OpenZFS / ZFS On Linux Is Introducing A Code of Conduct To Encourage New Contributors

[nils_]

Doesn't matter if it's a religious text, "An Interview With a Vampire", or a printed out copy of the BTRFS man pages; does swearing on something really encourage one to be truthful or is the the fear of the penalty that encourages them to be truthful? A CoC, to me, is the same: both give a fear of a penalty or punishment to encourage one to do the right thing; whether or not that fear is effective varies by the person.

It's a fear of penalty, though the rules are pretty clear when it comes to Perjury. I mention again the chilling effects this may have, though I agree with you that in case of OpenZFS it's not as severe as in other cases.

[starshipeleven]

I just find the rule bizarre since it doesn't govern any behaviour normally seen on mailing lists or in IRC.

I've seen enough drama on BSD mailing lists and GNU stuff, it's not a bad thing if others get some countermeasures in place.

[nils_]

In addition, harmful conduct outside these spaces that negatively impacts members of the OpenZFS community (e.g., making discriminatory or threatening statements against individuals or groups of people) may affect a person’s ability to participate in the OpenZFS community.

This I find particularly dangerous because it concerns behaviour outside of ZFS. I would probably limit that to illegal behaviour (begging the question "in which jurisdiction?), if at all.

• Discriminatory language in any form.
• Jokes that may be received as insults by some people.

"May be received" is also a very difficult phrase. I can't control how anything I say or write is received by someone else. Most of these rules work implicitly through shared culture. Making them explicit just seems like a bone of contention, and again there is the danger of having personal conflicts between people spill into the project.

[nils_]

I've seen enough drama on BSD mailing lists and GNU stuff, it's not a bad thing if others get some countermeasures in place.

Earlier in this thread you called me retarded. I now have a couple of choices: I can run to Michael, demanding you be banned for abusive behaviour. I could ignore the comment or laugh it off (I assume it was meant as a joke?). Or I could block you (I think, don't know if vBulletin supports this). Which of these options causes the least amount of issues in the community? Personally I would feel it is incredibly childish to run to some committee and complain because my feeling were hurt when there are other, more adequate options to protect myself.

[Guest]

Convoluted scenario: I'm a project member and another project member meets me at a bar and inititas "sexual attention" not knowing we're members in the same project. I don't welcome said attention. Is this a CoC violation?

Consider the case where some project member is fine with "sexual attention" at the time when it happens, but changes their mind in the future to get rid of you. The possibilities are endless here.

[skeevy420]

Earlier in this thread you called me retarded. I now have a couple of choices: I can run to Michael, demanding you be banned for abusive behaviour. I could ignore the comment or laugh it off (I assume it was meant as a joke?). Or I could block you (I think, don't know if vBulletin supports this). Which of these options causes the least amount of issues in the community? Personally I would feel it is incredibly childish to run to some committee and complain because my feeling were hurt when there are other, more adequate options to protect myself.

If it was Fark.com you'd get a 24 hour ban for even saying you needed to retard the timing of your car because, there, using the word retard in its 100% politically correct meaning is still offensive because they're a bunch of ultra-liberals gone rampant to the point to where they're essentially the hippie version of a Nazi.

I think that's the fear a lot of us have when projects adopt a CoC -- who will enforce it and why.

Look at starship and myself in regards to humor for a perfect example. He pointed out the sexual parts of the CoC and then I hit on him.

Are the things we said offensive? Possibly; depends on what you find funny.

Are we being offensive towards anyone or any group in particular? No (at least not in the comments between us).

Does that previous question even matter? It does to me, it might not for someone else; that's where the fear and uncertainty about CoCs come from.

Yep, I've done gone an Godwin'd us.

[nils_]

I think mutual tolerance is very important. Finding a way to work together.

[timrichardson]

Does anyone really get encouraged by contributing to a project by it having a Code of Conduct?
Like, really?

If you're into evidence that may challenge your preconceptions:

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/bita3a/researchers_have_found_that_pinning_a_reminder_of/

[lowflyer]

I was never a user of ZFS in any way. But this CoC(ky behaviour) guarantees that I never will be.

[NotMine999]

No, I have not bothered to closely read and carefully ponder the CoC for ZFS.

A much simpler CoC is much easier to understand and does not require voluminous amounts of words to explain.

1. Be nice. Provide useful and constructive comments.
2. If you have a problem, take it up with a project leader OFFLINE (direct message).
3. If somebody needs to be "corrected" for "offensive behavior", do it OFFLINE (direct message).
4. Our community is not here to judge you for your behavior outside of our community.

Why do certain things OFFLINE (direct message)?

Simple. Who washes their laundry in public? Nobody that I know, but maybe that's where global human "polite culture" is moving to.

If I did something wrong there is no reason to shame me in public by correcting me in a public forum. We can always talk OFFLINE (direct message); the public shame method simply offends me. AND, I did not see any explicit wording in the ZFS CoC forbidding ONLINE "correction" (public shaming) of an "offender".

Some might say an OFFLINE (direct message) approach is "hiding the problem", or, "What about transparency in these issues?"

Since the direction of the ZFS CoC seems to address people's feelings, how about not offending people's feelings when they do something wrong and earn themselves a "correction"? Or maybe the ZFS CoC authors think that "offenders can't have feelings for others or themselves so public shaming is justifiable"; "you can't hurt people that don't feel anything" logic.

And then there is the whole section regarding conduct outside of ZFS possibly impacting a person's ability to participate in the ZFS community. How quaint: Endless judgement.

What if your behavior was not "offensive" per a CoC in another community but the ZFS community thinks you ought to be "given a toss" because it offends the ZFS CoC?

Does anyone else see the major issues that evolve when conduct outside a community is brought into the ZFS community and re-evaluated there? When does the judgement end?

Perhaps the most egregious thing about the ZFS CoC is the fact that the proposal/summary is written as if it's enactment is a foregone conclusion. Even the public forum "debate" on the question of a ZFS CoC seems to be "manufactured for the purposes of appearing to be interested in feedback", despite the best efforts by some in that forum to side-step that appearance. The public behavior of the ZFS leaders on this issue demonstrates to me how toxic a community it will become because of it's poorly written / rather broad CoC.

Yep, ZFS is one community that I would not choose to join given the way they have presented their CoC proposal.