I've only read the first page and I already saw a problematic statement from A. Gerrand (which seems to be in charge of this CoC proposal).
User Peter Kleiweg raises this concern "Who gets to decide what is racist? And even whether or not racist is a bad thing?" and while I disagree with him on this particular issue the answer that Gerrand gives is very problematic:
"If it's speech that makes people feel unwelcome and discriminated against, then I personally believe that's a bad thing."
the problem with this is that, for example, an open display of support for gay marriage will make some catholics (for example) unwelcome and discriminated against. This isn't even theoretical, this is an argument that actually happens in the real world, just not in the bubble inhabited by Gerrand, apparently.
Discomfort is not unwelcomeness. What you should be looking for is a situation in which direct concerns of Catholics are getting shouted down - that does happen(in an existence-proof sense), but it's not nearly as common as an internal "rationale of oppression" used to escape responsibility and consequence for beliefs that are directly harmful to others. "Do not deny me my belief, critique is tyranny" is a very common theme to defend all forms of discrimination, both from the positive side of "I do not think I am doing wrong myself" and the negative of "I am justified because we already know they are evil."
You can still have schisms and nasty politics with a policy like this, since obviously the different sides of the discussion will value things unequally, but the goal is to at least maintain surface politeness and order so that small voices don't give up so quickly.
>Discomfort is not unwelcomeness
unwelcomeness is when a majority of people is making you feel uncomfortable. Does that mean it's only ok to express an opinion if it's unpopular or unanimous?
>Catholics are getting shouted down - that does happen(in an existence-proof sense), but it's not nearly as common
A catholic would point you to all those countries where catholics are getting killed daily for their opinion.
»"Do not deny me my belief, critique is tyranny" is a very common theme to defend all forms of discrimination
An equally common theme is "your opinion/behaviour is offensive and scandalous", but both are exactly the point I'm making, it should be possible to make statements critical to the system without being branded with a scarlett letter by some secret court working on anonymous tips.
>You can still have schisms and nasty politics with a policy like this
IMHO no, you can't, the Django CoC is too "feelings oriented", you can't objectively judge peoples feelings (especially on mailing lists and IRC) because it's internal unobservable state, besides I have learned that some people invented several terms [1] [2] [3] to redefine "surface politeness discussion" into harassment.
Furthermore it specifically says "In general, if someone asks you to stop, then stop" which mean that even if you are making an argument that does not violate the CoC simply defending it if someone asks you to stop is a violation. It's simply impossible to enforce such rule equitably without every argument becoming a race to who can shout "mom!" first.
“Though all winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple, who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter.”
I don't see what this has to do anything. Sure, if an article in a newspaper is censored by a government I fully agree.
If I am on e.g. a technical list or attend a conference, I'd expect discussions about the subject-matter and offbeat comments about gender, race, or whatever.
the problem with this is that, for example, an open display of support for gay marriage will make some catholics (for example) unwelcome and discriminated against. This isn't even theoretical,
The thing is that we are talking about a technical community. I don't see what an open display of support for or disapproval of gay marriage has to do with Go.
People subscribe to Go lists because they want to discuss technical aspects of a programming language. For other topics, there are other venues.
People subscribe to Go lists because they want to discuss technical aspects of a programming language. For other topics, there are other venues.
Yes, and for highlighting off-topic subjects, there is the simple moderator acronym "OT". A rigid rule book and enforcement policy has nothing to do with free speech. It's all about trying to balance the inequalities in the tech sector. Unfortunately, a rule book is not going to solve that problem. The cynic in me just thinks this a conference "feel-good" announcement planned as a result of Googlers feeling bad about the fact that they are a 83% male workforce.
If the real problem is going to be solved, it's got to be about encouraging and educating people from all genders and races to code. That starts much earlier than any engagement in online communities. If the output of schools and colleges of trained coders was balanced, all the horror stories of harassment and abuse would soon become history as the workforce also becomes balanced, in my opinion.
I strongly dislike the idea of self-appointed judiciaries. Mistakes happen. The nuances of behaviour of people with mental health issues is likely to get caught up in these rule books. That's why we have courts, to help deal with difficult cases. Vigilantes may well refer to the code of conduct for justification for statements of intent like this:
User Peter Kleiweg raises this concern "Who gets to decide what is racist? And even whether or not racist is a bad thing?" and while I disagree with him on this particular issue the answer that Gerrand gives is very problematic:
"If it's speech that makes people feel unwelcome and discriminated against, then I personally believe that's a bad thing."
the problem with this is that, for example, an open display of support for gay marriage will make some catholics (for example) unwelcome and discriminated against. This isn't even theoretical, this is an argument that actually happens in the real world, just not in the bubble inhabited by Gerrand, apparently.