Re: [PATCH] CODE_OF_CONDUCT: expect tolerance, not respect

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

brian m. carlson wrote:
> On 2020-12-23 at 14:46:56, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> > On 12/23/2020 1:17 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > As many argued; respect cannot be manufactured at will. If you don't
> > > respect an idea (for example that the Earth is flat), then it doesn't
> > > matter how hard you try; you still will not respect it.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > >  * Using welcoming and inclusive language
> > > -* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
> > > +* Being tolerant of differing viewpoints and experiences
> > >  * Gracefully accepting constructive criticism
> > >  * Focusing on what is best for the community
> > >  * Showing empathy towards other community members
> > 
> > As mentioned in 5cdf230 (add a Code of Conduct document, 2019-09-24):
> > 
> >     This patch adapts the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct. As opposed
> >     to writing our own from scratch, this uses common and well-accepted
> >     language, and strikes a good balance between illustrating expectations
> >     and avoiding a laundry list of behaviors. It's also the same document
> >     used by the Git for Windows project.
> > 
> > It is highly recommended to stick to the widely-used and carefully
> > crafted phrasing.
> 
> I am also strongly in favor of keeping the commonly used wording.

Do you care to explain why?

> If you feel that wording is inappropriate, it would be better to have
> the change adopted upstream.

What is upstream? [1]?

> > Specifically, "Being respectful" is different from "Have respect", which
> > negates your argument for changing this word. We can only enforce what
> > is evidenced by actual communication, not the internal lives of community
> > members.
> >
> > I could just as easily argue that it is possible to be tolerant without
> > being respectful.
> 
> I agree with this.
> 
> I should also point out that the situation at a university is different
> than the situation on this list.  A university is a large institution
> which is dedicated to the pursuit of learning and in which one may find
> a variety of ideas.  Sometimes those ideas (both past and present) will
> be offensive, but they are a part of learning more about the world.  We
> may tolerate those ideas as existing and being subject to critical
> analysis, but ultimately reject them and have little respect for them.

Yes. But ultimately it's about truth.

> On the other hand, many people work on Git or other open source projects
> as part of their job duties.

Nobody has ever paid me a cent to work on git.

Should the minority of open source contributors be held hostage because
the majority are corporate contributors?

> As such, this is a professional environment for many contributors.  In
> a professional environment, we need to be respectful of people who are
> different than us.

Yes, because somebody is paying you to behave in a certain way.

If a company is paying you to smile to customers, you smile to
customers.

What about the rest of us?

> We are aiming to have a common goal, which is to build a great version
> control system, and to have a coherent group of people who are willing
> to join together in that endeavor and best meet the needs of a
> diverse, multicultural base of users.

Indeed. And that's why we aim for the lowest common denominator.

We don't say; the majority of us use bash, so either you use bash, or
you are screwed.

We say; POSIX covers almost all of us, so let's try to aim for POSIX.

> The connotation I have of "tolerate" is "to suffer".

I don't think your definition is right.

Respect implies tolerance.

If you respect X, you tolerate X.

> In a healthy community, we try to minimize suffering due to others.  I
> am respectful of the fact that my colleagues may have different
> religious or cultural beliefs than I do and I try to consider those
> beliefs, such as considering their holidays when I ask someone to
> switch an on-call shift or schedule a meeting.  That can be a neutral
> or positive experience for all involved; no suffering need occur.

Therefore you are also tolerating those things.

> So I think the original Code of Conduct is more consistent with
> producing the positive, healthy environment we're looking for and best
> meeting our users' needs, and as a result, I don't agree at all that it
> should be changed.

OK. I have an opinion about this, but I cannot express it without
violating the code of conduct, so... I have three options.

  1. I pretend (i.e. lie) saying that I respect that idea.
  2. I express what I honestly think, but in theory I violate the code
     of conduct (like many people constantly do in this mailing list).
  3. I keep my mouth shut.

The reason so many intellectuals were against the word "respect" in
University of Cambridge's freedom of speech policy is not because
universities are special; it's because 1. and 3. are not conducive
towards truth.

As Stephen Fry put it: 'A demand for respect is like a demand for a
laugh, or demands for love, loyalty and allegiance. They cannot be given
if not felt' (you can only fake then).

Tolerance is the lowest common denominator everyone should be aiming
for.

Cheers.

[1] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/

-- 
Felipe Contreras