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

[deusexmachina]

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

Many of us aren't willing to just give up whenever a bunch of lefties get involved. I like ZFS and I want to keep using it... So if they're doing this merely to appease, then fine... But if it is going to be used to squeeze through nasty code, then we will have to push back.

[Dedobot]

Let me explain that to you with an example. I live in Germany but originally I'm from East Europe (ex-USSR country) where highly racist and sexist jokes and expressions are part of the every day vocabulary. We don't use them with any bad intentions, it's just old Soviet baggage that's part of the language.

I'm talking about expressions like "to sit at the table like a white person" or the fact that we have at least 10 different derogatory terms for the Roma and the Turkish minorities.

Now when you start using such expressions with people not part of that culture and without context, it can get ugly very fast.

TL;DR language is very ambiguous and not everyone has the same context as you, so thinking before you speak / write is good practice.

My boss is a American Jew and "like a white man.." is his favorite Bulgarian anecdote :-)

[nils_]

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

I think also, if someone has a problem with someone else's behaviour, they can simply block or ignore that person, or contact them directly first. No need to involve the maintainers. The "difficult" people will get the message sooner or later.

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.

That seems to be the case very often with establishing a CoC. There is no real debate, many people simply don't care about it. Any criticism is framed as someone trying to reserve the right to discriminate, sexually harass etc.. which I believe is already unfair (assuming good faith?).

I would also like to see data on whether adopting a certain CoC helped improve / increase contributions. The proponents of a CoC say that once adopted you get a more diverse set of contributors. I don't think that's the case simply because those potential contributors don't exist. What I have seen happen is that troublemakers start using the CoC to try to get rid of project members who they disagree with politically - so all of the sudden you have personal politics seep into your project and you get involved in personal conflicts.

[nils_]

Let me explain that to you with an example. I live in Germany but originally I'm from East Europe (ex-USSR country) where highly racist and sexist jokes and expressions are part of the every day vocabulary. We don't use them with any bad intentions, it's just old Soviet baggage that's part of the language.

I'm German, working in a very diverse office setting (people from all over Europe, Russia, India, China, Middle East), in the corner I sit Russian is spoken more than German. Swearing is pretty normal though no one has ever used any racist / sexist language - or rather only in a self-deprecating way. It may be different in private conversations which I believe shouldn't be governed by a CoC.

Now when you start using such expressions with people not part of that culture and without context, it can get ugly very fast.

TL;DR language is very ambiguous and not everyone has the same context as you, so thinking before you speak / write is good practice.

Especially when writing I would think of the potential audience, when using a public mailing list with your real name attached. It's not just something that the project members will read, this would also show up for potential employers or your future mother in law when they Googles your name.

[kingu]

Because if you have written rules it's easier to enforce them.

And what happens to that enforcement wrt. duplicating legal code and having unwritten rules?

Antisocial people don't care about people, much less what any of them write in text documents.
Wishful thinking, at best, does not prevent antisocial people from using the rules to their ends.

[skeevy420]

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

Look at Mr. Big Shot 1%er with his in-home washer and dryer; completely out of touch with us regular people and our laundromats.

[DanL]

Ah yes, yet another project embracing toxic politics, lovely.

You do nothing but whine about CoC's. You are toxic to this forum.

[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.

[lowflyer]

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

[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/