Vulkan Adopts A Code Of Conduct

[theghost]

I read that ticket. It wasn't clear whether anything actually came of the complaint or not, so you'd have to assume that nothing came of it. As was mentioned, there was no conduct inside the project that broke the CoC. Do you have evidence otherwise?

Also see up this: https://github.com/opal/opal/pull/94...ment-113486020 with this diff https://github.com/opal/opal/pull/94...9f1b2b7e837R11

After they set up the CoC after long discussions, they tried to expand it with this line: "This code of conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community."

This opens the door to shame everyone for everything as long as he/she does not explicit puts a disclaimer before every statement. With such a CoC, you just need to wait until key persons of a project say something unlucky, to tar and feather the person openly to ruin his/her fame.

[lowflyer]

So merit is garbage, right?

No, the other way round: Garbage is merit!

[JAYL]

that's a bit redundant

Don't cut yourself on that edge matey.

[L_A_G]

I see this is again being received about as well as a turd in a swimming pool and considering the well known issues with most CoCs are, nobody familiar with these issues and with reasonable judgment is going to blame people for it. People calling those raising concerns over CoCs "incels" are also once again showing that the alt right doesn't have exclusive dibs over the ignorant and the stupid. This, like the Linux CoC, seems to be one of those that have had some work done to address the issues, but if it was a law being proposed it ought to get sent back to committee for some adjustments.

Having read trough it, the main point that I'm going to raise concerns over the scope section containing the sentence "Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers" as that seems to give maintainers free range over scope. That sentence could theoretically allow particularly vindictive maintainers to extend the scope of the CoC to everything including private conversations and other discussions well outside the scope of the actual project and not involving any project members other than the one accused of breaking the CoC.

However it does have one point where it improves upon the Linux CoC and it's in that it covers conduct that could be "reasonably" considered inappropriate in a professional setting. This point should limit the extent to which people can claim harassment over completely nonsensical things like correcting them or disagreeing with them. I've had more than a few encounters with people who clearly got very upset just because I respectfully disagreed with them and many of them were hard right wingers (gun activists tend to get very angry when you point out that prohibition was in the constitution too, so the 2nd amendment isn't actually an argument for open gun laws).

Edit:
Oh and before I get the usual "You're just a hateful bastard" responses, I would like to point out that I, like many others who have concerns over CoCs, don't just view things like them based on how they're intended to be used, but how the can (and are) misused by malicious actors. When you formulate something like this, you should always consider the idea that your enemies end up being the ones responsible for using it.

If you are one of those types who actually thinks people with concerns over CoCs is an "incel" or "alt-right apologist" then you should consider what would happen if the types of people you despise overrun the project and start using the CoC to their own political ends? What could they do with it? If it's vague on what's considered to be unacceptable behavior and broad in scope, what's the worst thing that could happen? Not a pleasant thought isn't it?

Well that's why people have issues with CoCs that are vague on what's considered punishable and broad in terms of where it's applicable.

[audir8]

Having read trough it, the main point that I'm going to raise concerns over the scope section containing the sentence "Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers" as that seems to give maintainers free range over scope. That sentence could theoretically allow particularly vindictive maintainers to extend the scope of the CoC to everything including private conversations and other discussions well outside the scope of the actual project and not involving any project members other than the one accused of breaking the CoC.

Let's read this a little more carefully, the previous sentences clearly state what is representation of a project. Then, it can be _further_ defined and _clarified_ by a maintainer. Clearly, if your project is on Slack, the maintainer will find communications there representative of the project. Any such additional representation has to be clarified, so there is no chance of mis-use.

You say you've looked at potential mis-use, did you bother to look at perfectly good uses? Good uses that could easily not be nefarious if a maintainer just outlines any new representations of the project in an open document available to everyone? Like maybe the linux/MAINTAINERS file?

[dungeon]

"In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation."

They should shortened that up and to say just with or without brain

Now seriously, what's this?

It is yet another illusion

[onicsis]

"In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation."


They should shortened that up and to say just with or without brain

WTF is a gender expression and how is different from C++ or Javascript expression?
It Is evaluated by the compiler from left to right or from right to left? Or something in between ...

[BeardedGNUFreak]

"In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation."

They should shortened that up and to say just with or without brain

The reason these toxic SJW CoCs have these long enumerations is they are encoding in the document the Progressive Stack.

In other words the project's members are grouped into a spectrum:

* White Republican Male - least oppressed/oppressor

...

* Black Trans Overweight Disabled Woman - most oppressed/non-oppressor

This is where the classic nutty SJW "Black people can't be racist" claims come from.

What that means in reality is the SJW CoC only applies to the 'oppressors' as defined by the Progressive Stack.

The toxic FreeBSD CoC was even more explicit with the establishing the project being broken down into oppressors and victims.

This is also why these toxic SJW CoCs are both too vague(at defining harassment and other actions) while at the same time overly specific on defining the groups that the project consists of.

You need to codify the groups to establish the oppression gradiant and ensure that only the ideological enemies of the SJWs can be targeted with CoC enforcement. And at the same time the possible 'crimes' is broad enough that anything can be claimed to be 'harassment' by one enemies of the SJWs.

[BeardedGNUFreak]

The end game for the SJWs once they get their beachhead established like they have with this toxic CoC is:

* Now that the first version of the toxic CoC is rammed down the community's throats, quietly in the background keep updating it. No one doing any useful work in the project cares about this crap and usually the SJWs are free to update the CoC into a iron clad ideological weapon

* Establish a SJW star chamber(ideally with paid salaries) for the toxic CoC. Staffed by non-other than the very same SJWs.

* Comb though every project member's entire social media presence looking for wrongthink

* Continually purge their ideological enemies one by one while they sit home getting paid

You might say, but won't the project just die? Yes, over time, but the SJWs don't care. They don't care about the project. It is nothing more than a host to leach off for as long as possible until it is sucked dry.

[L_A_G]

Let's read this a little more carefully, the previous sentences clearly state what is representation of a project. Then, it can be _further_ defined and _clarified_ by a maintainer. Clearly, if your project is on Slack, the maintainer will find communications there representative of the project. Any such additional representation has to be clarified, so there is no chance of mis-use.

The problem with your interpretation is that a few sentences earlier the scope is defined as all the official channels of the project, which would already cover a Slack channel made after the fact. In other words the issue of new channels being added after the fact has already been solved. Not only that, the language in that part is also not specific to official project related avenues so it can easily be interpreted as allowing maintainers to extend the reach of the CoC to include things well outside of the scope of the actual project.

You say you've looked at potential mis-use, did you bother to look at perfectly good uses?

Not sure what your logic here is, but if there are clear misuses for something the sane thing to do is to prevent or mitigate the misuse of it by amending, modifying or removing it. As I already mentioned, new official channels being added after the fact is already solved by the scope being defined as "every official project channel".