I’ve given this topic more thought and the core value of a diverse community should be replacing judgment with mentorship.
I realize that’s more of an what instead of how/why and it’s really hard to pull off.
There’s a powerful story how not to be a hypocrite, so in an attempt not to be one I contacted Sandro (he’s a really nice person!) and we discussed why explicit guidelines make such a big difference.
Since we are a diverse community (and there’s always room for improvement) it’s important to realize that we have different values, so establishing a human connection is the only way to resolve a conflict.
IOW, sometimes we get impatient because we’re thought that way on the internet, but when conflict arises it’s important to take a step back.
Marshall Rosenberg (workshop) is one of the few people I know that made a framework to help anyone learn it, without judgment. He was also one of the biggest peacemakers in the world.
EDIT: should used above means that I think it’s really important, not that I’m trying to enforce it in any way.
Paraphrasing Wikipedia’s four components of nonviolent communication:
Observation : These are facts (what we are seeing, hearing, or touching) as distinct from our evaluation of meaning and significance. NVC discourages static generalizations. Instead, a focus on observations specific to time and context is recommended.
Feelings : These are emotions or sensations, free of thought and story. These are to be distinguished from thoughts (e.g., “I feel I didn’t get a fair deal”) and from words colloquially used as feelings but which convey what we think we are (e.g., “inadequate”), how we think others are evaluating us (e.g., “unimportant”), or what we think others are doing to us (e.g., “misunderstood”, “ignored”).
Needs : These are universal human needs, as distinct from particular strategies for meeting needs. It is posited that “Everything we do is in service of our needs.”
Requests : Requests are distinguished from demands in that one is open to hearing a response of “no” without this triggering an attempt to force the matter.
Each of these points has more content in the Wiki page, and I recommend reading them more carefully. I copied the pieces which communicated what I think is the thrust of it.
I’m a bit surprised and sad to see this discussion in multiple topics. I don’t know which topic to reply, so I randomly chose this one.
I get the impression people take things just too personal.
The thing is, when communicating, we (I) don’t know who’s on the other side:
could be a 16 year old gamer, who is brilliant but lacks some social skills
could be someone on the autism spectrum (not an exception in the IT world) who simply has no clue/awareness about someone else’s feelings
could be ‘regular Joe/Jane’
could be someone from a minority community (but that should not matter at all in this context)
could be someone who’s having a bad time ‘in real life’
could be someone who is very sensitive in general
could be someone who is not so sensitive in general
could be someone who works with Nix professionally and represents their company
Also, the use of the word harassment frightens me a bit: when is something harassment? Is this the next step to introducing some kind cancel culture? Does that mean everyone needs to walk on egg shells because someone on the other side could feel attacked/harassed/etc.?
Perhaps I’m an insensitive jerk myself but in communication I do not intend to personally attack anyone, but on the other hand, if I would have to walk on eggshells all the time because someone might be insulted, I know I’m out.
On the other hand, at this moment I’m not even a contributor (no Github account) so it would not be a loss, but still: I’m a potential contributor
By harassment, people usually mean repeated aggressive behaviour. So there should be no need to walk on egg shells – if a person trespasses, hopefully someone will point it out with the aim of improving that person’s behaviour. Only if the person intentionally continues to behave in an unsavoury manner, it would be considered harassment.
For example, when person A blocks person B for any reason, it means they do not want to talk to them. If person B then continues trying to talk to person A by circumventing the block, that could be considered harassment. (There might be a case why person B has something to say to person A and person A would want to hear it. But since we cannot know if that is the case, unless the message is extremely urgent, it would be better to relay it through a trusted intermediary.)
Let me add that I think it is in order to make an even more detailed distinction to render justice to the matter.
The four toungs / for ears model I linked above conveys, copying the gist from wikipedia:
The Factual Level contains statements which are matter of fact like data and facts, which are part of the news.
In the self-revealing or self-disclosure the speaker - conscious or not intended - tells something about himself, his motives, values, emotions etc.
In the Relationship-layer is expressed resp. received[ clarification needed ], how the sender gets along with the receiver and what they think of them.
The Appeal contains the desire, advice, instruction and effects that the speaker is seeking.
I’d argue, within the boundaries of this model, harrassmemt may probably only (or at least overwhelmingly) take place within the relationship category, since all other category are inherent non violent comunication.
Remains the issue, if it is possible to separate those other categories and if we want to provide some.sort.of guarantees for remaining those channels open (through an intermediate, as you suggest, or whatever).
It seems to be uncontroversial, that in the context of most incident of possible harrassmemt, there is also legit needs of communication involved.
At the very least, the four ears model should be part of the standard tooling for moderators. i hope I was able to show that by this post.
Nope. Imagine that as a prank I set up a bot that emails you correct statements of kind «X times Y equals Z» for random 100-digit X and Y. The bot will send you correct unique facts that you probably did not know. Still, if you ask me to stop this and I do not…
For clarification, in my interpretation of the model, the interpersonal aspect would be you setting up the bot “against” me.
Since there is no factual level involved, it might be self-revealing (you like setting up bots as pranks) or relational (you don’t get along with me and want to do something to express that) or even appeal (you want to make a point).
I continue to beleive, the only thing that could harrass is the relational aspect.
Yep, I don’t think anyone is going to disagree that unilateral spam is unacceptable.
PR reviews are largely an opportunity to solicit reviews from other interested parties. Anyone can perform a review and add value to the proposed changes. And I don’t think anyone will disagree fundamentally with that.
What constitutes as an item that should be commented, and how one should go about communicating that comment is where I see the greatest discrepancy in people’s perspectives. To the point that people began shutting down lines of communication.
NixCon ever having at least all active committers present in person at once would surprise me. This discussion is exactly about trying to implement «improvements» that are neither universally recognised as improvements nor written down, and also a bit about interpreting written down expectations about using GitHub (ToS amd stuff). Something discussed by ten people at NixCon will not lead to universal recognition of whatever, so in the end you still need a written proposal out of all that. And defend it in public and in writing.
I feel we need to outgrow “defensivism” and enter “post-defensivism”.
That word does not exist, but I expect everyone to easily understand what I mean out of the context. To be considerate about the general readership, I’ll be happily available in a PM for clarification.
I suggest, the roots of “defensivism” lie in Karl Popper and the (scientific) gold standard of falisification for the advancememt of knowledge.
We might be able to agree that those concepts (meant for the advancememt of knowledge) are not inherently suited for direct application in a social context, like our community context.
If you’ve ever done a group project, you know that not everyone brings value either. However, it doesn’t mean that they should be denied the opportunity to try.
EDIT: I’m making an effort to make this phrasing more generic and relate to future events. As I’m already exhausted about past events.
I think all these discussions (which I still perceive as productive) are actually valuable implicit base material and set the stage for the community manifesto. By saying this, I think they are very well worth having.
I think, in general, the issue is bigger in the US than, say, in Colombia or even in Europe.
Of course, it can spill-over into our community, too. Especially so, since quite some members are from the US where this fight is fought vividly across society and academia, these days.
But I guess, if we hold truely deer the foundations of good faith (on all sides), and openly demand (sic!) them (of all sides) that’s a very effective antidote.
This community, on many levels, already seems to be a minefield: it’s obvious, how people’s emotional attachment to one thing or another is everywhere. This is not necessarily narcissism, as referred to in the video, it might be founded in the mentally involved nature of writing code.
I don’t think, though, we can meaningfully move forward by over-emphasizing the “avoid stepping on those mines” without stalling ourselves. We also need to foster values of “good faith”, “kindeness” (not “politeness”!) and “individual recilience”.
This thread has become exhausting because of how general and off topic the discussions have become. It hard to be productive when talking so generally. Let’s take a break from this. I am closing this topic. If you have concerns about this, please direct message me.
but in communication I do not intend to personally attack anyone, but on the other hand, if I would have to walk on eggshells all the time because someone might be insulted, I know I’m out.