That doesn't mean a project should tolerate any form of hate. It's simply a statement that a code of conduct is not to be subverted and used as another weapon rather than as a form of protection. Also notice that it talks about the "safety" of one group versus the "comfort" of another, not the "safety" of one group versus the "safety" of another. The latter would be quite different.
If you like, look at it as a statement about Bayesian priors: "what situation is far more likely, and should be the default assumption?"
Here's a better replacement that addresses all concerns:
Attacking someone based on their real life identity is not allowed, regardless of what that identity is and furthermore is off topic as this is a technical project, not a sociological one.
It has the same effect of banning all -isms by default, is clear enough and unambiguous enough for even a troll to understand and not being able to rules lawyer their way out of (people's identities are off limit, end of discussion), and keeps off topic nonsense out of tech projects.
Because a few moments of thought to compose a reply will produce a better result than people who have been working on codes of conduct for years and have seen the stunts people try to pull?
Among many other problems, not all forms of unwelcoming behavior have to do with "attacking someone based on their real-life identity". A statement like that might be a start.
And in the process, you've also managed to dismiss any and all discussions of how to positively improve a project to better address social issues, or how to fix existing problems. Congratulations, your code of conduct itself makes people unwelcome.
Of course not - but it would slot nicely as a replacement into the controversial piece of the Github CoC, which is kind of what I was aiming at. Under what circumstances would a contributor's real life identity ever be relevant in the context of a ticketing system?
you've also managed to dismiss any and all discussions of how to positively improve a project to better address social issues
Most of the time, those social issue are irrelevant. We're not talking about behavior on a chat channel, or a conference, or a mailing list, we're talking about behavior on a bug tracker.
What social issues are not being addressed on a bug tracker that are relevant to the projects in question?
Simple amount of effort doesn't guarantee a good result. I'm sure we can all name software projects that added feature after feature as years slipped by and ended up as a bloated, counterproductive mess, much like the CoC we're debating.
>And in the process, you've also managed to dismiss any and all discussions of how to positively improve a project to better address social issues, or how to fix existing problems. Congratulations, your code of conduct itself makes people unwelcome.
Actually, since you mentioned it: why is it the obligation of every random hobbyist open source project to "better address social issues"?
For the most part I'm talking about issues those projects already have, such as being hostile to new users or contributors, and especially to various specific groups. As for "why": much like "Free Software" versus "Open Source", there are ideological reasons and practical reasons. A sample of practical ("Open Source"-style) reasons: because you want more users and contributors, because you want contributors who don't all think like you do, because less energy spent dealing with awful people is more energy spent hacking, and because communities that people have more fun in are communities that grow much faster. Additional ideological ("Free Software"-style) reasons, which apply whether the rest do or not: because being decent to everyone is not too much to ask, and shouldn't have to be asked for in the first place.
Those are admirable goals, but a) they have nothing to do with free software and b) it is not established that these codes of conduct, especially when they enshrine fringe political viewpoints and explicitly racist and discriminatory behavior as this one does, will achieve those goals.
Conversation A:
Person 1 (repeatedly) makes discriminatory comments towards person 2
Person 2 makes only non-discriminatory comments back
Conversation B:
Person 1 (repeatedly) makes discriminatory comments towards person 2
Person 2 same as above, but eventually makes a discriminatory comment back
In conversation B, there was no reason for person 2 to make the discriminatory comment other than their emotions got the better of them and they were dragged down to the level of person 1. But I see no reason why this should be forgiven. Person 2 still made discriminatory comments which violated the code of conduct. We could argue over the appropriate level of retribution they each deserve, but I don't think they should get a free pass. Giving them one encourages a "fight fire with fire" attitude which simply leads to more discrimination.
The solution in my eyes is to have a clear definition of discriminatory/harassing comments and enforce it consistently. Stronger repercussions for repeat offenders, warnings for the occasional slip up.
>Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding:
> ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
> Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you”
> Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
> Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial
> Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
It's one of the only CoC I've ever read that specifically condones some forms of harassment. No harassment should be acceptable. I've already switched to gitlab and I'm about to go through the list of projects that use this CoC and make sure I don't use their products anymore.