diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | code-of-conduct.txt | 252 |
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. |