| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This commit does not necessarily imply endorsement or criticism of the
content of the code of conduct.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
jdreed-master
Conflicts:
code-of-conduct.txt
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
The goal here is to say:
a) Here are some principles
b) Here are how to deal with someone violating these principles.
c) Talking to the EC is not the wrong answer, and is orthogonal to
(a) and (b)
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
- Remove failed attempt to use "ignorance" literally and replace with
wording from principles.txt
- Clarify that seciton about "surprise" applies regardless of _intent_,
since it's about how the recipient is likely to feel.
- Add stronger wording reminding people that the EC is never the wrong
answer: While we want to encourage "grown up" communication, it should
not be the case that people feel they can't be in SIPB if they can't
confront people about their behavior. This should result on a balance
on the spectrum between "tattling" and people feeling fully empowered to
challenge others on their violations of these principles.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Add a copy of the draft dove submitted, for reference only,
so it's in the same place while this is being worked on
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Update the "What happens if" section to make it clear that public
callouts in electronic media will not end well, and that public
callouts in person will fare better if you focus on the statement
or action, not the person making it. The goal here is to convey
the difference between, e.g. "I found that statement very sexist"
vs "You are being sexist". The former will result in far less
defensiveness.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
Suggestions from dove
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
Suggestions from dove
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Re-title and edit the sections on feigning surprise and
well-actually to better clarify the actual principles,
incorporating changes from dove
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |\|
| |
| | |
Changes from Monday's discussion and dwilson's follow-up
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Add suggestion from dwilson to change wording to "...qualify your
apology" to clarify that it's not the literal phrasing that's important,
but rather avoiding "#sorry #notsorry"
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
Incorporate suggestions from dwilson. "The more you know..."
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
Incorporate suggestions from dwilson
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Incorporate suggestion from dwilson that the one of the document's
goals is to identify off-putting behavior
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Rephrase in more positive manner.
Incorporate suggestions from jhawk so as to clarify exactly what
type of apologies we're talking about and why.
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Move footnote about the origins of the term to be a footnote.
(inline note breaks up the flow).
Incorporate suggestions from jhawk and zhangc to clarify this point.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Incorporate suggestions from jhawk to clarify that we're talking
about deliberate overreactions, and not genuine surprise, but the latter
can still make people feel bad
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
I feel this sets a good tone for the document, which is that we're all imperfect.
It also no longer begins the document with a "No...." principle
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Note that issues of sexism may not be directed at specific individuals
(e.g. a group of people in the office rating women on okcupid), and
that in these situations, it's important for anyone to speak up
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Incorporate suggestions from dove and others to clarify how
enforcement will work.
Hopefully this section now communicates that this will be largely
community enforced, but will not preclude anyone who has been hurt by
a "violation" of these rules from coming to the EC for assistance.
The goal is to make it clear that there are not specific punishments
for each instance of "well-actually" or "Sorry but not sorry", but
simultaneously not in any way deny the EC the power to take action
against any SIPB member or propsective who is making the office an
unwelcoming (or even hostile) environment.
Third parties are encouraged to talk to the recipient first, but
should still feel empowered to speak up if necessary. (e.g. If $X
says something sexist to $Y, and $Y doesn't react, but $Z also was
upset by the sexist comment, $Z should feel free to speak out.) The
last sentence in the penultimate paragraph is deliberately the same as
in the paragraph above it.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Incorporate quote from iannucci to better illustrate why a
well-actually may not have the intended effect.
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Incorporate suggestions from tboning and others to change
the title to something other than rules, but which still emphasizes
that these are important shared beliefs.
Incorporate suggestions form achernya and others to remove any
negative phrasing from the preamble.
|
| |
|
Benjamin Barenblat
Adam Glasgall
Jonathan Reed
Adam Glasgall