Re: Code of Conduct?

[Alexander Hansen]

On 12/16/12 9:41 AM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> On 12/15/2012 07:52 PM, Ben Abbott wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 2012, at 7:47 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/15/12 4:35 PM, Michael D. Godfrey wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/15/2012 06:26 PM, Ben Abbott wrote:
>>>>> Perhaps the next step should be drafting a code-of-conduct on the wiki?
>>>>>
>>>>> Once the code-of-conduct becomes stable, it can be moved to the "Get
>>>>> Involved" page at octave.org
>>>> Not a good idea.  Lets just forget this and get on with what we can do
>>>> to be useful.
>>>>
>>>> Just to may things clear: a code of conduct will mean that I will remove
>>>> my name form the list.
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>
>>> I don't see the need for a code of conduct, either.  Go with a simple
>>> approach:
>>>
>>> 1)  Have a list administrator.  You probably do already since my inbox
>>> isn't full of SPAM. :-)
>>> 2)  Have the administrator read the list mail.
>>> 3)  Use common sense.  We can all tell when someone is off-topic and
>>> offensive.  Anyone who can't shouldn't be a list admin.
>>> 4)  Based on 3), if the admin decides that enough is enough by whatever
>>> criterion, they can do what is needed--on the lists I moderate it's easy
>>> to force a subscriber's posts all to be moderated.
>>>
>>> If people really want community policing, then an email list is NOT the
>>> way to go.  I get almost as annoyed by dealing with a string of replies
>>> to an off-topic and offensive post as to the original post.  Nip it in
>>> the bud.
>>
>> Sounds reasonable to me.
> 
> Can I make some observations?  First, thank you to the person who told
> me privately which emails we are talking about.  But I should tell you
> that one other person privately emailed me saying in effect "I hope it
> wasn't me!"  And to be honest if I had been around on these lists for a
> while, I might also think it was me you were talking about.
> 
> Second - I understand that you want to make "octave-help" a friendly
> place.  So I do understand you wanting to ban those who have bad people
> skills.  But I think you should only cut them out from "octave-help" and
> not any of the other more technical lists (like "octave-maintainers").
> Otherwise it begins to smack of censorship.
> 
> People with bad people skills usually think they are providing a good
> service towards those to whom they lecture.  Telling them they have bad
> people skills rarely works.  And then they are left just as angry as you
> are, because they genuinely do not see how they are offending people.
> 
> But these "difficult" people are also useful contributors to society.
> They may have a poor manner of expressing themselves.  But they also can
> have gems of insight that will get lost if we totally ban them from
> communicating with us.
> 
> I would compare "octave-help" to the front desk of a car repair shop.
> There you put the people with good communication skills.  You keep the
> grumpy mechanics in the back, where they can get on with fixing cars.
> 
> Last night I had a fun discussion with a high school student.  He told
> me that he is very good at explaining mathematics to people.  I jokingly
> replied "I am also very good at explaining mathematics to people - the
> problem isn't me - it is those dunderheads who don't understand the
> explanation I am offering!"
> 
> Finally, if you want to ban people who go on rants that are totally
> unrelated to octave, or use curse words regularly, I have no problem
> with that.  But while the person I think you are talking about did have
> his rants, they were not totally off topic.  And personally I found some
> of them rather well written and amusing.  My idea of totally off topic
> are people who go on and on about things like how the NASA moon landings
> didn't take place.  (I am not making any statement about the truth of
> these assertions - I am merely saying that octave-mailing lists are not
> the place to discuss this.)
> 
> Thanks, Stephen
> 

Yup.  It's all about balance and context.

I'm against outright bans, too.  On the other hand, I don't necessarily
see anything wrong with putting someone on moderation after a warning if
their posts are hindering rather than helping the discussion.  Since
their posts are all queued up the moderator can release items that do
contribute to the discussion.  Or even everything.

There is, of course, the option of putting everybody on moderation.
Everybody gets treated identically that way, but it's more effort for
the admin.

Alex