whenever I see a space or a organization declaring that they don't have a code of conduct, all I see is:
"We have shitty people among us and they are our friends and we don't have have enough of a spine to stand up to them and tell them to fuck off."
or
"We are shitty people that want free license to be shitty to other people."
take your pick
@staticsafe yeah, "no code of contact" is a code of conduct, and not even an implicit one, exactly. :\
@gdkar @staticsafe I nominate this as the "staticsafe-gdkar incompleteness theorem of codes of conduct"
I think CoCs are more relevant to larger projects in which peer pressure alone isn't enough to enforce some norms.
@bob you are right, in smaller groups the code of conduct and other such norms are often unspoken of and/or non-codified
--But when you explicitly mention that you don't have a code of conduct, you are signalling something, and not a good thing at that.--
Or maybe they realized that they have no real control over what one does, a CoC is not magical it as no divine will that can stop or change someone from doing something bad (or even good), it's exactly the same thing has the law, one can choose to respect it or not, to choose if it's just or unjust.
@bob
--I think CoCs are more relevant to larger projects in which peer pressure alone isn't enough to enforce some norms. --
From my view it's still the same problem if there is no CoC, and someone behaves like a dick and bothers some people, he gets kicked. If there is a CoC, the same guy can still behave like a dick and still gets kicked. But now, he not only was a dick, but also violated the CoC, so he was, with the same behaviour, more of a dick than before. Which tends to bother people more.
CoC can also try to enforce laws that are already there, it also tries to avoid human management via more liberticide rules (thus removing/minimizing the responsibilities from those who have to take a decision/act) which is something absurd because only people can resolves people problem, what larger projects needs isn't a CoC or other rules it's people who are either very comprehensive/pacifist with each other or someone specialized in HR/human relations this is of course if you have enough volunteers or money, and or patience, the other working solution is to look at how linus manages his kernel, he's not often friendly and tells people to fuck off when needed but it works.
In the end it's always the same, it depends on our decisions/reactions.
@bob @staticsafe @mangeurdenuage You seem not to know that this “motto” dates back to not-so-great times at Noisebridge, and it has been instrumentalised/games in exactly the way you seem to fear.
“Don't behave bad” isn't useful; a CoC should (IMO) be a consensus on what constitutes acceptable behaviour within the space.
@mangeurdenuage @staticsafe @bob
Well, as a community you do have control over what one does /within your space/. If someone doesn't behave, you can kick them out, and the bad behaviour stops (probably not the offender's bad behaviour, that just becomes “someone's else problem”, which is problematic in its own right)
Actively advertising being CoC-free, esp. in the context of Congress (CCC has a less-than-stellar track report about handling & stopping abuse) is quite a different thing, though
@staticsafe Wow. I've seen many events without a CoC and I think they would feel insulted by such reasoning.
@staticsafe I’ve been seeing instances that say “we believe in free speech, so that means we just respond to reports” which .... that’s moderation? That’s what everyone else is doing? You just haven’t elucidated what the limits of comfort to preserve the community are yet?? “Free speech” at this point is like the immature cry of novice community development. It’s unsustainable
Another thing:
Spaces and organizations often have unspoken/non-codified codes of conduct, this is fairly normal.
But when you explicitly mention that you don't have a code of conduct, you are signalling something, and not a good thing at that.