Tor Code of Conduct
To be completed after the membership guidelines are ratified.
Activity
Replying to cypherpunks:
WTF? I dislike you
An anonymous flame on a trac thread is not the way to engage on this topic.
To be constructive: the right way to engage on this topic is to first do useful things for Tor and the Tor community, and then people will be excited to listen to your perspective when we are considering things like the code of conduct.
Replying to arma:
To be constructive: the right way to engage on this topic is to first do useful things for Tor and the Tor community, and then people will be excited to listen to your perspective when we are considering things like the code of conduct.
Well, wasn't the obsession with the 'meritocracy'-thing one of the underlying reasons that lead to the need of a Code of Conduct, in the first place? Either way, I think it's fair to say, that 'cypherpunks' has been more helpful for than 'alison'...
Replying to cypherpunks:
Replying to arma:
To be constructive: the right way to engage on this topic is to first do useful things for Tor and the Tor community, and then people will be excited to listen to your perspective when we are considering things like the code of conduct.
Well, wasn't the obsession with the 'meritocracy'-thing one of the underlying reasons that lead to the need of a Code of Conduct, in the first place? Either way, I think it's fair to say, that 'cypherpunks' has been more helpful for than 'alison'...
Meritocracy is problematic. However, meritocracy is surprisingly not one of the problems which led to the need for a Code of Conduct in our case; the person who was expelled was a simply a mascot, and—despite repeated public claims to the contrary—was not really a productive contributor. Instead, what we are saying is that you must have, in a sense, a proof of stake in the outcome of the discussions. While we normally welcome contributions to our discussions regardless of their origin, in this case we cannot tolerate outsiders with Opinions coming in and ruining our communal space.
Also: Excuse you. Alison is a wonderful, productive member of our community, whose work has progressively made Tor into a better, safer, kinder place to work and community to be involved in. If anyone with stake in the outcome has a specific complaint, that is to be addressed directly, rather than ad hominem attacks on a Trac ticket.
Replying to cypherpunks:
http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-speech/
Yeah, now that's the way to do it, buddy. Link to a white supremacist's blog post. Brilliant. That'll show those politically-correct Tor developers.
The filer of this ticket, who holds authoritarian views and self-describes as "extreme far left" and a self-avowed member of the violent US group "Antifa", cannot be any kind of leader or representative of the Tor community, firstly because most of us don't share those extreme views, and secondly because their public behavior sets a bad example, e.g constant quarrels on Twitter, bringing a hostile intolerant attitude to anyone who isn't politically American extreme authoritarian far left, and publicly berating teenagers for laughing. That might go down well with the Communist Party, but, in case you are unaware, they find it necessary for their purposes to completely block Tor including bridges.
Go piss up a rope, little cypherpunk. Solid argument. /s Why don't you ask for that comment to be tweeted by @torproject twitter? Tell @Snowden, too - you know what he thinks. Next, ask again for more people to take the risks of running Tor exits.
"public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity."
"activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention."
Hey there folks! I'm happy to report that we did a lot of work on the draft code of conduct at the Montreal meeting. If you want to be involved in finishing this up before it goes out to a vote among core contributors, please contact me directly at alison (at) torproject (dot) org. I'd paste a link to the draft here if this wasn't such a lightning rod for jerks!
Replying to alison:
Hey there folks! I'm happy to report that we did a lot of work on the draft code of conduct at the Montreal meeting. If you want to be involved in finishing this up before it goes out to a vote among core contributors, please contact me directly at alison (at) torproject (dot) org.
I think there should be drafts available to tor-internal folks way before a final one goes out to a vote. And I think it should not be necessary that each of those tor-internal members not being able to be at the Code of Conduct session is contacting you. Or maybe that comment was only meant for non tor-internal community folks?
Hi gk. I haven't been involved with the code of conduct but concerning seeing a draft no worries. Our voting policy requires the minimum of a week long discussion phase before any vote. That hasn't been initiated yet...
https://gitweb.torproject.org/community/policies.git/tree/voting.txt#n10
Replying to gk:
Replying to alison:
Hey there folks! I'm happy to report that we did a lot of work on the draft code of conduct at the Montreal meeting. If you want to be involved in finishing this up before it goes out to a vote among core contributors, please contact me directly at alison (at) torproject (dot) org.
I think there should be drafts available to tor-internal folks way before a final one goes out to a vote. And I think it should not be necessary that each of those tor-internal members not being able to be at the Code of Conduct session is contacting you. Or maybe that comment was only meant for non tor-internal community folks?
Yeah, sorry to be unclear, when I said "goes out to a vote" I was referring to the whole discussion + voting period to which atagar refers. I was planning to give two weeks for discussion on the list, but anyone is welcome to review it before that if they contact me.
CoC has been voted on and ratified by core contributors: https://gitweb.torproject.org/community/policies.git/tree/code_of_conduct.txt
Trac:
Status: new to closed
Resolution: N/A to fixedReplying to alison:
CoC has been voted on and ratified by core contributors: https://gitweb.torproject.org/community/policies.git/tree/code_of_conduct.txt Looks good to me, good job!
Replying to cypherpunks:
Shortly Rule1. We are always right Rule2. read Rule1 I don't know what you folks have an issue with, it's literally a "be nice" in a slightly more expounded form. I'd say they did a pretty good job at keeping it simple, stright to the point and non-controversial.
Replying to alison:
CoC has been voted on and ratified by core contributors: https://gitweb.torproject.org/community/policies.git/tree/code_of_conduct.txt
This code of conduct covers all community participants: What about Users?
Replying to cypherpunks:
Replying to alison:
CoC has been voted on and ratified by core contributors: https://gitweb.torproject.org/community/policies.git/tree/code_of_conduct.txt
This code of conduct covers all community participants: What about Users? No. Users of Tor are not part of the development community.
I personally disagree with some of the wording. In particular, it lists a large number of things you cannot discriminate against and the wording makes it sound protection is limited to those groups. I think it would be better to trim the list down significantly and reiterate that all forms of discrimination are not welcome.
Replying to isis:
Meritocracy is problematic.
Not the same cypherpunk as the crazy one, but I want to point out that meritocracy is very explicitly against discrimination based on any personal trait (after all, the only thing that matters is merit, not race, gender, class, etc). It is the best tool we have to fight against harmful behaviors like racism, and treating someone differently based on race is the exact opposite of meritocracy. Does the code care about your ethnicity? Does the code care about your gender? Does the code care about your favorite food?
Replying to atagar:
It only applied to our internal developer community. If you aren't on tor-internal@ then no need to take an interest in it. :) It says:
This code of conduct covers all community participants and paid and unpaid contributors
That seems to imply all code contributors, not just core members.
Hmmm, interesting. I see what you mean...
https://gitweb.torproject.org/community/policies.git/tree/code_of_conduct.txt#n253
I'll point this out to Alison. Policies can't apply to folks outside of...
https://gitweb.torproject.org/community/policies.git/tree/membership.txt
Maybe we should reword that bit.
No, I think the current wording is indeed what we want. The CoC applies to everybody when they are interacting "in online and in-person community venues" and "in one-on-one communications that relate to community work".
Imagine if it didn't! We'd be saying that people would be welcome to come to our meetings and harass people, just so long as they aren't on the tor-internal list.
Our space, our rules. You aren't required to "sign" these rules to participate in our meetings, but you do need to follow them if you want to be welcome.
See also #26638 (moved)
moved to tpo/community/trac#22511 (closed)