Doubt about the CoC

[C de-Avillez]

I came across a post in the ML that I think should be looked by you folks. From the Ubuntu Users ML (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2010-December/236770.html):

After the lengthy discussion some time back about to whom the CoC
refers, I had thought that the Code was adjusted to reflect that
users were also to be considered to be community members and subject to
the CoC. I just today reviewed said code
<http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct>
and noticed this:

----------
"We expect members of the Ubuntu community to be respectful when
dealing with other contributors as well as with people outside the
Ubuntu project and with users of Ubuntu."
----------

Doesn't that once more indicate that users are /NOT/ members since the,
"members," are expected to be, "...respectful when dealing with...
users..."

Some reworking of the Code obviously still needs to be done.
I really think the thing needs to be looked at by someone who has a
good command of the language and the meanings of words.

Maybe Canonical has an attorney in its employ who could do the dirty
deed.

Once again I'd just like to say that I have no problem adhering to the
Code, I would just like for it to be unambiguous.

[Daniel Holbach (dholbach)]

The intent I think is clear: everybody who participates in the Ubuntu community is expected to adhere to the CoC. I agree though that the special meaning that "Ubuntu member" has to us makes it a a bit ambiguous. The word "member" is used 6 times in the document and should maybe replaced by something else (or there should be a sentence for disambiguation somewhere).

[Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl)]

I agree, we should be specific that those who wish to be associated with
Ubuntu, or represent it, should be held to the Code of Conduct.

It's one of the most damaging things for the project that occasionally
an Ubuntu supporter or fan will behave in a way which is totally
incompatible with the CoC - particularly when commenting on other
competing projects. If the code of conduct were clearer on this, it
would be easier to have the community reinforce its values internally.

[Cybe R. Wizard (cybe)]

As the OP <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2010-December/236770.html> I consider it my duty to at least offer a possible solution to what I perceive as the wording problems in the Code Of Conduct that confuse the difference between users and developers in the Ubuntu community. In light of that consideration, here is my own version of the Code, (maybe) properly revised with some deletions, some changes and some re-distribution. Please read and consider these changes critically:

Ubuntu Code of Conduct - 1.0.1_Cybe R. Wizard_revision

= Ubuntu Code of Conduct =

This Code of Conduct covers everyone's behaviour as members of the Ubuntu
Community, in any forum, mailing list, wiki, web site, IRC channel,
install-fest, public meeting or private correspondence. The Ubuntu
Community Council will arbitrate in any dispute over the conduct of a
member of the community.

      '''Be considerate.''' Your words will be seen by other people,
      and you in turn will depend on the words of others. Any decision
      you make may affect many users, and we expect you to
      take those consequences into account when making decisions.

      '''Be respectful.''' The Ubuntu community and its members treat
      one another with respect. Everyone can make a valuable
      contribution to Ubuntu in many different ways. We may not always
      agree, but disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour and poor
      manners. We might all experience some frustration now and then,
      but we cannot allow that frustration to turn into a personal
      attack. It's important to remember that a community where people
      feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. We
      expect members of the Ubuntu community to be respectful when
      dealing with other members as well as with people outside the
      Ubuntu project.

      '''When you are unsure,''' ask for help. Nobody knows
      everything, and nobody is expected to be perfect in the Ubuntu
      community (except of course the SABDFL). Asking questions avoids
      many problems down the road, and so questions are
      encouraged. Those who are asked should be responsive and
      helpful. However, when asking a question, care must be taken to
      do so in an appropriate forum. Off-topic questions, such as
      requests for help on a development mailing list, detract from
      productive discussion.

      '''When you disagree,''' consult others. Disagreements, both
      political and technical, happen all the time and the Ubuntu
      community is no exception. The important goal is not to avoid
      disagreements or differing views but to resolve them
      constructively. You should turn to the community and to the
      community process to seek advice and to resolve
      disagreements. We have the Technical Board and the Community
      Council, both of which will help to decide the right course for
      Ubuntu. There are also several Project Teams and Team Leaders,
      who may be able to help you figure out which direction will be
      most acceptable.

 For Developers:

      '''Be collaborative.''' Ubuntu and Free Software are about
      collaborati...

[Daniel Holbach (dholbach)]

http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/546500/ has the wdiff of Rusty's suggested change.

Thanks a lot for your work on this Rusty. Here are my thoughts on it:
 - there's inconsistency between American English and British English spelling
 - It's unclear to me why you remove "Ubuntu governance bodies are ultimately accountable to the [Ubuntu
Community Council]"
 - I don't understand why you remove the last paragraph (you actually remove quite a few pieces of the text)
 - "words" instead of "work" might be suitable in a mailing list / forum setting, but it's not suitable when it comes to other forms of contributions
 - Why should only developers be collaborative?
 - I actually quite liked the sound of "we" in the document, it embodies our team spirit and that we see ourselves as one big team (no matter where people are located, which culture they're part of, etc.)
 - The biggest problem that was identified in this bug report was the ambiguity of "Ubuntu member" (cf. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Membership) - I'm not sure the new document solves this

[Cybe R. Wizard (cybe)]

Thanks for your work on behalf of this bug, Daniel.

That wdiff is awfully difficult to read and make sense of for me.

I recognize the differences between the two kinds of English spellings
and so didn't try to correct anything but may have introduced my own
US spellings here and there. I haven't checked for that, to be
truthful. If so and I have added confusion, I am sorry.

You said:
"- It's unclear to me why you remove "Ubuntu governance bodies are
ultimately accountable to the [Ubuntu Community Council]"."

It is plainly a mistake on my part and one which I cannot account for.
I plead sleeplessness and haste on the night I made revisions.

As far as removing the last paragraph, I didn't. I did move some
things around and delete some examples that seemed to not speak to
me as simply a user. I think maybe you've missed reading the whole
thing which doesn't all show up in my browser by default. I had to
click the, "Read more...," link at the bottom of the firefox display.

OTOH, that can't be so as you have gleaned my RL name from the very
bottom. Maybe a mistake and you just missed seeing it?
It's there, I swear!

May I suggest the combination, '...work/words...," to accommodate all areas of
contribution?

The 'only developers being collaborative' part may be a case of
semantic interpretation. I see developers not so much as only code
writers but as anyone who is involved in developing Ubuntu, the
OS /and/ the community.
You and I, as we consider these changes, are developing something
Ubuntu even if it never goes anywhere.

In the question of the use of, "we," or the use of, "you," I see the use
of, "we," as differentiating 'we' from 'they' as separate entities. It
strikes me as similar to, "us vs. them." I see the use of, "you," as
connoting more the feeling of, "you and I," a unity. Once again,
maybe it is just semantics and I am viewing it all from a US-centric
POV, but it (the current CoC) feels divisive to me as a plain user.
That, at least to my reading, is the very heart of the ambiguity and
of my feeling that users aren't really spoken to in the COC.

I hope this helps to clarify my view and makes some kind of sense.
I'd hate to think I'm just getting old.

[Daniel Holbach (dholbach)]

Don't worry - you're not getting old. :)

Some comments:
 - To read the wdiff (word diff), you have to watch out for the {+ addition +} and [- deletion -] bits, but it's fine if you're happy with comparing the two docs next to each other.
 - I don't have any strong feelings about "work/words", but maybe somebody else can think of a way to express we talk about both.
 - I still don't understand why you added "For developers" - I think I'd prefer if we can set expectations for everybody who wants to participate in the project, no matter, if it's just a single forums post or a long-time development commitment or a couple of translations or whatever else.
 - I'm not quite sure we create a "us vs. them" scenario. I think it's important that we as participants in the Ubuntu world express what we expect of everybody who wants to participate, even ourselves, but I agree that the use of "they" in the document is a bit excessive and could probably be rephrased.

[C de-Avillez (hggdh2)]

I think we are missing some definitions at the start -- what we _mean_ by:
* the Ubuntu Project
* the Ubuntu Community
* who is a member of said community
* Ubuntu (Community) governance bodies
* Ubuntu Community Council
* work performed for the Ubuntu Project (be it devel, i18n, QA, documentation, etc)
* who are 'We' (note, upper-cased); perhaps we should also make clear what we mean by 'You', and not let it default by exclusion -- if not a member of 'We', then it is 'You'.

etc. In summary, we are missing the _context_ needed for the CoC to be understood by those NOT members of the UC (the casual/ad hoc user/developer/etc). It is not really the CoC that needs to be changed, but clear definitions that need to be added.

Frankly, I would rather have all, irrespective of affiliation, abide by the CoC; in fact, I would go further, and make it clear we require it -- for example, the auto-email in response for non-member submission to our moderated lists could also say something like "by emailing any of Our mailing lists You implicitly accept following the CoC[link]", or similar.

It is a pity that we have to get to something that is very near legalese (but legalese exists so that things like this get to be clear).

I am against the change 'works/words' -- all we need is to define 'work' (as above), and it gets general enough to _also_ cover 'words'; OTOH, 'words' is much more limiting, and misses anything else.