doc: clarified use of sexual language in the CoC #6973
Conversation
Clarifies the code of conduct by adding some wording discouraging the use of sexualized language. This PR was prompted by some moderation discussion, and we realized that there was some ambiguity around this topic in the current CoC
nodejs-github-bot
added
the
meta
|
Looks good. |
|
LGTM |
3 similar comments
|
LGTM |
|
LGTM |
|
LGTM |
|
LGTM |
Clarifies the code of conduct by adding some wording discouraging the use of sexualized language. This PR was prompted by some moderation discussion, and we realized that there was some ambiguity around this topic in the current CoC PR-URL: #6973 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
|
Landed in d5339b3 |
Clarifies the code of conduct by adding some wording discouraging the use of sexualized language. This PR was prompted by some moderation discussion, and we realized that there was some ambiguity around this topic in the current CoC PR-URL: nodejs#6973 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
|
Can someone either write, or point me to a resource that provides a justification for this kind of restriction? |
|
I don't know if there's a writeup on it...generally speaking there aren't writeups of how specific sections or clauses of CoC's are necessary. I will say though that pretty much every CoC includes language like this, including the Contributor Convenant, which is by far the most popular CoC for open source projects, and it was unusual for us not to have it. The reason it's important is that best case scenario it's distracting, and in some cases can actively discourage people from joining. Participating in an open source project can be tough to begin with, it takes time and there are a lot of hurtles to jump through (did I write tests correctly? Is my code style correct? etc), and so we want to reduce as many barriers to entry as possible. Since this is open source, and most people are volunteering, "I'm annoyed" is a barrier to entry. Some barriers to entry are good (we want tests), but some don't serve any real purpose, and I think this falls in the latter category. I'll give an example I relate to personally, as sexualized language doesn't bother me personally. I'm not straight, so if I come across a discussion where people are using various homophobic slurs to describe something technical (e.g. "your solution is gay"), there's a pretty good chance I won't engage because I don't like hanging around those environments. It's not that I'm offended (I very rarely get offended), but I'm annoyed. Why would I want to hang out with people who use language that has very real world history with abuse and marginalization? The answer is I don't, so I don't get involved. |
|
thanks @nebrius, the response is appreciated, I'll take up further concerns in a more private forum |
Clarifies the code of conduct by adding some wording discouraging the use of sexualized language. This PR was prompted by some moderation discussion, and we realized that there was some ambiguity around this topic in the current CoC PR-URL: #6973 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
Clarifies the code of conduct by adding some wording discouraging the use of sexualized language. This PR was prompted by some moderation discussion, and we realized that there was some ambiguity around this topic in the current CoC PR-URL: #6973 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
Clarifies the code of conduct by adding some wording discouraging the use of sexualized language. This PR was prompted by some moderation discussion, and we realized that there was some ambiguity around this topic in the current CoC PR-URL: #6973 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
Clarifies the code of conduct by adding some wording discouraging the use of sexualized language. This PR was prompted by some moderation discussion, and we realized that there was some ambiguity around this topic in the current CoC PR-URL: #6973 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
Clarifies the code of conduct by adding some wording discouraging the use of sexualized language. This PR was prompted by some moderation discussion, and we realized that there was some ambiguity around this topic in the current CoC PR-URL: #6973 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
Clarifies the code of conduct by adding some wording discouraging the use of sexualized language. This PR was prompted by some moderation discussion, and we realized that there was some ambiguity around this topic in the current CoC PR-URL: #6973 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
Clarifies the code of conduct by adding some wording discouraging the
use of sexualized language.
This PR was prompted by some moderation discussion, and we realized
that there was some ambiguity around this topic in the current CoC