proposed amendment to code of conduct

[john_perry_usm]

Hello

At least two of us who voted against the Code of Conduct think it a good idea to amend with a clause to the following effect:

On the other hand, we have to remember that the very fact that Sage developers come from different cultures, backgrounds, and social circles, means we each have different customs of expression. Vigorous arguments on technical questions, even when characterized by sharp disagreement and legitimate criticism, is a sign of a healthy community, and not a hostile environment per se. While it is important to be sensitive, it is no less important to avoid oversensitivity.

Having discussed it privately, I thought I'd throw it out for public comment. I'm pretty sure the second person won't mind self-identifying, but I modified it since the initial discussion, so I won't add the name here.

john perry

[Nathann Cohen]

At least two of us who voted against the Code of Conduct think it a good idea to amend with a clause to the following effect:

I think that it is a good clause, and I hope that the document to which it could eventually belong will be a "Guidelines" one and not a code. It says what you can expect on sage-devel when writing there, and that you should not always take what is being said personnally. It also discards from the current code the idea that you will be judged not for what you say but for how you say it.

Actually, re-reading the current code of conduct, it is pretty depressing. The third line is about "Communication problems and unhappiness"... Basically what it says cannot help much: everybody tries to be patient, and friendly, and considerate.. Having this in a code does not seem to lead anywhere further.

The "code" should describe what sage-devel feels like, and in such a way it will be a good disclaimer to tell newcomers what to expect and how to react. If it tries to change how we already behave, well, it is a code or a law.

I do not know what is the procedure now: amendments are discussed on a thread, and then added to the wiki page if people agree with it ?

http://wiki.sagemath.org/SageCommunityProposal

Nathann

[Simon King]

Hi John, hi all,

On 2014-11-26, john_perry_usm <john....@usm.edu> wrote:
> At least two of us who voted against the Code of Conduct think it a good
> idea to amend with a clause to the following effect:
>
> On the other hand, we have to remember that the very fact that Sage
>> developers come from different cultures, backgrounds, and social circles,
>> means we each have different customs of expression. Vigorous arguments on
>> technical questions, even when characterized by sharp disagreement and
>> legitimate criticism, is a sign of a healthy community, and not a hostile

>> environment *per se*. While it is important to be sensitive, it is no

>> less important to avoid oversensitivity.

Will this be done by editing http://wiki.sagemath.org/CodeOfConduct or
will a separate document be created?

Best regards,
Simon

[Volker Braun]

On Thursday, November 27, 2014 3:27:23 AM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote:

I think that it is a good clause, and I hope that the document to which it could eventually belong will be a "Guidelines" one and not a code.

I welcome your enthusiasm but please can we stick to established nomenclature? If you insist on not calling it "Code" then please also explain why Fedora and Django have made a mistake in naming it. A document that you first need to reverse-translate from Frenglish to French to English to understand is not helpful. 

[Simon King]

Hi Volker,

On 2014-11-28, Volker Braun <vbrau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think that it is a good clause, and I hope that the document to which it
>> could eventually belong will be a "Guidelines" one and not a code.
>
>
> I welcome your enthusiasm but please can we stick to established
> nomenclature? If you insist on not calling it "Code" then please also
> explain why Fedora and Django have made a mistake in naming it.

It is not our job to teach Fedora and Django.

> A document
> that you first need to reverse-translate from Frenglish to French to
> English to understand is not helpful.

On https://www.wordnik.com/words/code, the first mentioned meaning of
the word "code" is:
A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws.
The second mentioned meaning is:
A systematic collection of regulations and rules of procedure or
conduct: a traffic code.
Both meanings are taken from The American (sic!) Heritage® Dictionary of
the English Language, 4th Edition.

So, you see that the expression "code of conduct" undoubtedly has
connotations (even in American English, not only in French!) that
some of us refuse to adopt. In fact, given the above dictionary entries,
it seems unlikely to me that a native speaker would *not* associate
a "code of conduct" with "codified law".

Best regards,
Simon

[Nathann Cohen]

> I welcome your enthusiasm but please can we stick to established nomenclature?
> If you insist on not calling it "Code" then please also
> explain why Fedora and Django have made a mistake in naming it.

O_o

Dear friend, I am getting slowly convinced that one of us is crazy.
Assuming, as I cannot disprove it, that I am the crazy one, I will
answer your question:

I cannot explain why Fedora or Django did differently, simply because
I do not know them. I have no idea what they do, how they work, or if
they have psychiatric problems. If we have to explain, for whatever we
do, why Fedora and Django did differently, we just can't take any
decision by ourselves. Unless you take them for us, of course. I
strongly believe that I am not the only one here who has no clue about
why Fedora and Django are great, and an example we should follow.

One very disturbing thing I noticed about Fedora and Django is that
they do not even seem to write mathematical code. I do not know what
to think about that.

> A document
> that you first need to reverse-translate from Frenglish to French to English
> to understand is not helpful.

I have no idea on earth what you are talking about. If you need
frenglish lessons I can give you some. It is very simple: just speak
french with an english accent. Of course most words will not
translate, but you have to keep a poker face all along.

Nathann

[Peter Luschny]

There is a wonderful term of French origin for what I think it is all about: Etiquette. Why not use this?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/etiquette
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/code
 

[Jakob Kroeker]

As already mentioned by others, the bad thing (at least from my point of view) is that the 'code of conduct' splits the community.
To reduce the dissonance among us we could agree on something with broader support.
Otherwise I hope that this discussion will end at some point, and I will try to forget and fade out that there was
this discussion at all and that there is a 'code of conduct'

Jakob

Question 1: who of the initial 'yes' voters would insist to keep the term 'code of conduct'
Question 2: who of the initial 'No' voters would accept the term 'guidelines' instead with content as is
Question 3: who would accept the term 'guidelines' and also insist on changing the content of the behaviour guidelines

[Nathann Cohen]

Hello !

> Will this be done by editing http://wiki.sagemath.org/CodeOfConduct or
> will a separate document be created?

I guess the situations is already sufficiently chaotic as it is :-P I
added the paragraph block to that page:
http://wiki.sagemath.org/CodeOfConduct

Whoever wants can modify it of course.

Nathann

[Simon King]

Hi!

Am Freitag, 28. November 2014 15:08:48 UTC+1 schrieb Jakob Kroeker:

Question 1: who of the initial 'yes' voters would insist to keep the term 'code of conduct'
Question 2: who of the initial 'No' voters would accept the term 'guidelines' instead with content as is
Question 3: who would accept the term 'guidelines' and also insist on changing the content of the behaviour guidelines

I would accept the term "guidelines". As I have pointed out above by reference to an American English dictionary, "code of conduct" clearly seems to have the connotation of codified law, and I don't want that.

Concerning the content: The guidelines should also say something about its use, respectively should make it as difficult as possible to misuse the guidelines.

Best regards,
Simon

[Volker Braun]

On Friday, November 28, 2014 1:09:38 PM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote:

I have no idea on earth what you are talking about. If you need
frenglish lessons I can give you some. It is very simple: just speak
french with an english accent. Of course most words will not
translate, but you have to keep a poker face all along.

That is exactly what I meant ;-)

 

[Simon King]

Unfortunately that is exactly what is not the problem here. The association of "code of conduct" with codified law exists in English, whether you want it or not. In contrast to previous problems in the recent threads, it is not an artefact of a reverse translation.

Could someone please answer the question about further proceeding (I asked twice already): Do I understand correctly that there will be some editing on http://wiki.sagemath.org/CodeOfConduct before publishing the code of conduct or the guidelines or etiquette or whatever it will eventually be called? For how long?

And *how* should the editing be done? By editing the text itself? By adding requests for changes to the section "Alternatives"? Earlier today, I did the former (sorry if that was wrong), but then I thought it'd be better to preserve the original text for reference, and did the latter instead.

Best regards,
Simon

[mmarco]

I definitely like the idea of "guidelines" over  "code of conduct".

[William Stein]

On Nov 28, 2014 7:02 AM, "Simon King" <simon...@uni-jena.de> wrote:
>
> Am Freitag, 28. November 2014 15:44:08 UTC+1 schrieb Volker Braun:
>>
>> On Friday, November 28, 2014 1:09:38 PM UTC, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>>>
>>> I have no idea on earth what you are talking about. If you need
>>> frenglish lessons I can give you some. It is very simple: just speak
>>> french with an english accent. Of course most words will not
>>> translate, but you have to keep a poker face all along.
>>
>>
>> That is exactly what I meant ;-)
>
>
> Unfortunately that is exactly what is not the problem here. The association of "code of conduct" with codified law exists in English, whether you want it or not. In contrast to previous problems in the recent threads, it is not an artefact of a reverse translation.
>
> Could someone please answer the question about further proceeding (I asked twice already): Do I understand correctly that there will be some editing on http://wiki.sagemath.org/CodeOfConduct before publishing the code of conduct or the guidelines or etiquette or whatever it will eventually be called? For how long?
>

No. The original text is what was voted on.  Anybody can edit the wiki and a new conduct thing could be proposed and voted on later.

> And *how* should the editing be done? By editing the text itself? By adding requests for changes to the section "Alternatives"? Earlier today, I did the former (sorry if that was wrong), but then I thought it'd be better to preserve the original text for reference, and did the latter instead.
>
> Best regards,
> Simon
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Simon King]

Hi Nathann,

Sorry, I first didn't see your reply. I am not sure about the common etiquette for wiki pages. In any case, after editing the text of the code of conduct directly, I reverted the change and then requested changes in the "Alternatives" section. By coincidence, right beside your "paragraph" block...

Best regards,
Simon

[Nathann Cohen]

Yooooooo !

> Sorry, I first didn't see your reply. I am not sure about the common
> etiquette for wiki pages.

Yes, I agree that it is messy. I think that we should feel free to
edit whatever we like (while trying to respect the spirit somehow)
otherwise we will keep adding stuff from fear of changing somebody
else's text ^^;

> In any case, after editing the text of the code of
> conduct directly, I reverted the change and then requested changes in the
> "Alternatives" section. By coincidence, right beside your "paragraph"
> block...

They seem to coexist well right now.

Good evening ! ;-)

Nathann

[Simon King]

Am Freitag, 28. November 2014 16:06:55 UTC+1 schrieb William:

> Could someone please answer the question about further proceeding (I asked twice already): Do I understand correctly that there will be some editing on http://wiki.sagemath.org/CodeOfConduct before publishing the code of conduct or the guidelines or etiquette or whatever it will eventually be called? For how long?
>

No. The original text is what was voted on.  Anybody can edit the wiki and a new conduct thing could be proposed and voted on later.

I see. That's the old trick of putting something on vote while it is still discussed. As a result, some people don't realise that the vote is exactly about the current state, and that one shouldn't vote "yes" but "no" if one just likes the basic idea but finds the current state sub-optimal.

[William Stein]

Please reread my statement at the beginning of the vote thread before claiming I tricked you.  It begins "
This is a simple majority vote for the original proposed code of conduct.".

[Simon King]

Am Freitag, 28. November 2014 16:24:37 UTC+1 schrieb William:

> I see. That's the old trick of putting something on vote while it is still discussed. As a result, some people don't realise that the vote is exactly about the current state, and that one shouldn't vote "yes" but "no" if one just likes the basic idea but finds the current state sub-optimal.
>

Please reread my statement at the beginning of the vote thread before claiming I tricked you.  It begins "
This is a simple majority vote for the original proposed code of conduct.".

I did not doubt that you wrote what the vote is about. But it is still what I'd call it a trick.

[Dima Pasechnik]

On 2014-11-28, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> --001a1140e10cc7331a0508ecdbd1
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> On Nov 28, 2014 7:17 AM, "Simon King" <simon...@uni-jena.de> wrote:
>>
>> Am Freitag, 28. November 2014 16:06:55 UTC+1 schrieb William:
>>>
>>> > Could someone please answer the question about further proceeding (I
> asked twice already): Do I understand correctly that there will be some
> editing on http://wiki.sagemath.org/CodeOfConduct before publishing the
> code of conduct or the guidelines or etiquette or whatever it will
> eventually be called? For how long?
>>> >
>>>
>>> No. The original text is what was voted on. Anybody can edit the wiki
> and a new conduct thing could be proposed and voted on later.
>>
>>
>> I see. That's the old trick of putting something on vote while it is
> still discussed. As a result, some people don't realise that the vote is
> exactly about the current state, and that one shouldn't vote "yes" but "no"
> if one just likes the basic idea but finds the current state sub-optimal.
>>
>
> Please reread my statement at the beginning of the vote thread before
> claiming I tricked you. It begins "
> This is a simple majority vote for the original proposed code of conduct.".

It should have been abundantly clear to everyone that the discussion was
very much ongoing.
Why should it have been interrupted in such a blunt manner?
It was no ordinary question like whether to include bla.foo as an
optional package in Sage.

I hold that this was a violation of the very code the vote was about,
in spirit if not in letter.
Therefore the whole thing should be redone.

I also hold that I feel bullied by that code, to begin with.

Dima

[Volker Braun]

On Friday, November 28, 2014 3:02:24 PM UTC, Simon King wrote:

Unfortunately that is exactly what is not the problem here. The association of "code of conduct" with codified law exists in English

No, there is no association beyond the codified = written down. Of course the writing down part that is in "code of law". I'll leave it as an exercise to identify "code of ..." in English that are not enforcable laws.

[Nathann Cohen]

> No, there is no association beyond the codified = written down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_code

This is the kind of association we all have in mind.

Nathann

[Volker Braun]

Let me try a last time, just replace code with book:

A book of laws is a book, but not every book is a book of laws.

[Nathann Cohen]

> Let me try a last time, just replace code with book:

We will never understand. Give it up ! It is unfortunate, but to us
"code" is associated with "law".

Nathann

[Dima Pasechnik]

On 2014-11-28, Volker Braun <vbrau...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ------=_Part_6745_1715951226.1417191747103
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="----=_Part_6746_1434359819.1417191747103"
>
> ------=_Part_6746_1434359819.1417191747103
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> Let me try a last time, just replace code with book:

If you want to understand how I feel about that name, add
to that doc a subtitle "Mein Kampf" :-)

[Nicolas M. Thiery]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 06:08:47AM -0800, Jakob Kroeker wrote:
> Question 1: who of the initial 'yes' voters would insist to keep the
> term 'code of conduct'
> Question 2: who of the initial 'No' voters would accept the term
> 'guidelines' instead with content as is
> Question 3: who would accept the term 'guidelines' and also insist on
> changing the content of the behaviour guidelines

Ah, thanks for running this poll! I have been meaning to do it, but
did not get the time; it indeed feels like that the discussion is
going in round when there is a rather clear consensus emerging.

As I said earlier, I'd be very fine with guidelines, or any variant
that would not make our friends uncomfortable because of a potential
confusion with law. Etiquette (sagiquette?) is quite fine too as it
relates to well established traditions on the net; not only because
it's french :-)

I have no strong opinion on the specific content.

Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nth...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/

[Viviane Pons]

As a "yes" voter, I would be totally in favor of changing the name to "guidelines". As Nathann pointed out, we're not Django or Fedora and even though they can be source of inspiration, we don't have to do something just because they do. Also, the linguistic debate about what "code" means is a bit pointless: let's just use a word that most people agree on whatever mother tongue they come from.

I'm also in favor of voting a new text that carries more people on. I think we're in a bad situation now, with a vote that not everybody recognizes and divides the community. I am in favor of some kind of "code of conduct" but dividing the community is counter productive.

Best

Viviane

[William Stein]

Agreed. Most everybody would consider it a very positive outcome if
there were a replacement "thing of conduct" that addresses the
concerns many people have raised and gets passed almost unanimously.
I really hope that happens. I'm really appreciative of Dima,
Nathann, you and others who are continuing to put effort and thought
into this so that such a thing can happen.

-- William

>
> Best
>
> Viviane

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
William Stein
Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org

[Vincent Delecroix]

It is not an opposition of terms "code of conduct" vs "guidelines" or
whatever. The main problem is not the title but the form and some of
the content! Let me point out what I found very bad in it

- All paragraphs are orders
Be [...]
Be [...]
Be [...]
If you treat people like children, you should not expect from them
to be adults.

- The previous vote ended with the creation of a new discussion list
sage-...@googelgroups.com that no one has voted for, whose status is
not clear (public/private), whose function is not defined, etc.

- If there is a "violation" of a code of conduct, it means that it
was a rule. I like very much the modification of Anne about how to
behave when such a "violation" occurs (people are not police). But I
still find the term violation inappropriate.

- As pointed out several times, it is very dangerous to create rules
that have to be followed. The interpretation of a text is always
subjective. I am convinced that if this is stated as a rule then some
people will claim (honestly) that some others are wrong. Instead, it
should be only written that anybody should try very hard to follow
them... but no more.

Vincent

[Thierry]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 06:00:31PM +0100, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 06:08:47AM -0800, Jakob Kroeker wrote:
> > Question 1: who of the initial 'yes' voters would insist to keep the
> > term 'code of conduct'
> > Question 2: who of the initial 'No' voters would accept the term
> > 'guidelines' instead with content as is
> > Question 3: who would accept the term 'guidelines' and also insist on
> > changing the content of the behaviour guidelines
>
> Ah, thanks for running this poll! I have been meaning to do it, but
> did not get the time; it indeed feels like that the discussion is
> going in round when there is a rather clear consensus emerging.

No, there is no consensus at all. It is not because a few people are going
round on some naming issue that all other issues are settled (not even
that particular issue either).

Also, the content of this vote is biased: asking a question about the
title of a text considers de facto that the contents of the text is
already accepted, and even that the existence of such a text is accepted.
Which is not true. A question that depends on unsettled questions can not
be settled.

I think serious issues have been raised by various people during this
event, so i do not agree with a fast and dirty solution that hides
problems, otherwise unfixed issues will reappear. I prefer all of us to
continue discussing to let a true consensus emerge, respecting all points
of views, not a fake one that people will agree on to get a good
atmosphere back, whatever the content. We should not hide problems or it
will be endless.

Note that calling for a vote while claiming that there is a consensus is
a kind of contradiction.

If we want a text that does not divide the community, we have to accept
that this takes time. "Botching" a solution that will add some people on
the pro side to ensure a stronger majority is not the right way.

Ciao,
Thierry

> As I said earlier, I'd be very fine with guidelines, or any variant
> that would not make our friends uncomfortable because of a potential
> confusion with law. Etiquette (sagiquette?) is quite fine too as it
> relates to well established traditions on the net; not only because
> it's french :-)
>
> I have no strong opinion on the specific content.
>
> Cheers,
> Nicolas
> --
> Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nth...@users.sf.net>
> http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
>

[Nicolas M. Thiery]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 06:58:00PM +0100, Thierry wrote:
> No, there is no consensus at all. It is not because a few people are going
> round on some naming issue that all other issues are settled (not even
> that particular issue either).

I am not saying that it suffices to change the name. Yet from all I
heard in the previous discussion I don't foresee any strong obstacle
on building a consensus on *some* document. Yes there is no rush. Yes
this will take some time. Now given that you seem to know so well how
things shall be done [1], please take the lead. I trust you. I trust
you'll do a great job [2].

Cheers,
Nicolas

[1] Yes, I am kindly teasing you a bit here :-)
Tes grands airs de ces derniers temps m'ont un peu agacé ...
[2] I am very serious here.

[Simon King]

Hi Volker,

On 2014-11-28, Volker Braun <vbrau...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, there is no association beyond the codified = written down. Of course
> the writing down part that is in "code of law". I'll leave it as an
> exercise to identify "code of ..." in English that are not enforcable laws.

Read the link that I provided.

[Simon King]

Not only to us. According to the American Heritage dictionary that I
quoted in a previous post, that association exists in (American)
English, too.

[Simon King]

Hi Nicolas,

On 2014-11-28, Nicolas M. Thiery <Nicolas...@u-psud.fr> wrote:
> Ah, thanks for running this poll! I have been meaning to do it, but
> did not get the time; it indeed feels like that the discussion is
> going in round when there is a rather clear consensus emerging.
>
> As I said earlier, I'd be very fine with guidelines, or any variant
> that would not make our friends uncomfortable because of a potential
> confusion with law. Etiquette (sagiquette?) is quite fine too as it
> relates to well established traditions on the net; not only because
> it's french :-)
>
> I have no strong opinion on the specific content.

If I understand correctly what William and Volker are saying, they claim
it is too late for a change anyway, because of the outcome of a voting
on very short notice that was done during weekend while an intense and
very critical discussion was still ongoing (which is a well-known trick
of manipulation), and although some people stated they did not feel
enough informed or even intimidated by the way of voting.

I find it really shameful what is currently happening in the Sage community.

Best regards,
Simon

[Simon King]

Hi Viviane,

On 2014-11-28, Viviane Pons <vivia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a "yes" voter, I would be totally in favor of changing the name to
> "guidelines".

So, technically, your "yes" vote should in fact be counted as "no",
because the vote was about a specific version of the text?

> I'm also in favor of voting a new text that carries more people on. I think
> we're in a bad situation now, with a vote that not everybody recognizes and
> divides the community. I am in favor of some kind of "code of conduct" but
> dividing the community is counter productive.

+1. But this time please *after* an open discussion on the text.

I do recognise that the majority of voters wants some kind of
guidelines, but I do not recognise that the majority of voters wants
this text, and also I do not recognise that the voting met democratic
standards.

A technical question: How can a discussion on text be organised? A wiki
is of course one option for collaborative edition of a text, but I don't
see how arguments can be exchanged by wiki.

Best regards,
Simon

[Simon King]

Hi Vincent,

On 2014-11-28, Vincent Delecroix <20100.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you treat people like children, you should not expect from them
> to be adults.

+1

> - The previous vote ended with the creation of a new discussion list
> sage-...@googelgroups.com that no one has voted for, whose status is
> not clear (public/private), whose function is not defined, etc.

+1. Has it really been created already? Unbelievable.

> - If there is a "violation" of a code of conduct, it means that it
> was a rule. I like very much the modification of Anne about how to
> behave when such a "violation" occurs (people are not police).

Apparently I missed it. Can you point me to what Anne said? Anyway, I
totally agree that an etiquette should also include recommendations on
how to react in the case of conflict in order to lay the conflict to
rest.

> - As pointed out several times, it is very dangerous to create rules
> that have to be followed. The interpretation of a text is always
> subjective.

+1. Many of us are mathematicians, and tend to be able to discuss a
donkey's legs off. So, it should be made absolutely clear that the
"etiquette" contains guidelines, but does certainly not constitute a
code.

Best regards,
Simon

[Simon King]

Hi Nicolas,

On 2014-11-28, Nicolas M. Thiery <Nicolas...@u-psud.fr> wrote:

> I am not saying that it suffices to change the name. Yet from all I
> heard in the previous discussion I don't foresee any strong obstacle
> on building a consensus on *some* document.

I somehow agree.

> Yes there is no rush. Yes this will take some time.

> Now given that you seem to know so well how
> things shall be done [1], please take the lead.

Do you have a recommendation of a technical solution that allows to
exchange arguments while collaboratively editing a text?

Best regards,
Simon

[William Stein]

- William Stein (cell phone)

On Nov 28, 2014 11:32 AM, "Simon King" <simon...@uni-jena.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On 2014-11-28, Vincent Delecroix <20100.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   If you treat people like children, you should not expect from them
> > to be adults.
>
> +1
>
> >  - The previous vote ended with the creation of a new discussion list
> > sage-...@googelgroups.com that no one has voted for, whose status is
> > not clear (public/private), whose function is not defined, etc.
>
> +1. Has it really been created already? Unbelievable.
>

Yes, I created it.   The members are me, David Joyner (sage Dev #2), and Harald Schilly.  I will change it so only members can see posts.  Anybody can post to the list.  It can be used for other things besides just the code of conduct, e.g., copyright issues, etc.  Frequently people just email me directly when they feel abused as a result of the sage project, so this will be better.

I stand by the 3 day majority vote and the outcome.  Again, if people do the work to create something that is more broadly acceptable, then I encourage a similar vote to replace the current code by something else.

William

> >  - If there is a "violation" of a code of conduct, it means that it
> > was a rule. I like very much the modification of Anne about how to
> > behave when such a "violation" occurs (people are not police).
>
> Apparently I missed it. Can you point me to what Anne said? Anyway, I
> totally agree that an etiquette should also include recommendations on
> how to react in the case of conflict in order to lay the conflict to
> rest.
>
> >  - As pointed out several times, it is very dangerous to create rules
> > that have to be followed. The interpretation of a text is always
> > subjective.
>
> +1. Many of us are mathematicians, and tend to be able to discuss a
> donkey's legs off. So, it should be made absolutely clear that the
> "etiquette" contains guidelines, but does certainly not constitute a
> code.
>
> Best regards,
> Simon
>
>

[Viviane Pons]

2014-11-28 20:24 GMT+01:00 Simon King <simon...@uni-jena.de>:

Hi Viviane,

On 2014-11-28, Viviane Pons <vivia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a "yes" voter, I would be totally in favor of changing the name to
> "guidelines".

So, technically, your "yes" vote should in fact be counted as "no",
because the vote was about a specific version of the text?

My 'yes' is still a 'yes'. I read and accepted the text as it was. But still, in fine, I find "guidelines" better,

because:

* I was convinced by other people's point (yes, that can happen!)

* What I want most is having a text that most people agree on

I also found the vote was taking place too early. Actually, I was afraid that the 'no' would win and that the matter would be buried and ignored and that nothing would change. (Honestly, nobody could predict the result of the vote, it was really a close call). So because I wanted a text and I, personally, had no objections against the proposed text, I voted 'yes'. I was afraid indeed that because people were divided, the vote would settle nothing (and I was right, obviously!).

As for now, we're in a very delicate situation as some people recognize the vote and some don't, and many "no" voters feel they've been imposed on. What I personally read from the vote is that *some* kind of text has to exists: if the actual code was just to be removed (well, I must say, I don't really consider that it exists right now...) and no other text was to be accepted, then we would be in uproar just as we are now, because the 'yes' voters would feel deceived.

But as it is now, I don't want to keep this text (but I do want something instead). Not because I refute what is in it but because I find it useless if it's not accepted by so many developers. Also, I'm sensible to your (and other) arguments (about 'guidelines' instead of codes, about not giving orders 'be be be' etc). At the end, I want everyone, 'yes' and 'no' voters to feel good and welcome in the community we all share and like.

Also, to most virulent people on both sides: I think there is no point arguing about the actual status of the code or the legitimacy of the vote. It will lead us nowhere. What we should do, is work on a consensus as some of us started. I also think, little 'so called' votes about amendments are quite useless, we've seen what quick votes have done. Let us give us some time (how much? I don't know, as much as needed I'd say) to find something that we feel does not divide us so much. Then, we could put it to vote because (because absolute consensus where everyone agree is difficult to reach), but a vote of which result we would accept.

To finish, once again, we all want the same thing!

Cheers

Viviane

 

> I'm also in favor of voting a new text that carries more people on. I think
> we're in a bad situation now, with a vote that not everybody recognizes and
> divides the community. I am in favor of some kind of "code of conduct" but
> dividing the community is counter productive.

+1. But this time please *after* an open discussion on the text.

I do recognise that the majority of voters wants some kind of
guidelines, but I do not recognise that the majority of voters wants
this text, and also I do not recognise that the voting met democratic
standards.

A technical question: How can a discussion on text be organised? A wiki
is of course one option for collaborative edition of a text, but I don't
see how arguments can be exchanged by wiki.

Best regards,
Simon

[Simon King]

Hi William,

On 2014-11-28, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I created it. The members are me, David Joyner (sage Dev #2), and
> Harald Schilly.

Interesting. Previously there was talk about the 12 (or so) main
contributors of Sage code becoming members of that list.

Best regards,
Simon

[rjf]

A short voting period certainly makes the result open to dispute.

Anyone wishing to post anything offensive to some people will

be unlikely to abide by some code which he/she might not have

read, anyway.  Sage-flame is always there, anyway.

RJF

[Vincent Delecroix]

>> - If there is a "violation" of a code of conduct, it means that it
>> was a rule. I like very much the modification of Anne about how to
>> behave when such a "violation" occurs (people are not police).
>
> Apparently I missed it. Can you point me to what Anne said? Anyway, I
> totally agree that an etiquette should also include recommendations on
> how to react in the case of conflict in order to lay the conflict to
> rest.

It is on the wiki (look at the diff for autorship). Note that I said
"modification of Anne" ;-)

[William Stein]

That was suggested and almost immediately retracted based on numerous solid arguments against it. 

If you - as a long time sage dev - would like to be an admin on the list to help make our perspective more diverse, let me know and we will add you.

William

[Volker Braun]

On Friday, November 28, 2014 7:05:06 PM UTC, Simon King wrote:

Not only to us. According to the American Heritage dictionary that I
quoted in a previous post, that association exists in (American)
English, too.

No. Just "code" can be short for: "code of law", and that is what the dictionary entry says. But "code of foo" for foo!=law is not a kind of "code of law".  

[maldun]

Hi all!

I quite watched this discussion for this so called code of conduct. There are a lot of

opponents of this idea and I wonder why.

So far as I understand, this code/guidline/whatever does not serve as a law, or is written in stone,

nor does it say: "If you don't behave as stated in the code, you will be teared feathered and be banned forever!"

I don't think it's that big deal, it's like hanging up some nice slogans on your wall like 'Be nice to others.'

And I really like such codes because it states that the community wants that it's members are nice to each others.

And we all know that there are communities which are the complete oposite of nice to their users/each other.

So no harm, just like the 'other code' in https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-flame/ST-8uPshOR4

[Vincent Delecroix]

Hi,

2014-11-28 15:48 UTC−06:00, maldun <dom...@gmx.net>:

> Hi all!
>
> I quite watched this discussion for this so called code of conduct. There
> are a lot of
> opponents of this idea and I wonder why.

Please tell me who? As far as I read, nobody proposed to have nothing.
We are just discussing what. You are welcome to participate but not to
negate the work in progress.

> So far as I understand, this code/guidline/whatever does not serve as a
> law, or is written in stone,
> nor does it say: "If you don't behave as stated in the code, you will be
> teared feathered and be banned forever!"

That is precisely the issue: its aim is not explicit and it is written as a law.

> I don't think it's that big deal, it's like hanging up some nice slogans on
> your wall like 'Be nice to others.'

This might not reflect the sentiment of the community. And not
everybody have to like "nice slogans".

> And I really like such codes because it states that the community wants
> that it's members are nice to each others.

Now, you consider that it is not only a slogan ;-) My main concern
with your sentence is that you make a distinction between "the
community" and "the members". What is this difference?

Vincent

[Vincent Delecroix]

Hi,

I updated a proposition at the very end of the wiki page

http://wiki.sagemath.org/CodeOfConduct

It is not aimed to be finished or proposed to vote right now. No
usurpation please.

Vincent

[Simon King]

Hi Volker,

On 2014-11-28, Volker Braun <vbrau...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No. Just "code" can be short for: "code of law", and that is what the
> dictionary entry says. But "code of foo" for foo!=law is not a kind of
> "code of law".

Reading my posts, you certainly noticed that I did not claim that a
"code of conduct" is some kind of "code of law" by definition. I spoke
about associations and connotations. If a language's dictionary contains
the entries "code" and "code of foo", then of course there is an association
of the two entries. And simply by how the human brain processes language, it
will consciously or unconsciously create a connotation.

In any case, you are not more native speaker than I. So, unless they
will be backed up by a bunch of native speakers, I don't see a reason
to find your assertions convincing.

Best regards,
Simon

[Simon King]

Hi Maldun,

On 2014-11-28, maldun <dom...@gmx.net> wrote:
> So far as I understand, this code/guidline/whatever does not serve as a
> law, or is written in stone,
> nor does it say: "If you don't behave as stated in the code, you will be
> teared feathered and be banned forever!"

It is the experience of some people participating in the discussion that
there is a difference between the official intention of a set of rules,
and the spirit in which the rules will eventually be used in reality.

Dima has provided a link to some communist code of conduct. Its rules seem
mainly harmless, but since social rules are never objective, it is always
possible to use them against unwanted people.

And to give you an example that is smaller than Soviet Union:
I have seen teachers claiming that the rules they set up just
serve to the good of the class (in the current discussion, the word
"safety nest" was used), but all what they did was creating a snake pit
(and I'd say: deliberately). In one case, four pupils out of a class of
20 pupils left the school within one year. From two of them I know that
they left since the teacher's rules could too easily be instrumented by
bullies.

> I don't think it's that big deal, it's like hanging up some nice slogans on
> your wall like 'Be nice to others.'

That's totally opposite to my experience. I respect that the majority of
people here wants some kind of code of conduct/guideline/etiquette. But
I also know that it can be used as a weapon to nuke a society. So, haste
in creating the thing can be fatal.

Cheers,
Simon

[Simon King]

Hi Vincent,

On 2014-11-28, Vincent Delecroix <20100.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please tell me who? As far as I read, nobody proposed to have nothing.

I did propose to have nothing.

I still think that setting good examples is vastly superiour to *any*
kind of written rules. However, I acknowledge that a slight majority
of people wants written rules. Now, the aim is to create something that
is as unlikely to do damage as possible.

Cheers,
Simon

[Viviane Pons]

Thank you for acknowledging this fact. I do listen to your arguments too. In both examples you give of bad use of a code of conduct, there is a group of people who have some power and they use their co called code of conduct as a general law to abuse of their power. In our situation at least, there is no one with power, we're all equals. But still, I don't want anything like the situations you describe and that is why I totally agree that whatever "code" we have, it should never be a law.

 

Cheers,

[maldun]

On Friday, November 28, 2014 11:04:08 PM UTC+1, vdelecroix wrote:

Hi,

2014-11-28 15:48 UTC−06:00, maldun <dom...@gmx.net>:
> Hi all!
>
> I quite watched this discussion for this so called code of conduct. There
> are a lot of
> opponents of this idea and I wonder why.

Please tell me who? As far as I read, nobody proposed to have nothing.
We are just discussing what. You are welcome to participate but not to
negate the work in progress.

Erm, even the Wiki states as alternative 'nothing'? So at least one would have that in mind.

But thats not precisely what I meant. To be more specific: 'A lot of proponents of the code which was initially stated.'

 

> So far as I understand, this code/guidline/whatever does not serve as a
> law, or is written in stone,
> nor does it say: "If you don't behave as stated in the code, you will be
> teared feathered and be banned forever!"

That is precisely the issue: its aim is not explicit and it is written as a law.

I may be wrong, but doesn't a (social) law or rule need some sort of consequence

(penalty etc.) and someone who executes it to actually be a law? In the current

state it's simply a statement.

 

> I don't think it's that big deal, it's like hanging up some nice slogans on
> your wall like 'Be nice to others.'

This might not reflect the sentiment of the community. And not
everybody have to like "nice slogans".

Define sentiment of the community? The sentiment of the a) whole community, b) the majority

or c) some particular members whcih can be considered as the leaders. 

If you consider a) as your definition then, like in every big community, the chances are near zero

that this ever will happen. If you consider b) a vote was already made, and I suppose you exclude c) as an option.

I personally think that it is more important to not contradict the sentiment of the community, but thats just my opinion.

 

> And I really like such codes because it states that the community wants
> that it's members are nice to each others.

Now, you consider that it is not only a slogan ;-) My main concern
with your sentence is that you make a distinction between "the
community" and "the members". What is this difference?

Vincent

I just wanted to say that it appears to me, that communities who remember their members from time to time to be nice to each other

tend to actually do this. But yes this is simply a personal experience, and has no deeper foundation.

If you want to nitpick: It's like the difference between a set and its elements. And since members are individuals, and actually humans,

they can be nice to each other. A community is not a human being, but a set of members who work on/with some software/whatever.

Maybe my comments seem a little bit sarcastic, but I personally think the emotions concerning this matter are quite high, on something which

does not really seem to have such a deep impact on the project. Maybe I am wrong, but from my experience this will lead to the following:

A lot of time and energy is wasted on something not that big, although maybe bigger problems would need more attention and finally come to

• a solution everyone is equally unhappy or
• It will be discussed forever till everyone is tired, and in the end nothing happens.

Sorry for being so sarcastic but I have quite some experience on such matters (and it always happens just read newspapers ...). 

Also I'm currently reading some books about innovations and novelities and it is quite shocking how precisely the theory apply in this current situation ...

[maldun]

I can follow your concerns but as stated in my other post, there is one thing missing to be a law/rule: A consequence.

If you consider teachers or the soviet union, there was also a form of authority. The sage community has no leader/excecutive which

executes the laws. So are they really laws? In my opinion they are rather statements.

[Andrew]

On Saturday, 29 November 2014 02:04:41 UTC+11, mmarco wrote:

I definitely like the idea of "guidelines" over  "code of conduct".

As one of the people who voted yes, I definitely prefer guidelines.

I also think that those who care should work towards editing the "guidelines" on the wiki with the aim of reaching a consensus so that we can vote on it. As the vote for the "code of conduct" was very close and there are a significant number of people who are unhappy with the outcome, or the with way in which the vote was conducted (or both), we have to do something. One of the aims of introducing this code was to help bring the community closer together and I think it's failed dismally in this regard. People are raising valid objections and these should be addressed.

Andrew

[Thierry]

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 07:27:38PM +0100, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 06:58:00PM +0100, Thierry wrote:
> > No, there is no consensus at all. It is not because a few people are going
> > round on some naming issue that all other issues are settled (not even
> > that particular issue either).
>
> I am not saying that it suffices to change the name.

OK, sorry if i misunderstood, you seemed to support a vote about that
(even proposing a third alternative name) since your message was:

On 28/11/2014 18:00, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 06:08:47AM -0800, Jakob Kroeker wrote:
>> Question 1: who of the initial 'yes' voters would insist to keep the
>> term 'code of conduct'
>> Question 2: who of the initial 'No' voters would accept the term
>> 'guidelines' instead with content as is
>> Question 3: who would accept the term 'guidelines' and also insist
>> on
>> changing the content of the behaviour guidelines
>
> Ah, thanks for running this poll! I have been meaning to do it, but
> did not get the time; it indeed feels like that the discussion is
> going in round when there is a rather clear consensus emerging.
>

> As I said earlier, I'd be very fine with guidelines, or any variant
> that would not make our friends uncomfortable because of a potential
> confusion with law. Etiquette (sagiquette?) is quite fine too as it
> relates to well established traditions on the net; not only because
> it's french :-)
>
> I have no strong opinion on the specific content.

If you consider that more serious problem were pointed by various people
and that there are not settled, then we agree, and this was my main point
here.

> Yet from all I heard in the previous discussion I don't foresee any
> strong obstacle on building a consensus on *some* document.

Some people were opposed to the existence of such a text (i was not in the
absolute, see the beginning of my first e-mail), and this should be
acknowledged, even if those people did not insist (there are still
interesting bits in there).

> Yes there is no rush. Yes this will take some time.

OK, so why supporting another vote right now ?

> Now given that you seem to know so well how things shall be done [1],
> please take the lead.

Well, i precisely would like no one to take the lead (nor a small subgroup
as just happened). For me the correct way is the way we will decide
together. Of course i will participate to such discussion, but i do not
plan to impose anything, this would be inconsistent.

Ciao,
Thierry

> I trust you. I trust
> you'll do a great job [2].
>
> Cheers,
> Nicolas
>
> [1] Yes, I am kindly teasing you a bit here :-)
> Tes grands airs de ces derniers temps m'ont un peu agacé ...

Si tu veux faire une remarque (pas particulierement "kindly") en francais
sur une mailing-liste comme si c'etait un message prive, tu connais mon
adresse mail (non, je ne me refererai pas au code de conduite). Ceci-dit,
ca tombe bien, c'etait le but. Pour info, devoir tirer l'alarme comme je
l'ai fait n'est pas agreable et n'amene que des ennemis (la preuve?), il
m'aurait ete plus facile de rester au chaud quand les tuiles volent bas.

> [2] I am very serious here.
>
> --
> Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nth...@users.sf.net>
> http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
>

[Volker Braun]

On Friday, November 28, 2014 4:58:35 PM UTC, Dima Pasechnik wrote:

> Let me try a last time, just replace code with book:

If you want to understand how I feel about that name, add
to that doc a subtitle "Mein Kampf" :-)

How about "Godwin's Law":  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[Nicolas M. Thiery]

On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 06:09:44AM +0100, Thierry wrote:
> OK, sorry if i misunderstood, you seemed to support a vote about that
> (even proposing a third alternative name) since your message was:

A *poll*, not a *vote*. A poll sounds useful to get a sense of where
the community stands to know better in which direction to work toward
a consensus.

> Some people were opposed to the existence of such a text (i was not
> in the absolute, see the beginning of my first e-mail), and this
> should be acknowledged, even if those people did not insist (there
> are still interesting bits in there).

Sure, one should reach toward those people, see how strong their
feelings are (is it more than "don't see the point" or "oh well, as
long as it's not strict laws"?), etc.

> Well, i precisely would like no one to take the lead (nor a small
> subgroup as just happened). For me the correct way is the way we
> will decide together. Of course i will participate to such
> discussion, but i do not plan to impose anything, this would be
> inconsistent.

Leading is not about taking the decisions, but about organizing the
decision process, by the community, for the community. Having people
move forward by creating wiki pages, calling for feedback, etc is
useful, if not necessary.

> > [1] Yes, I am kindly teasing you a bit here :-)
> > Tes grands airs de ces derniers temps m'ont un peu agacé ...
>
> Si tu veux faire une remarque (pas particulierement "kindly") en francais
> sur une mailing-liste comme si c'etait un message prive, tu connais mon
> adresse mail (non, je ne me refererai pas au code de conduite). Ceci-dit,
> ca tombe bien, c'etait le but. Pour info, devoir tirer l'alarme comme je
> l'ai fait n'est pas agreable et n'amene que des ennemis (la preuve?), il
> m'aurait ete plus facile de rester au chaud quand les tuiles volent bas.

Back to English. My comment was not meant to be private. I put it in
French for the simple reason that I did not find the right wording in
English. I am grateful, really, that you went ahead and pointed
potential risks and suggested better ways to proceed. Indeed you took
a risk in doing so. Others did too.

That being said, I did find the tone not particularly "kindly" and was
hurt by it. I allowed myself, in a single line and half jokingly, to
use a similar tone. I let you judge on the effect.

End of the parenthesis; what had to be said has been said, we can move
on (or if you believe it's useful to discuss this a bit further, we
should indeed do that privately).

Amitiés,
Nicolas

[Nicolas M. Thiery]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 07:18:26PM +0000, Simon King wrote:
> If I understand correctly what William and Volker are saying, they claim
> it is too late for a change anyway,

Please reread. William has explicitly, and in several emails, stated
the converse.

Cheers,

[Thierry]

Hi,

On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 12:40:16PM +0100, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 06:09:44AM +0100, Thierry wrote:
> > OK, sorry if i misunderstood, you seemed to support a vote about that
> > (even proposing a third alternative name) since your message was:
>
> A *poll*, not a *vote*. A poll sounds useful to get a sense of where
> the community stands to know better in which direction to work toward
> a consensus.

OK, my bad, my reference in reading english is
http://www.wordreference.com/enfr/poll which seems to give a polysemous
definition (vote, survey of opinions (indeed!), election).

> Leading is not about taking the decisions, but about organizing the
> decision process, by the community, for the community. Having people
> move forward by creating wiki pages, calling for feedback, etc is
> useful, if not necessary.

If a single person (or a small group) organizes the decision process for
the community, then it is not by the community. I think this
organizational task is also a collective task (this prevents situations
like the one that is happening), hence i would not call that leading (if i
still trust the on-line dictionary). Everybody should feel the right
(perhaps even the duty) of doing such collective organization tasks, for
example i opposed the way the text was written to the fact of opening an
empty page on the wiki, but then Vincent opened it as anybody could have
done, and i hope anybody can contribute, not only in giving feedback or
fill existing wiki pages, but also in calling for feedback and creating
wiki pages (or any kind of organization task). I guess we agree on that
point, but i wanted to make it clear, i do not see any particularity of
organization compared to other tasks, this is not a reserved area.

Ciao,
Thierry

[Dima Pasechnik]

On 2014-11-29, Volker Braun <vbrau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ------=_Part_66_1749519742.1417259350569
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="----=_Part_67_832209070.1417259350569"
>
> ------=_Part_67_832209070.1417259350569
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Well, sorry, you were first talking about "cultural baggage", not me,
when I was saying that I personally am quite upset about that doc, and
you seemed to be unable to understand why this can be the case, from
merely "cultural baggage" alone.
The fact is that "cultural baggage" can be as tabu as the one
Godwin was making fun about.



>

[kcrisman]

Agreed. Most everybody would consider it a very positive outcome if
there were a replacement "thing of conduct" that addresses the
concerns many people have raised and gets passed almost unanimously.

Please yes. 

[Nicolas M. Thiery]

On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 01:35:05PM +0100, Thierry wrote:
> If a single person (or a small group) organizes the decision process for
> the community, then it is not by the community. I think this
> organizational task is also a collective task (this prevents situations
> like the one that is happening), hence i would not call that leading (if i
> still trust the on-line dictionary). Everybody should feel the right
> (perhaps even the duty) of doing such collective organization tasks, for
> example i opposed the way the text was written to the fact of opening an
> empty page on the wiki, but then Vincent opened it as anybody could have
> done, and i hope anybody can contribute, not only in giving feedback or
> fill existing wiki pages, but also in calling for feedback and creating
> wiki pages (or any kind of organization task). I guess we agree on that
> point, but i wanted to make it clear, i do not see any particularity of
> organization compared to other tasks, this is not a reserved area.

Ok, I see your point. My view on leading is that it's never exclusive.
The role of the leader is to make whatever the task is about happen;
but if more people make it happen, so much the better. Granted that's
indeed not everybody's view on leading, so it's good to clarify.

Cheers,