[Standards] [Members] Feedback on the proposed CoC

Daniel Pocock daniel at pocock.pro
Mon Mar 21 12:50:48 UTC 2022


I put together this open letter on the topic, it itemizes many of the
points in CoCs and may be useful for measuring the proposed XSF CoC:

https://danielpocock.com/open-letter-acm-codes-of-ethics-conduct/



On 04/02/2022 11:39, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> 
> 
> On 04/02/2022 10:40, JC Brand wrote:
> 
>>> By explicitly stating that this Code of Conduct applies this allows
>> the XSF to sanction bad behaviour outside of XSF Activities should the
>> need arise.
>>
>> I'm against this statement as written. What someone does in their
>> private life, unrelated to the XSF and outside of XSF activities has no
>> bearing on the XSF and the XSF has no justifiable basis to sanction that
>> person for it.
>>
>> Also "bad behaviour" is incredibly broad. What is "bad behaviour"? In
>> some societies things that are considered bad behaviour are celebrated
>> in other societies. Social norms change and a sentence such as this
>> makes this document and its related process open to abuse.
>>
>> This makes me think of Brendan Eich who got fired by Mozilla for
> 
> 
> What about Jacob Appelbaum?
> 
> In 5 years since the lynching, not one person ever recorded a complaint
> at a police station.
> 
> They used the CoC as an alternative to the law.  In other words, using
> the CoC without any official justice process was an act of vigilantism.
> 
> They used the CoC to spread the defamation from one group to the next
> like spreading a virus or worm.  They spread it all the way to major
> newspapers like the Washington Post.
> 
> Is that "safety" or is it a dangerous form of social engineering?
> 
> Prince Andrew will soon be subject to a trial by jury.  Free software
> developers like Appelbaum are subject to an inferior system, trial by
> CoC.  Why?
> 
> If somebody genuinely uses an XSF communication platform to promote
> criminal activity then the existing laws already empower the
> administrators to remove that content and prevent it coming back.
> 
> For everything else I feel that online communities need to invest in
> leadership skills and improving the quality of human relations.  Doing
> those things will go a lot further to advance the cause of the XSF, XMPP
> and open standards in the wider world.
> 
> I don't understand why the CoC is being subject to a standards process.
> It is a social phenomena.  In many organizations this type of thing is
> part of the constitution or a very closely related document.  In such
> cases no member can be censored unless they do something that is
> obviously over the threshold to justify an expulsion process.  Such a
> process often involves evidence and a right of reply.  The CoC
> undermines the rights of members in such a case and therefore it could
> be seen as a hack against the organization.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Daniel
> 


More information about the Standards mailing list