Hacker News Reader

Comment by csa | Hacker News Reader

Not the author, but...

Here is a link to one she uses for large groups:

https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-con...

If you look at the list of unacceptable behaviors, each one of those is pretty much guaranteed to happen given a sufficiently large group and enough time. The amount of time it takes for the code to be clearly violated is typically far less that you expect or want it to be.

The interesting thing is that many/most offenders don’t think they are breaking the code even if they had read it. That’s why the wording is important — it helps during the intervention stage.

View on HN

The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances

Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks

Public or private harassment

Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission

Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

----

Yes, at least one of those will eventually happen. And when it does, the person should be pointed to the rules and told that they should have known it was unacceptable. What happens from that point is the question.

IMO, if they can't accept those rules, I don't want them around. They're pretty basic, IMO.

If they accept them, but continually violate them, I also don't want them around.

Agreed. A number of defensive comments here seem to be emotional reactions to perceived attempts at being 'told what to do', when in fact, most codes of conduct are not much more than social contracts. Or at least, that is how they have worked in most groups I have been a member of.

Part of the problem is how one puts a CoC forth.

The CoC's come from a "don't do these things we disapprove of". Trolling, doxxinng, harassment, sexualization (that doesn't directly pertain to the discussion). This is pretty much a "don't be an ass to people".

The problem arises when a CoC is started or introduced. it's usually because of a single person being an ass, and 1 or more people taking the brunt. But when the organizers put this forth, they too can either do it without shame and blame, or with (and thus violating their 'dont be an ass' set of codes).

Example of a better way to introduce these: "Last year we had someone act terribly to member(s). We apologize for having to do this as almost all the people act with dignity and respect. But we are unfortunately put in the position of spelling out what acting decent entails, and what it does not."

The hard one there is the 'unwelcome sexual advances' - the mating signal is tough as hell, and is different per person. It's this awkward dance, to show interest but not act 'creepy'. I've even met some that expect others to know they aren't showing any signals - and thus every sexual advance is unwelcome even if they say nothing about it being unwelcome.

In this particular context (large, professional groups), I think the idea is that there should be no sexual advances or presumption of sexual advances at these professional events.

> I've even met some that expect others to know they aren't showing any signals - and thus every sexual advance is unwelcome even if they say nothing about it being unwelcome.

The baseline assumption is that no one is sending signals in a professional context (even if some do, even if some do with malicious intent). There are graceful ways to initiate engagement in a non-professional context that opens the doors for appropriate signal sending. Even this must be handled carefully, since one person may be thinking “romance”, while the other is thinking “professional socialization”. This is especially true if one person is in a position of power (e.g., a VC in a start up community).

This makes me want to have a recorder rolling all the time when I interact with people from that group, just in case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com