Glasgow Interface Explorer Code of Conduct
40 points by meithecatte
40 points by meithecatte
Usually, a code of conduct feels like boilerplate – perhaps a weak signal that the project at least claims to care about inclusivity and being pleasant to work with.
Glasgow's CoC is the polar opposite of that. I've revisited it multiple times, and every time I read it, I see the stark contrast. It makes a statement, instead of hiding in legalese. It is perhaps the only one that made me confident in the promises the concept of a code of conduct makes.
Sure. But why does it need to make a statement?
You can achieve the exact same thing without all the fanfare: https://builderscode.org/
You can achieve the exact same thing without all the fanfare: https://builderscode.org/
I'll take a wild guess and say the author of this has stated they don't want "politics" in software at least once.
I generally enjoy working with people who have principles. Every marginalized developer will tell you this. Glasgow's CoC very unambiguously signals that the authors have principles, and I find that valuable.
For an example, let's say you work at a large American social media company under the current administration. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a feature request comes from the higher ups for a way of querying the database by the intersection of "typical GeoIP of user" and "languages used in posts". Do you comply?
Or maybe they ask that you make sure the history of a user's changes of profile data, such as the name, date of birth, and gender/pronouns, gets preserved indefinitely for audit purposes. Do you comply?
Would you have opinions on whether your coworkers should comply?
https://glasgow-embedded.org/latest/intro.html#what-is-glasgow --- the device itself looks sweet, too
we do not find that calling cops on the cops is effective
I love this pithy remark in support of MIT / public domain!
Almost, if not completely, OT, but I would love to know who put the link to The 36 Sermons of Vivec in there and what it means to them. The writing and lore around the Tribunal is my favorite in all of the Elder Scrolls.
That would definitely be ~whitequark.
Off-topic to your own off-topic, though -- you might enjoy a webcomic called Kill Six Billion Demons. The worldbuilding was pretty strongly influenced by The 36 Sermons of Vivec and there's various passages of prose and poetry and such throughout in a similar style. The same quote mentioned here serves as a sort of motto for the series (and the author has talked some about what it means for him).
I love K6BD! I've been reading it for I think a decade now? Since long before I first played an Elder Scrolls game; I was surprised to find the link between them.
I haven't read that interview though, so looking forward to that when I get home :) thanks!
Can anyone take a second to explain what "pluralphobia" means in this context? The definitions a quick web search showed me all assumed quite a bit of knowledge about "multiplicity" and "singlets" and other things that were both unfamiliar to me and where the searches seemed to be taking me farther from the answer to my original question.
Plurality is the state of having multiple headmates collectively sharing a single body. Check out these resources:
Thanks. I think I may have known someone in the 1990s who was experiencing plurality. They didn't have a word like that to describe it, but reading those two pages (especially the second) is really striking.
But it is saying what the project will do: if someone violates the rules laid out, depending on the kind of the issue they will be asked to reconsider, asked to leave if that fails, or in egregious cases, simply banned immediately. Do you find that documenting the exact flowchart between these serves any real purpose?
Don't get me wrong, if it comes up often enough, it might make sense to formalize a moderation policy – and if you do have a formal policy, making it transparent is probably a good idea.
But many projects won't ever have to make these decisions. The only reason I could imagine why one would want to see it documented ahead of time is to provide a manual on how to maximize the nuisance you can cause while continuing to participate in the project, so I must be misunderstanding you somehow.
To me, the value of a CoC is an assurance: "we will not let a bigoted contributor push you out. Here's where you can find us if someone tries anyway". Anything beyond that is not a document; it is infrastructure – made of people whose role it is to fulfill that promise. Describing its structure can be useful, if it is involved enough that there is detail to describe. But the fact it is there in the first place is generally much more important.
(This includes egregious off-space behavior if it appears relevant.)
Carte blanche to slander and get rid of whoever they don't like.
No need to prove anything, just allege.
I feel like this is an unkind reading of the parenthetical. The way I read it is that if you are a contributor to this project and someone points to a link of you making bigoted comments while identifying as a contributor in a separate space - say, a forum - that the project may view you as a liability and remove you as a contributor. How would a situation like that be an unproven allegation?