Wellbeing-first policy and culture #172

circlebuilder commented 2023年02月24日 09:25:25 +01:00

When it comes to assuring wellbeing and safe spaces within the Forgejo project, there is a lessons-learned that we should turn into a best-practice:

When witnessing unacceptible conduct of others, FIRST report to the Wellbeing team.

It can be very hard to refrain from giving an immediate response to a person that misbehaves, and sometimes a direct response may be needed. But these have very high risk to be hastily formulated in ways that do not de-escalate.

In general the policy should be to immediately raise awareness of an issue to someone in the Wellbeing team, so they can start with deconfliction and further handling of the conflict.

Community members should encourage each other to intimately know this policy, so it becomes first response and natural part of project culture.

Part of lessons learned is that comments mentioning e.g "toxicity" of someone in issue trackers (and other channels) are not only off-topic to the issue, but only lead to defensive and/or angry responses that then subsequently worsen the situation and need to be handled as well by the Wellbeing team.

Note: There must be a clear point of contact to report to Wellbeing.

When it comes to assuring wellbeing and safe spaces within the Forgejo project, there is a lessons-learned that we should turn into a best-practice: > **When witnessing unacceptible conduct of others, FIRST report to the Wellbeing team.** It can be _very hard_ to refrain from giving an immediate response to a person that misbehaves, and sometimes a direct response may be needed. But these have very high risk to be hastily formulated in ways that do not de-escalate. In general the policy should be to _immediately_ raise awareness of an issue to someone in the Wellbeing team, so they can start with deconfliction and further handling of the conflict. Community members should encourage each other to intimately know this policy, so it becomes first response and natural part of project culture. Part of lessons learned is that comments mentioning e.g "toxicity" of someone in issue trackers (and other channels) are not only off-topic to the issue, but only lead to defensive and/or angry responses that then subsequently worsen the situation and need to be handled as well by the Wellbeing team. Note: There must be a clear point of contact to report to Wellbeing.

tallship commented 2023年02月24日 09:37:23 +01:00

Ummm...

Actually, this should be a FAQ item in our website under the "contributing" or perhaps the "community" section.

Oh, wait. we don't have that in our website. The public has to burrow indefinitely in a Github style tracker to stumble upon this worthwhile content.

⛵

.

Ummm... Actually, this should be a FAQ item in our website under the "contributing" or perhaps the "community" section. Oh, wait. we don't have that in our website. The public has to burrow indefinitely in a **Github** style tracker to stumble upon this worthwhile content. ⛵ .

circlebuilder commented 2023年02月24日 09:41:05 +01:00

Yea, this issue is a reminder to give this attention. Esp. ways of making Wellbeing-first - i.e. take a deep breath and report - a cultural habit. Good place(s) where that is documented is part of that.

Yea, this issue is a reminder to give this attention. Esp. ways of making Wellbeing-first - i.e. take a deep breath and report - a cultural habit. Good place(s) where that is documented is part of that.

tallship commented 2023年02月24日 18:43:44 +01:00

I couldn't help myself. I went and checked my email notification to read a particular comment 'redacted' in an earlier, now closed issue. It was kinda wow, acerbic.

Anyway, that's not my point and I guess the background was just to highlight my morbid curiosity, lolz. My real reason for commenting here is almost non sequitur where the title of the topic is concerned.

IOW, I'm raising awareness of my continued vehement opposition to specific verbiage I voiced several months ago when we were selecting the particular (of three or four, IIRC) CoC under which Forĝejo would, and now does, operate.

One (1) word, placed where it was (is) still really bothers me to the point where not two weeks go by where I don't contemplate just how much it does bother me.

That word in the CoC is "edit".

Considering that comment I referenced in my inbox, I think it brings to light a whole new dynamic that could have been exceedingly problematic legally, considering the content of that comment.

That one word in the CoC, which I voiced profound objections to and was largely ignored, is now prescient, as I predicted.

The comment I'm referring to was "redacted'", as the well-being team framed it, which was, IMO, a wise choice of words to characterize the said action, although I do seem to recall elsewhere, on an entirely unrelated matter, where someone's speech was indeed 'edited'. Only one word I think, as the recollection is vague, but I remember being upset about it and probably spoke out against it at the time.

Yes, it was an objectionable word and no, it was inappropriate to obfuscate it. But that's in the past.

Really what is at issue here are legal connotations over Copyright and intellectual property. That can be a very big deal and I know that most people dismiss that notion, but to do so can be problematic, perhaps even dangerous in the litigating sense.

I know I issued a warning at the time for anyone who would dare edit anything I publish other than a merge request. Again, woe be unto anyone who tries to put words in my mouth by 'editing' anything I say.

So the comment was redacted, "completely", and that I believe is an entirely acceptable action given any number of various particular circumstances.

Had the comment been instead only partially redacted, I might be penning a different sort of concern today.

I'm not going to go through the whole rigamarole of opening an issue dedicated to removing that word in it's context within the CoC, but I am again pointing out the pitfalls, to say the least of using license in that document to do anything other than completely redact (i.e., not partial redaction or obfuscation of a word or two) or delete a published comment by anyone.

Just because we have the tools to do something, doesn't make it okay to do so.

The word can't simply be removed from the CoC because that would affect the ability to edit code in a PR, so the sentence will probably need to be split into two sentences to make that distinction clear between those two scenarios (I'm not sure, since I haven't revisited the CoC again in months).

Anyway, I'm glad that the comment in question here wasn't 'edited', or 'partially redacted'. That would have been very, very bad IMO.

Perhaps someone such as yourself @circlebuilder , will take time at some point in the future to redress the verbiage to which I refer?

I don't foresee myself bringing the matter up again, so I'm hoping that it will be looked at again with fresh eyes by others - it's a small adjustment, but with potentially profound consequences IMO.

Well I've hijacked this thread long enough I think, apologies for having done so on this tangent and I'll let the normal flow of the course continue here now. Thank you for taking the time to not simply tl;dr my interjection 🙂

⛵

.

I couldn't help myself. I went and checked my email notification to read a particular comment 'redacted' in an earlier, now closed issue. It was kinda wow, acerbic. Anyway, that's not my point and I guess the background was just to highlight my morbid curiosity, lolz. My real reason for commenting here is almost non sequitur where the title of the topic is concerned. IOW, I'm raising awareness of my continued vehement opposition to specific verbiage I voiced several months ago when we were selecting the particular (of three or four, IIRC) CoC under which Forĝejo would, and now does, operate. One (1) word, placed where it was (is) still *really* bothers me to the point where not two weeks go by where I don't contemplate just how much it does bother me. That word in the CoC is **"edit"**. Considering that comment I referenced in my inbox, I think it brings to light a whole new dynamic that *could have* been exceedingly problematic legally, considering the content of that comment. That one word in the CoC, which I voiced profound objections to and was largely ignored, is now prescient, as I predicted. The comment I'm referring to was "redacted'", as the well-being team framed it, which was, IMO, a wise choice of words to characterize the said action, although I do seem to recall elsewhere, on an entirely unrelated matter, where someone's speech was indeed 'edited'. Only one word I think, as the recollection is vague, but I remember being upset about it and probably spoke out against it at the time. Yes, it was an objectionable word and no, it was inappropriate to obfuscate it. But that's in the past. Really what is at issue here are legal connotations over *Copyright* and *intellectual property*. That can be a very big deal and I know that most people dismiss that notion, but to do so can be problematic, perhaps even dangerous in the litigating sense. I know I issued a warning at the time for anyone who would dare edit anything I publish other than a merge request. Again, woe be unto anyone who tries to put words in my mouth by 'editing' anything I say. So the comment was *redacted*, "completely", and that I believe is an entirely acceptable action given any number of various particular circumstances. Had the comment been instead only partially redacted, I might be penning a different sort of concern today. I'm not going to go through the whole rigamarole of opening an issue dedicated to removing that word in it's context within the CoC, but I am again pointing out the pitfalls, to say the least of using license in that document to do anything other than *completely redact* (i.e., not partial redaction or obfuscation of a word or two) or *delete* a published comment by anyone. Just because we have the tools to do something, doesn't make it okay to do so. The word can't simply be removed from the CoC because that would affect the ability to edit code in a PR, so the sentence will probably need to be split into two sentences to make that distinction clear between those two scenarios (I'm not sure, since I haven't revisited the CoC again in months). Anyway, I'm glad that the comment in question here wasn't 'edited', or 'partially redacted'. That would have been very, very bad IMO. Perhaps someone such as yourself @circlebuilder , will take time at some point in the future to redress the verbiage to which I refer? I don't foresee myself bringing the matter up again, so I'm hoping that it will be looked at again with fresh eyes by others - it's a small adjustment, but with potentially profound consequences IMO. Well I've hijacked this thread long enough I think, apologies for having done so on this tangent and I'll let the normal flow of the course continue here now. Thank you for taking the time to not simply tl;dr my interjection 🙂 ⛵ .