summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAge
* Grammar and microscale wordsmithingHEADmasterGravatar Benjamin Barenblat2014-03-03
| | | | | This commit does not necessarily imply endorsement or criticism of the content of the code of conduct.
* minor grammar/usage corrections, courtesy kaduk and wingsGravatar Adam Glasgall2014-02-27
|
* fix bad mergeGravatar Adam Glasgall2014-02-27
|
* fix merge debrisGravatar Adam Glasgall2014-02-26
|
* Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/jdreed/sipb-code-of-conduct into ↵Gravatar Adam Glasgall2014-02-26
|\ | | | | | | | | | | | | jdreed-master Conflicts: code-of-conduct.txt
| * Clarify-no-really the part about talking to the EC.Gravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-26
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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)
| * More tweaks to surprise and end sectionGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-26
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - 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 dove's document for reference onlyGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-25
| | | | | | | | | | Add a copy of the draft dove submitted, for reference only, so it's in the same place while this is being worked on
| * Rewrite last sectionGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-25
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
| * Wordsmith apology sectionGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-25
| | | | | | | | Suggestions from dove
| * Wordsmith 2nd paragraph in -ism principleGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-25
| | | | | | | | Suggestions from dove
| * Re-title and edit surprise and well-actuallyGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-25
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re-title and edit the sections on feigning surprise and well-actually to better clarify the actual principles, incorporating changes from dove
| * Incorporate new preamble from doveGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-25
| |
* | Strengthen title of back-seat driving sectionGravatar Adam Glasgall2014-02-15
| |
* | Merge pull request #1 from jdreed/masterGravatar Adam Glasgall2014-02-15
|\| | | | | Changes from Monday's discussion and dwilson's follow-up
| * Wordsmith apology paragraphGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-14
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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"
| * Add closing paragraph about learning from mistakes.Gravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-14
| | | | | | | | Incorporate suggestions from dwilson. "The more you know..."
| * Clarify that "well actually" is about nitpickingGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-14
| | | | | | | | Incorporate suggestions from dwilson
| * Add sentence to pre-ambleGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-14
| | | | | | | | | | Incorporate suggestion from dwilson that the one of the document's goals is to identify off-putting behavior
| * Clean up apologies sectionGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-11
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Rephrase in more positive manner. Incorporate suggestions from jhawk so as to clarify exactly what type of apologies we're talking about and why.
| * Re-phrase rule in a more positive mannerGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-11
| |
| * Clean up "well-actually" section.Gravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-11
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
| * Wordsmith "feigning surprise" sectionGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-11
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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
| * Move "perfection not required" paragraph to the beginningGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-11
| | | | | | | | | | 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
| * Clarify part on -ismsGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-11
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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
| * Rewrite the end section; clarify enforcementGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-11
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
| * Add quote in well-actually sectionGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-10
| | | | | | | | | | Incorporate quote from iannucci to better illustrate why a well-actually may not have the intended effect.
| * Change title to 'principles', update preambleGravatar Jonathan Reed2014-02-10
|/ | | | | | | | | 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.
* Initial version of code of conductGravatar Adam Glasgall2014-02-10