title: Code of Conduct
In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
Examples of behaviour that contributes to creating a positive environment include:
Examples of unacceptable behaviour by participants include:
Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behaviour and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behaviour.
Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviours that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.
This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behaviour may be reported by contacting the project team at [email protected]. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted separately.
Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project's leadership.
This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 1.4, available at http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4
title: Code of Conduct
In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
Examples of behaviour that contributes to creating a positive environment include:
Examples of unacceptable behaviour by participants include:
Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behaviour and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behaviour.
Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviours that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.
This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behaviour may be reported by contacting the project team at [email protected]. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted separately.
Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project's leadership.
This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 1.4, available at http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4
The content of the OpenPolitics Manifesto is has been put into the public domain, using the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. See the Creative Commons CC0 page for more details.
title: License
The content of the OpenPolitics Manifesto is has been put into the public domain, using the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. See the Creative Commons CC0 page for more details.
To the extent possible under law, The OpenPolitics Project has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to The OpenPolitics Manifesto. This work is published from the United Kingdom.
This is an experiment in collaboratively creating a political movement.
You can read the manifesto by looking at the main website.
This is an experiment in collaboratively creating a political manifesto. You can read and contribute to the manifesto online, and you can also take a look at the list of proposals currently under discussion.
This repository stores the full text and history of the manifesto. Anyone can change or add something. See the contributor guide for details on how to start making your own changes.
Anyone can change or add something. Just visit the manifesto pages, and click "Suggest a change" to get involved.
You can also raise issues in the issue tracker for things that you think need doing.
See the contributor guide for full details on how it all works.
There are plenty of areas where we don't yet have anything in the manifesto. If you're looking to contribute but are unsure where to start, why not have a look at one of these areas? The policy tag on the GitHub issues tracker has a load of ideas. Feel free to add your own too!
There are plenty of areas where we don't yet have anything in the manifesto. If you're looking to contribute but are unsure where to start, why not have a look at the ideas list? tracker](https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/labels/policy) has a load of ideas.
Feel free to add your own too using the issue form!
title: Code of Conduct
In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
Examples of behaviour that contributes to creating a positive environment include:
Examples of unacceptable behaviour by participants include:
Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behaviour and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behaviour.
Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviours that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.
This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behaviour may be reported by contacting the project team at [email protected]. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted separately.
Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project's leadership.
This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 1.4, available at http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4
The content of the OpenPolitics Manifesto is has been put into the public domain, using the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. See the Creative Commons CC0 page for more details.
title: License
The content of the OpenPolitics Manifesto is has been put into the public domain, using the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. See the Creative Commons CC0 page for more details.
To the extent possible under law, The OpenPolitics Project has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to The OpenPolitics Manifesto. This work is published from the United Kingdom.
This is an experiment in collaboratively creating a political movement.
You can read the manifesto by looking at the main website.
This is an experiment in collaboratively creating a political manifesto. You can read and contribute to the manifesto online, and you can also take a look at the list of proposals currently under discussion.
This repository stores the full text and history of the manifesto. Anyone can change or add something. See the contributor guide for details on how to start making your own changes.
Anyone can change or add something. Just visit the manifesto pages, and click "Suggest a change" to get involved.
You can also raise issues in the issue tracker for things that you think need doing.
See the contributor guide for full details on how it all works.
There are plenty of areas where we don't yet have anything in the manifesto. If you're looking to contribute but are unsure where to start, why not have a look at one of these areas? The policy tag on the GitHub issues tracker has a load of ideas. Feel free to add your own too!
There are plenty of areas where we don't yet have anything in the manifesto. If you're looking to contribute but are unsure where to start, why not have a look at the ideas list? tracker](https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/labels/policy) has a load of ideas.
Feel free to add your own too using the issue form!
title: Code of Conduct
In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
Examples of behaviour that contributes to creating a positive environment include:
Examples of unacceptable behaviour by participants include:
Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behaviour and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behaviour.
Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviours that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.
This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behaviour may be reported by contacting the project team at [email protected]. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted separately.
Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project's leadership.
This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 1.4, available at http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4
title: How to contribute
This project is an open collaborative space, based on open source principles. That means anyone can get involved, and we can accept ideas from anywhere. This is a UK political manifesto, but you don't need to be a member of a party, of voting age, or even in the UK to contribute. Good ideas can come from anywhere!
Firstly, this project has a code of conduct. In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation. Read the complete code of conduct for the full policy, and to see what is expected of you as a contributor.
{::options parseblockhtml="true" /}
The OpenPolitics Manifesto
Suggest a change button at the top right.If you want to contribute but aren't sure what you can start with, you can check out the ideas list for inspiration.
We use a consensus voting system, where a change is accepted if it reaches a certain threshold of yes votes.
People who have contributed to the manifesto are eligible to vote on proposals. If you get a proposal accepted, you will get a vote. It doesn't have to be a big change, as long as you contribute, you're in!
The simplest way to vote is using the voting interface. Click on the proposal details to see the change, comment, or cast a vote.
Three vote types are available:
|vote|symbol|score| |--|--|--| |Yes|✅|1| |No|❎|-1| |Block|🚫|-1000| {: .table .table-striped}
When votes are cast, the score is counted up, and as long as the total is 2 or more, the proposal passes. If a change is amended, "yes" votes are reset, and are only counted if cast after the latest change.
Proposals must be open for a minimum of 7 days, and are rejected if they're not passed within 90 days.
Block votes are special, and are intended as a protection against fundamental changes being forced in through brigading.
If a change violates the core principles of the manifesto, any voter can use a block vote. The block vote should come with detailed reasoning and constructive comments for improvement if possible. A block can be removed by the original blocker changing to a yes or no vote. Blocks that are not explained can be overridden if enough voters agree, though this process is not strictly defined at present.
Blocks are generally discouraged; if you disagree with a proposal in a normal way, just vote "no". Blocks should only be used in extreme circumstances, such as if a proposal completely violates the principles of the manifesto.
If you're familiar with git and GitHub, you can use the standard fork / pull request flow to make your proposal. The repository is at openpolitics/manifesto.
You can also cast votes directly in the GitHub pull request comments, using the symbols below:
|vote|symbol|type this|
|--|--|--|
|Yes|✅|✅|
|No|❎|❎|
|Block|🚫|🚫|
{: .table .table-striped}
The content of the OpenPolitics Manifesto is has been put into the public domain, using the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. See the Creative Commons CC0 page for more details.
title: License
The content of the OpenPolitics Manifesto is has been put into the public domain, using the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. See the Creative Commons CC0 page for more details.
To the extent possible under law, The OpenPolitics Project has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to The OpenPolitics Manifesto. This work is published from the United Kingdom.
@philipjohn @stringfellow the code of conduct would place some burden of responsibility on both of you as project admins for openpolitics, so please make sure you take a look and are happy before this passes. Thanks :)
Heheh.. I knew this would pass without incident. But this here is my line in the sand and the biggest affront to freedom that I've seen from here. I'm sure I will get around to writing a big essay about it, if not monday then sometime this week.
Vote: ❎
If it's to do with (at a guess) "restrictions on speech" in the code of conduct (which I will freely admit there are), then note that this is not policy for the manifesto. Instead it's a code of conduct intended to keep conversation here constructive, on-topic, and welcoming. We want to cultivate a certain type of discussion here that leads us to consensus; it's not a free-for-all, there's plenty of space on the rest of the net for that :)
Also note we aren't putting this in place because of anything in particular that's happened here yet, it's really to preempt future developments as the thing scales up.
Also, because I did multiple commits on this one, the diff views above are a bit confusing. It is probably easier to see it all at https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/486/files. It's on my list of things to fix.
yes, please let us know, that was very cryptic :)
The problem is that I wanted to explain why I'm here in the first place and include sources on internet/software history in with it. It'd get pretty heavy. I'm worried I'll keep putting it off so I'll have to do a half-arsed job of explaining it now and then maybe do a better job later.
Python, Github, Mozilla Foundation, and a bunch of other companies or organizations have all published codes of conduct in recent years which have served the purpose of restricting their user freedoms, silencing dissent, alienating their core userbase and so forth. Mainstream news outlets didn't cover it - blog posts and reddit subs are the only places where I have seen this discussed thoroughly: http://dancerscode.com/blog/why-the-open-code-of-conduct-isnt-for-me/
The whole point in a party or even "an experiment" that declares it's manifesto explicitly as public domain, I thought, was that it would promote freedoms which other parties do not.
Herein lies a large list of arbitrarily protected classes, and the problem with picking favourites is that you will always leave some people left out. In addition, what this Code of Conduct does is leave the door open for anyone to claim harassment on the basis of their level of experience being "none".
Benign dictatorship rules apply in it. So if you are accused of any of this stuff; the right to a trail, to form a defence, to have a jury... You do not have any rights afforded to you in this regard. Freedom of speech as you point out is curtailed at whim as well.
When I say that this is the biggest affront to freedom that I've seen from here, this is what it is.
There are codes of conduct out there that were formed ad-hoc quite like this one that are not anywhere near as draconian (usually in account of being a general guide to resolving conflict rather than the rule of law). When I have the time (and if you're interested) I'll try to post some examples.
strap in for long stream-of-consciousness response - sorry if it's disjointed and repeats itself
I'm certainly interested, and thanks for the input.
I've used the Contributor Covenant here precisely because I don't have enough experience of such things to write something ad hoc, and have gone with something recommended that I've used (and seen used) in many other places.
I'd say that while the manifesto and party themselves should promote such freedoms in society at large, we should, as the hosts of a small space, have some guidance on what is and isn't acceptable in that space, to protect the space itself as well as the people in it. If this became a place full of behaviour that violated the CoC above, even I wouldn't want to come back, let alone encourage new people to join.
The CoC certainly shouldn't pick favourites, and again that's not my wording, it's just what's considered good for this stuff at the moment. Improvements are greatly appreciated, and as the Contributor Covenant evolves I'm sure we will update it.
As for the level of experience thing, I'd say that harassment on basis of experience is something like "fuck off you don't know anything", and yes, I would certainly want to deal with individuals who did that. In fact, we did have to a while back.
Really what we want here is a more watertight version of "don't be a dick", and the Contributor Covenant does that fairly well IMHO :)
I'm not sure I read the CC as draconian - in fact it's pretty vague on the exact mechanisms that are used, just that it puts the responsibility on the admin team (including me) as benevolent dictators to do SOMETHING. We could certainly put something in there about us having to explain publicly why certain actions were taken, if that helps.
time passes
Now, reading the link you provided and the CC above, I notice something else. The Contributor Covenant talks about "harrassment", not "offence", whereas the link talks mostly about offence. I (as benevolent dictator) have no problem with someone here saying that a certain political view is incorrect - all political debate does that by definition. However, attacking an individual using a political view they hold as ammo is not acceptable. If nothing else, because it's just not relevant to what we're trying to do :)
Someone might say that climate change is bullshit; even though I think they're wrong, and even if I took it really badly and was took offence at their statement, there's no recourse here for that. However, if they say that climate change is bullshit and I should be killed for thinking it's true, that's going over into harassment.
Sorry, that got really long too. Just stretching out my thoughts. :)
I don't think there's anything (at least in my reading) in the Code of Conduct that says "you won't be offended here". Instead it says "you won't be harassed or personally attacked". I think that's a pretty decent ground rule for any space, really.
BTW I know you didn't really mention offence as an issue @Xyleneb, just the link posted got me thinking about it :)
I am conceding all of these rights by agreeing to this code:
We must not fall out of compliance with our impossible list of standards, point 1. Freedom of expression is curtailed, point 2. We face judge, jury, executioner, point 3. Applicable any time, any place, point 4. The nature of offences shall not be disclosed, point 5. Uphold the inquisition else be inquisitioned, point 6.
I am not able or otherwise unwilling to concede all of these rights. I don't think any of you should either.
I can't fault peoples' good intentions; the problem is the reality.
@Xyleneb can you link each of those points to the specific wording in the CoC that implies them to you?
On your point 5 specifically, I will add a clause now about disclosing what actions the admin team take and why.
This is an experiment in collaboratively creating a political movement.
You can read the manifesto by looking at the main website.
This is an experiment in collaboratively creating a political manifesto. You can read and contribute to the manifesto online, and you can also take a look at the list of proposals currently under discussion.
This repository stores the full text and history of the manifesto. Anyone can change or add something. See the contributor guide for details on how to start making your own changes.
Anyone can change or add something. Just visit the manifesto pages, and click "Suggest a change" to get involved.
You can also raise issues in the issue tracker for things that you think need doing.
See the contributor guide for full details on how it all works.
There are plenty of areas where we don't yet have anything in the manifesto. If you're looking to contribute but are unsure where to start, why not have a look at one of these areas? The policy tag on the GitHub issues tracker has a load of ideas. Feel free to add your own too!
There are plenty of areas where we don't yet have anything in the manifesto. If you're looking to contribute but are unsure where to start, why not have a look at the ideas list? tracker](https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/labels/policy) has a load of ideas.
Feel free to add your own too using the issue form!
title: Code of Conduct
In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
Examples of behaviour that contributes to creating a positive environment include:
Examples of unacceptable behaviour by participants include:
Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behaviour and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behaviour.
Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviours that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.
This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behaviour may be reported by contacting the project team at [email protected]. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted separately.
Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project's leadership.
Actions taken by the project maintainers under this Code of Conduct will be published publicly, explaining reasons and linking to sources wherever possible, while respecting the confidentiality of reporters as stated above.
This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 1.4, available at http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4
title: How to contribute
This project is an open collaborative space, based on open source principles. That means anyone can get involved, and we can accept ideas from anywhere. This is a UK political manifesto, but you don't need to be a member of a party, of voting age, or even in the UK to contribute. Good ideas can come from anywhere!
Firstly, this project has a code of conduct. In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation. Read the complete code of conduct for the full policy, and to see what is expected of you as a contributor.
{::options parseblockhtml="true" /}
Suggest a change button at the top right.If you want to contribute but aren't sure what you can start with, you can check out the ideas list for inspiration.
We use a consensus voting system, where a change is accepted if it reaches a certain threshold of yes votes.
People who have contributed to the manifesto are eligible to vote on proposals. If you get a proposal accepted, you will get a vote. It doesn't have to be a big change, as long as you contribute, you're in!
The simplest way to vote is using the voting interface. Click on the proposal details to see the change, comment, or cast a vote.
Three vote types are available:
|vote|symbol|score| |--|--|--| |Yes|✅|1| |No|❎|-1| |Block|🚫|-1000| {: .table .table-striped}
When votes are cast, the score is counted up, and as long as the total is 2 or more, the proposal passes. If a change is amended, "yes" votes are reset, and are only counted if cast after the latest change.
Proposals must be open for a minimum of 7 days, and are rejected if they're not passed within 90 days.
Block votes are special, and are intended as a protection against fundamental changes being forced in through brigading.
If a change violates the core principles of the manifesto, any voter can use a block vote. The block vote should come with detailed reasoning and constructive comments for improvement if possible. A block can be removed by the original blocker changing to a yes or no vote. Blocks that are not explained can be overridden if enough voters agree, though this process is not strictly defined at present.
Blocks are generally discouraged; if you disagree with a proposal in a normal way, just vote "no". Blocks should only be used in extreme circumstances, such as if a proposal completely violates the principles of the manifesto.
If you're familiar with git and GitHub, you can use the standard fork / pull request flow to make your proposal. The repository is at openpolitics/manifesto.
You can also cast votes directly in the GitHub pull request comments, using the symbols below:
|vote|symbol|type this|
|--|--|--|
|Yes|✅|✅|
|No|❎|❎|
|Block|🚫|🚫|
{: .table .table-striped}
The content of the OpenPolitics Manifesto is has been put into the public domain, using the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. See the Creative Commons CC0 page for more details.
title: License
The content of the OpenPolitics Manifesto is has been put into the public domain, using the CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. See the Creative Commons CC0 page for more details.
To the extent possible under law, The OpenPolitics Project has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to The OpenPolitics Manifesto. This work is published from the United Kingdom.
Oh, and point 2, "freedom of expression is curtailed". Yes, it is, in the interests of keeping a constructive space. This is not a place for the sort of thing that happens in Youtube comments.
But I would certainly like to address 1, 3, 4, and 6. Hopefully 5 is handled, and 2 is the whole point.
can you link each of those points to the specific wording in the CoC that implies them to you?
On your point 5 specifically, I will add a clause now about disclosing what actions the admin team take and why.
God damn that was fast! Ok: Point 1 is 'Our Standards' part 1. Point 2 is 'Our Standards' part 2. Point 3 is 'Our Responsibilities' part 2. Point 4 is 'Scope'. Point 5 is 'Enforcement' part 1. Point 6 is 'Our Responsibilities' part 1 and 'Enforcement' part 2.
Oh, and point 2, "freedom of expression is curtailed". Yes, it is, in the interests of keeping a constructive space. This is not a place for the sort of thing that happens in Youtube comments.
I had this idea that if I ever run my own business and become an employer, I would make it impossible for an employee to be sacked for speech alone. I could suspend them without pay, but I could not sack them. It'd be in the rules. Why would I be so mad as to do that? Because people have a right to speak about, for example, their politics, their sexuality, their health, their love life, their fears and their ambitions, such that I should not get in their way as an employer.
But I would certainly like to address 1, 3, 4, and 6. Hopefully 5 is handled, and 2 is the whole point.
I still think you're working with a flawed authoritarian document inside of an otherwise liberal party.
There are codes of conduct out there that were formed ad-hoc quite like this one that are not anywhere near as draconian (usually in account of being a general guide to resolving conflict rather than the rule of law). When I have the time (and if you're interested) I'll try to post some examples.
This is what the GNOME code of conduct looks like (or used to look, I don't know if it's changed):
Edit: Ok I think I finally did fix the formatting.
GNOME Code Of Conduct
Summary
GNOME creates software for a better world. We achieve this by behaving well towards each other. Therefore this document suggests what we consider ideal behaviour, so you know what to expect when getting involved in GNOME. This is who we are and what we want to be. There is no official enforcement of these principles, and this should not be interpreted like a legal document.
Advice
Be respectful and considerate:
Disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour or personal attacks. Remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable is not a productive one.
Be patient and generous:
If someone asks for help it is because they need it. Do politely suggest specific documentation or more appropriate venues where appropriate, but avoid aggressive or vague responses such as "RTFM".
Assume people mean well:
Remember that decisions are often a difficult choice between competing priorities. If you disagree, please do so politely.
If something seems outrageous, check that you did not misinterpret it. Ask for clarification, but do not assume the worst.
Try to be concise:
Avoid repeating what has been said already. Making a conversation larger makes it difficult to follow, and people often feel personally attacked if they receive multiple messages telling them the same thing.
Applies to
GNOME Bugzilla
GNOME mailing lists
Individuals who have signed our list.
OK, here goes. To address your points:
1) The "list of examples of things that make a welcoming environment" is an "impossible list of standards" which "we must not fall out of compliance with"? Honestly? Behaving like that is far from impossible, I aim for that every single day. And besides it's not saying you must do those things - they are examples of what we want to cultivate.
2) This one I will give you. It is a restriction on freedom of expression in this space because we want to stop it degenerating into a hellscape of bile and personal attacks, which it easily could especially when debating politics. If you're saying that people should be free to engage in the behaviours in the unwelcome list as part of this project, then sorry, but I fundamentally disagree. I don't think any of us want that stuff here. Do we? Would you honestly be happy with this place if it was like that?
Project maintainers are the arbiters, yes. Who else should we use, especially if confidentiality is at stake? "Executioner" is a bit hyperbolic though, honestly.
Applicable at any time any place if you are officially representing the OpenPolitics project. Which is pretty much just the admin team. Otherwise there's no recourse. It doesn't stop you saying anything you like outside this space, or when not officially representing this project.
Disclosure of nature of offences I've dealt with, I hope.
"Uphold the inquisition else be inquisitioned?" I honestly don't see that. There's nothing there that says that admin decisions shall not be questioned, or that retribution will be taken. You're reading a lot into that there. In fact by publishing decisions publicly, we invite questioning.
Like I said, this is "don't be a dick" but a bit more watertight. If people want to express their right to be a dick, which they of course have, there are plenty of other places they can go.
Let me enlist XKCD to help explain my position:
Oh, and one more thing. If someone submitted this code of conduct as policy, that a government should enforce generally across society, I'd be the first to vote it down. But this is not that.
I would love to see you do all of those things, all of the time. I rarely do any of these things. I try hard to enter into these things with good faith, I try hard to play the ball and not the man, but.. I'm not for empathy. I'm grumpy and sarcastic. I write poorly. I mince my words. Which means I overcompensate by using so bloody many of them!
Personally I can thrive in anarchy, yes. But anarchy is not what you want. The GNOME code of conduct is an attempt at demonstrating that you needn't have anarchy nor an asylum.
I know, I thought "inquisition" on point 6 was a bit unfair. The issue is not the enforcers per se but that there are no checks and balances and enforcement is blanketed and resolute.
It can and it will. If I said "we shouldn't be sending money to congo bongo land" outside of the party, and inside of a church's empty confessional... What would happen if you received a complaint that I was overheard saying this? Would you dismiss the case?
I don't think you would. As long as somebody comes to you with a grievence you will attempt in good faith to resolve it, even if the rules do not tell you that you must.
Indeed it says here as well:
Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers
I'll have to read it. And I have: I've seen these things in use on forums before. They read as "Tim was a dick. He got banned." It does not provide accountability or explain what happened, nor does it provide a right of appeal.
It says that if you don't enforce this thing (which I don't want to do) then you fall under the enforcement yourself.
This comic is easily refuted, in fact somebody took the time to do that: http://sealedabstract.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/xkcd-freedom-3.png
It would be easier to adapt the GNOME CoC than it would be to adapt the article from the contributor covenant.
OK - couple of comebacks, but we're obviously coming at this from very different points of view, so I won't try to keep this going forever, and instead let the votes decide what we as a group want to be :)
On point 4, "it can and it will" is a bit presumptuous, I think? Nothing in here gives any backing to applying the CoC outside the OpenPolitics space or identity, so... what right would it give to anyone to do so? It just seems that you're assuming we would. But that's not what the CoC says.
On 5: again I think you're assuming what we'd do. We can certainly try to do better than that. It already says "explaining reasons and linking to sources wherever possible"; does it need more, a precise definition of what we'd publish? The fact that everything here is public will certainly mean we can point to evidence - "Tim was banned because in this comment (link) he made attacked someone with racist language", would be what I'd assume.
On 6: That only applies to the project maintainers, not all contributors. If as a project maintainer I breached my responsibilities under this, I could have action taken against me, but nothing in this says that you as a contributor or participant have a duty to enforce anything.
I've read the GNOME one now, and while it sets out the same principles, without official enforcement it's powerless to actually do anything when things get out of hand. And in an area such as politics which is bound to be contentious, I don't think it's enough, personally. But, I will let the votes speak on that one. If there is a call for it, I will separate the CoC into a separate PR from the general re-addition of the contribution guide and voting rules.
Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers
We could remove that if it's really implying that maintainers could arbitrarily redefine the entire world to be part of the project. Any such clarification would be done as a proposal here anyway.
OK - couple of comebacks, but we're obviously coming at this from very different points of view, so I won't try to keep this going forever, and instead let the votes decide what we as a group want to be :)
Well that's a problem for me, because it doesn't look like I've convinced any.
Can no one see the irony in a party whose mandate is freedom but who cannot afford it for their contributors? Rather, that their contributors would vote to not have it?
What will you do when the time comes to pen a written constitution on civil/political/human rights and the best that you can do is espouse this "relativistic freedom" that really affords the working class with no more constitutional protection than before?
On point 4, "it can and it will" is a bit presumptuous, I think?
I'd approach it in bad faith, because this bill offers plenty of utility to those who wish to use it in bad faith. For example, make your identity a part of the bill. Make it all about gay rights or transgender rights, and then because I do not care for "gay rights" or "straight rights" but only "rights period" then suddenly I'm a bigot or "a shitlord" who is unconducive to this harassment-free experience. It might as well read "egalitarians get out."
All of it can and will be used against you, irrespective of station, contributor or project lead.
"Tim was banned because in this comment (link) he attacked someone with racist language".
Where did the context for Tim saying this, go?
Also what do you mean by "he attacked someone"? Did he hit him?
Why also does the accuser have more rights than the accusee? What if the accuser did most of the harm and then is protected by virtue of anonymity from counter-claim?
That only applies to the project maintainers, not all contributors. If as a project maintainer I breached my responsibilities under this, I could have action taken against me, but nothing in this says that you as a contributor or participant have a duty to enforce anything.
Oh right, I wasn't sure if merely being a contributor or forking something somehow also makes you a ceremonial maintainer of the project. I wouldn't get involved with any of this stuff.
I've read the GNOME one now, and while it sets out the same principles, without official enforcement it's powerless to actually do anything when things get out of hand.
It's official and enforceable. In fact the end results would be the same, namely arbitrary and unsatisfying enforcement for everyone involved. All it doesn't do is dictate which rights you are expected to waive in exchange for contributing.
You want sources? I found sources:
From GethN7's rebuttal on medium (which is like a blog or article hosting website):
Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting
This is pretty vague and unreasonable. It's basically a "whatever I don't like clause" and is a slippery slope to oust people for offending whatever fits your definition of this. This is flagrant bullshit and needs removed.
Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.
Again, more weasely nonsense that gives god like power to remove anyone for offending you without clear definitions. This section is bullshit and should be amended to the following:
"Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors if the offence warrants such sanctions"
I purposely excised the "for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful." part because it's the same vague "whatever excuse I want to come up with depending on how I feel" BS I pointed out earlier and could be easily abused to drive out anyone the enforcer of this CoC sees fit according to whatever arbitrary whim they may have.
Scope
This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
All but the last sentence is fine. The last sentence is a thinly veiled way of giving an excuse for giving a code editor grief for behavior outside the scope defined by the rest of the paragraph, again, at the whim of the enforcer.
Enforcement
Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported by contacting the project team at [INSERT EMAIL ADDRESS]. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances. The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted separately.
This isn't too unreasonable, though as a transparency advocate, I would argue all but extremely sensitive cases (like that involving legal issues or private data) should be made public to ensure honesty on the enforcer's part.
Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project's leadership.
So decisions on sanctions are made by majority vote or by an arbitrary number of people on the project? This is vague and unhelpful, and yet another potential wedge for abuse.
This one's from Breitbart (who if you don't know, are openly partisan) but they noticed the same thing that I did:
As a tool for Social Justice, it recognizes no boundaries between project, person, and politics. This attitude is written into the Contributor Covenant with the text, “This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.” So, when is a project participant not representing the project? The answer appears to be “never.”
That is, a project participant is always representative of the project. We can see one example of this from the “Opalgate” incident. In reference to a Twitter conversation where Opal is not the subject, Ehmke opens an Opal project issue, and then attempts (with a Social Justice mob of backers) to intimidate the project managers into removing one of the Twitter conversants from the project because of his non-project-related speech.
Let's turn this around. Leaving aside issues of enforcement for now, and just focusing on the "restrictions of freedom" that you are worried about; would you like to give some specific examples of behaviour you think should be allowed here, that this CoC will restrict unfairly? Feel free to post imaginary statements that you think we should allow but which you feel we wouldn't under this CoC.
And no, it's not a trap to get you or others banned. It's to illustrate exactly what we're talking about here, for clarity.
@stringfellow - about 7 years ago
Just to chime in - that Breitbart quote is misreading the CoC in their quote, (my emphasis):
applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community
It then goes on to say "See? The individual is always representing the project because the CoC said 'in public spaces' too!" But it doesn't actually say that.
It says the CoC applies when the individual is representing the project or community, wherever that is.
It does not say that the individual is always representing the project or community.
@stringfellow - about 7 years ago
I believe that constructive, non-violent speech should be used over abusive, derogatory or hate speech and conversation within this space should reflect and reinforce that. I do not believe this to be a restriction of the freedom of speech, rather it is restricting the dialogue to objective and pertinent matters, rather than attacks on other contributors or external people.
Vote: ✅
Given that this is supposed to be a consensus democracy, and @Xyleneb has brought some fairly serious issues to the table, I don't feel comfortable being in favour of the Code of Conduct until this is resolved. However, and what I think you may have missed @Xyleneb, this brings the rules under the manifesto, meaning that you'd have near infinite opportunities to shape the rules to your liking. So I'd advise putting this to the party as a proposal immediately after this proposal passes, given that you'd otherwise still be subject to these rules whether they were in the manifesto or not.
@philipjohn - about 7 years ago
I need to reassert my vote after the changes, but i also wanting to remind everyone of something important;
The OpenPolitics Manifesto is just a manifesto. It is not a political party. OpenPolitics is an organisation independent of any political party.
Vote: ✅
Thanks for the lively debate on this one - it's now eligible for merging, so I will do so. @xyleneb, as always, feel free to propose further edits once it's in.
Thanks for the lively debate on this one - it's now eligible for merging, so I will do so. @xyleneb, as always, feel free to propose further edits once it's in.
Do I have to agree to this in order to change it?
Yes. Once enacted, while contributing I must be signatory to this. You could have avoided pushing this the very moment it became possible to do so.
I had one more contribution to make that was not that contentious, hold on while I fetch it.
Ok:
Justice We will reform the unrealistic earnings limits on legal aid, restore legal aid to areas of law excluded by the LASPO Act and protect the legal aid budget from further cuts.
We will implement the reforms of Sir Brian Leveson in relation to the introduction of IT in the courts and in the restructuring of preliminary hearings.
You can have that one - I thought you might like it. Most of the stuff I submit was plagiarised and didn't take much thought from me anyway, so for example this is from "the justice manifesto".
You can have another one as well. "We will make the repair of consumer electronics VAT-free." And make VAT into a luxury goods tax. Define objectively as you can what "a luxury" is and tax those instead.
I'll have to cite creative differences over the bill of rights and be on my way. Good luck with the project. Declaring it as public domain took bravery; and the end product has nowhere to go but up as long as this commitment sticks around.
I'm gonna get a break from the metaphysical for a while and get to think about fixing my bike :)
@Xyleneb You already had to, to contribute in the first place, this isn't new, you just now have the ability to edit it as I've previously stated. Just propose edits to your liking and we'll see what your contentions are.
@Floppy - about 7 years ago
Bringing the contributing guide back into the manifesto repository itself. This is important because it contains the canonical statements of the voting rules, which should be changeable under the same system. They were moved out (wrongly) when the project was split into the manifesto and the wrapper website.
There are no changes here to policy or to the voting rules, but the guide has been updated from that at https://openpolitics.org.uk/contributing.html to reflect the current state of the votebot platform. I've also added the contributor covenant code of conduct.
Resolves #456