Code of Conduct

[Colin Clark]

As you say, we don't know Shawn M, nor have we spoken with him about our community, so I feel a bit weird about how he's been invoked instrumentally here. It's one thing to engage with published ideas and their implications, and another to thrust someone who is not present into the role of hypothetical exemplar.

That said, it sounds like we have a really well-articulated set of agreements now. We agree that inclusive spaces always need to include room for mistakes, cultural differences, perspective mismatches, rough patches, lots of listening, and different levels of familiarity with the issues at stake in community engagement. We agree that a code of conduct shouldn't be used to short-circuit the "fertile muck" of diversity.

A code of conduct like the Contributor Covenant is not a prescriptive set of rules. Instead, it's a description of shared community responsibilities, a voicing of support, and a general outline of the kinds of behaviours that may put the community at risk. It also is a reminder that there is something real at stake when someone consistently behaves in an aggressive or harassing way.

In our environment, I'm wary of rule books and "three strikes"-type policies, which may not take into account the history, needs, and context of a situation that we don't know about ahead of time, and which will inevitably be specific and individualized. Our work is so much about flexibility, context-sensitivity, and personalization that a blanket set of rules and policies don't seem in spirit. That also doesn't seem to be what most code of conducts try to do, including all the ones you helpfully linked to. So I hope we can keep things simple, adopt a commonly-used code of conduct like CC, and to deal with issues sensitively and contextually if they ever do arise, which we hope they won't. Bring on the messiness!

Colin

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Jess Mitchell <jessmitchell at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Trying for clear articulation here… to be clear I do not know Shawn M — I do however know that people use words they might not understand the impact or meaning of — make mistakes as you put it in your other email Colin. People new to the community sometimes use words that are offensive when describing people with disabilities or is it disabled people — Graham Pullin has a whole section on language at the beginning of “Design Meets Disability” — we all stumble or prefer something. My favourite moment is when someone shows me why the words I’m using don’t quite work, I see it, and then I change my behaviour. They gave me a chance to grow and I grew. Strikes me we want the opportunity for that evermore! It’s learning and growing and evolving. Many people in our community have a deep connection with and formal education in cultural and political studies — many do not. We all use language differently. We are all diverse after all.
> 
> Shawn M, I think too was trying to articulate something that was rubbing him. He even said he didn’t know why he had such a strong reaction so he felt like he wanted to understand why. Reflection is good! If Shawn M, who was inviting responses (his meta-pull request (with a smiley)) and replies at the end of his post, was met with your comment...
>> 
>>>> From my perspective, this blog post really reflects some nasty and conflationary thinking, though it might seem subtle at first. This invocation of the trope of "political correctness" is always a marker of privilege. And it's a reminder of how privileged thinking is so often unable to even recognize or confront itself.
> 
> I think he’d unfortunately fall into the 'foreclose and antagonize' that Michelle so rightfully points out is the risk of certain language.
> 
>> I think Michelle was getting at the importance of recognizing that certain actions can open the sphere of mutual and safe collaboration, dissent, disagreement, while some others can foreclose or antagonize it.
> 
> Again, I don’t know Shawn M. I do think that he should have a chance to collaborate, get it wrong, and grow. He should feel welcome to interact and debate safely as long as he plays by the *rules. Those are the rules I think we need to articulate in our CoC. (Perhaps we settle on strikes… meaning you can make a certain number of mistakes and then consequences).
> 
>> The question for us all in a community is how can we better and more mutually act, adjust, respond, and empathize over time to each individual in our communities, and to make sure that the patterns of behaviour that prevent this are recognized and addressed without stigmatization? I think that's exactly your point about why it's important for a code of conduct to be relatively clear in scope and to address specific kinds of behaviour, am I right?
> 
> Exactly! Yes! Precisely!
> 
>> Can you suggest some concrete additions we could make to a code of conduct that would address the issue you're raising here, Jess? I think, if I'm understanding it correctly, you're saying something to the effect of "Diversity is messy, and there should always be room for that messiness without having to always worry about the invocation rules of conduct or appeals to abstract values?”
> 
> Yes, I think this is a great start Colin. I do like messy and I do think we need to nurture a kind of fertile muck. As for concrete additions. Give me a little time and I’ll think about it some more.
> 
> Incidentally you mentioned the current political climate. It’s certainly a challenging one. I read this article in Scientific American the other day and appreciated that it is starting a conversation about how to talk to people with wildly different world views. It’s a very human struggle.  I also liked the 6 clearly articulated steps at the end. It’s written by the publisher of Skeptic magazine :)
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-convince-someone-when-facts-fail/
> 
> I agree, interesting discussion.
> 
> Best,
> Jess
>