Re: [PATCH] CODE_OF_CONDUCT: expect tolerance, not respect

["Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Dec 23 2020, Felipe Contreras wrote:

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

[I happen to be on the PLC, and I'm not speaking for the PLC, just
myself]

Generally speaking, and not just commenting on this specific patch: I'm
not in principle against us forking the upstream CoC if we as a project
& community deem that a worthy trade-off for whatever reason.

But in the case of this specific patch, (and I'm focusing on points not
already raised by others):

1. The specific wording you're changing is something that changed in the
   CoC from version 1.4 (which we adopted) to upstream's 2.0.

   My reading of the 2.0 wording is that it contradicts your
   interpretation, it talks about "being respectful of differing
   opinions".

   If the CoC means to enforce something about privately held views as
   you seem to suggest (and not just behavior in public), then it seems
   like a paradox to me that it also asks participants to be respectful
   of differing opinions.

   To be clear I don't agree with your reading of it. I'm just
   suggesting that any proposed updates to the CoC that rely on reading
   specific intent into the wording therein attempt to do the legwork of
   convincing this ML to accept the proposed change in a way that
   provides more context for the change.

   Discussing that upstream has changed the relevant part from A to B,
   but we're proposing a change from A to C seems highly relevant.

2. The CoC has official translations into a bunch of languages:
   https://www.contributor-covenant.org/translations/

   So I think that even if we deem a git.git-specific change to the CoC
   to be worthwhile losing a 1=1 mapping between our version and those
   translations should give us pause since we'd be less inclusive to
   non-native English speaking contributors of the project.

   Furthermore, I think a really basic sanity check on any specific
   reading or interpretation of the CoC is to see if also holds true if
   you read some of the official translations.

   In the language I speak natively this reading of "respect" doesn't
   agree with your interpretation. It's a really tiny language
   (Icelandic) whose translation is likely to have received little to no
   peer review (I didn't look into it), but presumably speakers of other
   languages can chime on this point if needed.