ECIP-1001: ECIP Code of Conduct #239
Conversation
YazzyYaz
added
the
status:0 wip
|
Added WIP until we have agreement on the issue ticket to move this from Draft to Active Status. We also need an email for community to address any violations of our Code of Conduct |
|
I urge that we avoid code of conduct. Here are my reasoning points:
As such, I hope you reconsider this PR. |
|
@BelfordZ so, the Code of Conduct is only scoped within the ECIP repository. Anything happening outside the repository is out of scope for the ECIP Code of Conduct in question. This will help organize the ECIP better to limit doxing attacks inside the repository and allow for a way to on-board and off-board both ECIP Editors, Coordinators and Participants within the repository itself (not even the organization and the discord) to follow the Code of Conduct if they are to be given Commit Rights on the repository in question. I don't think it's necessarily a tool for litigation as the scope is limited to preserve the quality of the repository in question. As you have noticed, there's been activity within the ECIP process that's warrants the proposal of such a document. For people who can't behave themselves, the Code of Conduct doesn't apply to them if they're on Discord, Gitter, Twitter, Medium, etc. This only applies to the ECIP repository as to maintain high quality discussions and limit trolling, harassment, and doxing. Given that the scope of this Code of Conduct ECIP is limited only to this repository in question, does that make it more acceptable? We want to allow for dissent within the community, but limit abuse of power within the ECIP process that can affect the other editors and participants and authors contributing to the ECIP repository in question. |
I guess you're at least partially right on this. I'm wondering, what should we do with those trolling and personal attacks comments that have clearly violated your CoC? #177 (comment) #220 (comment)
|
|
Alright |
|
@sorpaas you have a point, of course, I do apologize if I offended d34d. Given that this is still in Draft stage, as I'm sure you already know per ECIP-1000, it means it's not Active yet so no Code of Conduct applies yet. |
|
@YazzyYaz Thanks! And I think you do have a great point that CoC should only apply to discussions / issues / PRs / comments that are created after CoC is active, but should not retroactively apply to past comments. |
|
Glad we agree on something today, @sorpaas :D |
|
While I agree with the general statements you make, there is one thing that just doesn't sit well. This creates grounds for not allowing contribution. Does it matter if a good PR / ECIP comes with a PR message that is vulgar? not to me. not to the code either. |
No, it shouldn't matter and we should allow for dissent. We can rectify some of the language to allow for vulgarism that isn't a personal attack on a person per se. What I hope to solve with this CoC is to minimize harassment and doxing of fellow ECIP participants when they feel uncomfortable contributing to the ECIP process. I'm happy to hear suggestions and if you'd like to add/modify some of the content. It's a draft after all and subject to change. |
| ## Enforcement Responsibilities | ||
| Community leaders are responsible for clarifying and enforcing our standards of acceptable behavior and will take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any behavior that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful. | ||
|
|
||
| Community leaders have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, and will communicate reasons for moderation decisions when appropriate. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the only case i'd argue seems acceptable to delete something on behalf of someone else is in the event of dox
There was a problem hiding this comment.
and will communicate reasons for moderation decisions when appropriate
They should communicate all decisions regardless of whether they think it's appropriate or not, Giving "community leaders" the ability to enforce / decide what content is/isn't acceptable and then not holding them accountable for their actions is giving a select few an abnormally high level of power over the project.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@BelfordZ agreed that doxing is the main reason for this doc.
We certainly want to allow for instigation and dissent in our community. But I worry there are things worse than doxing too that we might leave out.
| * The use of sexualized language or imagery, and sexual attention or advances of any kind | ||
| * Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks | ||
| * Public or private harassment | ||
| * Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or email address, or real names, without their explicit permission |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO this should be the only thing on this list
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's fair. What about harassment?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Playing the devil's advocate here:
What if someone does something other than doxing, say SWATing, deep-fakes of loved ones, etc. because they don't like an ECIP you proposed.
That won't be covered by doxing but should be covered by harassment.
I think trolling is fine if its just for shit and giggles. Personal attacks I'm not sure about since they can be very subjective. Say we remove them then until we have a better definition. Political attacks I feel have been going on for a while in the community (calling someone a communist or a stupid liberal, etc.) I just don't know what one should do in this case. We can remove it until we also have a better definition of it.
We should be able to leave room for dissent and instigation since it's what keeps our process honest. Maybe you can provide a draft for something you have in mind in regards to that?
|
|
||
| Examples of unacceptable behavior include: | ||
|
|
||
| * The use of sexualized language or imagery, and sexual attention or advances of any kind |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So i have to remove all my pron from the blockchain?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're confusing sexuality with gender
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the flip side, we can rectify this to say you shouldn't discriminate someone's ECIP based on their sexuality or gender or make them feel uncomfortable to submit an ECIP
|
@BelfordZ thank you for your feedback! Very valuable stuff. As I mentioned, it's only a draft that we can modify, so my comments are that we can remove some of the stuff until they have a better definition later and keep the things about doxing and harassment. Let me know what you think. |
ghost
mentioned this pull request
soc1c
changed the title
|
@YazzyYaz You should probably just close this pull request, eh? |
|
Closing this PR in favor of supporting ECIP-0001: #277 |
Issue for discussion to the Code of Conduct ticket is here: #238