lrug/lrug.github.io — pull request #17 by h-lame (2013-11-12 13:54:27+00:00)
Title: Code of conduct: Explicit list vs. catch all wording

As seen in #8 we're already a bit unsure that the code of conduct isn't clear enough about what is / isn't acceptable. We've had some feedback along the same lines, so it's clear we're not 100% there yet.

### Feedback

@ashedryden:

> I personally prefer a more concrete code of conduct (I particularly like JSConf's),
> because it more obviously lays the ground rules for everyone. This helps avoid any
> arguments about what the code of conduct does and doesn't cover, as letting people
> know what kind of behavior isn't acceptable so they can more easily report.

@h-lame replied:

> We consciously chose a less concrete set of rules so that we wouldn’t get into
> language lawyer discussions with any transgressors (“you can’t ban me, the code
> says no X & Y, I did Z”) or with commenters on the code itself (“oh, I think X isn’t a
> problem”). Maybe we're wrong though?

@ashedryden replied:

> I can certainly understand this, but you'll probably get people arguing with you
> regardless. "It was just a joke!" "That isn't harassment!" "I didn't mean to hurt
> people's feelings" etc, so I would be prepared for that regardless.

@aanand said:

> I agree that, in striving for concision, we ended up with something perhaps a bit
> vague. Two other folks had similar feedback and added a paragraph with some links
> to more concrete resources, including the PyCon COC (see #12).
>
> I think it's an improvement, at least (and I'm happy that we've got a link to
> Shakesville in there now, too). What do you reckon?

and @ashedryden replied:

> I personally prefer having that information inline versus having to go offsite for it. Not
> everyone will click those links and stating it explicitly from your organization versus
> someone else's removes any gray area, I think?

In a separate thread @timcowlishaw said:

> The "If you make anyone feel uncomfortable or unwelcome, you will be
> asked to leave" sentence is a very clear and succinct explanation of
> what constitutes harassment, and what the consequences are; In
> general, I think the brevity / generality of the anti-harassment
> statement (as opposed to the rather more verbose style of enumerating
> a long but non-exhaustive list of forms harassment can take) is a good
> thing, as it's intrinsically open-ended. I feel there's a trade-off
> here though: making the anti-harassment statement as general and
> open-ended allows us to react to unforseen forms of harassment more
> easily than if we had an explicit list of behaviours constituting
> harassment (and reduces the potential for language-lawyering).
> However, a more explicit statement of what actions and behaviours
> constitute harassment would be advantageous from a pro-active point of
> view, as it'd better allow LRUG attendees to educate themselves and
> monitor their own behaviour before an incident happens.

And this then turned into the aforementioned #12 to add the educational stuff.