FreeBSD has a politics problem

[Federico Caminiti]

>
> I've read the published Code of Conduct here:
>
>
 Yes, that's the one I've read too.


> all of the provisions listed appear to me to be reasonable.
>
>
Good. As pointed out above, some of the provisions listed do not sound
reasonable to other people.


> Rather than get all bent out of shape about the fact that it's based upon
> the example policy at "Geek Feminism" I would like to hear exactly what's
> in the code of conduct you object to.
>
>
 Dismissing complaints people might have about the CoC as unreasonable,
just because you agreed with it in its entirety is not very nice thing to
do.

 I find the language used to be ambiguous at best, US-Centric and almost
unimplementable at worst. The *hug* clause needs to go, for example. In my
culture no one would even bat an eye at someone writing *hug* in a comment.
The provision as pointed out in other comments is childish and ridiculous.

 Also,the following

 > Deliberate "outing" of any private aspect of a person's identity without
their consent *except as necessary to protect vulnerable people from
intentional abuse*.

(emphasis mine)

It has the implication that it's ok to deliberately "out" a private aspect
of a person's identity the person in charge of enforcing the CoC. Why do
they feel this might be necessary to protect someone is beyond me.

> Publication of non-harassing private communication without consent.

What is the scope of this provision?  Is quoting statements people made in
a mailing list (such as this one) against the rules now? How would you go
about obtaining consent for quoting people? Do we send a private email to
someone before quoting them every time?

> Sustained disruption of discussion.

What counts as "sustained disruption of discussion"? Repeatedly telling
someone that person is wrong is ok? Even when it is a technical discussion?
Did they mean to say "repeatedly engaging in non-technical discussions"?
If so, why not just write that?

> This code of conduct applies to all spaces used by the FreeBSD Project,
including our mailing lists, IRC channels, and social media, both online
and off.

How far does the scrutiny go? If I tweet about personal opinions, on our
personal account, will I that be considered in scope for the CoC? I would
hope not, but the CoC is not clear on that point and that possibility still
exists.

While we're at it, how about offensive language?...the CoC does not mention
it. Is it now OK to swear on the mailing lists/forum, etc...?  If it is not
and I say the f-word on twitter (see previous point) does that mean the CoC
comiteee will sanction me?

> Unwelcome sexual attention.

Is *welcome* sexual attention and/or comments OK on a **technical** mailing
list?

I also said that what concerns me is the lack of public discussion (see my
previous post). If this was the result of something agreed upon by the
community I might complain about it, but at least its the community itself
that's going in that direction and there would have been some discussion on
the issue. This was a decision made behind close doors, where donated money
was spent (little or not) and where the community at large did not
participate. And more money will be spent, apparently.Nothing was announced
through official channels, unless you count BSDNow as an official channel,
even then the announcement was made when the CoC was already enacted.

My point about where the CoC was adopted from stems from the fact that most
of the provisions I and other people who posted here find troublesome come
from there.

 Also from the fact that it came completely out of the blue. Why not adopt
a more neutral CoC? We don't need 3 different clauses about sexual
comments. Sexual comments do not belong on mailing lists/forums intended
for opperating systems development.

I understand that this was done with the best of intentions, but even so,
this is something that applies to the whole community.