Godot Engine continues advancing Vulkan support, adopts new Code of Conduct

I was concerned that the new CoC would be a dismal implementation of the lopsided and biased Contributor's Covenant.

It isn't!

They specifically mention "political orientation" as a trait that they are welcoming of, and one to not discriminate against.

"We do not tolerate harassment or discrimination of participants in any form."

I approve. This is a much better CoC.

I am a bit concerned about the "either publicly or privately" clause.

If someone is mean to someone else in a realm that isn't related to linux, gaming or godot, that shouldn't have any impact on their ability to contribute.

We will see how this plays out.

Quoting: psyminI am a bit concerned about the "either publicly or privately" clause.

Me too. But the rest, as you say, seems fair enough. “Always assume positive intent from others” is particularly welcome.

Quoting: psyminI am a bit concerned about the "either publicly or privately" clause.

If someone is mean to someone else in a realm that isn't related to linux, gaming or godot, that shouldn't have any impact on their ability to contribute.

I interpret it more in the way of being a dick to other contributors in private, not any random unrelated person.

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: psyminIf someone is mean to someone else in a realm that isn't related to linux, gaming or godot, that shouldn't have any impact on their ability to contribute.

Right, Hitler was very nice to his dogs after all...

This is a slippery slope... And not everyone might agree that Hitler should be barred from contributing code to Godot, let's not derail this thread ;)

Who doesn't love a big fat CoC?

Quoting: psyminI am a bit concerned about the "either publicly or privately" clause.

If someone is mean to someone else in a realm that isn't related to linux, gaming or godot, that shouldn't have any impact on their ability to contribute.

There's no need to be concerned. This section is only there to emphasize that being friendly and welcoming isn't reserved only to public interactions with other community members. If one contributor were to say find anothers Facebook profile and started to harass them there the CoC team may take action and remove the offender from the other Godot spaces. All of this is of course done withing reason, the CoC team is made of of human beings :) There's no evil AI that will look at all interactions on Godot platforms and off and make some kind of judgement.

There's no way for us to give an exact recipe for what human behavior is acceptable and what isn't. Humans are complicated and interaction never happens in a vacuum. A particular statement in different contexts can be interpreted differently.

Have a little trust in us, we want everyone to feel welcome and productive. :)

Quoting: TMMIf one contributor were to say find anothers Facebook profile and started to harass them there the CoC team may take action and remove the offender from the other Godot spaces.

I'm more concerned about non-contributors finding a contributor's Facebook page and using the contributor's personal opinions and personal habits as a reason to evict them from the community.

I agree we should all work together to create great things, but I also have a low opinion of humans in groups.

There are limits to human reason.

I expect some folks to start scouring (well, to continue scouring) the web for expressions of wrongthink and to work towards removing the socially awkward (read: autistic) contributors from having a legacy.

I still believe that the only policing and gatekeeping that should be done in FOSS communities should be directly related to actions and expressions that happen within that community, not in the world at large.

(Edit: I guess I might prefer an evil-AI. One that is FOSS, objective (rather than subjective), is public and available for audit. Gatekeeping is too often done behind closed doors and based on subjective context that is impossible to audit.)


Last edited by psymin on 4 November 2019 at 10:04 pm UTC

Quoting: psyminI'm more concerned about non-contributors finding a contributor's Facebook page and using the contributor's personal opinions and personal habits as a reason to evict them from the community.

I am pretty sure if they start over-policing the CoC in places where it by no sane reason ever should reach, there will sufficient backlash by the community at large to make it stop. I do agree that it would have been better to define clear limits to where and what the CoC will apply, but I can understand that they wanted to give themselves a little leeway to be able to act when they feel it's needed.

Honestly, I wish "Don't be a jerk!" would be the only CoC humanity ever needed, but as we all know there is no much toxicity around that we need sufficient tools to snuff it out.

Quoting: KimyrielleI am pretty sure if they start over-policing the CoC in places where it by no sane reason ever should reach, there will sufficient backlash by the community at large to make it stop.

Humans have different thresholds for over-policing.

There have been some rather high profile FOSS contributors who have been evicted from their projects in the past. It is disappointing. The backlash against the evictions seems to have been focused primarily on those who object to the evictions.

(Edit: evict might have been too strong a word. Coerced into consenting to leave is a better term. Coerced consent is a tricky subject.)


Last edited by psymin on 4 November 2019 at 10:24 pm UTC

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: psyminI'm more concerned about non-contributors finding a contributor's Facebook page and using the contributor's personal opinions and personal habits as a reason to evict them from the community.

I am pretty sure if they start over-policing the CoC in places where it by no sane reason ever should reach, there will sufficient backlash by the community at large to make it stop. I do agree that it would have been better to define clear limits to where and what the CoC will apply, but I can understand that they wanted to give themselves a little leeway to be able to act when they feel it's needed.

Honestly, I wish "Don't be a jerk!" would be the only CoC humanity ever needed, but as we all know there is no much toxicity around that we need sufficient tools to snuff it out.

"Don't be a jerk!" SHOULD suffice, if the mods/admins are reasonable when making their judgments. By adding a metric ton of specificity (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia, I've even started seeing "sinophobia" lately which honestly just makes it sound like the community is owned by the CPC) you're not adding more "tools" IMO, but rather turning your sufficient and straightforward rules into a blatant, sprawling political statement. Let's be frank with each other here - when you see those sorts of rules, do you expect anything but a group of far left, extremely biased people as mods and admins? It doesn't help that mods in online communities tend to be power-hungry douchebags to begin with, the political charge just makes things worse.