Re: Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 181, Issue 42

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 181, Issue 42

kevin zhang
Amir, what you are suggesting at this point is basically that it doesn't
matter because that bug report was closed once and intended to remain
closed (despite being reopened) with reason that the WordPress website
isn't ready for public consumption yet was made public to replace the
previous. If the intent was to test something, should have done so
privately. All we are doing now is just dragging this on and blowing up
simply because of communication failures.

Since someone insisted a couple messages ago, if this isn't a hobby project
yet  is donation funded then what exactly is this considered? Doubtful it
counts as volunteer led if the foundation seems to insist on their way
judging by level executives. WMF is funded by donations and grants, it's a
non profit...not for commercial profit so there is a serious disconnect
going on

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 3:42 PM <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Send Wikitech-l mailing list submissions to
>         [hidden email]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         [hidden email]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         [hidden email]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikitech-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: [Wikimedia-l] C-team Statement on the Code of Conduct
>       (Amir Ladsgroup)
>    2. Re: [Wikimedia-l] C-team Statement on the Code of Conduct (Pine W)
>    3. Re: [Wikimedia-l] C-team Statement on the Code of Conduct
>       (Isarra Yos)
>    4. Re: My Phabricator account has been disabled (Petr Bena)
>    5. Re: My Phabricator account has been disabled (Amir Ladsgroup)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 20:08:57 +0200
> From: Amir Ladsgroup <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Cc: Wikimedia developers <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikimedia-l] C-team Statement on the Code
>         of      Conduct
> Message-ID:
>         <
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hey,
> As a member of Code of conduct committee I just wanted to express how much
> I appreciate your statement. The work we are doing is not fun, we are
> dealing with frustrations, harassments, trolling, and all sorts of the dark
> side of the Wikimedia movement but I genuinely believe that this type of
> work is vital to keep the movement moving forward, to make us more
> welcoming and foster a diverse environment.
>
> All of the support I've received, private and public, online and offline is
> overwhelming. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.
>
> Best
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:46 PM Victoria Coleman <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > The executive leadership team, on behalf of the Foundation, would like to
> > issue a statement of unequivocal support for the Code of Conduct[1] and
> the
> > community-led Code of Conduct Committee. We believe that the development
> > and implementation of the Code are vital in ensuring the healthy
> > functioning of our technical communities and spaces. The Code of Conduct
> > was created to address obstacles and occasionally very problematic
> personal
> > communications that limit participation and cause real harm to community
> > members and staff. In engaging in this work we are setting the tone for
> the
> > ways we collaborate in tech. We are saying that treating others badly is
> > not welcome in our communities. And we are joining an important movement
> in
> > the tech industry to address these problems in a way that supports
> > self-governance consistent with our values.
> >
> > This initiative is critical in continuing the amazing work of our
> projects
> > and ensuring that they continue to flourish in delivering on the critical
> > vision of being the essential infrastructure of free knowledge now and
> > forever.
> >
> > Toby, Maggie, Eileen, Heather, Lisa, Katherine, Jaime, Joady, and
> Victoria
> >
> >
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct <
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 18:17:00 +0000
> From: Pine W <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>,
>         "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikimedia-l] C-team Statement on the Code
>         of      Conduct
> Message-ID:
>         <CAF=dyJhZHEM-2h=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> James, let's stay on topic, please. If you want to talk about other issues
> then please start a new thread.
>
> Victoria, I have mixed feelings about this statement.
>
> I agree that we want to have civility in technical spaces, and a technical
> code of conduct is one important way of working toward that goal. I also
> agree that having ways to resolve disputes and deal with problematic
> behavior is important.
>
> On the other hand, I think several aspects of your statement are less than
> ideal.
>
> * This situation is being discussed civilly in a single thread on
> Wikitech-l, and I see no reason to start a new thread.
>
> * You added Wikimedia-l to this discussion, and Wikimedia-l is outside of
> the scope of the TCoC. I think that adding Wikimedia-l to the discussion is
> an unnecessary escalation. Please refrain from unnecessary escalations.
>
> * While the opinions of the WMF executives are somewhat influential, my
> understanding is that WMF wants the Technical Code of Conduct and the
> committee that enforces it to have political legitimacy in the community.
> Involvement of the WMF C-levels works against that. I think that you should
> let the participants in the discussion (which I feel is now generally tense
> but constructive) work out this situation among themselves / ourselves
> without the intervention of WMF executives. Although there are situations
> in which the intervention of WMF executives would be helpful, I think that
> this isn't one of them.
>
> * The statement that you made comes across to me as endorsing the status
> quo. I am not sure that this was your intent. I feel that adjustments to
> policies and practices should be considered, partially based on the
> constructive portions of the discussions that are happening on Wikitech-l.
>
> I agree that the TCoC Committee has a difficult job when the try to do it
> well, and I support the goal of having civility in technical spaces. I
> think that it would be possible, and appropriate, to express support for
> good-faith efforts of the Committee's members and those participating in
> the discussion in Wikitech-l, and for the goals of the CoC, without
> unnecessary escalation or intervention from WMF executives that may make a
> difficult situation more challenging. Sometimes less involvement is the
> better way to achieve one's goals.
>
> Thank you for listening,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 18:23:18 +0000
> From: Isarra Yos <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email], Wikimedia developers
>         <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikimedia-l] C-team Statement on the Code
>         of      Conduct
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Sorry, I apparently replied to the wrong mailing list.
>
> On 14/08/18 18:19, Isarra Yos wrote:
> > As a total random, I'd also like to second this - as much as I think
> > the CoC and the committee in particular have room to improve in how
> > things are handled, this will never happen without proper support for
> > the work they're doing in the first place.
> >
> > While some of us have been somewhat flabbergasted by specific events,
> > these are after all the people we need to be working with to actually
> > resolve the issues at hand, and indeed the events (and handling
> > thereof) themselves have also highlighted the need for more clearer
> > standards moving forward. I'm glad to see some steps have already been
> > taken. Let's continue in this vein.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > -I
> >
> > On 14/08/18 18:08, Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
> >> Hey,
> >> As a member of Code of conduct committee I just wanted to express how
> >> much
> >> I appreciate your statement. The work we are doing is not fun, we are
> >> dealing with frustrations, harassments, trolling, and all sorts of
> >> the dark
> >> side of the Wikimedia movement but I genuinely believe that this type of
> >> work is vital to keep the movement moving forward, to make us more
> >> welcoming and foster a diverse environment.
> >>
> >> All of the support I've received, private and public, online and
> >> offline is
> >> overwhelming. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.
> >>
> >> Best
> >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:46 PM Victoria Coleman
> >> <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello everyone,
> >>>
> >>> The executive leadership team, on behalf of the Foundation, would
> >>> like to
> >>> issue a statement of unequivocal support for the Code of Conduct[1]
> >>> and the
> >>> community-led Code of Conduct Committee. We believe that the
> >>> development
> >>> and implementation of the Code are vital in ensuring the healthy
> >>> functioning of our technical communities and spaces. The Code of
> >>> Conduct
> >>> was created to address obstacles and occasionally very problematic
> >>> personal
> >>> communications that limit participation and cause real harm to
> >>> community
> >>> members and staff. In engaging in this work we are setting the tone
> >>> for the
> >>> ways we collaborate in tech. We are saying that treating others
> >>> badly is
> >>> not welcome in our communities. And we are joining an important
> >>> movement in
> >>> the tech industry to address these problems in a way that supports
> >>> self-governance consistent with our values.
> >>>
> >>> This initiative is critical in continuing the amazing work of our
> >>> projects
> >>> and ensuring that they continue to flourish in delivering on the
> >>> critical
> >>> vision of being the essential infrastructure of free knowledge now and
> >>> forever.
> >>>
> >>> Toby, Maggie, Eileen, Heather, Lisa, Katherine, Jaime, Joady, and
> >>> Victoria
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct <
> >>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >>> New messages to: [hidden email]
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 21:29:42 +0200
> From: Petr Bena <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia developers <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled
> Message-ID:
>         <CA+4EQ5eYsJ1FxEoyYukcXO9kVhN=zf_gzSs-1nAtH=
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> I am OK if people who are attacking others are somehow informed that
> this is not acceptable and taught how to properly behave, and if they
> continue that, maybe some "preventive" actions could be taken, but is
> that what really happened?
>
> The comment by MZMcBride was censored, so almost nobody can really see
> what it was and from almost all mails mentioning the content here it
> appears he said "what the fuck" or WTF. I can't really think of any
> language construct where this is so offensive it merits instant ban +
> removal of content.
>
> I don't think we need /any/ language policy in a bug tracker. If
> someone says "this bug sucks old donkey's ****" it may sounds a bit
> silly, but there isn't really any harm done. If you say "Jimbo, you
> are a f**** retard, and all your code stinks" then that's a problem,
> but I have serious doubts that's what happened. And the problem is not
> a language, but personal attack itself.
>
> If someone is causing problems LET THEM KNOW and talk to them. Banning
> someone instantly is worst possible thing you can do. You may think
> our community is large enough already so that we can set up this kind
> of strict and annoying policies and rules, but I guarantee you, it's
> not. We have so many open bugs in phabricator that every user could
> take hundreds of them... We don't need to drive active developers away
> by giving them bans that are hardly justified.
>
> P.S. if someone saying "WTF" is really giving you creeps, I seriously
> recommend you to try to develop a bit thicker skin, even if we build
> an "Utopia" as someone mentioned here, it's gonna be practical for
> interactions in real world, which is not always friendly and nice. And
> randomly banning people just for saying WTF, with some cryptic
> explanation, seems more 1984 style Dystopia to me...
>
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:08 PM, David Barratt <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Again, this isn't enwiki, but there would be a large mob gathering at
> the
> >> administrators' doorstep on enwiki for a block without that context and
> >> backstory.
> >>
> >
> > That seems like really toxic behavior.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:27 AM George Herbert <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I keep seeing "abusers" and I still haven't seen the evidence of the
> >> alleged long term abuse pattern.
> >>
> >> Again, this isn't enwiki, but there would be a large mob gathering at
> the
> >> administrators' doorstep on enwiki for a block without that context and
> >> backstory.  That's not exactly the standard here, but ... would someone
> >> just answer the question?  What happened leading up to this to justify
> the
> >> block?  If it's that well known, you can document it.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Adam Wight <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Petr,
> >> >
> >> > Nobody is language policing, this is about preventing abusive behavior
> >> and
> >> > creating an inviting environment where volunteers and staff don't
> have to
> >> > waste time with emotional processing of traumatic interactions.
> >> >
> >> > I think we're after the same thing, that we want to keep our community
> >> > friendly and productive, so it's just a matter of agreeing on the
> means
> >> to
> >> > accomplish this.  I see the Code of Conduct Committee standing up to
> the
> >> > nonsense and you see them as being hostile, so our perspectives
> diverge
> >> at
> >> > that point.  I also see lots of people on this list standing up for
> what
> >> > they think is right, and I'd love if that energy could be organized
> >> better
> >> > so that we're not sniping at each other, but instead refining our
> shared
> >> > statements of social values and finding a way to encourage the good
> while
> >> > more effectively addressing the worst in us.
> >> >
> >> > This isn't coherent enough to share yet, but I'll try anyway—I've been
> >> > thinking about how our high proportion of anarchic- and
> >> > libertarian-oriented individuals helped shape a culture which doesn't
> >> > handle "negative laws" [1] well.  For example, the Code of Conduct is
> >> > mostly focused on "unacceptable behaviors", but perhaps we could
> rewrite
> >> it
> >> > in the positive sense, as a set of shared responsibilities to support
> >> each
> >> > other and the less powerful person in any conflict.  We have a duty to
> >> > speak up, a duty to keep abusers from their target, we own this social
> >> > space and have to maintain it together.  If you see where I'm headed?
> >> > Rewriting the CoC in a positive rights framework is a daunting
> project,
> >> but
> >> > it might be fun.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Adam
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:36 AM Petr Bena <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I am a bit late to the party, but do we seriously spend days
> >> > > discussing someone being banned from a bug tracker just for saying
> >> > > "WTF", having their original comment completely censored, so that
> the
> >> > > community can't even make a decision how bad it really was? Is that
> >> > > what we turned into? From highly skilled developers and some of best
> >> > > experts in the field to a bunch of language nazis?
> >> > >
> >> > > We have tens of thousands of open tasks to work on and instead of
> >> > > doing something useful we are wasting our time here. Really? Oh,
> come
> >> > > on...
> >> > >
> >> > > We are open source developers. If you make Phabricator too hostile
> to
> >> > > use it by setting up some absolutely useless and annoying rules,
> >> > > people will just move to some other bug tracker, or decide to spend
> >> > > their free time on a different open source project. Most of us are
> >> > > volunteers, we don't get money for this.
> >> > >
> >> > > P.S. if all the effort we put into this gigantic thread was put into
> >> > > solving the original bug instead (yes it's a bug, not a feature) it
> >> > > would be already resolved. Instead we are mocking someone who was so
> >> > > desperate with the situation to use some swear words.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:06 AM, Yaron Koren <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >  Nuria Ruiz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > >> The CoC will prioritize the safety of the minority over the
> comfort
> >> of
> >> > > the
> >> > > >> majority.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This is an odd thing to say, in this context. I don't believe
> >> anyone's
> >> > > > safety is endangered by hearing the phrase in question, so it
> seems
> >> > like
> >> > > > just an issue of comfort on both sides. And who are the minority
> and
> >> > > > majority here?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> The way the bug was closed might be incorrect (I personally as an
> >> > > engineer
> >> > > >> agree that closing it shows little understanding of how technical
> >> > teams
> >> > > do
> >> > > >> track bugs in phab, some improvements are in order here for sure)
> >> but
> >> > > the
> >> > > >> harsh interaction is just one out of many that have been out of
> line
> >> > for
> >> > > >> while.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This seems like the current argument - that it's not really about
> the
> >> > use
> >> > > > of a phrase, it's about an alleged pattern of behavior by
> MZMcBride.
> >> > What
> >> > > > this pattern is I don't know - the one example that was brought up
> >> was
> >> > a
> >> > > > blog post he wrote six years ago, which caused someone else to say
> >> > > > something mean in the comments. (!) As others have pointed out,
> >> > there's a
> >> > > > lack of transparency here.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -Yaron
> >> > > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> >> > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> >> > > [hidden email]
> >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> >> > [hidden email]
> >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> -george william herbert
> >> [hidden email]
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikitech-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 21:41:35 +0200
> From: Amir Ladsgroup <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia developers <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] My Phabricator account has been disabled
> Message-ID:
>         <
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hey Petr,
> We have discussed this before in the thread and I and several other people
> said it's a straw man.
>
> The problem is not the WTF or "What the fuck" and as I said before the mere
> use of profanity is not forbidden by the CoC. What's forbidden is "Harming
> the discussion or community with methods such as sustained disruption,
> interruption, or blocking of community collaboration (i.e. trolling).".
> [1]  When someone does something in phabricator and you *just* comment
> "WTF", you're not moving the discussion forward, you're not adding any
> value, you're not saying what exactly is wrong or try to reach a consensus.
> Compare this with later comments made, for example:
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200742#4502463
>
> I hope all of this helps for understanding what's wrong here.
>
> [1]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct
> Best
>
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:29 PM Petr Bena <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I am OK if people who are attacking others are somehow informed that
> > this is not acceptable and taught how to properly behave, and if they
> > continue that, maybe some "preventive" actions could be taken, but is
> > that what really happened?
> >
> > The comment by MZMcBride was censored, so almost nobody can really see
> > what it was and from almost all mails mentioning the content here it
> > appears he said "what the fuck" or WTF. I can't really think of any
> > language construct where this is so offensive it merits instant ban +
> > removal of content.
> >
> > I don't think we need /any/ language policy in a bug tracker. If
> > someone says "this bug sucks old donkey's ****" it may sounds a bit
> > silly, but there isn't really any harm done. If you say "Jimbo, you
> > are a f**** retard, and all your code stinks" then that's a problem,
> > but I have serious doubts that's what happened. And the problem is not
> > a language, but personal attack itself.
> >
> > If someone is causing problems LET THEM KNOW and talk to them. Banning
> > someone instantly is worst possible thing you can do. You may think
> > our community is large enough already so that we can set up this kind
> > of strict and annoying policies and rules, but I guarantee you, it's
> > not. We have so many open bugs in phabricator that every user could
> > take hundreds of them... We don't need to drive active developers away
> > by giving them bans that are hardly justified.
> >
> > P.S. if someone saying "WTF" is really giving you creeps, I seriously
> > recommend you to try to develop a bit thicker skin, even if we build
> > an "Utopia" as someone mentioned here, it's gonna be practical for
> > interactions in real world, which is not always friendly and nice. And
> > randomly banning people just for saying WTF, with some cryptic
> > explanation, seems more 1984 style Dystopia to me...
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:08 PM, David Barratt <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Again, this isn't enwiki, but there would be a large mob gathering at
> > the
> > >> administrators' doorstep on enwiki for a block without that context
> and
> > >> backstory.
> > >>
> > >
> > > That seems like really toxic behavior.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:27 AM George Herbert <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I keep seeing "abusers" and I still haven't seen the evidence of the
> > >> alleged long term abuse pattern.
> > >>
> > >> Again, this isn't enwiki, but there would be a large mob gathering at
> > the
> > >> administrators' doorstep on enwiki for a block without that context
> and
> > >> backstory.  That's not exactly the standard here, but ... would
> someone
> > >> just answer the question?  What happened leading up to this to justify
> > the
> > >> block?  If it's that well known, you can document it.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Adam Wight <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Petr,
> > >> >
> > >> > Nobody is language policing, this is about preventing abusive
> behavior
> > >> and
> > >> > creating an inviting environment where volunteers and staff don't
> > have to
> > >> > waste time with emotional processing of traumatic interactions.
> > >> >
> > >> > I think we're after the same thing, that we want to keep our
> community
> > >> > friendly and productive, so it's just a matter of agreeing on the
> > means
> > >> to
> > >> > accomplish this.  I see the Code of Conduct Committee standing up to
> > the
> > >> > nonsense and you see them as being hostile, so our perspectives
> > diverge
> > >> at
> > >> > that point.  I also see lots of people on this list standing up for
> > what
> > >> > they think is right, and I'd love if that energy could be organized
> > >> better
> > >> > so that we're not sniping at each other, but instead refining our
> > shared
> > >> > statements of social values and finding a way to encourage the good
> > while
> > >> > more effectively addressing the worst in us.
> > >> >
> > >> > This isn't coherent enough to share yet, but I'll try anyway—I've
> been
> > >> > thinking about how our high proportion of anarchic- and
> > >> > libertarian-oriented individuals helped shape a culture which
> doesn't
> > >> > handle "negative laws" [1] well.  For example, the Code of Conduct
> is
> > >> > mostly focused on "unacceptable behaviors", but perhaps we could
> > rewrite
> > >> it
> > >> > in the positive sense, as a set of shared responsibilities to
> support
> > >> each
> > >> > other and the less powerful person in any conflict.  We have a duty
> to
> > >> > speak up, a duty to keep abusers from their target, we own this
> social
> > >> > space and have to maintain it together.  If you see where I'm
> headed?
> > >> > Rewriting the CoC in a positive rights framework is a daunting
> > project,
> > >> but
> > >> > it might be fun.
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards,
> > >> > Adam
> > >> >
> > >> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:36 AM Petr Bena <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I am a bit late to the party, but do we seriously spend days
> > >> > > discussing someone being banned from a bug tracker just for saying
> > >> > > "WTF", having their original comment completely censored, so that
> > the
> > >> > > community can't even make a decision how bad it really was? Is
> that
> > >> > > what we turned into? From highly skilled developers and some of
> best
> > >> > > experts in the field to a bunch of language nazis?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > We have tens of thousands of open tasks to work on and instead of
> > >> > > doing something useful we are wasting our time here. Really? Oh,
> > come
> > >> > > on...
> > >> > >
> > >> > > We are open source developers. If you make Phabricator too hostile
> > to
> > >> > > use it by setting up some absolutely useless and annoying rules,
> > >> > > people will just move to some other bug tracker, or decide to
> spend
> > >> > > their free time on a different open source project. Most of us are
> > >> > > volunteers, we don't get money for this.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > P.S. if all the effort we put into this gigantic thread was put
> into
> > >> > > solving the original bug instead (yes it's a bug, not a feature)
> it
> > >> > > would be already resolved. Instead we are mocking someone who was
> so
> > >> > > desperate with the situation to use some swear words.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:06 AM, Yaron Koren <[hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >  Nuria Ruiz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> > > >> The CoC will prioritize the safety of the minority over the
> > comfort
> > >> of
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > >> majority.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > This is an odd thing to say, in this context. I don't believe
> > >> anyone's
> > >> > > > safety is endangered by hearing the phrase in question, so it
> > seems
> > >> > like
> > >> > > > just an issue of comfort on both sides. And who are the minority
> > and
> > >> > > > majority here?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> The way the bug was closed might be incorrect (I personally as
> an
> > >> > > engineer
> > >> > > >> agree that closing it shows little understanding of how
> technical
> > >> > teams
> > >> > > do
> > >> > > >> track bugs in phab, some improvements are in order here for
> sure)
> > >> but
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > >> harsh interaction is just one out of many that have been out of
> > line
> > >> > for
> > >> > > >> while.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > This seems like the current argument - that it's not really
> about
> > the
> > >> > use
> > >> > > > of a phrase, it's about an alleged pattern of behavior by
> > MZMcBride.
> > >> > What
> > >> > > > this pattern is I don't know - the one example that was brought
> up
> > >> was
> > >> > a
> > >> > > > blog post he wrote six years ago, which caused someone else to
> say
> > >> > > > something mean in the comments. (!) As others have pointed out,
> > >> > there's a
> > >> > > > lack of transparency here.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > -Yaron
> > >> > > > _______________________________________________
> > >> > > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > >> > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > >> > >
> > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > >> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > >> > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > >> > [hidden email]
> > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> -george william herbert
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikitech-l mailing list
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 181, Issue 42
> *******************************************
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l