Re: Boost Asset Stewardship Review from Ion

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-08 15:42:55

On 9/8/24 17:27, Christian Mazakas via Boost wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 7:25 PM Ion Gaztañaga via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>> I also prefer to set aside controversial issues like Codes of
>> Conduct (who defines “hate”/”harassment”/” inappropriate”? who enforces
>> it? etc.), because I don’t think will help increase participation in the
>> project.
>>
> 
> A Code of Conduct shouldn't ever be controversial, especially because Boost
> has already had a de facto one for decades.
> 
> https://www.boost.org/community/policy.html
> 
> The problem is, if you named this code-of-conduct.html, it triggers a
> visceral reaction such as Andrey chudding out quite badly in my review
> thread.

If you consider our current discussion policy as CoC then fine. I
suppose, we don't need to change anything in this regard then, right?

In my view it's not the same thing, though. A CoC is typically different
both in form and effect. A CoC would typically use subjective terms such
as "hate speech", "harrasment", "friendly", "welcoming" and "inclusive"
to describe what is or isn't allowed. Then there would be a body who
enforces the CoC. The interpretation of whether a communication or
behavior adheres to the CoC would be left to that body, which opens
opportunity for abuse and political infight. It may also be used as an
instrument to enforce inclusivity agenda. At best, this results in
sugar-coating or filtering opinions expressed during the discussion, at
worst it can lead to banning people who disagree and refuse to follow
these rules. I regularly read news about such issues in other projects,
here are just a couple latest ones:

https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/09/core_python_developer_suspended_coc/
https://discourse.gnome.org/t/updates-to-the-gnome-foundation-board-of-directors-roster/22201

I do not want to see anything like that in Boost.