SIPB Social Principles 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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..."). 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, 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. 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 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 sincerely wish that weren't the case. 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. 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.