From 49a7ea851834e49c84eeed02405c71bc2fbc9c02 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Adam Glasgall Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 21:42:56 -0500 Subject: Initial version of code of conduct --- code-of-conduct.txt | 133 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 133 insertions(+) create mode 100644 code-of-conduct.txt diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e529cf4 --- /dev/null +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -0,0 +1,133 @@ +SIPB social rules and expectations + +Preamble: + +One way we try to remove obstacles to participation is by having a +small set of social rules. These rules are intended to be lightweight, +and to make more explicit certain social norms that are normally +implicit. Most of our social rules really boil down to "don't be a +jerk" or "don't be annoying." Of course, almost nobody sets out to be +a jerk or annoying, so telling people not to be jerks isn't a very +productive strategy. That's why our social rules are designed to +curtail specific behavior we've found to be destructive to a +supportive, productive, and fun learning environment. + + +No feigning surprise + +The first rule means you shouldn't act surprised when people say 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?!"). Feigning surprise has +absolutely no social or educational benefit: When people feign +surprise, it's usually to make them feel better about themselves and +others feel worse. And even when that's not the intention, it's almost +always the effect. As you've probably already guessed, this rule is +tightly coupled to our belief in the importance of people feeling +comfortable saying "I don't know" and "I don't understand." + +It may be best to avoid acting surprised even when you actually +are. Regardless of whether you're actually surprised somebody hasn't +been to Mary's or just pretending, it can be offputting and make the +listener feel stupid or not like a "real" SIPB member/prospective. + +No well-actually's + +A well-actually happens when someone says something that's almost - +but not entirely - correct, and you say, "well, actually..." and then +give a minor correction. This is especially annoying when the +correction has no bearing on the actual conversation. This doesn't +mean SIPB isn't about truth-seeking or that we don't care about being +precise. Almost all well-actually's in our experience are about +(intentionally or unintentionally) showing off one's own knowledge, +not truth-seeking. (Thanks to Miguel de Icaza for originally coining +the term "well-actually.") + +No back-seat driving + +If you overhear people working through a problem, you shouldn't +intermittently lob advice across the room. This can lead to the "too +many cooks" problem, but more important, 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 social rule 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..."). + +SIPB is not a place to publicly debate whether comment X is sexist, +racist, etc. If you see something that's unintentionally sexist, +racist, homophobic, etc. at SIPB you're welcome to point it out to the +person who made the comment, either publicly or privately, or you can +ask an EC member to say something to that person. Once the initial +mention has been made, we ask that all further discussion move off of +public channels. If you are a third party, and you don't see what +could be biased about the comment that was made, feel free to talk to +the EC. Please don't say, "Comment X wasn't homophobic!" Similarly, +please don't pile on to someone who made a mistake. + +Apologies consist of "I'm sorry" + +An apology should be a sincere expression of sadness for the sadness +of others. When you follow an apology with "...that", "...if", +"..but", you're implying that the other person shares some of the +blame for the incident. Since they're the one who's upset, that's not +true. You may not have intended to make them feel bad, but you did, +and saying "I'm sorry" shows that you regret that they feel bad +(which, hopefully, you do.) + +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 wish that weren't the case. This is an opportunity +to think about how to better word your point in order to avoid +upsetting others in the future. + +Don't act like people need to be perfect to participate + +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 bad +person for doing what they did, that they should have done better, or +that their contribution wasn't worth making. + + +Why have social rules? + +The goal isn't to burden SIPB with a bunch of annoying rules, or to +give us a stick to bludgeon people with for "being bad." Rather, these +rules are designed to help all of us build a pleasant, productive, and +welcoming community. + +If someone says, "hey, you just feigned surprise," or "that's subtly +sexist," don't worry. Just apologize, reflect for a second, and move +on. It doesn't mean you're a "bad" person, or even a "bad" SIPB +member. As we said above, these rules are meant to be lightweight. If +you feel that somebody is repeatedly violating these rules, as with +any other SIPB issue, please talk to the Chair or another EC member +for help. In some cases, it might be appropriate for the Board or EC +to take formal action, but we hope that won't be necessary. + -- cgit v1.2.3