A question of trust

[glazou]

I have a serious problem with the current Code of Conduct thing for
two reasons.

First, it sounds like we're more The Walt Disney Company than the
Mozilla community, i.e. an organization where free speech is or has to
be controlled and employees have to obey to a constraining set of
rules. Setting a set of rules or a Code of Conduct makes me feel
*really* bad. Seen from here, that's just too american-centric.
Remember, I am not an employee and I not even based on the US soil.
I keep telling my girlfriend that all our geek world is based on
trust. She met many Mozillians and now keeps telling her friends and
family "that's amazing, they're all so kind, it's the first time I see
such a large group of trustable co-workers, all of them". What
happened with Gerv's post is scary: someone we trust and have been
trusting for much more than a decade has suddenly been seen as
untrustable by some. How is this even possible? We're not talking of a
total stranger or a newcomer here. We're talking of our Gerv. Someone
we do know well, someone we ALL know is unable to harm. People said
"hate", we replied "Who? Gerv? Impossible! Opinions you dislike,
maybe; hate, never" and they did NOT listen to that. That change in
the Mozilla community is scary to me. I want the Mozilla community to
remain an informal organization based on trust, that's a true jewel
most people don't value correctly.

Second, I still remember something Clayton Lewis told me in another
context long, long ago: "If we can't do it, who can?".
If Mozilla, the heart of Web openness, can't let people express
perfectly legal opinions in public without triggering the raise of a
Code of Conduct, who can? We're all adults. We're all able to detect
when something is most certainly a perfectly legal opinion even if a
disturbing one. Without disturbing opinions, there is no progress. And
so we're perfectly able to skip an entry in planet. You can think
"bol*ocks" or even think the author is a moron if you want. But be
adult enough to value more the expression of free speech and free
thought than restrictions on them.

So maybe we're taking this Code of Conduct approach totally the wrong
way. Maybe the Code of Conduct that should be accepted by all members
of the Mozilla community should contain only one article "Articles
syndicated on planet.mozilla.org represent only the views of their
respective authors, not Mozilla's. Mozilla has chosen to value their
freedom of expression as Mozillians and will not filter these
syndicated contents unless found illegal. You, as a Mozilla community
Member, understand that planet.mozilla.org can then syndicate opinions
diverging from yours, sometimes strongly. bla bla".
THAT would be a Code of Conduct for responsible adults.

Thanks.

</Daniel>

[Al Billings]

On 4/3/12 2:30 AM, glazou wrote:
> So maybe we're taking this Code of Conduct approach totally the wrong
> way. Maybe the Code of Conduct that should be accepted by all members
> of the Mozilla community should contain only one article "Articles
> syndicated on planet.mozilla.org represent only the views of their
> respective authors, not Mozilla's. Mozilla has chosen to value their
> freedom of expression as Mozillians and will not filter these
> syndicated contents unless found illegal. You, as a Mozilla community
> Member, understand that planet.mozilla.org can then syndicate opinions
> diverging from yours, sometimes strongly. bla bla".
> THAT would be a Code of Conduct for responsible adults.

That isn't going to happen though.