Opened 14 months ago

Closed 3 months ago

Last modified 2 weeks ago

#22511 closed task (fixed)

Tor Code of Conduct

Reported by: alison Owned by:
Priority: Medium Milestone:
Component: Community Version:
Severity: Normal Keywords:
Cc: Actual Points:
Parent ID: #22079 Points:
Reviewer: Sponsor:

Description

To be completed after the membership guidelines are ratified.

Child Tickets

Change History (35)

comment:1 Changed 14 months ago by cypherpunks

WTF? I dislike you, and I and my friends sure won't ever follow a CoC and wouldn't want others to follow one. Similarly, anyone who *would* follow it, wouldn't act differently if there was one. ...?

Last edited 2 months ago by cypherpunks (previous) (diff)

comment:2 in reply to:  1 ; Changed 14 months ago by arma

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.

comment:3 in reply to:  2 Changed 14 months ago by cypherpunks

Replying to arma:
No, the point stands.

comment:4 in reply to:  2 ; Changed 14 months ago by 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'...

comment:5 in reply to:  4 ; Changed 13 months ago by isis

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.

comment:6 Changed 13 months ago by nickm

Isis speaks true.

comment:7 in reply to:  5 Changed 11 months ago by cypherpunks

Replying to isis:
Just buzzwords, false assumptions, false statements and sophistry.

comment:9 Changed 11 months ago by nickm

Your three-month latency makes me more and more confident that arma was correct above.

comment:10 in reply to:  8 Changed 11 months ago by isis

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.

comment:11 Changed 10 months ago by cypherpunks

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.

Last edited 9 months ago by cypherpunks (previous) (diff)

comment:12 Changed 10 months ago by nickm

Go piss up a rope, little cypherpunk.

comment:13 in reply to:  9 Changed 10 months ago by cypherpunks

Replying to nickm:

Your three-month latency makes me more and more confident that arma was correct above.

Or maybe he uses a high-latency anonymity system and has to wait three months just to catch up ;)

comment:14 Changed 10 months ago by cypherpunks

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.

Then, read
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations

"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."

Last edited 9 months ago by cypherpunks (previous) (diff)

comment:15 in reply to:  11 Changed 10 months ago by cypherpunks

[off-topic comments deleted, please find some blog or something to rant]

Last edited 10 months ago by cypherpunks (previous) (diff)

comment:16 Changed 9 months ago by 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'd paste a link to the draft here if this wasn't such a lightning rod for jerks!

comment:17 in reply to:  16 ; Changed 9 months ago by 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?

comment:18 Changed 9 months ago by atagar

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

comment:19 in reply to:  17 Changed 9 months ago by alison

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.

comment:20 Changed 3 months ago by alison

Resolution: fixed
Status: newclosed

CoC has been voted on and ratified by core contributors: https://gitweb.torproject.org/community/policies.git/tree/code_of_conduct.txt

comment:21 in reply to:  20 Changed 3 months ago by 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

Looks good to me, good job!

comment:22 Changed 3 months ago by cypherpunks

Shortly
Rule1. We are always right
Rule2. read Rule1

comment:23 in reply to:  22 Changed 3 months ago by cypherpunks

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.

comment:25 in reply to:  20 ; Changed 3 months ago by 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?

comment:26 in reply to:  25 Changed 2 months ago by cypherpunks

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.

comment:27 Changed 2 months ago by cypherpunks

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.

comment:28 in reply to:  5 Changed 2 months ago by cypherpunks

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?

comment:29 Changed 2 months ago by cypherpunks

No. Users of Tor are not part of the development community.

What about cypherpunks. Some of them doesn't pass CoC. Should we ban them?

comment:30 Changed 2 months ago by 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. :)

comment:31 in reply to:  30 Changed 2 months ago by cypherpunks

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.

comment:32 Changed 2 months ago by atagar

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.

comment:33 Changed 2 months ago by cypherpunks

That's probably a good idea. I was a bit worried because I contribute to Tor and I have a moral objection to signing codes of conduct or any similar written ultimatum. I am glad to know that it only applies to core members and would like to see it reworded to cause less confusion.

comment:34 Changed 7 weeks ago by nickm

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.

comment:35 Changed 2 weeks ago by isis

See also #26638

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.