From e5fbfc0d09e40a3e4932385161e1b6c03ec6f3be Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:43:48 -0500 Subject: Incorporate new preamble from dove --- code-of-conduct.txt | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) (limited to 'code-of-conduct.txt') diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index 2c915a8..92f8c4f 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -1,15 +1,31 @@ SIPB Social Principles -Preamble: - -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. We also hope that this document will -raise awareness of some common behavior that can be off-putting to -others. +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 like 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 +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. + +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. Perfection is not required for participation -- cgit v1.2.3 From 14ae042e331680add88acb732c5d604ce54f5f47 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:55:09 -0500 Subject: Re-title and edit surprise and well-actually Re-title and edit the sections on feigning surprise and well-actually to better clarify the actual principles, incorporating changes from dove --- code-of-conduct.txt | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------ 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) (limited to 'code-of-conduct.txt') diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index 92f8c4f..d4c7270 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ 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 +Avoid expressing surprise at ignorance This first principle is aimed at discouraging the practice of acting overly surprised when some says they don't know something. This @@ -54,37 +54,29 @@ 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 - -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 -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. However, many well-actually's are, like feigning surprise, -primarily about (intentionally or unintentionately) demonstrating -one's own knowledge, not truth-seeking. - -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] - -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 +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. + +Avoid over-correcting others ("Well, actually...") + +It's hard to resist the urge to demonstrate your knowledge about 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. + +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 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 -- cgit v1.2.3 From a41ea47b20b22f2de2db1b69f0e5fef2119c7060 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:56:48 -0500 Subject: Wordsmith 2nd paragraph in -ism principle Suggestions from dove --- code-of-conduct.txt | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) (limited to 'code-of-conduct.txt') diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index d4c7270..dc50f64 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -98,10 +98,11 @@ 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 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. +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, -- cgit v1.2.3 From fd2f870f9e04755b5e9504983992003fff38c9ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:59:28 -0500 Subject: Wordsmith apology section Suggestions from dove --- code-of-conduct.txt | 16 ++++++---------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) (limited to 'code-of-conduct.txt') diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index dc50f64..182fec1 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -113,22 +113,18 @@ 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 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.) +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. 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. +they're upset and sincerely wish that weren't the case. Why have these principles? -- cgit v1.2.3 From b07decbe47e8850bf50d417d61940527638647af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:59:42 -0500 Subject: Rewrite last section 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. --- code-of-conduct.txt | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) (limited to 'code-of-conduct.txt') diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index 182fec1..e680f64 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -126,42 +126,30 @@ 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. -Why have these principles? +What happens if someone violates 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. +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. -What happens if someone violates these principles? +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. -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. +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. 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. 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. +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. -- cgit v1.2.3 From 7117351e6013e01f9dcbc3b9cd965662296a14df Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 21:23:27 -0500 Subject: More tweaks to surprise and end section - 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. --- code-of-conduct.txt | 13 +++++++++---- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) (limited to 'code-of-conduct.txt') diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index e680f64..d99f46c 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ 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. -Avoid expressing surprise at ignorance +Be careful expressing surprise This first principle is aimed at discouraging the practice of acting overly surprised when some says they don't know something. This @@ -52,11 +52,13 @@ 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. +something, wants to be further reminded of it by your reaction. Even +when it's not your intention to upset someone, it's almost ways the +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 +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. @@ -132,7 +134,10 @@ 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. +social environment when they see something they think is destructive. +Under any circumstance, 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 feel someone has contributed negatively to a SIPB social environment (in the office, on a SIPB email list, on our zephyr classes, -- cgit v1.2.3 From 609441c9aabca47cf5ff0ab90e6ff9c314ce0aa8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 21:35:58 -0500 Subject: Clarify-no-really the part about talking to the EC. 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) --- code-of-conduct.txt | 17 ++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) (limited to 'code-of-conduct.txt') diff --git a/code-of-conduct.txt b/code-of-conduct.txt index d99f46c..af61619 100644 --- a/code-of-conduct.txt +++ b/code-of-conduct.txt @@ -134,15 +134,18 @@ 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. -Under any circumstance, however, if someone's behavior or speech in -the office is making you feel uncomfortable or unwelcome, please -contact a member of the EC. +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. +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 -- cgit v1.2.3