Grammar and microscale wordsmithingHEADmaster

This commit does not necessarily imply endorsement or criticism of the
content of the code of conduct.

1 files changed, 121 insertions, 131 deletions

diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt
index 05cad86..781e16f 100644
--- a/code-of-conduct.txt
+++ b/code-of-conduct.txt
@@ -1,163 +1,153 @@
 SIPB Social Principles
 
 SIPB is an awesome place for interacting with computers, but there are
-people here too! Sometimes though, the line between these gets blurred
-in our heads, and we end up interacting with people as if they are
-machines, which results in a sour experience for all parties involved.
-So, we've come up with a set of core principles that we feel is
-important to keep in mind when interacting with our mortal
-counterparts:
-
-1) People don't remember what you tell them, they remember how you
+people here too! Sometimes, we blur the mental line between these and
+end up interacting with people as if they are machines. This
+inevitably results in an unpleasant experience for all parties
+involved. To help keep the line intact, we've come up with a set of
+important core principles to keep in mind when interacting with our
+mortal counterparts:
+
+1) People don't remember what you tell them; they remember how you
 make them feel.
 
 2) Be sincere.
 
 3) Don't be a jerk.
 
-4) Keep (1) through (3) *especially* in mind when interacting online:
-email, zephyr, etc. Computers have a knack for making human
-interactions less than human.
+4) Pay special attention to (1) through (3) when interacting online:
+email, Zephyr, etc. Intervening computers have a knack for making
+human interactions less than human.
 
-Sounds simple, right? Unfortunately, it isn't. People aren't usually
-purposefully being unfeeling, insincere, or a jerk, but it still
-happens; c.f. computers vs. humans, we're not perfect. So, we've also
-collected guidelines regarding common examples of where people forget
-these principles and accidentally contribute to a junky social
-environment.  They're not comprehensive, but we think they catch the
-most common pitfalls.
+Unfortunately, this isn't quite as easy as it sounds. While most
+people behave empathetically, sincerely, and friendly most of the
+time, nobody can do so all of the time--unlike computers, we're not
+perfect. To concretize these principles, we've also collected some
+guidelines describing specific behaviors we'd like to promote.
+They're not comprehensive, but we think they catch the most common
+pitfalls.
 
 Perfection is not required for participation
 
 We want people to participate in SIPB projects without feeling like
-they're going to get flamed for not knowing very much. Obviously, this
-means that you shouldn't be chastising prospectives for making
-mistakes. Less obviously, you shouldn't be chastising people who
-"should know better" in public, either.  Remember that prospectives
-are listening (in the office, on zephyr, on email lists, etc.) and
-might think that such criticism might be directed at them if they make
-an error.
-
-This doesn't mean you can't give people suggestions on how to do
-better, but please don't do so in a way that suggests that they're a
-bad person for doing what they did, that they should have done better,
-or that their contribution wasn't worth making.
+they're going to get flamed for not knowing enough. Obviously, this
+means that you shouldn't publicly chastise SIPB affiliates for making
+mistakes. This applies even if the affiliate in question "should know
+better"--prospectives are listening (in the office, on Zephyr, on
+email lists, etc.), and if they see you spouting nonconstructive
+criticism, they will fear their own errors as harbingers of mockery
+and exclusion.
+
+Please give people suggestions on how to do better--but please don't
+do in ways that suggest that someone is a bad person for making a
+mistake, that we expect better, or that their contribution was
+worthless.
 
 Be careful expressing surprise
 
-This first principle is aimed at discouraging the practice of acting
-overly surprised when someone says they don't know something.  This
-applies to both technical things ("What?! I can't believe you don't
-know what Hesiod is!") and non-technical things ("You don't know who
-RMS is?!").  That's not to say you may not be genuinely surprised when
-someone doesn't know something that you have taken for granted.  But
-consider whether the person, who has already admitted to not knowing
-something, wants to be further reminded of it by your reaction.  Even
-when it's not your intention to upset someone, it's almost always the
-end result.
+Don't act surprised by someone else's lack of knowledge. This applies
+to both technical topics ("What?! I can't believe you don't know what
+Hesiod is!") and non-technical ones ("What?!  You don't know who RMS
+is?!"). You may be genuinely surprised when you discover that others
+don't know everything you take for granted, but keep your surprise to
+yourself: It's hard to admit you don't know something, and having
+others blow that lack of knowledge way out of proportion is quite
+unpleasant. You may not want to upset someone, but reminding them of
+what they don't know is virtually guaranteed to produce that end
+result.
 
 We want SIPB to be a place where people feel safe saying "I don't
-know" or "I don't understand", because those are the first steps to
-learning.  We don't want an environment where people don't feel like a
-"real" SIPB member/prospective because they don't know what wget(1) or
-nc(1) are.
+know" or "I don't understand". Only by discovering what you don't know
+can you start the real learning process. We don't want SIPB to become
+an environment where people don't feel like a "real" SIPB affiliate
+because they don't know what wget(1) or nc(1) is.
 
 Avoid over-correcting others ("Well, actually...")
 
-It's hard to resist the urge to demonstrate your knowledge of a
-subject; SIPB is as much as place for teaching as it is a place for
-learning. However, it can be really off-putting when that urge
-manifests itself by someone over-correcting someone else, usually by
-pointing out a subtle technicality. These are easy to spot because
-they almost always start "Well, actually...". While "Well, actually"
-may be appropriate when conveying a major correction or preventing
-someone from making a dangerous mistake, you may wish to consider
-finding a different way to say it.  Remember, people don't remember
-what you tell them, they remember how you make them feel.
+The urge to demonstrate your knowledge can be strong, and SIPB is as
+much as place for teaching as it is a place for learning. However,
+it's off-putting when the urge to teach manifests itself as
+over-correction or pointing out some subtle technicality. Fortunately,
+instances of this pathology are easy to spot--they almost always start
+with the words "Well, actually..." or "It turns out...". While these
+phrases may be appropriate when presenting a major correction or
+preventing someone from making a dangerous mistake, consider finding a
+different way to say what you're trying to get across.  Remember,
+people don't remember what you tell them, they remember how you make
+them feel.
 
 Back-seat driving is disruptive
 
-If you overhear people working through a problem, avoid intermittently
-lobbing advice across the room. This can lead to the "too many cooks"
-problem, but more importantly, it can be rude and disruptive to
-half-participate in a conversation. This isn't to say you shouldn't
-help, offer advice, or join conversations. On the contrary, we
-encourage all those things. Rather, it just means that when you want
-to help out or work with others, you should fully engage and not just
-butt in sporadically.
-
-Somewhat relatedly, when one person is trying to explain a tool or
-concept, keep in mind that they may have a plan for what order they're
-going to introduce ideas in. It can be very disruptive to have
-somebody interject with something you weren't planning to cover until
-later, and need to rearrange your ordering.
-
-No subtle sexism, racism, etc.
-
-Our next principle bans subtle sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.
-(Overt prejudice is, of course, right out.)  This one is different
-from the ones above it, because it's often not a specific, observable
-phenomenon ("well-actually's" are easy to spot because they almost
-always start with the words "well, actually...").
-
-Unlike many of the situations described in our other guidelines, these
-sorts of incidents may not take the form of a comment directed at a
-specific individual. In situations like this, anyone who observes the
-behavior should feel empowered to talk to the people involved or bring
-it to the attention of the EC.
-
-If someone says a comment you made was sexist, racist, or otherwise
-discriminatory, please do not enter into a protracted debate about it,
-and never tell someone that their feelings are not valid.  Instead,
-apologize and move on.  If, after reflecting on your comment, you
-still genuinely do not see any bias in your comment, you can contact a
-member of the EC to discuss the incident further.
+If you overhear people working through a problem, avoid lobbing advice
+across the room. Doing so can lead to the "too many cooks" problem,
+but more importantly, half-participation is rude and disruptive. If
+you want to help, then by all means, offer advice or join in the
+conversation--but be sure you're fully engaged and not just butting in
+sporadically.
+
+Similarly, when someone is explaining a tool or concept, they often
+have a hidden plan to introduce concepts in a specific order. It's
+disruptive to have somebody interject with something you weren't
+planning to cover until later.  Don't do it!
+
+No subtle sexism, racism, or other bigotry
+
+We try to avoid subtle sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. (Overt
+prejudice is, of course, right out.) This guideline is a bit different
+from the others--it's often not a specific, observable phenomenon, as
+opposed to, say, a "well-actually". It also may not be directed at a
+specific individual.
+
+If you observe bigoted behavior, talk to the people involved! Tell
+them that whey they did was not cool.  If you don't feel comfortable
+talking to the people involved, talk to somebody on the EC.  On the
+other hand, if someone calls you out on discriminatory behavior,
+please don't start a debate with them; doing so invalidates their
+feelings and lowers the quality of the SIPB environment. Instead,
+apologize and move on. If, after reflecting on your comment, you
+believe you've been misunderstood--i.e., your behavior wasn't actually
+bigoted--contact an EC member to discuss the situation further.
 
 The most sincere apologies consist of "I'm sorry"
 
-An apology should be a sincere expression of sadness for the sadness
-of others. If you apologize but then qualify your apology with
-"...that", "...if", "...but", you'll likely make the recipient feel
-like you're implying that they share some of the blame for the
-incident; it won't feel like an apology to them.
+An apology is a sincere expression of sadness for the sadness of
+others. If you apologize but qualify your apology with "...that",
+"...if", or "...but", you risk introducing a harmful subtext--that the
+recipient shares some of the blame for the incident. It won't feel
+like an apology to them.
 
-Sometimes, people are tempted to say "I'm sorry, but" (etc.) because
-they don't want to concede their point in a discussion.  But this sort
-of "I'm sorry" isn't really an apology, and is an insincere use of the
-words.  Being sorry that someone else feels bad doesn't mean that you
-necessarily agree with them, it just means that you recognize that
-they're upset and sincerely wish that weren't the case.
+Often, people say "I'm sorry, but..." during the course of an
+argument. This sort of "I'm sorry" isn't really an apology--it's a
+refusal to concede a point, and it's an insincere use of the words.
+Feeling sorry for someone else's pain doesn't mean that you agree with
+them; it means that you recognize that they're upset and sincerely
+wish that weren't the case.
 
 What happens if someone violates these principles?
 
-Our social principles and clarifying guidelines are intended to be a set
-of things we can mutually agree to strive to live by as a community.
-They aren't intended to be a stick to beat people with for "being bad".
-However, it's still important that people be able to help improve the
-social environment when they see something they think is destructive;
-the following paragraphs describe the best way to go about it.  Under 
-any circumstance, however, if someone's behavior or speech in the
-office is making you feel uncomfortable or unwelcome, and you do not
-feel comfortable talking to that person, please contact a member of
-the EC.
-
-If you feel someone has contributed negatively to a SIPB social
-environment (in the office, on a SIPB email list, on our zephyr
-classes, etc.), we encourage you to reach out to that person (or the
-intended target, if you are a third party) and discuss your thoughts
-with them.
-
-Publicly calling someone out is generally ill-suited to any electronic
-medium, because it can result in a heated conversation that is not only
-distracting, but may in the long run be more toxic than the original
-comment.  If you choose to call someone out in person, focus on what
-they said or did, and not on the person themselves.
-
-Finally, if you yourself realize that you just violated these
-principles, call yourself out on it publicly.  Doing so will help
-convey that these issues are important to the community, and may help
-empower others to speak up.  It doesn't mean you're a "bad" person, or
-even a "bad" SIPB member.
-
-Above all, you should *always* feel welcome to approach the Chair or
-any member of the EC regarding *any* issue, social or otherwise.
+We strive to live by our social principles and clarifying guidelines,
+but inevitably, we make mistakes.  When mistakes come up, it's not
+acceptable to use the principles and guidelines to beat people for
+"being bad". It is, however, acceptable--and important--to improve the
+environment when you see something you think is destructive.
+
+If someone has contributed negatively to a SIPB social environment
+(e.g., the office, a SIPB email list, our Zephyr classes), privately
+reach out to that person (or their target) and discuss your thoughts
+with them. Use caution when publicly calling somebody out--doing so is
+generally unwise in electronic media, because it tends to start a
+distracting and toxic argument.  On the other hand, if you choose to
+call someone out in person, focus on what they said or did, and not on
+the person themselves.  Remember, even the best of us can't do right
+all the time.
+
+Finally, if you yourself realize that you violated these principles,
+call yourself out on it and apologize.  Doing so will remind others
+that these issues are important to the community and may empower
+others to speak up.  It doesn't mean you're a bad person, or even a
+bad SIPB affiliate.
+
+Above all, you should *always* feel welcome to talk the Chair or any
+EC member, especially if someone's behavior or speech is making you
+uncomfortable or unwelcome and you're hesitant to approach that person
+yourself.