From cef8ae4df8650dfa93457dc93dc27a1aa5efe51a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:45:46 -0500 Subject: Change title to 'principles', update preamble 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. --- code-of-conduct.txt | 17 +++++++---------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index e529cf4..82a41df 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -1,16 +1,13 @@ -SIPB social rules and expectations +SIPB Social Principles 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. +The purpose of these principles is to provide guidance and a baseline +for interpersonal interactions at SIPB, whether in the office, at a +hackathon, or in an electronic medium. These expectations are focused +on individual empowerment and making SIPB a supportive, productive, +and fun learning environment, where people feel comfortable making +mistakes and learning from them. No feigning surprise -- cgit v1.2.3 From 4c89ce1df67797fa3e1c90dd52f77625800238f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:47:32 -0500 Subject: Add quote in well-actually section Incorporate quote from iannucci to better illustrate why a well-actually may not have the intended effect. --- code-of-conduct.txt | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index 82a41df..b2ec6da 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -40,6 +40,11 @@ precise. Almost all well-actually's in our experience are about not truth-seeking. (Thanks to Miguel de Icaza for originally coining the term "well-actually.") +Even if the information you convey in your "well, actually..." is of +the utmost importance or correctness, consider finding a different way +to say it. "People don't remember what you tell them, they remember +how you make them feel."[1] + No back-seat driving If you overhear people working through a problem, you shouldn't @@ -128,3 +133,5 @@ 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. +-- +[1] Licensed from Peter Iannucci, CC-BY-SA. -- cgit v1.2.3 From 3cf76178dc46e9a0c6ffa8ea892d9f7d30121b93 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:56:40 -0500 Subject: Rewrite the end section; clarify enforcement 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. --- code-of-conduct.txt | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index b2ec6da..fa75159 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -117,21 +117,38 @@ 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. - --- +Why have these principles? + +The goal isn't to burden SIPB with a bunch of annoying rules, nor to +give us a stick to bludgeon people with for "being bad", nor to +encourage "tattling". Rather, these rules are designed to help all of +us build a pleasant, productive, and welcoming community. + +What happens if someone violates these principles? + +It is our hope that the entire community will strive to uphold these +principles. If you feel that someone's behavior towards you violates +the letter or the spirit of these principles, it is our hope that this +document will make you feel empowered to raise this issue with that +person, and explain your feelings. As always, however, if someone's +behavior or speech in the office is making you feel uncomfortable or +unwelcome, please contact a member of the EC. + +If you, as a third party, observe someone else violating the letter or +spirit of these principles, you are encouraged to speak with the +person who is upset (if feel comfortable doing so) and discuss the +incident with them, and if they're still upset, encourage them to +reach out to the EC. You should also feel empowered to speak to the +other party, if you feel comfortable doing so. Finally, as always, if +someone's behavior or speech in the office is making you feel +uncomfortable or unwelcome, please contact a member of the EC. + +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. If someone else tells you that you +violated these principles, take a minute to reflect, and apologize to +the person, and move on. It doesn't mean you're a "bad" person, or +even a "bad" SIPB member. + [1] Licensed from Peter Iannucci, CC-BY-SA. -- cgit v1.2.3 From 581600855b07ff487d17a97f50ec579e7e1b0f4b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:57:27 -0500 Subject: Clarify part on -isms 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 --- code-of-conduct.txt | 23 ++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index fa75159..a3050a0 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -64,22 +64,23 @@ later, and need to rearrange your ordering. No subtle sexism, racism, etc. -Our next social rule bans subtle sexism, racism, homophobia, 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..."). -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. +Unlike the other guidelines, incidents which violate this principle +may not be 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. Apologies consist of "I'm sorry" -- cgit v1.2.3 From 124ae2c6b4e5017e200b93d720a3656e04278bb4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 01:23:30 -0500 Subject: Move "perfection not required" paragraph to the beginning 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 --- code-of-conduct.txt | 32 +++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index a3050a0..12192bd 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -9,6 +9,21 @@ on individual empowerment and making SIPB a supportive, productive, and fun learning environment, where people feel comfortable making mistakes and learning from them. +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 bad +person for doing what they did, that they should have done better, or +that their contribution wasn't worth making. No feigning surprise @@ -101,23 +116,6 @@ 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 these principles? The goal isn't to burden SIPB with a bunch of annoying rules, nor to -- cgit v1.2.3 From f2ce515c19462c21bd2aaa80f684e4b8c7385db8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 01:24:42 -0500 Subject: Wordsmith "feigning surprise" section 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 --- code-of-conduct.txt | 33 ++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index 12192bd..6d0e877 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -27,21 +27,24 @@ that their contribution wasn't worth making. 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. +This first principle is aimed at discouraging the practice of acting +overly surprised when some 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. + +Feigning surprise has absolutely no social or educational benefit: +When people feign surprise, it's usually to make them feel better +about themselves or demonstrate their vast array of knowledge at the +expense of others' emotions. Even when that's not the intention, it's +almost always the effect. 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. No well-actually's -- cgit v1.2.3 From a29345d2059c10160d89f45dfc667696c6d2df58 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 01:26:52 -0500 Subject: Clean up "well-actually" section. 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. --- code-of-conduct.txt | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index 6d0e877..394f8fc 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -48,20 +48,19 @@ don't know what wget(1) or nc(1) are. No well-actually's -A well-actually happens when someone says something that's almost - +A well-actually[2] 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 +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.") +precise. However, many well-actually's are, like feigning surprise, +primarily about (intentionally or unintentionately) demonstrating +one's own knowledge, not truth-seeking. -Even if the information you convey in your "well, actually..." is of -the utmost importance or correctness, consider finding a different way -to say it. "People don't remember what you tell them, they remember -how you make them feel."[1] +Even if you're trying to convey important information or prevent someone +from making a big mistake, consider finding a different way to say it. +"People don't remember what you tell them, they remember how you make +them feel."[1] No back-seat driving @@ -154,3 +153,4 @@ the person, and move on. It doesn't mean you're a "bad" person, or even a "bad" SIPB member. [1] Licensed from Peter Iannucci, CC-BY-SA. +[2] The term "well-actually" was originally coined by Miguel de Icaza. -- cgit v1.2.3 From 57b03fb879dbe6679c30e51a7e9f3bb838c85915 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 01:28:05 -0500 Subject: Re-phrase rule in a more positive manner --- code-of-conduct.txt | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index 394f8fc..c7d98a8 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ from making a big mistake, consider finding a different way to say it. "People don't remember what you tell them, they remember how you make them feel."[1] -No back-seat driving +Back-seat driving can be disruptive If you overhear people working through a problem, you shouldn't intermittently lob advice across the room. This can lead to the "too -- cgit v1.2.3 From c2b46eb9ee255eb89893a3530650e639e4b7d0aa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 01:28:22 -0500 Subject: Clean up apologies section Rephrase in more positive manner. Incorporate suggestions from jhawk so as to clarify exactly what type of apologies we're talking about and why. --- code-of-conduct.txt | 14 +++++++------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index c7d98a8..cc8ce14 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -99,15 +99,15 @@ 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. -Apologies consist of "I'm sorry" +The most sincere 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.) +of others. If you violate one of the principles in this document, but +follow your 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 -- cgit v1.2.3 From 908493028700d94cb44e9f952923741d3171d993 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:01:45 -0500 Subject: Add sentence to pre-amble Incorporate suggestion from dwilson that the one of the document's goals is to identify off-putting behavior --- code-of-conduct.txt | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index cc8ce14..4c0b3d1 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -7,7 +7,9 @@ for interpersonal interactions at SIPB, whether in the office, at a hackathon, or in an electronic medium. These expectations are focused on individual empowerment and making SIPB a supportive, productive, and fun learning environment, where people feel comfortable making -mistakes and learning from them. +mistakes and learning from them. We also hope that this document will +raise awareness of some common behavior that can be off-putting to +others. Perfection is not required for participation -- cgit v1.2.3 From c7b1d9dfad740446e7717f7b59cb1aefd5778bcc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:25:55 -0500 Subject: Clarify that "well actually" is about nitpicking Incorporate suggestions from dwilson --- code-of-conduct.txt | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index 4c0b3d1..9694359 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -59,8 +59,9 @@ precise. However, many well-actually's are, like feigning surprise, primarily about (intentionally or unintentionately) demonstrating one's own knowledge, not truth-seeking. -Even if you're trying to convey important information or prevent someone -from making a big mistake, consider finding a different way to say it. +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. In short: "People don't remember what you tell them, they remember how you make them feel."[1] -- cgit v1.2.3 From 6cd2e8286f7c9a27ce174d52c9867b3d26821cba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:28:23 -0500 Subject: Add closing paragraph about learning from mistakes. Incorporate suggestions from dwilson. "The more you know..." --- code-of-conduct.txt | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index 9694359..60621be 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -153,7 +153,10 @@ convey that these issues are important to the community, and may help empower others to speak up. If someone else tells you that you violated these principles, take a minute to reflect, and apologize to the person, and move on. It doesn't mean you're a "bad" person, or -even a "bad" SIPB member. +even a "bad" SIPB member. After all, SIPB should be a place where +people can make mistakes and learn from them -- and that includes social +mistakes. If you make an occasional social error, _but then learn from +it_, that's at least as useful as learning something technical. [1] Licensed from Peter Iannucci, CC-BY-SA. [2] The term "well-actually" was originally coined by Miguel de Icaza. -- cgit v1.2.3 From fc004553b0245d850fbe4d77162086dd025e65a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:29:39 -0500 Subject: Wordsmith apology paragraph 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" --- code-of-conduct.txt | 14 +++++++------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index 60621be..2c915a8 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -104,13 +104,13 @@ member of the EC to discuss the incident 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 violate one of the principles in this document, but -follow your 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.) +An apology should be a sincere expression of sadness for the sadness of +others. If you violate one of the principles in this document, but then +qualify your 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 -- cgit v1.2.3