more
"Mozilla" and more in keeping with our project's unique history,
community, and DNA?

Step II: Please post your thoughts about the draft as a public reply
to this thread. If you are not comfortable posting your thoughts
publicly, you can send them to me privately at this email address, and
I'll incorporate them into the summary I will put together later.

=========
A Request
=========

Please stay on topic -- strong disagreement is fine, but I would like
everyone to keep this discussion constructive, respectful, and civil.
This thread is about the development and content of a Code of Conduct
for the Mozilla community -- any side discussions should be taken off
thread.

===========
What's Next
===========

I am going to blog and tweet about this thread shortly so more of our
community is aware that this process is happening and how to take
part. If there are people you feel should be aware of and/or involved
in this process, please point them here.

In a week or so I will post a summary of the discussion that has taken
place and propose a new set of next steps at that stage. I'm hoping
we can have an agreed-upon draft ready for wider review by mid-April.

Thanks!

~ deb


Note: If you have issues with the process I have outlined here, or if
you believe we should be doing something differently, please let me
(or Mitchell) know either here or privately.

[1] I'm still not 100% sure whether we can use the Ubuntu text at all
since it doesn't appear to be released under an open source license.
We're trying to see if we can sort that out.

Aakash Desai

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 11:36:18 AM3/22/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
This is a great start and love the direction of the code of conduct.
Here's some feedback/questions that I had after reading through it:

* What are the consequences of not adhering to the code of
conduct? ...or better yet, if someone is not adhering to it, how can a
Mozillian report that behavior and to whom?
* With codes of conduct, it helps to relate this back into the
principles and values of our community's purpose. Namely, how do these
behaviors help promote openness, innovation and opportunity on the
web. I may know where you're going with this and like the direction,
but I'm biased from having been in the community long enough to know
better. Active community members who volunteer on a casual basis or
new/potential community members may not completely understand the
"why's" of what's being implied from the content there.
* I'd suggest spinning off on a couple of these sections (specifically
in "disagreements") with a course of action for Mozillians. It helps
increase the likelihood that folks will adhere to this code of conduct
when there's a way to enforce it.

If you'd like help on any of these, feel free to ask! More than happy
to help.

-- Aakash

Lukas Blakk

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 11:52:00 AM3/22/12
to gover...@lists.mozilla.org
On 3/22/12 6:05 AM, Deb Richardson wrote:
>
> 1) Is there anything that should be added? Is there anything we need
> to add for the document to apply to all of the situations, people and
> groups we want our Code of Conduct to address?
The section on Mailing lists and web forums - it may be wise to include:
"Mozilla project syndicated/aggregated/published blog posts" in there.
What you write on your blog may be your business, but the project does
syndicate and re-publish blog posts that you send to any of our numerous
planets so it seems as fitting as web forums/newsgroups as a category to
mention here.
> 2) Is there anything that should be removed? Are there things in the
> document that simply to not apply to Mozilla or that we do not want
> our Code of Conduct to address?
Phenotype? I have never seen this one before and wonder what exactly is
trying to be achieved by including that in the list of 'diverse' groups
we are 'honouring'. On that note, the term 'honouring' is not what I'd
be looking to see there. I don't know if that's the correct word or
sentiment for trying to ensure that we are striving to ensure people in
those groups face as little discrimination as we can control when they
are within the space of the Mozilla project. What about something like:
" Mozilla endeavors to foster a just and inclusive culture that embraces
the diversity of the people involved and interacting with the project,
with zero tolerance for discrimination based on age, etc....."?

Thank you very much for your hard work on this and I hope our discussion
are fruitful and we get something in place soon.

Cheers,
Lukas

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

Gijs Kruitbosch

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 12:18:05 PM3/22/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 22/03/2012 16:52 PM, Lukas Blakk wrote:
> Phenotype? I have never seen this one before and wonder what exactly is trying
> to be achieved by including that in the list of 'diverse' groups we are
> 'honouring'.

Different habits of behaviour/mannerisms/...? Perhaps 'character' would work
here; although after a long day at work I'm not sure it means the same in
English as does its close Dutch friend 'karakter'.

As an example, communication habits (quick/slow responder, long/curt emails,
lots of office banter / dead serious, ...). I don't think that's covered under
just 'culture' or any of the other items.

It's interesting though, as I thought phenotype was well-known as the
corresponding thing to genotype (somewhat like genes/memes). I think I first
read about it as a teenager, either in some of my biology classes or when
reading Dennett. Perhaps a cultural difference/disagreement?

~ Gijs

Lukas Blakk

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 12:24:10 PM3/22/12
to gover...@lists.mozilla.org
On 3/22/12 9:18 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
> On 22/03/2012 16:52 PM, Lukas Blakk wrote:
>> Phenotype? I have never seen this one before and wonder what exactly
>> is trying
>> to be achieved by including that in the list of 'diverse' groups we are
>> 'honouring'.
>
> Different habits of behaviour/mannerisms/...? Perhaps 'character'
> would work here; although after a long day at work I'm not sure it
> means the same in English as does its close Dutch friend 'karakter'.
>
> As an example, communication habits (quick/slow responder, long/curt
> emails, lots of office banter / dead serious, ...). I don't think
> that's covered under just 'culture' or any of the other items.
>
> It's interesting though, as I thought phenotype was well-known as the
> corresponding thing to genotype (somewhat like genes/memes). I think I
> first read about it as a teenager, either in some of my biology
> classes or when reading Dennett. Perhaps a cultural
> difference/disagreement?
>
> ~ Gijs
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
Interesting and good to know. I suppose my assumption was that since
neurotype is listed, behaviours based on such was covered.

-Lukas

nige...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 12:26:01 PM3/22/12
to mozilla.g...@googlegroups.com, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Hi!

I talked to Daniel Holbach from the Community Council about the license for the CoC and he pointed me to https://launchpad.net/ubuntu-codeofconduct. The license there is "Other/Open Source (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0)". If we need further clarification, I'm happy to ask the Ubuntu Community Council

Cheers
Nigel

nige...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 12:26:01 PM3/22/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On Thursday, March 22, 2012 6:35:59 PM UTC+5:30, Deb Richardson wrote:

Boris Zbarsky

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 12:47:29 PM3/22/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 3/22/12 11:52 AM, Lukas Blakk wrote:
> Phenotype? I have never seen this one before

For me, that particular reference evoked ideas like hair color, height,
weight. So pretty distinct from neurotype and everything else in the
list...

-Boris

Lukas Blakk

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 1:04:43 PM3/22/12
to gover...@lists.mozilla.org
On 3/22/12 9:47 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 3/22/12 11:52 AM, Lukas Blakk wrote:
>> Phenotype? I have never seen this one before
>
> For me, that particular reference evoked ideas like hair color,
> height, weight. So pretty distinct from neurotype and everything else
> in the list...
>
> -Boris
Ok so 'phenotype' is a way of basically saying 'anything about a
person's physical appearance'? Wfm.

Deb Richardson

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 2:23:48 PM3/22/12
to Robert Kaiser, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Robert Kaiser <ka...@kairo.at> wrote:
> I found a nit while reading this:
> "Instead, leaders balance hard work on their own -- leadership by example --
> with delegation to others and hard work on their own."
>
> That's a bit repetitive, "hard work on their own" doesn't have to be
> balanced twice, I think. ;-)

Heh, yah. I do think there are bits that possibly need to be
wordsmithed a bit (aka: rewritten for clarity, not content), but that
will be a second stage once we're all agreed on the core content.

~ d

Tim Chevalier

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 1:55:58 PM3/22/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On Mar 22, 10:04 am, Lukas Blakk <lsbl...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Ok so 'phenotype' is a way of basically saying 'anything about a
> person's physical appearance'?  Wfm.

If that's the case, then I think "physical appearance" is a lot
clearer. It wouldn't be a bad idea to call out "size" specifically
since sizeism is a particularly common form of oppression based on
physical appearance, and when that's not called out specifically, many
people assume that fatphobia is the exception to the general rule
about commenting on someone's appearance negatively.

Cheers,
Tim

Majken Connor

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 3:21:58 PM3/22/12
to Tim Chevalier, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
I think it would be nicer to be less specific. I think if the larger term
covers it then that should do it. I hope the code (haven't read the whole
thing) has other sections about being mature and respectful in general so
that we don't need to list every little thing. I hope anyone that justifies
being mean with "it's not on the code" doesn't get away with it. I don't
think the people who would be interpreting this would let them get away
with it. I think the harder issue will be whether someone is being mean or
expressing concern for someone's health, which IMO is the only possible
acceptable situation in which to bring up someone's weight.

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Tim Chevalier <catamo...@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mar 22, 10:04 am, Lukas Blakk <lsbl...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> > Ok so 'phenotype' is a way of basically saying 'anything about a
> > person's physical appearance'? Wfm.
>
> If that's the case, then I think "physical appearance" is a lot
> clearer. It wouldn't be a bad idea to call out "size" specifically
> since sizeism is a particularly common form of oppression based on
> physical appearance, and when that's not called out specifically, many
> people assume that fatphobia is the exception to the general rule
> about commenting on someone's appearance negatively.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim

Tim Chevalier

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 4:04:59 PM3/22/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On Mar 22, 12:21 pm, Majken Connor <maj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it would be nicer to be less specific. I think if the larger term
> covers it then that should do it. I hope the code (haven't read the whole
> thing) has other sections about being mature and respectful in general so
> that we don't need to list every little thing. I hope anyone that justifies
> being mean with "it's not on the code" doesn't get away with it. I don't
> think the people who would be interpreting this would let them get away
> with it. I think the harder issue will be whether someone is being mean or
> expressing concern for someone's health, which IMO is the only possible
> acceptable situation in which to bring up someone's weight.
>

I disagree, and I think this response shows exactly why. We need to be
specific because without specificity, it's a given that it's OK to
bully fat people by phrasing it as concern about our health, and
[picking some examples that *are* in the document] it's OK to tell
women to "make me a sandwich" because sexism is funny, it's OK to de-
gender trans people, and so on. We inherit those assumptions from the
underlying culture we're in, and to create a culture that opposes
those oppressions, we need to be explicit. (As an aside, I hope that
no one thinks it's ever appropriate to make unsolicited comments about
a co-worker's health, especially when committing the fallacy of
assuming someone's appearance tells you something about their health
-- unless it's someone that you know well and trust, and the Code of
Conduct is intended to address interactions between people who *don't*
trust each other.)

Personally, I hope that the code of conduct is not about being mean or
being nice, as we all learn in kindergarten that it's bad to be mean
to people and good to be nice. I hope that none of us need a formal
document to tell us that. I hope that it's about power imbalances and
holding people who abuse their power accountable. That process *does*
require a formal document since most if not all of us have grown up in
a culture that legitimizes and normalizes the abuse of power. Intent
has no place in such a framework, as the language of intent is the
language of privileging abusers' explanations of why they abuse,
rather than the experience of people who are abused. What matters is
taking responsibility for one's actions and being accountable for
their consequences.

Cheers,
Tim

Nicholas Nethercote

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 9:05:34 PM3/22/12
to Lukas Blakk, gover...@lists.mozilla.org
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Lukas Blakk <lsb...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> Ok so 'phenotype' is a way of basically saying 'anything about a person's
> physical appearance'?  Wfm.

In that case, if it's changed from "phenotype" to "physical
appearance" that might avoid some future head-scratching :)

Nick

L. David Baron

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 9:50:57 PM3/22/12
to Nicholas Nethercote, Lukas Blakk, gover...@lists.mozilla.org
I think "physical appearance" and "phenotype" are somewhat
different. For example, I would consider a person's choice of
clothing (or choice of whether to wear clothing at all) is part of
their physical appearance but not part of their phenotype, whereas I
would think many disabilities (e.g., deafness) are part of phenotype
but aren't part of physical appearance.

-David

--
𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂
𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂

Mitchell Baker

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 1:32:45 AM3/23/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
I'm worried we're going to far.
I make unsolicited remarks about co-workers' health all the time. When
someone I work with has a cough and a low, scratchy voice, I often ask
if s/he is all right. If it's someone I think is working on things that
are related to me or my work, I sometimes suggest I can wait a day or two.

Is this really wrong?


Also, I view the Code of Conduct as something much more positive and
optimistic than a document between people who don't trust each other.
It's a document for people of wildly different cultures and belief
systems and ways of interacting to set out our aspirations, and the
interaction style we're trying to build.

It's a tool to help people, and a tool for people who feel some behavior
goes beyond behavior they don't like to something that should be a
community matter.


Mitchell

Axel Hecht

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 3:34:59 AM3/23/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
I don't know a few of those terms, mostly the -type ones. Can we make
sure that the ones we use have descriptions on wikipedia that help to
understand them in context? If there are not, I'd suggest to not use them.

Axel

da...@illsley.org

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 3:58:06 AM3/23/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Lukas Blakk <lsb...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>
>> What about something like: " Mozilla endeavors to foster a just and
>> inclusive culture that embraces the diversity of the people involved and
>> interacting with the project, with zero tolerance for discrimination
>> based on age, etc....."?

Broadly, I prefer to stick with a goal of and belief in the value of a
diverse community and use that goal/belief to engage with people and
situations where that is being harmed. Defining discrimination is clearly
difficult. Recognising and getting rough consensus on behaviour which is
harmful to building a diverse community seems like it would be easier.

David

Yvan Boily

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 4:23:06 AM3/23/12
to gover...@lists.mozilla.org
To clarify any confusion, from a biological perspective, genotype refers
to the genetic potential of an organism. For example, each individual
has a genetic code (or multiple, in the case of chimeric individuals, or
a variety other genetic variations; an understanding of human genetics
being 46 chromosomes common to all of the cells in our bodies is deeply
flawed), and this supplies a set of genetic potentials, for example, the
height, weight, bone density, facial structure, propensity towards
diseases (e.g. oncogenes that leave an individual predisposed to certain
cancers), etc.

The phenotype of an individual is the expression of that genotype as a
result of the environment the organism lives in. While phenotype is
frequently thought of as the genetic expression as a result of
environmental considerations such as nutrition, ecological factors such
as elevation, etc, more modern considerations include other factors such
as interaction with other organisms (intra- or inter-species).

Ultimately the phenotype of a human being folds in the social
interactions as part of those environmental interactions. If you are
looking for a way to say you want to include anyone, regardless of their
differences, selecting to ban exclusion on phenotype is probably the
most inclusive you can get because it covers every potential aspect of
"being" that a person can be regardless of whether they got there
through personal choice, social pressure, or a biological imperative.

Chris Ilias

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 2:41:27 PM3/22/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 12-03-22 11:52 AM, Lukas Blakk wrote:
> On 3/22/12 6:05 AM, Deb Richardson wrote:
>>
>> 1) Is there anything that should be added? Is there anything we need
>> to add for the document to apply to all of the situations, people and
>> groups we want our Code of Conduct to address?
> The section on Mailing lists and web forums - it may be wise to include:
> "Mozilla project syndicated/aggregated/published blog posts" in there.
> What you write on your blog may be your business, but the project does
> syndicate and re-publish blog posts that you send to any of our numerous
> planets so it seems as fitting as web forums/newsgroups as a category to
> mention here.

But personal blog posts aren't posted "to" planet. They're posted to a
personal blog. How about including that section above, but specify
"Mozilla *hosted* " blogs?

David Mason

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 1:31:31 PM3/23/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
After Deb made the suggestion of using the Ubuntu CoC as a starting
point on thinking about this, I contacted a friend who works for
Canonical to ask some questions about it. He put me in touch with a
couple people who work on the CoC and the "council" they have set up to
help resolve disputes.

Deb and I are continuing some questioning of these folks about what has
worked and what hasn't, but I did want to point out that they pointed us
to a v2 draft which is in the works. This draft tries to address some
concerns people have had with the first version.

The work on v2 is happening here:
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~sabdfl/ubuntu-codeofconduct/v2-draft/view/head:/MergedCodeOfConduct.txt

One thing mentioned is that they wanted to make it smaller, and easier
to read - and you might notice that.

By the way, the most encouraging thing said so far was this:

"In lots of conversations I've had at conferences and elsewhere people
mentioned to me that it was the CoC and what it stood for which made
Ubuntu attractive for them, so if you should decide to adopt it I expect
it to have great and positive impact on your community."

I'd like to think that this will be true for a Mozilla Code as well :)



Dave

Aakash Desai

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 1:59:00 PM3/23/12
to David Mason, knas...@mozilla.com, mich...@mozillafoundation.org, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org, sh...@mozilla.com, am...@mozilla.com
Looking through this, it'd be good to have the folks that are working on
the Events Gathering Plan look and amend where possible for any sort of
pieces that are missing when Mozillians are meeting each other in off-line
areas. Cc'ing them to this convo.

Also, I'm probably getting ahead of myself, but we may want to link to this
in our standard footer once its done.

-- Aakash

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:31 AM, David Mason <d...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> After Deb made the suggestion of using the Ubuntu CoC as a starting point
> on thinking about this, I contacted a friend who works for Canonical to ask
> some questions about it. He put me in touch with a couple people who work
> on the CoC and the "council" they have set up to help resolve disputes.
>
> Deb and I are continuing some questioning of these folks about what has
> worked and what hasn't, but I did want to point out that they pointed us to
> a v2 draft which is in the works. This draft tries to address some concerns
> people have had with the first version.
>
> The work on v2 is happening here: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~**
> sabdfl/ubuntu-codeofconduct/**v2-draft/view/head:/**
> MergedCodeOfConduct.txt<http://bazaar.launchpad.net/%7Esabdfl/ubuntu-codeofconduct/v2-draft/view/head:/MergedCodeOfConduct.txt>
>
> One thing mentioned is that they wanted to make it smaller, and easier to
> read - and you might notice that.
>
> By the way, the most encouraging thing said so far was this:
>
> "In lots of conversations I've had at conferences and elsewhere people
> mentioned to me that it was the CoC and what it stood for which made
> Ubuntu attractive for them, so if you should decide to adopt it I expect
> it to have great and positive impact on your community."
>
> I'd like to think that this will be true for a Mozilla Code as well :)
>
>
>
> Dave
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>
>

Mike Connor

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 10:50:52 AM3/26/12
to Tim Chevalier, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 2012-03-22, at 1:04 PM, Tim Chevalier wrote:

> and the Code of
> Conduct is intended to address interactions between people who *don't*
> trust each other.)

I'm not at all sure that's right, or a good distinction to make. There have been a number of people who I have had outright yelling matches with about Mozilla issues, both in front of others and on public conference calls. (As an extreme case, I was once told by a colleague "I hope you die in a fire" during a meeting. Then we went for dinner and drinks afterwards and laughed about it.) But that type of behaviour isn't actually great for anyone else, and certainly doesn't make it attractive for others to get involved or contribute to the conversation. It also doesn't set a good example for others to follow ("you mean being a sarcastic jerk isn't normal at Mozilla?"), and that is something that I've been working on being much more intentional about in general.

I hope that the Code of Conduct helps all of us interact in healthier and more welcoming ways, at least in contexts where that behaviour is visible to/affects others, but hopefully in all cases.

> Personally, I hope that the code of conduct is not about being mean or
> being nice, as we all learn in kindergarten that it's bad to be mean
> to people and good to be nice. I hope that none of us need a formal
> document to tell us that. I hope that it's about power imbalances and
> holding people who abuse their power accountable. That process *does*
> require a formal document since most if not all of us have grown up in
> a culture that legitimizes and normalizes the abuse of power.

Frankly, I would be greatly disappointed in any outcome that focuses on some definition of power, and attempts to prescribe who can be abusers and who can be victims. If someone's actions cause hurt or offence, that behaviour should be addressed and curtailed, regardless of intent, trappings of power, or any other factor.

> Intent
> has no place in such a framework, as the language of intent is the
> language of privileging abusers' explanations of why they abuse,
> rather than the experience of people who are abused.

Intent, or lack thereof, absolutely does not matter on the level of "should this problem be addressed?" or "should the offender take action to resolve the problem?" If there is an issue, a resolution must be found.

That said, I believe intent (and context, and many other factors) are all factors that should be considered in finding a resolution. Someone who intentionally and repeatedly hurts others is an individual we would need to deal with differently from someone who inadvertently causes offence, and sincerely wants to do better. It doesn't _excuse_ the behaviour, but it factors into reaching the right outcome.

> What matters is
> taking responsibility for one's actions and being accountable for
> their consequences.

I agree wholeheartedly with this specific sentence. As someone who rarely, if ever, intends to cause offence, but has done so on too many occasions, I have worked very hard to separate intent from consequences, and to focus on addressing consequences in good faith, while on both sides of issues. That's a hard thing for me personally (and many people I've known), but it's absolutely the right thing to do.

-- Mike

Gervase Markham

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 12:23:51 PM3/26/12
to Lukas Blakk
On 22/03/12 15:52, Lukas Blakk wrote:
> The section on Mailing lists and web forums - it may be wise to include:
> "Mozilla project syndicated/aggregated/published blog posts" in there.
> What you write on your blog may be your business, but the project does
> syndicate and re-publish blog posts that you send to any of our numerous
> planets so it seems as fitting as web forums/newsgroups as a category to
> mention here.

I think that currently the Planet module owners are responsible for
Planet content policy, and that if this responsibility is to be taken
away from them, it should be done explicitly, with discussions of the
pros and cons of that particular move, rather than via an update to a
Code of Conduct document.

> Phenotype? I have never seen this one before and wonder what exactly is
> trying to be achieved by including that in the list of 'diverse' groups
> we are 'honouring'.

I think we have to be careful about specifying a class as wide as
phenotype; people could easily claim that their personal irritating
mannerisms and trolling are part of their phenotype! :-)

> On that note, the term 'honouring' is not what I'd
> be looking to see there. I don't know if that's the correct word or
> sentiment for trying to ensure that we are striving to ensure people in
> those groups face as little discrimination as we can control when they
> are within the space of the Mozilla project. What about something like:
> " Mozilla endeavors to foster a just and inclusive culture that embraces
> the diversity of the people involved and interacting with the project,
> with zero tolerance for discrimination based on age, etc....."?

I also have issues with "honour"; see my reply to dria. I would be very
interested to know if you think your formulation avoids the problem I
raise with "honour" or not.

Gerv

Gervase Markham

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 12:23:53 PM3/26/12
to Deb Richardson
On 22/03/12 13:05, Deb Richardson wrote:
> Step I: If you want to help, please closely and carefully read through
> the draft and consider the following questions:

I rather like the Ubuntu Code of Conduct and would be happy to see it
adopted pretty much unchanged, although perhaps tweaked for clarity in
some places. The Diversity Statement part has at least one problem; see
below.

> 1) Is there anything that should be added? Is there anything we need
> to add for the document to apply to all of the situations, people and
> groups we want our Code of Conduct to address?

I think that the details, make-up and processes surrounding the proposed
Mozilla Community Council are at least as important as the actual
content of the Code of Conduct, and that it would be premature to
approve a code without knowing how that part of the system will work. Do
you plan to make a proposal about this?

Given that you (entirely correctly, as a starting point) basically just
search-and-replaced Ubuntu to Mozilla, thereby 'creating' a Mozilla
Community Council :-), is the very idea of a Community Council up for
debate? Are you interested in alternative governance proposals to take
on the role currently envisaged for the Council?

> 2) Is there anything that should be removed? Are there things in the
> document that simply to not apply to Mozilla or that we do not want
> our Code of Conduct to address?
>
> 3) Is there anything significant that should be changed? At this
> point, please do not include grammar issues, nits, typos,
> wordsmithing, etc. -- we can deal with any needed rewrites and tweaks
> once we have all the raw content sorted out.

I may have more comments when I've thought about it more, but here is
one for now.

The code says:

"we explicitly honour diversity in ... religion, ...".

Who is "we", and what does it mean to "honour"?

If we is "everyone in the Mozilla project" and "honour" means "be glad
about the fact of" or "celebrate", then I think many Mozillians,
including me, would not want to accede to this. Let me explain why.

I picked religion as an example in the quote above, although the below
analysis applies to more categories on the list than just that one.
While I am happy to make welcome, work with, respect the person of, and
be friends and colleagues with people of other religions, it is wrong to
say that I am glad about the fact of religious diversity. I, and other
Mozilla Christians, think everyone in the world should turn to Jesus and
become a Christian, and are sad that this isn't yet the case.

There are others in the Mozilla community who think all religion is
stupid and foolish (and they are entitled to their view, and to express
it). They also, I suspect, are not glad about the fact of religious
diversity. They think the world would be a much better place if everyone
threw off religion entirely, and are sad that it hasn't happened yet.

There are, of course, people who are pluralists and think a diversity of
religions is a marvellous thing. "Whatever works for you, dude." That's
also a view some people hold. But we should not enshrine it as the view
required by everyone in order to participate in Mozilla.

(Note that the above _is_ on topic: the question is not about the
validity or otherwise of particular religions, but about what people are
signing up to when they have to "honour diversity" in religion. Let's
not get distracted as to the pros and cons of each view; if we can at
least agree that different people in Mozilla do hold the different views
named above, then my point is made.)

Suggestion: how about "as a community, we explicitly welcome people of
diverse ... religion, ... etc."? Or perhaps other people can think of
different introductory words which don't hit the problem noted above.

Gerv

Mike Connor

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 1:03:20 PM3/26/12
to Gervase Markham, David Mason, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 2012-03-26, at 12:25 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:

> On 23/03/12 17:31, David Mason wrote:
>> The work on v2 is happening here:
>> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~sabdfl/ubuntu-codeofconduct/v2-draft/view/head:/MergedCodeOfConduct.txt
>
> Is there a diff somewhere, either word-by-word or in terms of a list of
> significant changes?
>
> One concern about using a version of their CoC which even they have not
> yet adopted is that it's not a document which has stood the test of time
> and debugging like the original one.


Much like many could have argued against rapid adoption of MPLv2! The counter-argument is that their v2 is likely to be the result of where v1 has been shown to be less than ideal, and will be a stronger policy as a result.

I don't know where they are in their cycle, but it might even be worth collaborating with them to build a generic version that any community could choose to adopt.

-- Mike

Mike Connor

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 1:04:41 PM3/26/12
to Gervase Markham, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org, Deb Richardson

On 2012-03-26, at 12:23 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:

> I may have more comments when I've thought about it more, but here is
> one for now.
>
> The code says:
>
> "we explicitly honour diversity in ... religion, ...".
>
> Who is "we", and what does it mean to "honour"?
>
> If we is "everyone in the Mozilla project" and "honour" means "be glad
> about the fact of" or "celebrate", then I think many Mozillians,
> including me, would not want to accede to this. Let me explain why.

Honour is a really overloaded word, but I think in this case "to respect or esteem" might be a best definition. So, let's say we replace that with respect. Do you have the same concerns with the idea of Mozilla _respecting_ religious diversity?

-- Mike

David Mason

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 1:49:44 PM3/26/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 3/26/12 1:03 PM, Mike Connor wrote:

> Much like many could have argued against rapid adoption of MPLv2! The counter-argument is that their v2 is likely to be the result of where v1 has been shown to be less than ideal, and will be a stronger policy as a result.
>
> I don't know where they are in their cycle, but it might even be worth collaborating with them to build a generic version that any community could choose to adopt.


Yes, this is exactly why I thought it a good idea to point to the v2
draft. Its also why I decided to talk to a couple of the people who work
with the Ubuntu CoC. I'll post more when I've had more questions
answered from them.

btw, there is no pre-made diff of v1 vs v2 that I know of, but it might
not be all that useful as they've cut down the length so much.


Thanks!

Dave

Majken Connor

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 4:18:13 PM3/26/12
to Robert Kaiser, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
I think this is a good point. The code should also talk about how we do
treat each other. I think a lot of the little things people are worried
about being brought to conflict resolution are the kinds of things that
come up when you don't really know each other. Friends can be "offensive"
with each other because we know when to take their comments personally and
when they're just talking.

If we go out of our way to make people feel welcome and included then it's
hard to make them feel unwelcome by making a joke in a side channel or on
an off-topic blog post. It doesn't prevent any conflicts, but it makes it
more likely that people will talk it out and feel comfortable talking it
out.

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Robert Kaiser <ka...@kairo.at> wrote:

> Tim Chevalier schrieb:
>
> the Code of
>> Conduct is intended to address interactions between people who *don't*
>> trust each other.
>>
>
> As for me, I want to trust all Mozillians. Does that mean I don't need a
> Code of Conduct for interactions with them? ;-)
>
> Seriously, I fully agree with Mitchell here - let's not go too far here,
> esp. at this point where it's a version 1.0 we're working on.
>
> Robert Kaiser
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>
>

Gervase Markham

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 5:33:47 AM3/27/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 26/03/12 18:03, Mike Connor wrote:
> Much like many could have argued against rapid adoption of MPLv2!

Outside Mozilla, I'd certainly expect people to be cautious about
adopting MPL 2.

> The counter-argument is that their v2 is likely to be the result of
> where v1 has been shown to be less than ideal, and will be a stronger
> policy as a result.

Yes, that's also possible. Which is why a diff would be useful - even if
we based on v1 rather than v2, it would show us which parts the Ubuntu
community thought needed updating.

Gerv

Gervase Markham

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 5:46:50 AM3/27/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 26/03/12 18:04, Mike Connor wrote:
> Honour is a really overloaded word, but I think in this case "to
> respect or esteem" might be a best definition. So, let's say we
> replace that with respect. Do you have the same concerns with the
> idea of Mozilla _respecting_ religious diversity?

Hmm. I think "respect" can be a bit of a slippery word, often because
it's not quite clear what or whom one is respecting. That doesn't mean
we couldn't use it, just that we'd need to be clear about what we meant.

Wikipedia: "Respect denotes a positive feeling of esteem or deference
for a person or other entity (such as a nation or a religion), and also
specific actions and conduct representative of that esteem."

So, in our example, respect can be for a person or for a religion. Let's
imagine person X has a religion other than mine, religion Y.

"I respect Person X" - no problem

"I respect Person X's right to hold their view" - no problem

"I respect Religion Y" - problem.

"I respect religious diversity" - ???. Do I have positive feelings
towards religious diversity? No. Do I accept its existence? Yes. Do I
attempt to ban it from our community? No, of course not.

So "Mozilla is a community which respects people of diverse ...,
religion, ..." would be fine. Perhaps the division is this: I am happy
to respect the people, but not the fact of diversity (if we continue to
use the example of religion). Not respecting the fact of diversity
doesn't mean I will work _against_ it by trying to get rid of people
(perish the thought!), it just means I don't have positive feelings
about it.

Gerv

goo...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 11:17:24 AM3/27/12
to mozilla.g...@googlegroups.com, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Le mardi 27 mars 2012 11:46:50 UTC+2, Gervase Markham a écrit :

> So "Mozilla is a community which respects people of diverse ...,
> religion, ..." would be fine.

a little friendly observation here: in your search for tolerance, you are assuming implicitly everyone has a religion or religious convictions which is untrue. How would you cope with the fact that stating religious convictions even as Code-of-Conduct-compliant as possible would hurt atheists?
(sorry for side question but I'm interested in, no troll intended)

goo...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 11:17:24 AM3/27/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Le mardi 27 mars 2012 11:46:50 UTC+2, Gervase Markham a écrit :

> So "Mozilla is a community which respects people of diverse ...,
> religion, ..." would be fine.

Gervase Markham

unread,
Mar 30, 2012, 8:50:33 AM3/30/12
to goo...@gmail.com
On 27/03/12 16:17, goo...@gmail.com wrote:
> a little friendly observation here: in your search for tolerance, you
> are assuming implicitly everyone has a religion or religious
> convictions which is untrue. How would you cope with the fact that
> stating religious convictions even as Code-of-Conduct-compliant as
> possible would hurt atheists? (sorry for side question but I'm
> interested in, no troll intended)

My personal answer would be that atheism is a faith, and so there is no
problem. :-) Everyone has a bottom-line thing that they can't prove by
reference to other things, because if they could it wouldn't be the
bottom line. However, others may disagree.

"Religion" is not alone in the list in having this issue; people could
also claim to have no profession (perhaps they are unemployed and have
never been employed) or no political beliefs.

Gerv

Yvan Boily

unread,
Mar 30, 2012, 3:42:14 PM3/30/12
to gover...@lists.mozilla.org
On 12-03-27 2:46 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Hmm. I think "respect" can be a bit of a slippery word, often because
> it's not quite clear what or whom one is respecting.
>
> Wikipedia: "Respect denotes a positive feeling of esteem or deference
> for a person or other entity (such as a nation or a religion), and also
> specific actions and conduct representative of that esteem."
That definition is focused on a personal world view, . A code of
conduct is not a set of rules governing how someone feels, it is a set
of rules governing how individuals are expected to behave, and one that
frequently enshrines a set of ideals that the group it governs values.
Even if an individual doesn't don't have the share the ideals of the
group they are expected to meet those behavioral expectations.

That said, since you chose this definition, you need to reassess what it
is that you are respecting. In the context of this discussion (the
CoC), the target of your respect is the Community, not the individual or
ideas.
> So, in our example, respect can be for a person or for a religion. Let's
> imagine person X has a religion other than mine, religion Y.
>
> "I respect Person X" - no problem
>
> "I respect Person X's right to hold their view" - no problem
>
> "I respect Religion Y" - problem.
>
> "I respect religious diversity" - ???. Do I have positive feelings
> towards religious diversity? No. Do I accept its existence? Yes. Do I
> attempt to ban it from our community? No, of course not.
becomes:

"I will treat Person X with respect because I respect the Community." - no problem

"I respect Person X's right to hold their view because I respect the Community." - no problem

"I will treat Religion Y with respect because I respect the Community." - Still a problem? That is *your* problem, not the communities problem.

"I will treat the idea of religious diversity as a positive value with respect because I respect the Community" - Still a problem? Again, that is your problem, not the communities problem.

> So "Mozilla is a community which respects people of diverse ...,
> religion, ..." would be fine. Perhaps the division is this: I am happy
> to respect the people, but not the fact of diversity (if we continue to
> use the example of religion). Not respecting the fact of diversity
> doesn't mean I will work _against_ it by trying to get rid of people
> (perish the thought!), it just means I don't have positive feelings
> about it.
Individuals may not respect the people, or the beliefs of other people
(being), but within the context of the community, they should treat
those people and their beliefs with respect (doing).

Gervase Markham

unread,
Apr 2, 2012, 10:56:56 AM4/2/12
to Yvan Boily
On 30/03/12 20:42, Yvan Boily wrote:
> "I will treat Religion Y with respect because I respect the
> Community." - Still a problem? That is *your* problem, not the
> communities problem.

So, substituting for Religion Y to make a concrete example, you think
that everyone in the Mozilla Community needs to treat Scientology with
respect in order to be part of Mozilla? And if they don't, that's their
problem and they need to fix it?

> "I will treat the idea of religious diversity as a positive value
> with respect because I respect the Community" - Still a problem?
> Again, that is your problem, not the communities problem.

I read this as effectively saying that the position should be "one can
only be a member of this community if one feels that religious diversity
is a a positive thing". Is that what you are arguing for?

If so, I think that Mozilla should not enforce that all participants
have a positive view of religious pluralism (or
anything-else-pluralism). I suspect many, many Mozillians currently do
not; we would lose a large number of community members.

> Individuals may not respect the people, or the beliefs of other
> people (being), but within the context of the community, they should
> treat those people and their beliefs with respect (doing).

But we we back to the question of what it means to treat a belief with
respect. What do you think it means? Not disagreeing with them in
discussion?

That would seem pretty debate-restricting to me (and pretty hard to
enforce; lots of people disagreed with me recently :-).

Gerv

Yvan Boily

unread,
Apr 2, 2012, 5:45:29 PM4/2/12
to Gervase Markham, gover...@lists.mozilla.org
On 12-04-02 7:56 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 30/03/12 20:42, Yvan Boily wrote:
>> "I will treat Religion Y with respect because I respect the
>> Community." - Still a problem? That is *your* problem, not the
>> communities problem.
> So, substituting for Religion Y to make a concrete example, you think
> that everyone in the Mozilla Community needs to treat Scientology with
> respect in order to be part of Mozilla? And if they don't, that's their
> problem and they need to fix it?
In the context of interactions with another person in the community who
claims that Scientology is their faith, yes, and this doesn't just apply
to religion, or lifestyle, or sexual orientation (or any other facet).
The bottom line is that communities are strengthened by people being
respectful of differences, regardless of their feelings. It seems that
from your perspective, it would be better if everyone were Christian,
and from mine it would be better if everyone were atheist, but the
reason we can function in a community together is because we choose to
moderate our messages, both to each other, and to the community at large.
>> "I will treat the idea of religious diversity as a positive value
>> with respect because I respect the Community" - Still a problem?
>> Again, that is your problem, not the communities problem.
> I read this as effectively saying that the position should be "one can
> only be a member of this community if one feels that religious diversity
> is a a positive thing". Is that what you are arguing for?
>
> If so, I think that Mozilla should not enforce that all participants
> have a positive view of religious pluralism (or
> anything-else-pluralism). I suspect many, many Mozillians currently do
> not; we would lose a large number of community members.
Again, not about views or beliefs, it is about actions and behavior in
the context of the community. Virtually everybody has the ability to
think or feel something and not translate that thought or feeling
directly into an action. We moderate ourselves to be able to function
with other people.
>> Individuals may not respect the people, or the beliefs of other
>> people (being), but within the context of the community, they should
>> treat those people and their beliefs with respect (doing).
> But we we back to the question of what it means to treat a belief with
> respect. What do you think it means? Not disagreeing with them in
> discussion?
That, or by not starting or engaging in the discussion in the first
place (strictly in the context of the community). Self-expression is
very important, but sometimes self-censorship is the step that is
required to preserve communities. The Code of Conduct should state what
areas are of concern, and promote the idea that it is a personal
responsibility to adhere to that (self-censorship) rather than trying to
create a laundry list of areas that are "off-limits". That form of
self-censorship should be practiced in the spirit of building community
and respect for the community.
> That would seem pretty debate-restricting to me (and pretty hard to
> enforce; lots of people disagreed with me recently :-).
I disagree with many of your opinions, and I think sometimes the way you
share them is harmful to the community, but I also believe very strongly
in the importance of freedom of expression. The larger point of concern
is how to drive inclusiveness without limiting debate except where that
debate is harmful to the community.

Gervase Markham

unread,
Apr 3, 2012, 5:33:56 AM4/3/12
to Yvan Boily
On 02/04/12 22:45, Yvan Boily wrote:
> In the context of interactions with another person in the community who
> claims that Scientology is their faith, yes, and this doesn't just apply
> to religion, or lifestyle, or sexual orientation (or any other facet).
> The bottom line is that communities are strengthened by people being
> respectful of differences, regardless of their feelings.

But "respectful of differences" blurs the line again. I'm happy to be
respectful of people who are Scientologists. I have no problem being
part of a religiously diverse community. But I'm not happy to be
respectful (in the normally understood sense of the word, involving
having positive feelings towards) of Scientology, or of some behaviour
engaged in by Scientologists, such as stalking reporters who are
attempting to interview ex-Scientologists. And I suspect I'm not alone
in this, within Mozilla.

Does that mean I'd act rudely towards a Mozillian Scientologist, or make
them feel unwelcome, or try and kick them out of the community? Not at
all; I'm good friends with one. (I won't name him, although I think it's
a matter of public record that he's a Scientologist. I don't think we've
specifically discussed it together, though.)

The code of conduct should call for us to respect people, and treat them
well. If people want it to, perhaps it could particularly warn us to do
so if that person is a member of ones of a specific set of groups.
However, it should not call for respect of all ideas or of all personal
behaviours. This would be doing what Mitchell warned against - enforcing
agreement on things outside the Mozilla mission.

> It seems that
> from your perspective, it would be better if everyone were Christian,
> and from mine it would be better if everyone were atheist, but the
> reason we can function in a community together is because we choose to
> moderate our messages, both to each other, and to the community at large.

I think the reason we can function together in a community is that we
can engage in polite debate about issues at appropriate moments. I don't
think I have to have a positive view of atheism to be in a community
with you, and I don't think you need to have a positive view of
Christianity to be in a community with me.

>> I read this as effectively saying that the position should be "one can
>> only be a member of this community if one feels that religious diversity
>> is a a positive thing". Is that what you are arguing for?
>>
>> If so, I think that Mozilla should not enforce that all participants
>> have a positive view of religious pluralism (or
>> anything-else-pluralism). I suspect many, many Mozillians currently do
>> not; we would lose a large number of community members.
>
> Again, not about views or beliefs, it is about actions and behavior in
> the context of the community. Virtually everybody has the ability to
> think or feel something and not translate that thought or feeling
> directly into an action. We moderate ourselves to be able to function
> with other people.

Yes, but we are not asked to act inconsistently with our beliefs (which
is hypocrisy). Your original statement was:

"I will treat the idea of religious diversity as a positive value
with respect because I respect the Community"

And you now clarify that this is about actions and behaviour. You are
therefore asking me to act and behave in a way that conflicts with my
belief about the value, or otherwise, of religious diversity. You are
asking me to be a hypocrite.

And you are doing so unnecessarily; as I said above, I really don't
think it's necessary to have a positive view of religious diversity to
be in a community with people of diverse religion. You are in the
Mozilla community, right? It's of diverse religion, and yet you would
prefer that everyone was atheist.

>>> Individuals may not respect the people, or the beliefs of other
>>> people (being), but within the context of the community, they should
>>> treat those people and their beliefs with respect (doing).
>> But we we back to the question of what it means to treat a belief with
>> respect. What do you think it means? Not disagreeing with them in
>> discussion?
>
> That,

OK... then everyone who disagreed with me when I expressed my belief
about the correct use of the word 'marriage' shouldn't have done so?

> I disagree with many of your opinions, and I think sometimes the way you
> share them is harmful to the community, but I also believe very strongly
> in the importance of freedom of expression. The larger point of concern
> is how to drive inclusiveness without limiting debate except where that
> debate is harmful to the community.

I think this statement doesn't have much force without a definition of
"harm", and how it is determined.

Gerv

Yvan Boily

unread,
Apr 3, 2012, 11:52:46 AM4/3/12
to Gervase Markham, gover...@lists.mozilla.org
On 12-04-03 2:33 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 02/04/12 22:45, Yvan Boily wrote:
> The code of conduct should call for us to respect people, and treat
> them well. If people want it to, perhaps it could particularly warn us
> to do so if that person is a member of ones of a specific set of
> groups. However, it should not call for respect of all ideas or of all
> personal behaviours. This would be doing what Mitchell warned against
> - enforcing agreement on things outside the Mozilla mission.
I give up trying to explain the difference between respecting and idea,
and treating it respectfully.
>> It seems that
>> from your perspective, it would be better if everyone were Christian,
>> and from mine it would be better if everyone were atheist, but thes
>> reason we can function in a community together is because we choose to
>> moderate our messages, both to each other, and to the community at large.
> I think the reason we can function together in a community is that we
> can engage in polite debate about issues at appropriate moments. I don't
> think I have to have a positive view of atheism to be in a community
> with you, and I don't think you need to have a positive view of
> Christianity to be in a community with me.
I agree; in fact the point I made was that it is because we moderate our
messages that we can participate in a community.
>>> I read this as effectively saying that the position should be "one can
>>> only be a member of this community if one feels that religious diversity
>>> is a a positive thing". Is that what you are arguing for?
>>>
>>> If so, I think that Mozilla should not enforce that all participants
>>> have a positive view of religious pluralism (or
>>> anything-else-pluralism). I suspect many, many Mozillians currently do
>>> not; we would lose a large number of community members.
>> Again, not about views or beliefs, it is about actions and behavior in
>> the context of the community. Virtually everybody has the ability to
>> think or feel something and not translate that thought or feeling
>> directly into an action. We moderate ourselves to be able to function
>> with other people.
> Yes, but we are not asked to act inconsistently with our beliefs (which
> is hypocrisy). Your original statement was:
>
> "I will treat the idea of religious diversity as a positive value
> with respect because I respect the Community"
>
> And you now clarify that this is about actions and behaviour. You are
> therefore asking me to act and behave in a way that conflicts with my
> belief about the value, or otherwise, of religious diversity. You are
> asking me to be a hypocrite.
If you think that treating people and their values with dignity and
respect in the workplace or the community makes you a hypocrite, that is
something you have to deal with.
> And you are doing so unnecessarily; as I said above, I really don't
> think it's necessary to have a positive view of religious diversity to
> be in a community with people of diverse religion. You are in the
> Mozilla community, right? It's of diverse religion, and yet you would
> prefer that everyone was atheist.
To be clear, the only reason I brought up atheism was because it
provided a contrasting perspective. I make a point of avoiding
religious discussion in the community (and throughout my professional
life) since there is no value in having that discussion; I have nothing
to add to a discussion on religion, and I gain no benefit from
discussing religion, but in discussing it there is a good possibility
that it would negatively impact community members involved.

To be clear, I do not respect religion, but (at the very least, in the
context of the community, but also in my personal life) I do respect
that individuals may hold those values, I can treat those values with
respect, and I can respect people who 'have religion'. In the context
of the community, having those values does not impact their
contributions to the community. As a result I can respect the community
and their contributions to the community, and in doing so, overcome the
differences in perspective.
>>>> Individuals may not respect the people, or the beliefs of othe
>>>> people (being), but within the context of the community, they should
>>>> treat those people and their beliefs with respect (doing).
>>> But we we back to the question of what it means to treat a belief with
>>> respect. What do you think it means? Not disagreeing with them in
>>> discussion?
>> That,
> OK... then everyone who disagreed with me when I expressed my belief
> about the correct use of the word 'marriage' shouldn't have done so?
>
>> I disagree with many of your opinions, and I think sometimes the way you
>> share them is harmful to the community, but I also believe very strongly
>> in the importance of freedom of expression. The larger point of concern
>> is how to drive inclusiveness without limiting debate except where that
>> debate is harmful to the community.
> I think this statement doesn't have much force without a definition of
> "harm", and how it is determined.
>
harmful to the community = activities or behaviors that contribute to
members leaving the community for reasons other than incompatibility
with the core mission or values of the community

Gervase Markham

unread,
Apr 4, 2012, 5:00:18 AM4/4/12
to Yvan Boily
On 03/04/12 16:52, Yvan Boily wrote:
>> The code of conduct should call for us to respect people, and treat
>> them well. If people want it to, perhaps it could particularly warn us
>> to do so if that person is a member of ones of a specific set of
>> groups. However, it should not call for respect of all ideas or of all
>> personal behaviours. This would be doing what Mitchell warned against
>> - enforcing agreement on things outside the Mozilla mission.
>
> I give up trying to explain the difference between respecting and idea,
> and treating it respectfully.

If I do not respect an idea, but act as if I do, how is that not hypocrisy?

>> And you now clarify that this is about actions and behaviour. You are
>> therefore asking me to act and behave in a way that conflicts with my
>> belief about the value, or otherwise, of religious diversity. You are
>> asking me to be a hypocrite.
>
> If you think that treating people and their values with dignity and
> respect in the workplace or the community makes you a hypocrite, that is
> something you have to deal with.

But again, you put "people and their values" together. I am happy to
treat a person with respect. But if the person values inflicting pain on
others for their own pleasure (for example), I am not going to treat
that value with respect. And I hope you wouldn't either.

>> I think this statement doesn't have much force without a definition of
>> "harm", and how it is determined.
>>
> harmful to the community = activities or behaviors that contribute to
> members leaving the community for reasons other than incompatibility
> with the core mission or values of the community

Then I'd hope you'd agree with me that it would be harmful to create a
code of conduct which required assent to political or philosophical
stances unrelated to our core mission and values (such as "religious
pluralism is a good thing" or "one must treat any value another
community member holds, such as sadism, with respect"). Because anyone
who disagreed with such stances would then have to leave - which would
be harmful to the community, by your definition.

Gerv

Yvan Boily

unread,
Apr 4, 2012, 10:51:48 AM4/4/12
to Gervase Markham, gover...@lists.mozilla.org
On 12-04-04 2:00 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 03/04/12 16:52, Yvan Boily wrote:
>>> The code of conduct should call for us to respect people, and treat
>>> them well. If people want it to, perhaps it could particularly warn us
>>> to do so if that person is a member of ones of a specific set of
>>> groups. However, it should not call for respect of all ideas or of all
>>> personal behaviours. This would be doing what Mitchell warned against
>>> - enforcing agreement on things outside the Mozilla mission.
>> I give up trying to explain the difference between respecting and idea,
>> and treating it respectfully.
> If I do not respect an idea, but act as if I do, how is that not hypocrisy?
There is a difference between having respect for an idea or a person,
and treating that person or idea with respect. The ability to do so is
the way that people of different values find a compromise, it is not
hypocrisy. It would be hypocrisy if you were expect to promote the idea
or claim to have that idea as a personal value. I don't think it is
unreasonable to expect a community member to at least be respectful
towards an idea that is a cornerstone of the community (that is,
inclusiveness).
>>> And you now clarify that this is about actions and behaviour. You are
>>> therefore asking me to act and behave in a way that conflicts with my
>>> belief about the value, or otherwise, of religious diversity. You are
>>> asking me to be a hypocrite.
>> If you think that treating people and their values with dignity and
>> respect in the workplace or the community makes you a hypocrite, that is
>> something you have to deal with.
> But again, you put "people and their values" together. I am happy to
> treat a person with respect. But if the person values inflicting pain on
> others for their own pleasure (for example), I am not going to treat
> that value with respect. And I hope you wouldn't either.
You are correct, and if the community required me to treat that
behaviour with respect, I would find it challenging, assuming a purely
naive understanding of that comment. If, on the other hand, I found out
that some of the community members were into the BSDM scene, and hurting
each other for pleasure ended up being a mutually consensual between
adults, then it would be wrong to exclude them or fail to show them
respect. You also have to take another point; define pleasure. Do you
mean something that is satisfying? Because I can tell you that I, and
others, have served in the military, and I am proud, and others are
proud of that, and we enjoyed our service. For some of us, that
explicitly meant harming others. Does that mean I and those others in
the community are not worthy of respect, or at least being treated
respectfully as individuals?

None of these issues are simple questions or points to answer, and none
of them has a "right" or "wrong" answer in the context of a community
that is focused on including people with diverse lifestyles and backgrounds.

If you were aiming simply for the case of someone who explicitly hurts
others for the sole purpose of personal gratification, then that person
should be rejected from the community because they are hurting other
people. If you want to distill it down to a simplistic argument, a
person who hurts others for pleasure without consent will cause others
to leave, therefore, an individual who hurts others is excluding others.
>>> I think this statement doesn't have much force without a definition of
>>> "harm", and how it is determined.
>>>
>> harmful to the community = activities or behaviors that contribute to
>> members leaving the community for reasons other than incompatibility
>> with the core mission or values of the community
> Then I'd hope you'd agree with me that it would be harmful to create a
> code of conduct which required assent to political or philosophical
> stances unrelated to our core mission and values (such as "religious
> pluralism is a good thing" or "one must treat any value another
> community member holds, such as sadism, with respect").
I (and others) have focused on treating people with respect, and
treating those ideas with respect in the context of discussions with
people who hold those ideas that are intended for, or explicitly exposed
to the larger community. There is a simple phrase that captures it:
"Agree to disagree". I could understand being challenged to treat a
sadist respectfully if they are attempting to promote their lifestyle to
you in spite of the fact that you have made your position clear, but if
you and a sadist were asked to work on a community related project
together which has no bearing on your life outside of the scope of that
project, then I fail to see how an issue arises.
> Because anyone
> who disagreed with such stances would then have to leave - which would
> be harmful to the community, by your definition.
Is a person who disagrees with inclusiveness leaving because they don't
want to include someone with a differing world view? If so, then they
are not harming the community, since they are leaving because they
cannot agree to the inclusiveness that is a part of the mission and
values of the community.

If I choose to leave because others are discriminating against me
because of my lifestyle choices then I have been excluded. If I choose
to leave because others refuse to live a lifestyle that conforms to my
expectations, then I have chosen to exclude them. The distinction
between those two statements is the acceptance of others differences in
contrast to the imposition of norms on others.

Jeff Walden

unread,
Apr 4, 2012, 6:42:44 PM4/4/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
I'm a bit late to this entire discussion, having been too busy for approximately the last month writing code to engage here at all. And probably I can't devote enough time to skim (let alone read, let alone fully understand) all several hundred messages during that time. So keep that in mind if I rehash something already hashed to a mashed potato mess.

On 03/26/2012 09:23 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> The code says:
>
> "we explicitly honour diversity in ... religion, ...".
>
> Who is "we", and what does it mean to "honour"?
>
> Suggestion: how about "as a community, we explicitly welcome people of
> diverse ... religion, ... etc."? Or perhaps other people can think of
> different introductory words which don't hit the problem noted above.

I have some of the same concerns about the original language, at least depending upon how it might be interpreted. I believe reasonable people can, could, and would interpret it differently. This would reduce its effectiveness as part of a code of conduct. Gerv's suggestion moves in the right direction. That said, I would build it out more so that it's more explicit about what "welcome" means. I think the wording below goes to the Mozilla spirit a bit more directly -- that we welcome whatever anyone wants to contribute. And its language tries to affirm the sense of community it would seem to me a code of conduct should foster. How does this alternative go over with anyone?

Although this list cannot be exhaustive, we explicitly welcome
people of diverse age, [...], subculture, and technical ability
to the Mozilla community. We value their participation. We
value their contributions, of code, of time, of ideas, in whatever
form they might come. And above all: we welcome them as friends.

Jeff
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages