@nodejs/collaborators ... Re: this week's TSC decision, please refer to this statement from the Foundation Board: nodejs/board#67

I've specifically not contributed to Node.js because of the strict Code of Conduct. I fully support @rvagg. We can disagree politically without it being labelled as harassment. Nothing in his tweet was directed at any specific individual, which should be the basis for harassment. I think you're alienating a much larger portion of your potential and current contributor base by handing over control to the wrong-think police. It's also incredibly ironic that promoting free speech would be met with an attempt to silence. I think it's sad to see that you all are wasting your time and energy on this issue. These things are a distraction from what makes Node.js so wonderful.

This is just my personal opinion. If you disagree, please do so respectfully and explain why, without attacking me personally.

I've specifically not contributed to Node.js because of the strict Code of Conduct.

@binoculars to be clear, are you saying you haven't contributed because there's a CoC at all, or because you think the one we have is too strict? If the latter, what specifically do you think is too strict about it?

The Code of Conduct is not intended for "wrong-think" policing, it is merely intended to create a common ground with documented guidelines for how to interact in a way that avoids conflict. Node.js is a very diverse community, so there's bound to be people that don't agree on things and that's okay. By adhering to the guidelines set forth in the Code of Conduct we can all interact in a civil manner and work together, despite our differences, to achieve some amazing things.

If we don't properly enforce the Code of Conduct, however, we lose the ability to collaborate in a respectful way. Whether or not you or any other specific individual considers a given action harmful is not relevant, the point is to avoid behaviour that could be harmful to people that are perhaps not yet part of the community. That's how we become a more inclusive community.

@gibfahn although I think the concept of having and effectively enforcing a Code of Conduct is fundamentally flawed, this alone does not discourage me. Since the Code of Conduct lives in a git repository, and therefore can be changed at the whim of the TSC, this disturbs me. What's acceptable and unacceptable behavior shouldn't change very much over time. I wouldn't want to have to constantly worry about my compliance with the 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.

This could've just been stopped at everyone.

Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment include:

• Using welcoming and inclusive language
• Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences
• Gracefully accepting constructive criticism
• Focusing on what is best for the community
• Showing empathy towards other community members

No definitions for what's considered welcoming and inclusive--this is way too subjective. Respectful of differing viewpoints--clearly this is not upheld, this situation with Rod is a case in point. Showing empathy--not sure what empathy has to do with anything. I'm not concerned with people's feelings.

There's no definition of harassment. It seems that anything that triggers anyone for any reason is harassment now.

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.

This is too loose. Rod posted from his personal twitter account and is being reprimanded for it. The merits of his points or the article he linked to aren't the issue here. It's that the viewpoint dissented from the ideas inside the Overton Window. This isn't something I'd want to deal with.

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.

Again, very subjective and I wouldn't want to enforce a policy that I disagree with.

I speak only for myself here. I'm giving you reasons why I wouldn't contribute based on the Code of Conduct, because the question was asked. I'd rather spend my time contributing to other projects where Codes of Conduct are not a real issue. The Code of Conduct is clearly not without merit. The intent is good, but the execution is horrible, IMO. I also think that making this an issue (Rod situation) sends a very clear message to other potential contributors--that if you don't share our politics, you are not welcome.

@Qard

The Code of Conduct is not intended for "wrong-think" policing, it is merely intended to create a common ground with documented guidelines for how to interact in a way that avoids conflict. Node.js is a very diverse community, so there's bound to be people that don't agree on things and that's okay. By adhering to the guidelines set forth in the Code of Conduct we can all interact in a civil manner and work together, despite our differences, to achieve some amazing things.

That may not be the intent, but that's the result. Obviously, this is not avoiding conflict. It's creating conflict. Case in point, this conversation. We wouldn't be having it if it didn't create conflict.

If we don't properly enforce the Code of Conduct, however, we lose the ability to collaborate in a respectful way. Whether or not you or any other specific individual considers a given action harmful is not relevant, the point is to avoid behaviour that could be harmful to people that are perhaps not yet part of the community. That's how we become a more inclusive community.

I understand that this is your position, but I disagree with the assertions. We still have the ability to collaborate without the Code of Conduct, especially in its current state and the way it's currently being enforced. What's clear is that diversity of opinion is not valued if that opinion doesn't fit the popular political narrative. People contact me privately all the time--including because of this thread--whenever say this in a public forum, because they are afraid of the repercussions.

I'm in no way involved in the Foundation or TSC, but as a fan of inclusivity and the Foundation's actions today I felt like contributing here.

@binoculars I doubt any of the members here are enemies of further clarity. The hosting of the Code of Conduct in a git repo, as a living document, allows it to gain clarity over time.

In regards to your first quotation:

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.

This could've just been stopped at everyone.

That quip seems to run counter to your subsequent requests that the Code of Conduct be more specific. By specifically naming identities, as this CoC does, it explicitly recognizes marginalized groups within our community. It makes clear the intention to affirm participation by those people in continuing to develop and grow our community.

A proclamation of equal treatment which fails to proactively affirm participation by marginalized groups tends to normalize the treatment those groups have been receiving already, here and elsewhere. It's exciting to me that the Node community is a space which would aim to fight those trends, and benefit from diverse involvement.

All: This repo is not the place to discuss the general merits for and against CoCs. Node.js has adopted the Contributor Covenent CoC verbatim. Issues with the content of that CoC should be directed to that project. Discussions that relate to Node.js' specific CoC issues should be directed to the nodejs/tsc repo.

Let me first be clear, that I don't believe I am in any position to judge Rod's actions, because I simply haven't been exposed to them in their full context. GitHub issues get moderated, so original text disappears from history, and so I won't use that to guide any judgement one way or another.

However, Rod pointed out something in his statement, that I as a collaborator am concerned about as well.

The environment in which the crowd can shame someone into retirement (from a project or a career) is scary as hell. In fact, it's that fear that almost made me not write this comment at all. "What if it's misinterpreted? What if some people start calling me evil, simply because I share a concern with Rod himself?".

This kind of thinking of mine is possibly incorrect, but definitely crippling. I feel like one really has to tread very carefully to avoid the wrath of the internets. And so it would be safer not to tread anywhere at all. The world is getting smaller by the day, and pitchforks seem to be all too readily available.

Which brings me to the greater concern. If it's safer not to do anything for the community than it is to help achieve awesomeness together, what's to say there will be a community left after multiple events like this? (this is one concern Rod had, and I feel too)
Whatever is decided (now or in the future), I hope we do not do it out of fear, pressure or as a knee-jerk response, but rather through thoughtful consideration and communication.

To clarify, I absolutely do believe that people need to be held to standards and expectations, regardless of the positive things they bring to the community. But people should be allowed to make a mistake and redeem themselves (to a reasonable extent). We learn through our mistakes, nobody is born perfect.

So again, the focus of my post here is not judgement (or lack thereof) about any particular person in any way, but more about how we deal with feedback, hopefully avoiding knee-jerk responses to what someone people may expect from us, and how we treat the people in our community when they make a mistake.

I wonder how much clarity and agreement there is among the Node leadership when it comes to this.

I know there are much smarter and more eloquent people than I am in our community that can address these issues, but I wanted to share the perspective of one collaborator, and will attempt to leave my feedback limited to this post. I can imagine many people will have something to say.