There was a lengthy discussion on a CoC on the golang-nuts list it was concluded that (3) would should probably not be included for the time being.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/golang-nuts/sy-YcVPADj...
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/golang-nuts/sy-YcVPADj...
User Peter Kleiweg raises this concern "Who gets to decide what is racist? And even whether or not racist is a bad thing?" and while I disagree with him on this particular issue the answer that Gerrand gives is very problematic:
"If it's speech that makes people feel unwelcome and discriminated against, then I personally believe that's a bad thing."
the problem with this is that, for example, an open display of support for gay marriage will make some catholics (for example) unwelcome and discriminated against. This isn't even theoretical, this is an argument that actually happens in the real world, just not in the bubble inhabited by Gerrand, apparently.
You can still have schisms and nasty politics with a policy like this, since obviously the different sides of the discussion will value things unequally, but the goal is to at least maintain surface politeness and order so that small voices don't give up so quickly.
>Catholics are getting shouted down - that does happen(in an existence-proof sense), but it's not nearly as common
A catholic would point you to all those countries where catholics are getting killed daily for their opinion.
»"Do not deny me my belief, critique is tyranny" is a very common theme to defend all forms of discrimination
An equally common theme is "your opinion/behaviour is offensive and scandalous", but both are exactly the point I'm making, it should be possible to make statements critical to the system without being branded with a scarlett letter by some secret court working on anonymous tips.
>You can still have schisms and nasty politics with a policy like this
IMHO no, you can't, the Django CoC is too "feelings oriented", you can't objectively judge peoples feelings (especially on mailing lists and IRC) because it's internal unobservable state, besides I have learned that some people invented several terms [1] [2] [3] to redefine "surface politeness discussion" into harassment.
Furthermore it specifically says "In general, if someone asks you to stop, then stop" which mean that even if you are making an argument that does not violate the CoC simply defending it if someone asks you to stop is a violation. It's simply impossible to enforce such rule equitably without every argument becoming a race to who can shout "mom!" first.
[1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions [2] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sealioning [3] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
(And yes, I am aware he didn't say these exact words himself.)
“Though all winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple, who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter.”
If I am on e.g. a technical list or attend a conference, I'd expect discussions about the subject-matter and offbeat comments about gender, race, or whatever.
Apparently it's a phrase from a biography of Voltaire by Evelyn Beatrice Hall.
The thing is that we are talking about a technical community. I don't see what an open display of support for or disapproval of gay marriage has to do with Go.
People subscribe to Go lists because they want to discuss technical aspects of a programming language. For other topics, there are other venues.
Yes, and for highlighting off-topic subjects, there is the simple moderator acronym "OT". A rigid rule book and enforcement policy has nothing to do with free speech. It's all about trying to balance the inequalities in the tech sector. Unfortunately, a rule book is not going to solve that problem. The cynic in me just thinks this a conference "feel-good" announcement planned as a result of Googlers feeling bad about the fact that they are a 83% male workforce.
If the real problem is going to be solved, it's got to be about encouraging and educating people from all genders and races to code. That starts much earlier than any engagement in online communities. If the output of schools and colleges of trained coders was balanced, all the horror stories of harassment and abuse would soon become history as the workforce also becomes balanced, in my opinion.
I strongly dislike the idea of self-appointed judiciaries. Mistakes happen. The nuances of behaviour of people with mental health issues is likely to get caught up in these rule books. That's why we have courts, to help deal with difficult cases. Vigilantes may well refer to the code of conduct for justification for statements of intent like this:
http://dave.cheney.net/2015/06/13/listen-up
I'm not comfortable with that.
"violations of this code outside these spaces may affect a person's ability to participate within them"
[1] - http://redd.it/3abyva