>Physical contact and simulated physical contact (eg, textual descriptions like “hug” or “backrub”) without consent or after a request to stop. [violates the code of conduct]
I can't tell if this is a joke or not.
I can't tell if this is a joke or not.
Tell me to stop. I WON'T.
Bring back the mailing lists.
Huh? So you both support the CoC but also want to "bring back" a form of communication which is entirely unmoderated? That's super contradictory.
Also, a mailing list can be one of the most strictly moderated forms of communication.
But seriously, I'm hearing about this for the first time. Can anybody explain to me why this particular CoC is more controversial than any other random CoC?
Their argument is that "straight white males" can't be subject to racism or sexism simply because of their race and gender. This would obviously generate controversy and is generally a racist and sexist statement, which is likely why they put the project on hold - it could create a lot of negative news coverage for GitHub.
> We will not act on complaints regarding: ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
This was taken from http://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ with one omission:
> The Geek Feminism Anti-Abuse Team will not act on complaints regarding: ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’ (because these things don’t exist)
I'd agree that the reverse-isms do not exist. Sexism is sexism no matter who it affects. But it is not clear to me if the text should be interpreted this way...
Because I don't. If the CoC was genuinely designed to oppose discriminatory behavior against everyone, why would its authors be clinging so tightly to this bit of language that could be interpreted as greenlighting certain types of discrimination? It's unnecessary, so why not remove it?
Why would it be a joke to ban annoying personally-targeted behaviors that are unrelated to the work product?
I can't think of a case where discussing cuddling someone is appropriate for a Pull Request, mailing list, or IRC chat
If you know someone or have formed any kind of relationship with them, that sort of "virtual hug" can be appropriate, but in other contexts it can be a pretty damn creepy way to push buttons.
This is me violating your personal space.
So you can either disallow all personal communication allowing only professional/on-topic stuff (maybe also making everyone use Esperanto so there are no misunderstandings) or you have real humans judging if someone is being a jerk based on their own understanding what "jerk" means.
The later is how the real world was doing it for thousands of years (though this is also changing). When a child goes to school she/he is expected to behave in some normal way - parents are supposed to help create that behavior when upbringing the child. And if at school the child does something bad, they call the parents and then the parents are expected to explain the child why it is bad and make sure that doesn't happen again.
Summoning the parents is (unfortunately) not an option here, but warning and banning people should work.
If you get creeped out by even a virtual hug and see more open people as violators, that's your problem, not theirs.
Of course if we're going to apply one religiously-inspired value system, then why not Saudi Arabian values?
The sense I get from GitHub's CoC effort is that it's attempting to codify supposedly universal modes of proper human interaction without recognizing that it's sourced in a specific, local culture.
Please lay it out for me, in as much detail as you're comfortable providing.
Wait, really? I've never posted it myself, but textual descriptions like "[hug]" as a way of expressing gratitude or solidarity are common and mundane in plenty of communities.
Now, sure, cluttering technical discussions with stuff like this isn't preferable. To call it "clearcut sexual harassment" is ludicrous and completely devalues the term in question.
I'd bet none of the communities you've seen it is a workplace.
Instead you get the actual actions. Because people who spend that much time interacting tend to not stay in a Platonic Ideal "strictly professional" relationship, but become acquaintances or even friends. In which case it's that set of rules that apply, rather than the ivory tower set of rules based on said Platonic Ideal.
But in a way that just emphasizes why "[hug]" would be awkward and borderline inappropriate in a work setting. How often do coworkers physically hug at work?
I'm not saying it would always be wrong to use "[hug]" (or even physically hug somebody at work), but I'd expect it to be far less common than in some other settings.
I also tend to close my (less serious) working emails with stuff like "Love, kisses, [Name]" — and no one ever got offended by that, albeit the majority of my team would probably dislike some random bearded guy actually kissing them.
Awkwardness is in the eye of the beholder. Working with adults (with no serious mental health issues) alleviates the need for a prohibitive, mildly disgusting CoC, like the one discussed in this thread.
I mean, it's not uncommon for people to write 'hugs' or something like that - surely that should be fine (assuming it's not wildly off topic)?
(And if you don't think that the words matter because it's just text in a browser, imagine that next time you make an angry/frustrated post, I reply "aww, boo hoo. ruffles your hair". You'd be fucking pissed. Words have meaning, that's why we use them)
I'll never understanf this stuff. In fact I don't even understand how hugging and giving people real backrubs is sexual harassment, let alone mentioning it in text!