Add Code of Conduct

From Mike Solomon, originally discussed at
https://github.com/lilypond/lilypond/pull/8:

> Adds the Contributor Convent Code of Conduct to LilyPond. If we implemented a
> code of conduct, it would only make sense if we had an enforcement committee.
> In most organizations, enforcement committee members are exemplary of the code
> itself.
> 
> The list of adopters is quite robust [1], and I think it has been used with a lot
> of success. I really hope we can adopt it.
> 
> I would vote for @jan-warchol, @lemzwerg and @hanwen to be the members of the
> first code of conduct committee.

All suggested members of the committee agree to accept this duty. So, now the
question is for the whole LilyPond community: do you agree to having this Code
of Conduct and do you accept the nominees to form the committee?

[1] it includes linux kernel and git project itself.

[janek, 2020-02-04 23:02:13]

It seems I cannot create issues on sourceforge despite having an account...
> Please enter a valid tracker issue number
> (or enter nothing to create a new issue): 
> Error code 403
> Failed URL was https://sourceforge.net/rest/p/testlilyissues/issues//new

James, can you help?

[dak, 2020-02-04 23:34:12]

What problem are we trying to solve here?

[Karlin High, 2020-02-05 03:25:14]

I am trying to understand the origins, motivations, and goals of this effort to
adopt a Code of Conduct. Could its proponents read and comment on the following
blog posts, identifying points of agreement and disagreement?

https://www.wingolog.org/archives/2017/09/04/the-hardest-thing-about-hiring-i...

https://drewdevault.com/2020/01/17/Effective-project-governance.html

[janek, 2020-02-05 08:14:20]

Hi,

śr., 5 lut 2020, 00:34 użytkownik <dak@gnu.org> napisał:

> What problem are we trying to solve here?
>

In short, it's been found (I think Mike will be able to give you specific
examples) that having code of conduct encourages contributions from
newcomers.

Also, it's simply good to have a lightweight process for situations
(hopefully rare) when there is a serious personal conflict (I don't mean
disagreement on technical matters) or when someone's actions are hurting
other contributors or harm the community (regardless of good or bad
intentions).

Finally, I would say this will serve as a kind of lighthouse, a reference
point that will guide the community when heated technical discussions
happen.

Best,
Janek

PS this was proposed immediately after Salzburg conference but got stuck on
my review.

>

[hahnjo, 2020-02-05 08:18:44]

Not having read any of this, I strongly suggest that this is discussed on
lilypond-devel _before_ anything is brought to review. Discussion on GitHub is
fine, but I for one wasn't aware that there is one!

[janek, 2020-02-05 08:44:06]

Hi Jonas,

śr., 5 lut 2020 o 09:18 <jonas.hahnfeld@gmail.com> napisał(a):

> Not having read any of this, I strongly suggest that this is discussed
> on lilypond-devel _before_ anything is brought to review. Discussion on
> GitHub is fine, but I for one wasn't aware that there is one!
>

Thank you for being open. I considered uploading a patch for review to be
synonymous with opening the discussion on lilypond-devel, but I understand
now that this is not the case. I apologize. This was motivated by the
desire to have something specific to discuss, not to try sneaking anything
behind other people's backs! (The discussion on GitHub was not binding in
any way, I'm sure that all participants will confirm that.)

Can we continue this review treating it as a way of discussing things on
lilypond-devel, or would you prefer if I close it and start a
separate thread? I'm 100% fine with doing that, the last thing I'd like to
see it people feeling uncomfortable because of the way Code of Conduct was
proposed.

I'll be online again in the evening. Best,
Janek

[hahnjo, 2020-02-05 09:03:22]

On 2020/02/05 08:44:06, janek wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
> 
> śr., 5 lut 2020 o 09:18 <mailto:jonas.hahnfeld@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> 
> > Not having read any of this, I strongly suggest that this is discussed
> > on lilypond-devel _before_ anything is brought to review. Discussion on
> > GitHub is fine, but I for one wasn't aware that there is one!
> >
> 
> Thank you for being open. I considered uploading a patch for review to be
> synonymous with opening the discussion on lilypond-devel, but I understand
> now that this is not the case. I apologize. This was motivated by the
> desire to have something specific to discuss, not to try sneaking anything
> behind other people's backs! (The discussion on GitHub was not binding in
> any way, I'm sure that all participants will confirm that.)

I had hoped so, but the way it was proposed did not make this clear.

> Can we continue this review treating it as a way of discussing things on
> lilypond-devel, or would you prefer if I close it and start a
> separate thread? I'm 100% fine with doing that, the last thing I'd like to
> see it people feeling uncomfortable because of the way Code of Conduct was
> proposed.

In my opinion we should have a thread on lilypond-devel. In particular it should
lay out what the motivation is / which problem is to be solved. (see questions
by David and Karlin)
A brief comment on the choice for this particular Code of Conduct and lessons
learned by other projects would be helpful.

I think we can leave this review open to have something concrete, I fully agree
on that point.

[Dan Eble, 2020-02-05 12:04:32]

On 2020/02/05 09:03:22, hahnjo wrote:
> In my opinion we should have a thread on lilypond-devel. In particular it
should
> lay out what the motivation is / which problem is to be solved. (see questions
> by David and Karlin)

Other questions:

You're asking for agreement from "the whole LilyPond community" but this is
vague.  What specific impact do you expect this Code of Conduct to have on the
process of becoming and being a LilyPond contributor?  Will a formal expression
of agreement be required before one's patches are considered?

[dak, 2020-02-05 13:41:35]

Janek Warchoł <janek.lilypond@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> śr., 5 lut 2020, 00:34 użytkownik <dak@gnu.org> napisał:
>
>> What problem are we trying to solve here?
>>
>
> In short, it's been found (I think Mike will be able to give you specific
> examples) that having code of conduct encourages contributions from
> newcomers.

I rather think that a friendly atmosphere encourages contributions from
newcomers.  Whether an upfront requirement to commit to a set of rules
with an enforcement team is perceived as a guarantee of a friendly
atmosphere is debatable.

So this issue would seem more pressing if there is evidence of people
acting in a way on the LilyPond lists denying people the opportunity to
contribute in a generally friendly atmosphere.

If that is not the case, the proposed solution involves censure and
eventual removement by a team of 3 enforcement officers.  Now of the
proposed team, two have already expressed personal issues with the way I
am conversing with the list, so given the generally very welcoming
atmosphere in the LilyPond lists, the principal impact to be expected on
LilyPond development appears to have an official body entitled to
censure my behavior and eventually, out of a sense of duty, remove me.

I have had this kind of backroom diplomacy remove me from one choir
after almost a year of intense work (I am an asset as a good sight
reader) before the first concert I could have participated in, and I
quit another choir I had worked hard for for five years after getting
censured by a choir committee after I had publicly answered a question
about whether a singing engagement at a choir member's birthday
celebration or else (things I participated in as a rule but would not be
foolish enough to ask for myself) should also involve a more tangible
present from the general choir funds.

I quit that choir since my personal and communication skills do not
allow me to take corrective action without actually communicating to the
offended party, and thus being censured via an official anonymous
complaint channel gave me no option of compensating for my well-known
deficiencies, and getting referred to via channels intended for
denunciation was not my idea of being part of a community.

Since judging from my personal past, the foreseeable impact on my
personal ability to keep participating as a community member given such
a mechanism will be high, the question is how much of a benefit is to be
expected for others from having a formalized committee where everyone,
on pain of getting expulsed themselves, is only doing their duty.

Now it is not that hard, given obvious public backing, to get me off a
list.  Andy Wingo has banned me from participating on the Guile
developer list, and I have pretty much obeyed that ban on the spot (with
at most a few replies a year creeping through when I followed
conversations and inadvertantly replied) even though it was not enacted
with technical measures.

The general stance of the GNU project on its internal lists is to rely
more on education and admonishment than official committees, censure,
and exclusion.

It can be read at
<https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html>.  This document
is not focused on enforcement: instead it is a rationale for people with
problematic communication about why and how they could try to improve.

That is assuming, of course, that people are not recklessly engaging in
unwelcoming behavior: for open-and-shut cases, it tends to be within the
authority of a basic list administrator to take action.  This has
happened on LilyPond lists I think, but very rarely so.  The list
administrator doing duty here is not as much affiliated with LilyPond as
being a volunteer of GNU.  I think.  It's embarrassing that I don't even
know for sure, but that's the way things turn out that just work.

So in light of my personal experiences with this kind of backroom
channel (and it's worth noting that even the cited Linux developer list
removed the corrective measures part from the CoC they are using), I
would very much like to see some more imminent reason of why LilyPond
would stand to benefit from adopting a code and accepting a corrective
committee that has basically proposed itself rather than being the
result of a list-wide election and where just one member has been a
permanent fixture on the lists for a longer amount of time at this
moment.

-- 
David Kastrup

[mike_meeshkan.com, 2020-02-05 14:29:15]

Janek Warchoł <janek.lilypond@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> śr., 5 lut 2020, 00:34 użytkownik <dak@gnu.org> napisał:
>
>> What problem are we trying to solve here?
>>
>
> In short, it's been found (I think Mike will be able to give you 
> specific
> examples) that having code of conduct encourages contributions from 
> newcomers.

> I rather think that a friendly atmosphere encourages contributions from
newcomers.  Whether an upfront requirement to commit to a set of rules with an
enforcement team is perceived as a guarantee of a friendly atmosphere is
debatable.

I personally would feel more comfortable if there were a code of conduct, and I
know within my company one employee will not attend a conference or participate
in a project unless there is a code of conduct.  I don't have any hard stats to
prove this, but have a gut feeling that a code of conduct opens more doors than
it closes.

> So in light of my personal experiences with this kind of backroom channel (and
it's worth noting that even the cited Linux developer list removed the
corrective measures part from the CoC they are using), I would very much like to
see some more imminent reason of why LilyPond would stand to benefit from
adopting a code and accepting a corrective committee that has basically proposed
itself rather than being the result of a list-wide election and where just one
member has been a permanent fixture on the lists for a longer amount of time at
this moment.

A list-wide election is a good idea.

At the Salzburg meetup, one common thing a lot of people brought up was a
slow-down in development and a shrinking pool of contributors.  IMO we should do
several experiments to fix this. The CoC I proposed is used in over 40,000
projects including many of the most active and diverse open source projects on
github, so it seems like a reasonable experiment. If it proves to be a dud, we
can get rid of it.

~Mike

[dak, 2020-02-05 14:39:38]

Mike Solomon <mike@meeshkan.com> writes:

> Janek Warchoł <janek.lilypond@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> śr., 5 lut 2020, 00:34 użytkownik <dak@gnu.org> napisał:
>>
>>> What problem are we trying to solve here?
>>>
>>
>> In short, it's been found (I think Mike will be able to give you 
>> specific
>> examples) that having code of conduct encourages contributions from 
>> newcomers.
>
>> I rather think that a friendly atmosphere encourages contributions
>> from newcomers.  Whether an upfront requirement to commit to a set
>> of rules with an enforcement team is perceived as a guarantee of a
>> friendly atmosphere is debatable.
>
> I personally would feel more comfortable if there were a code of
> conduct, and I know within my company one employee will not attend a
> conference or participate in a project unless there is a code of
> conduct.  I don't have any hard stats to prove this, but have a gut
> feeling that a code of conduct opens more doors than it closes.
>
>> So in light of my personal experiences with this kind of backroom
>> channel (and it's worth noting that even the cited Linux developer
>> list removed the corrective measures part from the CoC they are
>> using), I would very much like to see some more imminent reason of
>> why LilyPond would stand to benefit from adopting a code and
>> accepting a corrective committee that has basically proposed itself
>> rather than being the result of a list-wide election and where just
>> one member has been a permanent fixture on the lists for a longer
>> amount of time at this moment.
>
> A list-wide election is a good idea.
>
> At the Salzburg meetup, one common thing a lot of people brought up
> was a slow-down in development and a shrinking pool of contributors.
> IMO we should do several experiments to fix this. The CoC I proposed
> is used in over 40,000 projects including many of the most active and
> diverse open source projects on github, so it seems like a reasonable
> experiment. If it proves to be a dud, we can get rid of it.

The preamble and intent is one thing; adding a corrective committee with
the authority to enact punishments based on anonymous reports is
another.  It implements hierarchies and institutions exerting coercive
power based on incomplete and secret information.  That is inherently an
entity offering an opportunity for "pulling strings".  I am not really a
fan of constructs with a life and dynamics of their own.

-- 
David Kastrup

[dak, 2020-02-05 14:49:12]

Another remark:

Mike Solomon <mike@meeshkan.com> writes:

> At the Salzburg meetup, one common thing a lot of people brought up
> was a slow-down in development and a shrinking pool of contributors.
> IMO we should do several experiments to fix this. The CoC I proposed
> is used in over 40,000 projects including many of the most active and
> diverse open source projects on github, so it seems like a reasonable
> experiment.

I think that may be confusing cause and effect.  I consider it more
likely that people saw a necessity of formalising relations and
communication _because_ they were amongst the most active and diverse
groups than the other way round.

> If it proves to be a dud, we can get rid of it.

I'd prefer to do it the other way round: if we can to a reasonable
degree agree that our communication has become a dud, that may be
incentive to get a hold of it.

Independent of promising corrective measures, I would not object to
quoting the GNU kind communication guidelines on our web pages and
asking contributors to give them a good thought.

Quoting relevant parts where people's communication are in obvious need
of improvement are also appropriate.

What I find less effective is just name-dropping of either CoC or the
GNU guidelines without referencing a particular passage.  Probably more
so with the latter since they do not contain an inherent threat.

-- 
David Kastrup

[mike_meeshkan.com, 2020-02-05 15:20:59]

Mike Solomon <mike@meeshkan.com> writes:

> The preamble and intent is one thing; adding a corrective committee with the
authority to enact punishments based on anonymous reports is another.  It
implements hierarchies and institutions exerting coercive power based on
incomplete and secret information.  That is inherently an entity offering an
opportunity for "pulling strings".  I am not really a fan of constructs with a
life and dynamics of their own.

It's a big responsibility. I think the way to do it is talk to successful
committees (ie the Facebook Open Source CoC Committee) and learn how they've
dealt with challenging situations.

One example: in communities that are more gender balanced, I've heard of
situations where a man starts writing inappropriate messages to a woman and she
reports the messages to the CoC committee.  In this case, I think secrecy,
hierarchy and coercive decision making power is important to preserve the
dignity of all parties.  It also encourages people to come forward, which is
much harder to do in the open.

I don't know of many communities with good gender balance that don’t have codes
of conduct, probably for this reason.  Ultimately, I think the benefits of
secrecy, hierarchy and possible coercion in matters of conduct outweigh the
negatives, although I agree with you that secrecy and hierarchy should be the
exception and not the rule. Most communication should be in the open and
hierarchy free.

Thanks,
~Mike

[dak, 2020-02-05 15:40:02]

Mike Solomon <mike@meeshkan.com> writes:

> Mike Solomon <mike@meeshkan.com> writes:
>
>> The preamble and intent is one thing; adding a corrective committee
>> with the authority to enact punishments based on anonymous reports
>> is another.  It implements hierarchies and institutions exerting
>> coercive power based on incomplete and secret information.  That is
>> inherently an entity offering an opportunity for "pulling strings".
>> I am not really a fan of constructs with a life and dynamics of
>> their own.
>
> It's a big responsibility. I think the way to do it is talk to
> successful committees (ie the Facebook Open Source CoC Committee) and
> learn how they've dealt with challenging situations.
>
> One example: in communities that are more gender balanced, I've heard
> of situations where a man starts writing inappropriate messages to a
> woman and she reports the messages to the CoC committee.  In this
> case, I think secrecy, hierarchy and coercive decision making power is
> important to preserve the dignity of all parties.  It also encourages
> people to come forward, which is much harder to do in the open.

Frankly, I have my doubts that "in case you encounter a problem with
acceptance of your demographic, here is a committee of three white men
you can complain to" will be the most successful pitch.

> I don't know of many communities with good gender balance that don’t
> have codes of conduct, probably for this reason.

Programming communities tend to be very lopsided.  That was different
the other way round when programming was considered low-pay work serving
mathematicians.  It's also at least less extreme outside of Western
cultures.  Personally, I find that disgraceful as a statement about
society, but the demographics in developer groups tend to reflect what
society does.  In the LilyPond user groups, one does see occasional
women with questions (judging from the names) and I don't recollect any
inappropriate or gender-isolating behavior in response.

> Ultimately, I think the benefits of secrecy, hierarchy and possible
> coercion in matters of conduct outweigh the negatives,

I think it depends on the necessity.  Do you have any examples of female
contributors or users that have been treated on LilyPond mailing lists
or other communication media in a manner where it would have been
reasonable to assume that they would have wanted to be able to file a
complaint?

> although I agree with you that secrecy and hierarchy should be the
> exception and not the rule. Most communication should be in the open
> and hierarchy free.
>
> Thanks,
> ~Mike

-- 
David Kastrup

[mike_meeshkan.com, 2020-02-05 16:01:24]

One procedural question: what are acceptance procedures for a PR like this?
There is good debate and a variety of opinions, but at a certain point we will
need to make a decision - do we implement the CoC or not? I doubt that any new
arguments will emerge on either side.  David has made several good arguments
against it, and while the points are valid, they don't outweigh IMO the
potential for it to improve the problem of low contribution volume and a
shrinking pool of developers. I'm also admittedly biased in that I don't feel
comfortable contributing unless there is a code of conduct with clear steps for
reporting violations and consequences for repeat offenders, so I'm probably not
the best person to make the final call.

~Mike

[dak, 2020-02-05 16:15:50]

Mike Solomon <mike@meeshkan.com> writes:

> One procedural question: what are acceptance procedures for a PR like
> this? There is good debate and a variety of opinions, but at a certain
> point we will need to make a decision - do we implement the CoC or
> not?

What does "implement" mean?

> I doubt that any new arguments will emerge on either side.  David has
> made several good arguments against it,

I would not call them "good" as much as "personal".

> and while the points are valid, they don't outweigh IMO the potential
> for it to improve the problem of low contribution volume and a
> shrinking pool of developers. I'm also admittedly biased in that I
> don't feel comfortable contributing unless there is a code of conduct
> with clear steps for reporting violations and consequences for repeat
> offenders, so I'm probably not the best person to make the final call.
>
> ~Mike
>
>

-- 
David Kastrup

[mike_meeshkan.com, 2020-02-05 16:21:02]

> What does "implement" mean?

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant merge the PR.

[dak, 2020-02-05 16:24:22]

Mike Solomon <mike@meeshkan.com> writes:

>> What does "implement" mean?
>
> Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant merge the PR.

Uh, words have meanings.  There would be no point of putting something
into our documentation that we are not going to follow through with.

-- 
David Kastrup

[mike_meeshkan.com, 2020-02-05 16:37:10]

Mike Solomon <mike@meeshkan.com> writes:

>> What does "implement" mean?
>
> Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant merge the PR.

> Uh, words have meanings.  There would be no point of putting something
into our documentation that we are not going to follow through with.

By merging it, the idea would be that the first committee of 3 started acting as
a CoC committee.

What are the blockers to making a decision about this patch? Does it need more
discussion or more buy in? As I've been out of the community for so long, I no
longer have a sense of when things are merged.

~Mike

[dak, 2020-02-05 17:01:16]

Mike Solomon <mike@meeshkan.com> writes:

> Mike Solomon <mike@meeshkan.com> writes:
>
>>> What does "implement" mean?
>>
>> Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant merge the PR.
>
>> Uh, words have meanings.  There would be no point of putting something
> into our documentation that we are not going to follow through with.
>
> By merging it, the idea would be that the first committee of 3 started
> acting as a CoC committee.
>
> What are the blockers to making a decision about this patch?

Consent?

> Does it need more discussion or more buy in?

As the change would affect all developers and, as far as I can discern,
also users on the LilyPond user list, it would require broad consent.
Most of the potentially affected persons have not even been notified of
the proposal.

> As I've been out of the community for so long, I no longer have a
> sense of when things are merged.

To be honest, I am irritated at what looks like bulldozering through
with a proposal that has the clear implications of removing the current
lead developer from the project eventually, in particular since there
are no other imminent problems it currently purports to solve.  The
proposal arrived today and you want to have it accepted within hours.

I think that this is not a time frame where other developers as well as
users can be expected to make and voice a qualified decision.

-- 
David Kastrup

[c_sorensen, 2020-02-05 18:17:25]

On 2/5/20, 7:40 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup"
<lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=byu.edu@gnu.org on behalf of dak@gnu.org>
wrote:

    Mike Solomon <mike@meeshkan.com> writes:
    
    > Janek Warchoł <janek.lilypond@gmail.com> writes:
    >
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> śr., 5 lut 2020, 00:34 użytkownik <dak@gnu.org> napisał:
    >>
    >>> What problem are we trying to solve here?
    >>>
    >>
    >> In short, it's been found (I think Mike will be able to give you 
    >> specific
    >> examples) that having code of conduct encourages contributions from 
    >> newcomers.
    >
    >> I rather think that a friendly atmosphere encourages contributions
    >> from newcomers.  Whether an upfront requirement to commit to a set
    >> of rules with an enforcement team is perceived as a guarantee of a
    >> friendly atmosphere is debatable.
    >
    > I personally would feel more comfortable if there were a code of
    > conduct, and I know within my company one employee will not attend a
    > conference or participate in a project unless there is a code of
    > conduct.  I don't have any hard stats to prove this, but have a gut
    > feeling that a code of conduct opens more doors than it closes.

My gut feeling is the opposite.  Upon reading the Code of Conduct, it felt to me
like it was proposing a private channel for a mean-spirited passive-aggressive
person to wreak havoc on the community.

Now, I do not feel like we have any such individuals in our community.  So in
the best of all possible worlds, there is no harm to a code of conduct.  But in
the best of all possible worlds, there is also no need for a code of conduct.

In the worst of all worlds, the lack of a Code of Conduct can lead to individual
bullying. In the worst of all worlds, a Code of Conduct can lead to systematic
bullying, where an anonymous complainer gets the weight of a bureaucracy behind
the bullying.

I don't believe we have the worst of all worlds.  I don't believe that any
individual behind the proposal for the Code of Conduct has anything but the best
intentions.  I want to see the LilyPond community be a friendly, welcoming place
for all.  I believe that it largely is a friendly, welcoming place for all.

For me, personally, I find the Code of Conduct approach with its implied threat
(if you don't obey, we'll punish you -- in fact, we've spelled out the
punishments in the document) to be much less friendly than a public statement
that we value an open, respectful, and friendly environment and we call on all
to participate in it.  The Code of Conduct approach feels like taking a
sledgehammer to squash a fly.

I recognize that Mike Solomon has a different opinion.  I mean no disrespect to
Mike, Janek, Han-Wen, or any other member of the LilyPond team.  I highly value
the team spirit of the LilyPond team.

I would be less likely to participate if we make the proposed Code of Conduct
part of our LilyPond environment.

Thanks for listening,

Carl
   

[david.nalesnik, 2020-02-05 19:01:33]

On 2020/02/05 18:17:25, c_sorensen wrote:
> 
> On 2/5/20, 7:40 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup"
> <mailto:lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=byu.edu@gnu.org on behalf of
mailto:dak@gnu.org>
> wrote:
> 
>     Mike Solomon <mailto:mike@meeshkan.com> writes:
>     
>     > Janek Warchoł <mailto:janek.lilypond@gmail.com> writes:
>     >
>     >> Hi,
>     >>
>     >> śr., 5 lut 2020, 00:34 użytkownik <mailto:dak@gnu.org> napisał:
>     >>
>     >>> What problem are we trying to solve here?
>     >>>
>     >>
>     >> In short, it's been found (I think Mike will be able to give you 
>     >> specific
>     >> examples) that having code of conduct encourages contributions from 
>     >> newcomers.
>     >
>     >> I rather think that a friendly atmosphere encourages contributions
>     >> from newcomers.  Whether an upfront requirement to commit to a set
>     >> of rules with an enforcement team is perceived as a guarantee of a
>     >> friendly atmosphere is debatable.
>     >
>     > I personally would feel more comfortable if there were a code of
>     > conduct, and I know within my company one employee will not attend a
>     > conference or participate in a project unless there is a code of
>     > conduct.  I don't have any hard stats to prove this, but have a gut
>     > feeling that a code of conduct opens more doors than it closes.
> 
> My gut feeling is the opposite.  Upon reading the Code of Conduct, it felt to
me
> like it was proposing a private channel for a mean-spirited passive-aggressive
> person to wreak havoc on the community.
> 
> Now, I do not feel like we have any such individuals in our community.  So in
> the best of all possible worlds, there is no harm to a code of conduct.  But
in
> the best of all possible worlds, there is also no need for a code of conduct.
> 
> In the worst of all worlds, the lack of a Code of Conduct can lead to
individual
> bullying. In the worst of all worlds, a Code of Conduct can lead to systematic
> bullying, where an anonymous complainer gets the weight of a bureaucracy
behind
> the bullying.
> 
> I don't believe we have the worst of all worlds.  I don't believe that any
> individual behind the proposal for the Code of Conduct has anything but the
best
> intentions.  I want to see the LilyPond community be a friendly, welcoming
place
> for all.  I believe that it largely is a friendly, welcoming place for all.
> 
> For me, personally, I find the Code of Conduct approach with its implied
threat
> (if you don't obey, we'll punish you -- in fact, we've spelled out the
> punishments in the document) to be much less friendly than a public statement
> that we value an open, respectful, and friendly environment and we call on all
> to participate in it.  The Code of Conduct approach feels like taking a
> sledgehammer to squash a fly.

A statement about community values would be an excellent idea, but channels for
reporting and meting out punishment?  This makes me uncomfortable.

And is this really such a large organization that we have room for committees?

[Dan Eble, 2020-02-05 19:08:29]

On 2020/02/05 18:17:25, c_sorensen wrote:
> I recognize that Mike Solomon has a different opinion.  I mean no disrespect
to
> Mike, Janek, Han-Wen, or any other member of the LilyPond team.  I highly
value
> the team spirit of the LilyPond team.

Well said.  Here's the current tally as I understand it:
For: Han-Wen, Janek, Mike, Urs, Werner
Against: Carl, Dan, David K., Trevor
Mixed: David N.

Mike, you asked,
> What are the blockers to making a decision about this patch?
> Does it need more discussion or more buy in?

5-4 halfway through the first day doesn't look like buy-in to me.

[mike_meeshkan.com, 2020-02-05 19:27:04]

On 2020/02/05 18:17:25, c_sorensen wrote:
> I recognize that Mike Solomon has a different opinion.  I mean no
disrespect to
> Mike, Janek, Han-Wen, or any other member of the LilyPond team.  I
highly value
> the team spirit of the LilyPond team.

>Well said.  Here's the current tally as I understand it:
>For: Han-Wen, Janek, Mike, Urs, Werner
>Against: Carl, Dan, David K., Trevor
>Mixed: David N.

Mike, you asked,
> What are the blockers to making a decision about this patch?
> Does it need more discussion or more buy in?

>5-4 halfway through the first day doesn't look like buy-in to me.

That's a really good point and I see where Carl and David N are coming from. It
seems like a Code of Conduct is not a good fit at this time. More people in the
community would need to come around to the idea for it to work.

Maybe what I'll do is touch base in a few months and see if any opinions have
changed, including of course my own. In the meantime, I would encourage people
to reflect on LilyPond's shrinking number of contributions and developers and
consider if a lack of a code of conduct could be one of the reasons it is
difficult to grow. As a benchmark, one good place to look is the Contributors
Covenant website. There is a list of communities that have implemented it. Ask
the maintainers how they feel about it, cite the concerns brought up here, and
ask if they feel it could, from their outsider perspective, be helpful for
LilyPond. I know that, personally, I have really appreciated the code of conduct
in projects that I have contributed to since leaving LilyPond development. I
have also appreciated the relative ideological and demographic diversity of
those projects, which has introduced me to perspectives about race and gender
that are lacking in the LilyPond community.

It could of course also be the case that people are happy with the status quo in
LilyPond, in which case it (or other things to grow the community in size and
inclusivity) are not necessary. I personally am saddened by my own leaving, the
leaving of others, the lack of growth and the lack of diversity, and this is one
proposal to start changing it, but I understand the objections.

~Mike

[lists_openlilylib.org, 2020-02-05 20:15:48]

Am 5. Februar 2020 20:08:28 MEZ schrieb nine.fierce.ballads@gmail.com:
>On 2020/02/05 18:17:25, c_sorensen wrote:
>> I recognize that Mike Solomon has a different opinion.  I mean no
>disrespect to
>> Mike, Janek, Han-Wen, or any other member of the LilyPond team.  I
>highly value
>> the team spirit of the LilyPond team.
>
>Well said.  Here's the current tally as I understand it:
>For: Han-Wen, Janek, Mike, Urs, Werner
>Against: Carl, Dan, David K., Trevor
>Mixed: David N.

I must say that I haven't actually expressed an opinion about it so far, and I
don't know which I have.

I don't feel uncomfortable without and wouldn't mind adding it.

OTOH openLilyLib owes its existence to a nonzero part to the fact that I found
it easier to do that than getting my ideas into LilyPond itself. (Although this
isn't actually a comment on the CoC issue).

Urs

Urs


>
>Mike, you asked,
>> What are the blockers to making a decision about this patch?
>> Does it need more discussion or more buy in?
>
>5-4 halfway through the first day doesn't look like buy-in to me.
>
>
>https://codereview.appspot.com/575620043/

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

[mail_philholmes.net, 2020-02-05 20:17:56]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <nine.fierce.ballads@gmail.com>
To: <janek.lilypond@gmail.com>; <pkx166h@gmail.com>; <dak@gnu.org>; 
<karlinhigh@gmail.com>; <jonas.hahnfeld@gmail.com>; <mike@meeshkan.com>; 
<c_sorensen@byu.edu>; <david.nalesnik@gmail.com>
Cc: <reply@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com>; <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2020 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by 
janek.lilypond@gmail.com)


> On 2020/02/05 18:17:25, c_sorensen wrote:
>> I recognize that Mike Solomon has a different opinion.  I mean no
> disrespect to
>> Mike, Janek, Han-Wen, or any other member of the LilyPond team.  I
> highly value
>> the team spirit of the LilyPond team.
>
> Well said.  Here's the current tally as I understand it:
> For: Han-Wen, Janek, Mike, Urs, Werner
> Against: Carl, Dan, David K., Trevor
> Mixed: David N.
>
> Mike, you asked,
>> What are the blockers to making a decision about this patch?
>> Does it need more discussion or more buy in?
>
> 5-4 halfway through the first day doesn't look like buy-in to me.
>
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/575620043/


I've kept out of this debate for a long time because a) I've only been 
peripherally involved lately and b) there's been too much communication for 
me to read, but

As one of the earlier regular committers, and as the only person who makes 
builds and updates the websites, I'd vote for no change.  No CoC (not 
needed); keep the current workflow (easy to do if follow the instructions), 
and make builds work

--
Phil Holmes 

[dak, 2020-02-05 20:21:50]

Urs Liska <lists@openlilylib.org> writes:

> Am 5. Februar 2020 20:08:28 MEZ schrieb nine.fierce.ballads@gmail.com:
>>On 2020/02/05 18:17:25, c_sorensen wrote:
>>> I recognize that Mike Solomon has a different opinion.  I mean no
>>disrespect to
>>> Mike, Janek, Han-Wen, or any other member of the LilyPond team.  I
>>highly value
>>> the team spirit of the LilyPond team.
>>
>>Well said.  Here's the current tally as I understand it:
>>For: Han-Wen, Janek, Mike, Urs, Werner
>>Against: Carl, Dan, David K., Trevor
>>Mixed: David N.
>
> I must say that I haven't actually expressed an opinion about it so
> far, and I don't know which I have.
>
> I don't feel uncomfortable without and wouldn't mind adding it.
>
> OTOH openLilyLib owes its existence to a nonzero part to the fact that
> I found it easier to do that than getting my ideas into LilyPond
> itself. (Although this isn't actually a comment on the CoC issue).

That would be relevant regarding the Code of Conduct if fear of getting
harrassed kept you from contributing the code to LilyPond.

It would be marginally relevant if the use of development platforms was
under consideration where accepting/providing a particular Code of
Conduct was mandatory, and use of such a particular platform would have
made working directly in the LilyPond repository more feasible.

For what it's worth, I do think that the bulk of OpenLilyLib likely just
is a better fit for keeping in a separate repository/project since
changes in there do not need tight coordination with changes in
LilyPond.

-- 
David Kastrup

[dak, 2020-02-05 20:27:23]

"Phil Holmes" <mail@philholmes.net> writes:

> I've kept out of this debate for a long time because a) I've only been
> peripherally involved lately and b) there's been too much
> communication for me to read, but
>
> As one of the earlier regular committers, and as the only person who
> makes builds and updates the websites, I'd vote for no change.  No CoC
> (not needed); keep the current workflow (easy to do if follow the
> instructions), and make builds work

I do hope that we manage to get a better workflow.  "make builds work"
sounds easier than it turns out in practice: for example, at the current
point of time, GUB-made 64bit MacOSX builds are not feasible since we'd
need to change to some OpenDarwin base to even have a chance.  That will
actually not be significantly different when switching to a Guix-based
build as has been proposed: the native MacOSX SDK licenses just prohibit
execution on a non-Mac computer, regardless of the build environment.

I am cautiously optimistic that we'll be able to get out 2.20.0 soonish
and 2.21.0 afterwards.  I am more fuzzy about what that spells for
building 2.20.1 should that become necessary.

-- 
David Kastrup

[c_sorensen, 2020-02-05 20:47:26]

From: Mike Solomon <mike@meeshkan.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 12:27 PM
To: "janek.lilypond@gmail.com" <janek.lilypond@gmail.com>, "pkx166h@gmail.com"
<pkx166h@gmail.com>, "dak@gnu.org" <dak@gnu.org>, "karlinhigh@gmail.com"
<karlinhigh@gmail.com>, "jonas.hahnfeld@gmail.com" <jonas.hahnfeld@gmail.com>,
Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@byu.edu>, "david.nalesnik@gmail.com"
<david.nalesnik@gmail.com>
Cc: "lilypond-devel@gnu.org" <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>,
"reply@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com" <reply@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by janek.lilypond@gmail.com)

On 2020/02/05 18:17:25, c_sorensen wrote:
That's a really good point and I see where Carl and David N are coming from. It
seems like a Code of Conduct is not a good fit at this time. More people in the
community would need to come around to the idea for it to work.

Maybe what I'll do is touch base in a few months and see if any opinions have
changed, including of course my own. In the meantime, I would encourage people
to reflect on LilyPond's shrinking number of contributions and developers and
consider if a lack of a code of conduct could be one of the reasons it is
difficult to grow. As a benchmark, one good place to look is the Contributors
Covenant website. There is a list of communities that have implemented it. Ask
the maintainers how they feel about it, cite the concerns brought up here, and
ask if they feel it could, from their outsider perspective, be helpful for
LilyPond. I know that, personally, I have really appreciated the code of conduct
in projects that I have contributed to since leaving LilyPond development. I
have also appreciated the relative ideological and demographic diversity of
those projects, which has introduced me to perspectives about race and gender
that are lacking in the LilyPond community.

It could of course also be the case that people are happy with the status quo in
LilyPond, in which case it (or other things to grow the community in size and
inclusivity) are not necessary. I personally am saddened by my own leaving, the
leaving of others, the lack of growth and the lack of diversity, and this is one
proposal to start changing it, but I understand the objections.

I’d be open to having my mind changed.  I think that the LilyPond community is
poorer when Mike is not participating in it.

Mike, do you have any specific occurrences that caused you or others to stop
participating in LilyPond development, and that you feel would be resolved (or
resolvable) by adopting a code of conduct?  I’d be very interested in hearing
them (preferably on the list, if you’re comfortable sharing them; or in private,
if you’re not).

In your writing I sense that you have some troubles with the LilyPond community
to which I am oblivious.  It’s not uncommon that I would be oblivious to such
troubles.  I’d like to know more about them.

I think it very unlikely that implementing a Code of Conduct would draw large
numbers of new contributors to the project.  I can’t imagine that there are
large numbers of people running around saying “I’m looking for a project with a
code of conduct to contribute to.”

On the other hand, it’s not unlikely that there are problems in the LilyPond
community that I have not noticed, and that adopting a Code of Conduct might
draw previous contributors who noticed problems back in to the LilyPond
community.

I need to understand the problem before I’m going to be in favor of a change. 
I’d love to be educated (this is a serious statement) about the problems that I
haven’t noticed.

Thanks,

Carl

[janek, 2020-02-05 23:32:43]

I'll try to speak only on the most pressing points to avoid bloating the
discussion unnecessarily.

śr., 5 lut 2020 o 14:41 David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> napisał(a):

> Janek Warchoł <janek.lilypond@gmail.com> writes:
> > In short, it's been found (I think Mike will be able to give you specific
> > examples) that having code of conduct encourages contributions from
> > newcomers.
>
> I rather think that a friendly atmosphere encourages contributions from
> newcomers.  Whether an upfront requirement to commit to a set of rules
> with an enforcement team is perceived as a guarantee of a friendly
> atmosphere is debatable. [...]
> the principal impact [of Code of Conduct] to be expected on
> LilyPond development appears to have an official body entitled to
> censure my behavior and eventually, out of a sense of duty, remove me.
>

Do you think that approaching other people with suspicion like this (i.e.
expecting they have worst intentions, which is getting close to a
conspiracy theory) contributes to a friendly atmosphere? I don't think so.

And honestly, I'm very sorry to read something like this from you. It made
me regret coming back to the project, and almost made me want to resign
again.


śr., 5 lut 2020 o 23:05 David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> napisał(a):

> Urs Liska <lists@openlilylib.org> writes:
> > Now that you say it I recall what triggered my comment in the first
> > place (I got distracted while writing and was somewhat confused
> > afterwards).
> >
> > Indeed it was the kind of unpleasant discussion about proposed changes
> > (I don't recall whether it was lilypond-devel threads or actual
> > patches, probably the former) that was the driving force. In a nutshell
> > my requests or suggestions were furiously fenced off as simply enabling
> > "single-person use cases".
>
> Uh, this was not intended as a "fence off" as much as that I considered
> extensions of that scope and direction not a good fit for putting in the
> core.
>

I know it's difficult for you, but please try to see the emotions here.
Simply notice that there is a very active contributor, to whom LilyPond as
a projects owes very much (especially when it comes to being known in
academic circles), who helped people on the lists numerous time, and this
contributor is sad and frustrated about his contributing experience.
Please, don't argue - just acknowledge the fact and try to show others that
you've acknowledged it.


śr., 5 lut 2020 o 21:47 Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@byu.edu> napisał(a):

> In your writing I sense that you have some troubles with the LilyPond
> community to which I am oblivious.  It’s not uncommon that I would be
> oblivious to such troubles.  I’d like to know more about them.
>
> [...]
>
> On the other hand, it’s not unlikely that there are problems in the
> LilyPond community that I have not noticed, and that adopting a Code of
> Conduct might draw previous contributors who noticed problems back in to
> the LilyPond community.
>
>
>
> I need to understand the problem before I’m going to be in favor of a
> change.  I’d love to be educated (this is a serious statement) about the
> problems that I haven’t noticed.
>

Carl,
thank you for being open to listening! I'll try to give examples.

I stopped contributing to LilyPond about 6 years ago. One cause of that
change was that I got a job and suddenly had much less time. But it was not
the only cause; it would have been possible for me to contribute at least a
little. The reason I did not was that participating in the development had
been too emotionally draining to endure. In my experience LilyPond has
(used to have?) huge inertia (disproportionate to the size of the project).
I mean (more or less, please consider this to be an approximation) that
when I tried doing things that didn't clearly align with the views of a
person with most authority (for the last few years David has been this
person) I had felt *unwelcome* and my personal impression was that they
were "blocked". It was very difficult to get some things done.

What Urs wrote is a very good example: even though David didn't mean to
block Urs's suggestions, that was the impression we (Urs and me) got back
then. Fortunately for LilyPond, Urs decided to start OpenLilyLib. However
in my case the result was that I ceased to contribute. I think there were
more people like me.

Another example is this very thread. See what happened here. It started
with excellent, 100% on-topic questions from Karlin High, and with very
appropriate and justified objections from Jonas Hahnfeld. However, right
after that the discussion became dominated by David, who started writing
multiple long emails, which partly consisted of merit-based question,
partly of his predictions "what will happen if" (which can be useful, but
only to certain extent) and partly of suspicions of something close to a
conspiracy theory.

Since David has more time available that many of us (who have a
non-LilyPond job), and apparently limiting email volume is not a high
priority for him, it's hard to keep up with the discussion. David produces
more arguments, claims and/or suspicions that any of us can reply to in the
time we have. If this was a code patch, the result would be that either a)
I would have to spend countless hours addressing his concerns rather than
actually implementing a solution or b) if I tried to ignore the ones that,
according to my best knowledge, were insignificant, David would object and
probably reject the patch.

It's similar with other initiatives. My impression of LilyPond community is
that the decisions are "made" on the basis of who writes the longest / the
most emails. This person is David, and he's unbeatable at that. But there
is only one David (well, one David K), and if he spends all his time
writing emails, he won't have much time left for writing code - while
people who think differently won't be able to get through because they
don't have so much time for writing emails. That is, in my opinion, one of
the major reasons for development slowdown, and contributor frustration
(apart from the fact that the process is complicated).

śr., 5 lut 2020 o 21:47 Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@byu.edu> napisał(a):

> Mike, do you have any specific occurrences that caused you or others to
> stop participating in LilyPond development, and that you feel would be
> resolved (or resolvable) by adopting a code of conduct?  I’d be very
> interested in hearing them (preferably on the list, if you’re comfortable
> sharing them; or in private, if you’re not).
>
> [...]
>
> I think it very unlikely that implementing a Code of Conduct would draw
> large numbers of new contributors to the project.  I can’t imagine that
> there are large numbers of people running around saying “I’m looking for a
> project with a code of conduct to contribute to.”
> [...]
>

Actually, you made me realize that the main problem we have may not be best
solved by a Code of Conduct (it's not to say that it would be useless, but
perhaps there is something more valuable we can do). I'm not yet sure what
it is, but I'll think.

Good night!
Janek

>

[thomasmorley651, 2020-02-06 01:26:58]

Hi all,

Being on the lists for many years now I remember only a few posts
which were inappropriate:

Long time ago. there was a user with a post others felt uncomfortable
with. But Graham denied a problem. But there was a followup which
definitely was.
And Graham told the user that it was not appropriate. As a result the
problem was cured.

I once told a user myself not to write about politics. As a result the
problem was solved.

There was a user definitely offending all, especially developers.
Several complaints were posted, even the list-admin was called, but he
didn't ban him. Iirc, he recommended everyone who can't bear him, to
set him on a blacklist. I may recall wrongly, but that's what I
finally did.
Sometime later this user stopped posting...

If I remember correctly these are _all_ problematic posts (ofcourse I
may have missed some)
Do we need a CoC for them?
I doubt.
While I think that the proposed CoC-behaviour should be naturally, I'm
uncomfortable with the proposed consequences for violating it. At
least in the past we got back on track more or less pretty easily,
without CoC.

Now to David and his communication.
I'm aware people often feel offended by him.
Though, we all know or at least should know about his communication
problems, I'm absolutely sure he knows about them, likely better than
we.

I always found that most of the bad feelings resulted of misunderstandings.
Sometimes David misunderstood, and replied strange. Once his
misunderstanding is cleared he usually corrects his post.
Sometimes the recipient of his post _misunderstands_ a post as
offending, while it is meant most simply as a description or
recommendation.

As an example look at the review of one of my own patches
https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043
Quoting dak:
"This looks like a total mess."
"Total waste of effort."
"Aaand another one."

Ofcourse quotation is without any context (you may red it up, if you want)
You can _interpret_ this as trashing my patch at the worst, but  I'm
used to take his posts literal, i.e.:
It _was_ a "total mess" -> I improved the patch
I argued against "waste of effort" -> convinced him
And there _was_ another issue -> I improved the patch

Finally the patch came through.

I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him, if you think he is wrong.
Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_ offending.




Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 00:32 Uhr schrieb Janek Warchoł
<janek.lilypond@gmail.com>:

> śr., 5 lut 2020 o 14:41 David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> napisał(a):
>
> > Janek Warchoł <janek.lilypond@gmail.com> writes:
> > > In short, it's been found (I think Mike will be able to give you specific
> > > examples) that having code of conduct encourages contributions from
> > > newcomers.
> >
> > I rather think that a friendly atmosphere encourages contributions from
> > newcomers.  Whether an upfront requirement to commit to a set of rules
> > with an enforcement team is perceived as a guarantee of a friendly
> > atmosphere is debatable. [...]
> > the principal impact [of Code of Conduct] to be expected on
> > LilyPond development appears to have an official body entitled to
> > censure my behavior and eventually, out of a sense of duty, remove me.
> >
>
> Do you think that approaching other people with suspicion like this (i.e.
> expecting they have worst intentions, which is getting close to a
> conspiracy theory) contributes to a friendly atmosphere? I don't think so.

I would take David post _literal_
He simply told us from his previous bad experiences and his feelings
it may happen again here, now based on the proposed CoC.

I would be very sad to loose him.

> And honestly, I'm very sorry to read something like this from you. It made
> me regret coming back to the project, and almost made me want to resign
> again.

I would be very sad to loose you (again) as well!
Janek, I always had the feeling you love a community with all people
"on the same track", though David is "special".

So to repeat myself, everyone should take his post literal, not offending!


I'd love to see a community bearing different personalities, even
personalities with problematic conversation skills.
For me it's like strange english from a non-native speaker (like me).
It's sometimes difficult and/or tedious to understand but mostly worth
the attention.


Well, long mail for a non-native speaker, and I still have the feeling
I didn't express myself very well.
Though, I did the best I could.

Thanks,
  Harm

[david.nalesnik, 2020-02-06 01:49:17]

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 7:37 PM Thomas Morley <thomasmorley65@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Being on the lists for many years now I remember only a few posts
> which were inappropriate:
>
> Long time ago. there was a user with a post others felt uncomfortable
> with. But Graham denied a problem. But there was a followup which
> definitely was.
> And Graham told the user that it was not appropriate. As a result the
> problem was cured.
>
> I once told a user myself not to write about politics. As a result the
> problem was solved.
>
> There was a user definitely offending all, especially developers.
> Several complaints were posted, even the list-admin was called, but he
> didn't ban him. Iirc, he recommended everyone who can't bear him, to
> set him on a blacklist. I may recall wrongly, but that's what I
> finally did.
> Sometime later this user stopped posting...
>
> If I remember correctly these are _all_ problematic posts (ofcourse I
> may have missed some)
> Do we need a CoC for them?
> I doubt.
> While I think that the proposed CoC-behaviour should be naturally, I'm
> uncomfortable with the proposed consequences for violating it. At
> least in the past we got back on track more or less pretty easily,
> without CoC.
>
> Now to David and his communication.
> I'm aware people often feel offended by him.
> Though, we all know or at least should know about his communication
> problems, I'm absolutely sure he knows about them, likely better than
> we.
>
> I always found that most of the bad feelings resulted of misunderstandings.
> Sometimes David misunderstood, and replied strange. Once his
> misunderstanding is cleared he usually corrects his post.
> Sometimes the recipient of his post _misunderstands_ a post as
> offending, while it is meant most simply as a description or
> recommendation.
>
> As an example look at the review of one of my own patches
> https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043
> Quoting dak:
> "This looks like a total mess."
> "Total waste of effort."
> "Aaand another one."
>
> Ofcourse quotation is without any context (you may red it up, if you want)
> You can _interpret_ this as trashing my patch at the worst, but  I'm
> used to take his posts literal, i.e.:
> It _was_ a "total mess" -> I improved the patch
> I argued against "waste of effort" -> convinced him
> And there _was_ another issue -> I improved the patch
>
> Finally the patch came through.
>
> I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him, if you think he is
wrong.
> Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_ offending.
>
>
>
>
> Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 00:32 Uhr schrieb Janek Warchoł
> <janek.lilypond@gmail.com>:
>
> > śr., 5 lut 2020 o 14:41 David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> napisał(a):
> >
> > > Janek Warchoł <janek.lilypond@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > In short, it's been found (I think Mike will be able to give you
specific
> > > > examples) that having code of conduct encourages contributions from
> > > > newcomers.
> > >
> > > I rather think that a friendly atmosphere encourages contributions from
> > > newcomers.  Whether an upfront requirement to commit to a set of rules
> > > with an enforcement team is perceived as a guarantee of a friendly
> > > atmosphere is debatable. [...]
> > > the principal impact [of Code of Conduct] to be expected on
> > > LilyPond development appears to have an official body entitled to
> > > censure my behavior and eventually, out of a sense of duty, remove me.
> > >
> >
> > Do you think that approaching other people with suspicion like this (i.e.
> > expecting they have worst intentions, which is getting close to a
> > conspiracy theory) contributes to a friendly atmosphere? I don't think so.
>
> I would take David post _literal_
> He simply told us from his previous bad experiences and his feelings
> it may happen again here, now based on the proposed CoC.
>
> I would be very sad to loose him.
>
> > And honestly, I'm very sorry to read something like this from you. It made
> > me regret coming back to the project, and almost made me want to resign
> > again.
>
> I would be very sad to loose you (again) as well!
> Janek, I always had the feeling you love a community with all people
> "on the same track", though David is "special".
>
> So to repeat myself, everyone should take his post literal, not offending!
>
>
> I'd love to see a community bearing different personalities, even
> personalities with problematic conversation skills.
> For me it's like strange english from a non-native speaker (like me).
> It's sometimes difficult and/or tedious to understand but mostly worth
> the attention.
>
>
> Well, long mail for a non-native speaker, and I still have the feeling
> I didn't express myself very well.
> Though, I did the best I could.
>

+1

Thank you, Harm.

The other David

[dak, 2020-02-06 01:55:44]

Thomas Morley <thomasmorley65@gmail.com> writes:

> As an example look at the review of one of my own patches
> https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043
> Quoting dak:
> "This looks like a total mess."
> "Total waste of effort."
> "Aaand another one."

Ouch.  Fortunately in context this looks less dire ("Aaand another one."
for example just means "And here is another thing I found after looking
more carefully.").  Those sentences are part of a larger line-by-line
review and more or less the cream of the crop.

But yes, read in isolation and not sorting it into the somewhat jovial
overall tone, that's bad.  And one problem is that even if the recipient
happens to know how to take it, that's not a given for other readers
looking for examples of how reviews go.

> Ofcourse quotation is without any context (you may red it up, if you want)
> You can _interpret_ this as trashing my patch at the worst,

If that were the only lines, yes.  There is lots of detailed stuff and
suggestions in between, interspersed with questions about the aim of the
patch because I suspect it can be done achieved a lot more simple (a
hunch that often holds when things are converted to polar coordinates
and back again).

> but  I'm
> used to take his posts literal, i.e.:
> It _was_ a "total mess" -> I improved the patch

The mess was likely the bunch of expressions involved and their flow.

> I argued against "waste of effort" -> convinced him

Waste of effort was a sequence of scaling up and scaling down again by
the same factor, but I overlooked that a different scale factor at a
different angle also came into play so that this was more complex than
it looked.

Again, "waste of effort" did not refer to the patch but rather about
what the computer was doing.  I, well, am better at empathising with
computers than humans when looking at programs.

> And there _was_ another issue -> I improved the patch
>
> Finally the patch came through.
>
> I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him, if you think he is
wrong.
> Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_ offending.

Not everybody likes to argue.  So yes, I felt in a comfortable space
with you and it was a productive exchange where I was not aware of any
potential for controversy.  But I'll agree that it sends an awful
message to bystanders.

I'll have to sleep over what that means.  While your recommendation is
certainly not a bad idea as such, it does not help reducing the impact
on first visitors.

Thanks for that exposition.  It was certainly relevant for bringing some
insight to my side of the fence.

-- 
David Kastrup

[thomasmorley651, 2020-02-06 02:07:21]

Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 02:55 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>:
>
> Thomas Morley <thomasmorley65@gmail.com> writes:

> > I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him, if you think he is
wrong.
> > Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_ offending.
>
> Not everybody likes to argue.  So yes, I felt in a comfortable space
> with you and it was a productive exchange where I was not aware of any
> potential for controversy.

Same on my part.

> But I'll agree that it sends an awful
> message to bystanders.
>
> I'll have to sleep over what that means.  While your recommendation is
> certainly not a bad idea as such, it does not help reducing the impact
> on first visitors.
>
> Thanks for that exposition.  It was certainly relevant for bringing some
> insight to my side of the fence.

You're welcome :)

Best,
  Harm

[wl_gnu.org, 2020-02-06 02:46:21]

[Being on the return from Hawaii I'm late with everything, so please
 don't be surprised if I answer to stuff that has already been
 discussed to death.]

> The preamble and intent is one thing; adding a corrective committee
> with the authority to enact punishments based on anonymous reports
> is another.  It implements hierarchies and institutions exerting
> coercive power based on incomplete and secret information.  That is
> inherently an entity offering an opportunity for "pulling strings".
> I am not really a fan of constructs with a life and dynamics of
> their own.

Indeed.  Norbert Preining, one of the TeXLive maintainers (I know him
personally) and maintainer of TeXLive in Debian, was victim of exactly
such a process.[1] He got banned being a Debian developer, and it was
never explicitly explained to him why.

So what about having a CoC without the 'corrective committee'?  Up to
now this worked quite nicely.


    Werner

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/12/msg00032.html

[wl_gnu.org, 2020-02-06 02:48:37]

David,


> [...] the principal impact to be expected on LilyPond development
> appears to have an official body entitled to censure my behavior and
> eventually, out of a sense of duty, remove me.

I won't definitely do that.

> The general stance of the GNU project on its internal lists is to
> rely more on education and admonishment than official committees,
> censure, and exclusion.

Yep.


    Werner

[Karlin High, 2020-02-06 04:18:45]

I've been following Lilypond mailing lists since 2016 or so. I'd
describe my most common role as "entry-level tech support," answering
the most basic mailing list questions so better-skilled people don't
have to deal with them.

I can point to the exact thread(s) that drew me into the Lilypond
community. (keywords: mclaren prime tuplets) The outstanding feature
to me was its handling of conflict.

<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-11/msg00409.html>

In that thread, it was as if someone had read the Dale Carnegie "How
To Win Friends and Influence People" book and then behaved the exact
opposite of everything the book teaches. David Kastrup has often been
criticized for lacking "soft skills" with people. But there I noticed
he kept offering help (well-wrapped in sarcastic rebukes, I grant)
after many "nicer" people had lost their tempers and were calling for
the offending user's head.

<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-11/msg00403.html>

I could easily spill 800 words on the Code of Conduct proposal. But
Carl Sorensen's posts already pretty much captured what I'd have to
say. The only thing I'll add is that according to this article on
SourceForge, a lack of project contributors is not in any way unique
to LilyPond, or likely to be much solved by adopting a Code of
Conduct:

"
Open Source Is Growing, But Not How It Should

...According to a recent survey from Stack Overflow only a mere 12.4%
of respondents said they contribute to open source at least once a
month or more often, and 23.1% said they contribute more than once a
year but not monthly. The rest of the respondents, which constitute
more than half, said they contribute less than even once a year or not
at all...
"
<https://sourceforge.net/blog/open-source-growing-not/>

I agree with Mike Solomon's conclusion that the Contributor Covenant
Code of Conduct is not a good fit for the Lilypond project, in the
state they are each currently found. I don't disagree in principle
with the effort to have something like that, though. I just came
across the one on GitLab's forum today and was favorably impressed.
<https://forum.gitlab.com/faq>

If a project reform effort is desired, I think the code contribution
workflow is a much better choice. Pretty much everyone agrees that
what we have isn't good. I'd really like to see the issue tracker,
code review, and repository all together in one place. GitLab looked
good in a previous thread researching it, but I have no emotional
investment in anything here.

My personal story of contributor experience: I have done one patch,
ever. It wasn't easy. But that's not really anyone's fault. In fact,
the lilypond-devel list was outstanding in support efforts; I consider
it my collective mentor. Lilypond is just a HARD project. Converting
plain text to beautiful sheet music, what else to expect? It needs
music theory, music engraving, computer science, C++, Guile, Python,
Bison, PostScript, fonts, MetaFont, Texinfo... the list just goes on.
Following the Lilypond mailing lists has taught me more about music
than most anything else, but I simply don't currently have the skills
for being a big contributor. My formal education stopped at 8th grade.
I had lots of computer time in late teen years, but it was Windows 98,
Microsoft Office, and Visual Basic for Applications. A Knoppix Live CD
entered the picture eventually, and I've enjoyed Linux ever since. But
usage habits had already been formed. I find Unix-world text editors
and Git interesting, but intimidating. I'd probably do well to learn
them, but as stratechery.com Ben Thompson says, once something's
getting the job done for someone, it needs a 10X improvement to get
them to switch to something else. For most any Lilypond code I want to
work on, it seems I need to research a fair list of foundational
concepts first. I actually enjoy doing that, but a self-employed
father of five (oldest age 11) can only do so much for hobby projects.
At my state in life, it's hard to study up on something before the
need arises for it.

For me, another big barrier to contributing is simply not knowing
what's a good area to work on. The single biggest thing I've seen
working to get people contributing is inviting them into a definite
effort with clear instructions. Example: Knut Petersen's "Please Test
GUB" thread from a year ago, which got about 16 people helping on one
of the thorniest parts of the entire project.
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2019-01/msg00221.html>

Another thing: I don't see any substitute for having full-time
developers. I was following the list for a long time before I realized
that David Kastrup's position depends on financial support from the
community, or how people could contribute that way. Currently, the
Lilypond website's "Sponsoring" page says nothing about this.
<http://lilypond.org/sponsoring.html> I'd like to see that changed so
that anyone with Git commit privileges and a flexible schedule
(allowing doing more Lilypond work if getting more Lilypond pay) could
get their name and brief bio on that page with a paypal.me link or
similar. Changes to the page would go through normal code review,
hardly any new processes would be needed.
-- 
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

[dan_faithful.be, 2020-02-06 04:36:32]

On Feb 5, 2020, at 20:26, Thomas Morley <thomasmorley65@gmail.com> wrote:

> So to repeat myself, everyone should take his post literal, not offending!
> 
> I'd love to see a community bearing different personalities, even
> personalities with problematic conversation skills.
> For me it's like strange english from a non-native speaker (like me).
> It's sometimes difficult and/or tedious to understand but mostly worth
> the attention.
> 
> Well, long mail for a non-native speaker, and I still have the feeling
> I didn't express myself very well.
> Though, I did the best I could.
> 
> Thanks,
>  Harm

I also want to put in a kind word for David K. and point out that Harm's attempt
to de-escalate this conversation demonstrates that the ideas of mentorship and
teamwork that have been circulating with regard to technical matters are also
applicable to interpersonal matters.
— 
Dan

[janek, 2020-02-06 08:16:47]

Let me write a clarification and a disclaimer. It was not the purpose of my
email to blame people. If someone (especially David) felt attacked, I
apologize. I wanted to express how I view the situation, and I may be
mistaken in my opinions. I don't claim to hold the objective truth.

czw., 6 lut 2020 o 00:32 Janek Warchoł <janek.lilypond@gmail.com>
napisał(a):

> Do you think that approaching other people with suspicion like this (i.e.
> expecting they have worst intentions, which is getting close to a
> conspiracy theory) contributes to a friendly atmosphere? I don't think so.
>

I realize you might have felt attacked, and I apologize. I should have
written "Do you think that this contributes to a friendly atmosphere? I
personally feel distrusted and unwelcome, as if I had worst intentions."

śr., 5 lut 2020 o 23:05 David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> napisał(a):
>
>> Uh, this was not intended as a "fence off" as much as that I considered
>> extensions of that scope and direction not a good fit for putting in the
>> core.
>>
>
> I know it's difficult for you, but please try to see the emotions here.
> Simply notice that there is a very active contributor, to whom LilyPond as
> a projects owes very much (especially when it comes to being known in
> academic circles), who helped people on the lists numerous time, and this
> contributor is sad and frustrated about his contributing experience.
> Please, don't argue - just acknowledge the fact and try to show others that
> you've acknowledged it.
>

I should have sent this privately. I apologize.


> when I tried doing things that didn't clearly align with the views of a
> person with most authority (for the last few years David has been this
> person) I had felt *unwelcome* and my personal impression was that they
> were "blocked". It was very difficult to get some things done.
>

Disclaimer: this is only *my impression*. Maybe the problem was with me.


> However, right after that the discussion became dominated by David, who
> started writing multiple long emails, which partly consisted of merit-based
> question, partly of his predictions "what will happen if" (which can be
> useful, but only to certain extent) and partly of suspicions of something
> close to a conspiracy theory.
>

David, I tried to look from your perspective and realized that it was a
natural reaction for you to try defending yourself (even if our goal was
not to attack you). I apologize for not trying harder to empathize with
you. I am sorry that my proposal of introducing Code of Conduct made you
feel attacked.

I still think that the discussion gets a bit unmanageable, but it's rather
an unfortunate side-effect.

If this was a code patch, the result would be that either a) I would have
> to spend countless hours addressing his concerns rather than actually
> implementing a solution or b) if I tried to ignore the ones that, according
> to my best knowledge, were insignificant, David would object and probably
> reject the patch.
>

Again, this is only *my impression*. Maybe my patches were just shitty.

It's similar with other initiatives. My impression of LilyPond community is
> that the decisions are "made" on the basis of who writes the longest / the
> most emails. This person is David, and he's unbeatable at that. But there
> is only one David (well, one David K), and if he spends all his time
> writing emails, he won't have much time left for writing code - while
> people who think differently won't be able to get through because they
> don't have so much time for writing emails. That is, in my opinion, one of
> the major reasons for development slowdown, and contributor frustration
> (apart from the fact that the process is complicated).
>

I *definitely* don't mean to say that David intentionally tries to win
arguments by writing long emails.
I *do* mean that I have no idea how to handle the amount of email involved
when communicating with David in the time that I have.

I hope we can find a way to communicate better, and I'll try to be more
thoughtful next time.
Janek

>

[janek, 2020-02-06 08:37:52]

David,

czw., 6 lut 2020, 02:55 użytkownik David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> napisał:

> Not everybody likes to argue.  So yes, I felt in a comfortable space
> with you and it was a productive exchange where I was not aware of any
> potential for controversy.  But I'll agree that it sends an awful
> message to bystanders.
>
> I'll have to sleep over what that means.  While your recommendation is
> certainly not a bad idea as such, it does not help reducing the impact
> on first visitors.
>
> Thanks for that exposition.  It was certainly relevant for bringing some
> insight to my side of the fence.
>

I'd like to say a very big "thank you" for these words. I appreciate them a
lot!
:-)

Janek

>

[janek, 2020-02-06 08:37:52]

Werner,

czw., 6 lut 2020, 03:46 użytkownik Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> napisał:

>
> > The preamble and intent is one thing; adding a corrective committee
> > with the authority to enact punishments based on anonymous reports
> > is another.  It implements hierarchies and institutions exerting
> > coercive power based on incomplete and secret information.  That is
> > inherently an entity offering an opportunity for "pulling strings".
> > I am not really a fan of constructs with a life and dynamics of
> > their own.
>
> Indeed.  Norbert Preining, one of the TeXLive maintainers (I know him
> personally) and maintainer of TeXLive in Debian, was victim of exactly
> such a process.[1] He got banned being a Debian developer, and it was
> never explicitly explained to him why.
>
> So what about having a CoC without the 'corrective committee'?  Up to
> now this worked quite nicely.
>

Excellent and very constructive feedback!

I'm okay with having CoC without "enforcement committee". I also think of a
third way: having a committee without any special enforcement powers. As
in, "here are 3 people that the community considers trustworthy, if there
is a problem you can ask them for help".

Janek

>

[pkx166h_posteo.net, 2020-02-06 09:47:20]

Hello,

I am still struggling to understand the point of a COC for the LP 
project, other than some kind of ... what is the term ... virtue 
signalling or something that a project does *after* someone says 
something that happens to be offensive to someone else - which is just, 
life isn't it?

Really. What is the point?

Let's say we have a COC posted somewhere, then ... so what?

It doesn't stop me being an arse to someone, or them to me.
It doesn't stop me posting to the lists or even submitting patches.
It doesn't 'enforce' anything nor is it legally binding or has any kind 
of (real) consequence other than giving certain types of people a 
justification to impose their own sensitivities (or lack thereof) over 
the 'rest'.

What is the purpose? I don't get it.

All I can see that we've done here is waste (and I consider it a waste) 
time bikeshedding a document that just talks about 'how to be nice to 
people' and at the same time potentially worry one of our best 
developers because he might not happen to have all the social graces and 
just wants to 'get stuff done' but in doing so might offend someone with 
his terse emails.

Yes I have read the to me, empty discussion, but still have no idea what 
the point is.

---
Regards

James

[benko.pal, 2020-02-06 11:03:32]

Janek Warchoł <janek.lilypond@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2020.
febr. 6., Cs, 0:32):
>
> I'll try to speak only on the most pressing points to avoid bloating the
> discussion unnecessarily.
>
> I stopped contributing to LilyPond about 6 years ago. One cause of that
> change was that I got a job and suddenly had much less time. But it was not
> the only cause; it would have been possible for me to contribute at least a
> little. The reason I did not was that participating in the development had
> been too emotionally draining to endure. In my experience LilyPond has
> (used to have?) huge inertia (disproportionate to the size of the project).
> I mean (more or less, please consider this to be an approximation) that
> when I tried doing things that didn't clearly align with the views of a
> person with most authority (for the last few years David has been this
> person) I had felt *unwelcome* and my personal impression was that they
> were "blocked". It was very difficult to get some things done.

You seem to be impatient.  In late 2011 LilyPond broke my renaissance
scores (with a fix that uncovered decade old latent bugs --
assumptions that were false since long, though probably true when the
code was first written), and to get them right took me a _year_ of
issues, reviews, reversions, misunderstandings, messing up the
submission process and my breaking other people's scores several times
(to get just a glimpse, take a look at issue 2783).  I thought that my
patches were obviously trivial bug fixes, but to keep LilyPond
operational, I (or rather, we, with David and Keith) had to think
about the design, not only particular lines of code.  When my last
commit reached master in late 2012, it was quite different (and far
better) than when I first submitted it.  and the process taught me
that David is arguable and well worth respecting.

> Since David has more time available that many of us (who have a
> non-LilyPond job), and apparently limiting email volume is not a high
> priority for him.

I'd describe this as David taking great pains to express himself
unambiguously, knowing well the communication problems.

I'm inactive as contributor because renaissance notation is stable,
and when some rare need arises, I can handle them by user level scheme
coding.  a CoC wouldn't make me more willing to contribute.
Contributing to LilyPond is hard, because it's a complex piece of
software with a long and complex history; people most interested in it
are musicians.

Pal

[dak, 2020-02-06 13:38:47]

Benkő Pál <benko.pal@gmail.com> writes:

> Janek Warchoł <janek.lilypond@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2020.
> febr. 6., Cs, 0:32):
>>
>> I'll try to speak only on the most pressing points to avoid bloating the
>> discussion unnecessarily.
>>
>> I stopped contributing to LilyPond about 6 years ago. One cause of that
>> change was that I got a job and suddenly had much less time. But it was not
>> the only cause; it would have been possible for me to contribute at least a
>> little. The reason I did not was that participating in the development had
>> been too emotionally draining to endure. In my experience LilyPond has
>> (used to have?) huge inertia (disproportionate to the size of the project).
>> I mean (more or less, please consider this to be an approximation) that
>> when I tried doing things that didn't clearly align with the views of a
>> person with most authority (for the last few years David has been this
>> person) I had felt *unwelcome* and my personal impression was that they
>> were "blocked". It was very difficult to get some things done.
>
> You seem to be impatient.  In late 2011 LilyPond broke my renaissance
> scores (with a fix that uncovered decade old latent bugs --
> assumptions that were false since long, though probably true when the
> code was first written), and to get them right took me a _year_ of
> issues, reviews, reversions, misunderstandings, messing up the
> submission process and my breaking other people's scores several times
> (to get just a glimpse, take a look at issue 2783).  I thought that my
> patches were obviously trivial bug fixes, but to keep LilyPond
> operational, I (or rather, we, with David and Keith) had to think
> about the design, not only particular lines of code.  When my last
> commit reached master in late 2012, it was quite different (and far
> better) than when I first submitted it.  and the process taught me
> that David is arguable and well worth respecting.

Arguable and well worth respecting does not really help with regard to
the cost in emotional energy contributing has.  If the summary
impression is "David makes contributing to LilyPond a hair-pulling
nightmare but...", then for most people reading on after the "but" is
only worth their trouble if they are in a hair-pulling nightmare already
and need to get out of it.

So one proposal I read out of Janek's response that my output needs to
be throttled where discussions are involved and that I should likely
make it a habit not to respond to the same discussion thread more than,
say, twice daily and then in a summary response.

>> Since David has more time available that many of us (who have a
>> non-LilyPond job), and apparently limiting email volume is not a high
>> priority for him.
>
> I'd describe this as David taking great pains to express himself
> unambiguously, knowing well the communication problems.

That's a gracious way of putting it.  Another may be that I have
problems understanding or accepting that given the same premise and/or
data, people arrive at different conclusions.

> Contributing to LilyPond is hard, because it's a complex piece of
> software with a long and complex history; people most interested in it
> are musicians.

And there is a danger that they have too little time for being a
musician left once they immerse themselves into being a LilyPond
developer.  A number of contributors are restrained in their ability to
be a musician by having a day job; LilyPond may help them in their free
time working with music.  So it's not unusual for contributors to have
little overall time available.  And if the day job is already
emotionally draining, the hobby should probably not do the same.

So I get the problem but am obviously not overly successful at tackling
it.

-- 
David Kastrup

[benko.pal, 2020-02-06 14:08:39]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2020. febr. 6., Cs, 14:38):
>
> Benkő Pál <benko.pal@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Janek Warchoł <janek.lilypond@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2020.
> > febr. 6., Cs, 0:32):
> >>
> >> I'll try to speak only on the most pressing points to avoid bloating the
> >> discussion unnecessarily.
> >>
> >> I stopped contributing to LilyPond about 6 years ago. One cause of that
> >> change was that I got a job and suddenly had much less time. But it was
not
> >> the only cause; it would have been possible for me to contribute at least
a
> >> little. The reason I did not was that participating in the development had
> >> been too emotionally draining to endure. In my experience LilyPond has
> >> (used to have?) huge inertia (disproportionate to the size of the
project).
> >> I mean (more or less, please consider this to be an approximation) that
> >> when I tried doing things that didn't clearly align with the views of a
> >> person with most authority (for the last few years David has been this
> >> person) I had felt *unwelcome* and my personal impression was that they
> >> were "blocked". It was very difficult to get some things done.
> >
> > You seem to be impatient.  In late 2011 LilyPond broke my renaissance
> > scores (with a fix that uncovered decade old latent bugs --
> > assumptions that were false since long, though probably true when the
> > code was first written), and to get them right took me a _year_ of
> > issues, reviews, reversions, misunderstandings, messing up the
> > submission process and my breaking other people's scores several times
> > (to get just a glimpse, take a look at issue 2783).  I thought that my
> > patches were obviously trivial bug fixes, but to keep LilyPond
> > operational, I (or rather, we, with David and Keith) had to think
> > about the design, not only particular lines of code.  When my last
> > commit reached master in late 2012, it was quite different (and far
> > better) than when I first submitted it.  and the process taught me
> > that David is arguable and well worth respecting.
>
> Arguable and well worth respecting does not really help with regard to
> the cost in emotional energy contributing has.  If the summary
> impression is "David makes contributing to LilyPond a hair-pulling
> nightmare but...", then for most people reading on after the "but" is
> only worth their trouble if they are in a hair-pulling nightmare already
> and need to get out of it.

that year also taught me that difficulties in contributing to LilyPond
stem not from people but from the complexity of the problem, and we
can't expect contributors to see all those complexities.
I broke other people's score with the best intentions, and when they
complained, they did it most courteously by providing a Minimal
Example, which, at first sight, looked to me contortions made on
purpose to tease me.  they used LilyPond for notations I never dreamed
of, but to them those LilyPond features are much more important than
faking a Petrucci print.

[kieren_macmillan_sympatico.ca, 2020-02-06 14:40:22]

Hi James,

> I am still struggling to understand the point of a COC for the LP project,
other than some kind of ... what is the term ... virtue signalling or something
that a project does *after* someone says something that happens to be offensive
to someone else - which is just, life isn't it?
> Really. What is the point?

Disclaimer: I’m on the fence about having a CoC.

That being said, I think the point is this: if you *are* "being an arse to
someone", there is something concrete people can point to that says "you said
you wouldn’t be an arse". Does a "No Smoking" sign stop someone from smoking?
No. But it allows the police to write that person a ticket, and potentially
escalate if the person continues to contravene the "code".

> It doesn't 'enforce' anything nor is it legally binding or has any kind of
(real) consequence other than giving certain types of people a justification to
impose their own sensitivities (or lack thereof) over the 'rest'.

civ·il so·ci·e·ty, n.
	• society considered as a community of citizens linked by common interests and
collective activity.

> All I can see that we've done here is waste (and I consider it a waste) time
bikeshedding a document that just talks about 'how to be nice to people' and at
the same time potentially worry one of our best developers because he might not
happen to have all the social graces and just wants to 'get stuff done' but in
doing so might offend someone with his terse emails.

Actually, it seems like the discussion has caused that developer to rethink the
form, content, and frequency of his contributions to the list, with a potential
benefit of him being able to spend his considerable gifts and precious time
elsewhere (like actually coding). If nothing else, that made the discussion
worthwhile in my opinion.

There are, of course, many other benefits I’ve already seen — if you’re
interested in talking about them, but feel it’s not worth discussing on-list,
I’m happy to discuss it with you off-list.  =)

Regards,
Kieren.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: info@kierenmacmillan.info

[kieren_macmillan_sympatico.ca, 2020-02-06 14:46:03]

Hi Karlin,

> I've been following Lilypond mailing lists since 2016 or so. I'd
> describe my most common role as "entry-level tech support," answering
> the most basic mailing list questions so better-skilled people don't
> have to deal with them.

That "job" is going on my list.  :)

> I can point to the exact thread(s) that drew me into the Lilypond
> community. (keywords: mclaren prime tuplets) The outstanding feature
> to me was its handling of conflict.

I remember it well.

> In that thread, it was as if someone had read the Dale Carnegie "How
> To Win Friends and Influence People" book and then behaved the exact
> opposite of everything the book teaches.

Including mclaren.

The "mclaren prime tuplets" thread is *exactly* the one I’ve been thinking about
during this whole discussion: if we had had a reasonably-defined CoC document
and mechanism, I’m betting it would have diffused that situation well before it
spun out of control like it did. To my mind, that thread is the primary evidence
for the need for a CoC in the Lilypond community.

> For me, another big barrier to contributing is simply not knowing
> what's a good area to work on.

100%. I’m hoping my Giant Granular List of Every Lilypond Job will help in that
regard.

Cheers,
Kieren.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: info@kierenmacmillan.info

[dak, 2020-02-06 14:59:59]

Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmillan@sympatico.ca> writes:

> Hi James,
>
>> I am still struggling to understand the point of a COC for the LP
>> project, other than some kind of ... what is the term ... virtue
>> signalling or something that a project does *after* someone says
>> something that happens to be offensive to someone else - which is
>> just, life isn't it?
>> Really. What is the point?
>
> Disclaimer: I’m on the fence about having a CoC.
>
> That being said, I think the point is this: if you *are* "being an
> arse to someone", there is something concrete people can point to that
> says "you said you wouldn’t be an arse". Does a "No Smoking" sign stop
> someone from smoking? No. But it allows the police to write that
> person a ticket, and potentially escalate if the person continues to
> contravene the "code".

The problem with an approach focused on punishment and expulsion is that
it helps isolating and eventually ostracizing bad actors, limiting the
total damage they may cause.

Fortunately, that has not been a significantly problem on the LilyPond
mailing list.

Unfortunately, things are not all lilies and roses either, but
addressing that seems to call for a somewhat different angle of attack.
I have no good idea.

-- 
David Kastrup

[kieren_macmillan_sympatico.ca, 2020-02-06 15:06:05]

Hi David,

> The problem with an approach focused on punishment and expulsion is that
> it helps isolating and eventually ostracizing bad actors, limiting the
> total damage they may cause.

"Limiting the total damage they may cause" is a "problem"? You definitely have
me confused on that one.  ;)

If I might turn your comment to the contrapositive: The benefit with an approach
that includes the possibility for punishment and ultimately expulsion is that it
potentially provides corrective feedback for bad actors and limits the total
damage they may cause.

> I have no good idea.

One of the [so-far-unstated] goals of my Giant Hypergranular List of Jobs is to
address the same problem as the CoC from a different angle. We’ll have to wait
and see if it works out as I feel it could.

Cheers,
Kieren.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: info@kierenmacmillan.info

[dak, 2020-02-06 15:21:49]

Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmillan@sympatico.ca> writes:

> Hi David,
>
>> The problem with an approach focused on punishment and expulsion is that
>> it helps isolating and eventually ostracizing bad actors, limiting the
>> total damage they may cause.
>
> "Limiting the total damage they may cause" is a "problem"? You
> definitely have me confused on that one.  ;)

No, the problem is that this solution to the problems of bad actors
addresses a problem that we do not have to a relevant degree.  At least
I hope we can agree that my intent is not doling out damage to the
project.

So a solution focused on punishment does not work.  Punishment makes
sense for deliberately committed acts.

A committee to complain to also does not help against the problem of
rapid devolvement that Janek mentioned since it is just too late.

We'd need a web page for a large enough set of developers/users to
warrant speedy response where they can click a "Cool down, David" button
that sents an automatic mail to me and blocks submissions from me to the
respective list and/or topic until I have manually acknowledged having
gotten the mail and/or at least an hour(?) has passed.

In other word: to apply to the elephant in our interaction room
effectively, the "enforcement" mechanism would need to be quite
different.

> If I might turn your comment to the contrapositive: The benefit with
> an approach that includes the possibility for punishment and
> ultimately expulsion is that it potentially provides corrective
> feedback for bad actors and limits the total damage they may cause.
>
>> I have no good idea.
>
> One of the [so-far-unstated] goals of my Giant Hypergranular List of
> Jobs is to address the same problem as the CoC from a different
> angle. We’ll have to wait and see if it works out as I feel it could.
>
> Cheers,
> Kieren.
> ________________________________
>
> Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: info@kierenmacmillan.info
>
>

-- 
David Kastrup

[kieren_macmillan_sympatico.ca, 2020-02-06 15:27:33]

Hi David,

> No, the problem is that this solution to the problems of bad actors
> addresses a problem that we do not have to a relevant degree.  At least
> I hope we can agree that my intent is not doling out damage to the
> project.

Your original quote

>>> The problem with an approach focused on punishment and expulsion is that
>>> it helps isolating and eventually ostracizing bad actors, limiting the
>>> total damage they may cause.

doesn’t mention intent, and my response was based on that.

> So a solution focused on punishment does not work.
> Punishment makes sense for deliberately committed acts.

Having unintentionally upset my wife on many occasions, and having her punish me
as a result, I disagree strongly with both of those claims.  =)

> to apply to the elephant in our interaction room effectively,
> the "enforcement" mechanism would need to be quite different.

I’d rather hope (and firmly believe) that the combination of a CoC (or similar)
and several other related initiatives would make "enforcement" rare to the point
of vanishing.

Anyway, I’m off to teach for 5 hours and then music-direct for another 5, so
I’ll return to this thread tomorrow.

Best,
Kieren.
________________________________

Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his)
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: info@kierenmacmillan.info

[wl_gnu.org, 2020-02-06 15:28:00]

> I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him [David K.], if
> you think he is wrong.  Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_
> offending.

That's it.


    Werner

[dak, 2020-02-06 15:37:10]

Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> writes:

>> I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him [David K.], if
>> you think he is wrong.  Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_
>> offending.
>
> That's it.

But new contributors cannot be expected to know, and also it takes time
until the emotional response aligns with that knowledge.

It's good advice, like "stay away from that trapdoor in the kitchen
leading to the snake pit".  But it's still a kitchen layout that may
come unexpected.

-- 
David Kastrup

[james.lowe_posteo.net, 2020-02-06 20:09:33]

On 06/02/2020 15:37, David Kastrup wrote:
> Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him [David K.], if
>>> you think he is wrong.  Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_
>>> offending.
>> That's it.
> But new contributors cannot be expected to know, and also it takes time
> until the emotional response aligns with that knowledge.

That is not your responsibility. Nor should you have to care what others 
think about you. As far as I am concerned you've put in the hard hours, 
seem to know what you are talking about (coming from someone who is not 
a programmer) and frankly, stood up to the proverbial plate to 'own' the 
state of the LP project all those years back when I was still getting 
all my commits done by Graham.

Of course that doesn't give you the right to abuse someone, but having 
to temper your own personality just because someone doesn't know you is 
exhausting, I have had personal experience of this, and it can become a 
real disincentive to even bother to comment let alone give advice. In 
the end i just 'leave' the discussion or simply don't contribute and 
this for my 'day job' let alone something I do in my spare time for nothing!

Besides I would also assume that new contributors would at least have 
'checked out' what LP is all about and who is currently active and have 
read the lists to get an idea of things and would have already seen your 
(supposed offensive) emails.

>
> It's good advice, like "stay away from that trapdoor in the kitchen
> leading to the snake pit".  But it's still a kitchen layout that may
> come unexpected.
>
Goodness gracious!

Do all those who feel so positive about CoCs not see how that paragraph 
above is just so bloody soul destroying?

I don't need a document written by a committee of people that I have no 
say over (i.e. what we do in the real world) and done need to be told 
what I can say within the LP community. I already know how to be civil, 
whether my brand of civility is yours, is nothing I care about.

This is just 'Thought Police' by a different name or at the very least 
an exercise in tedious moral relativism.

Wow.. I didn't quite realise how opposed I was to CoCs until now and 
I've recently have a belly-full of being told that X is good because 
"...everyone else is doing it" or that Y is needed because ... "...well 
it's just 'easier' if we do it ..." without any real justification.

Apple carts unfortunately get upset once in a while. That is just life.

James

[dak, 2020-02-06 20:46:10]

James Lowe <james.lowe@posteo.net> writes:

> On 06/02/2020 15:37, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>>> I'd like to recommend that everyone argues with him [David K.], if
>>>> you think he is wrong.  Otherwise take his posts literal and _not_
>>>> offending.
>>> That's it.
>> But new contributors cannot be expected to know, and also it takes time
>> until the emotional response aligns with that knowledge.
>
> That is not your responsibility.

It's been my experience that patching a problem close to its source
tends to be most effective.

I am working on an Email signature that might be helping to convey the
message.  Appended manually here: I still have to check how to make this
automatic.

>> It's good advice, like "stay away from that trapdoor in the kitchen
>> leading to the snake pit".  But it's still a kitchen layout that may
>> come unexpected.
>>
> Goodness gracious!
>
> Do all those who feel so positive about CoCs not see how that
> paragraph above is just so bloody soul destroying?
>
> I don't need a document written by a committee of people that I have
> no say over (i.e. what we do in the real world) and done need to be
> told what I can say within the LP community. I already know how to be
> civil, whether my brand of civility is yours, is nothing I care about.
>
> This is just 'Thought Police' by a different name or at the very least
> an exercise in tedious moral relativism.

A Code of Conduct attempts to address a problem.  In the version we have
here, it provides a promise of recourse, enforcement and closure for
those negatively affected by someone's behavior.  That is a defensible
approach for deliberate offenses.  In my own case, it would either
ultimately lead to my removal, or the promise of recourse, enforcement
and closure would be hollow.  If changing myself was a workable option,
I'd bloody have brought this personality back to the store and gotten
myself a properly functioning one, sometime these last 50+ years.

Now at least we don't have to deal with the problem of myself being
intolerable specifically to demographic minorities.

I have siblings.  When the first of them presented future in-laws to the
rest of the family, there was a bit of a problem.  We called each other
names, tried to punch one another in passing, things like that.  The
in-laws thought we were moments before bringing out the knives and
couldn't understand what triggered the crisis.  While we were just
socialising.  It took some time to understand the problem and a lot more
time to ameliorate it, partly by changes in behavior, partly by others
learning to interpret it.

This kind of insider/outsider behavior difference does not work well for
open groups.  I appreciate the company of people who know to read me,
but it just cannot be taken for granted.

> Wow.. I didn't quite realise how opposed I was to CoCs until now and
> I've recently have a belly-full of being told that X is good because
> "...everyone else is doing it" or that Y is needed because
> ... "...well it's just 'easier' if we do it ..." without any real
> justification.
>
> Apple carts unfortunately get upset once in a while. That is just life.

Well, one can make them more robust, and that may be worth thinking
about.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies are known to frequently cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

[c_sorensen, 2020-02-06 20:56:47]

On 2/6/20, 1:46 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup"
<lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=byu.edu@gnu.org on behalf of dak@gnu.org>
wrote:

    >
    > Apple carts unfortunately get upset once in a while. That is just life.
    
    Well, one can make them more robust, and that may be worth thinking
    about.
    
    -- 
    David Kastrup
    My replies are known to frequently cause friction.  To help mitigating
    damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
    like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

One of the things that I really value about you, David, is that you are really
slow to take offense.  You are willing to have problems discussed openly, and
you are frequently willing to consider others' realities, not just your own.

I love the openness that your signature suggests.

I think that you are overstating things a little bit.  I recommend that if you
choose to use such a signature, it would be better to say "My replies are known
to sometimes cause friction.  This is unintentional.  To help mitigating...."

Of course, it's presumptuous of me to put words in your mouth.

Thanks,

Carl

    
    

[kieren_macmillan_sympatico.ca, 2020-02-06 21:41:23]

Hi James (et al.),

> Goodness gracious!
> Do all those who feel so positive about CoCs not see how that paragraph 
> above is just so bloody soul destroying?

No. Please explain.

> I don't need a document written by a committee of people that I have no 
> say over (i.e. what we do in the real world) and done need to be told 
> what I can say within the LP community. I already know how to be civil, 
> whether my brand of civility is yours, is nothing I care about.

I recently accompanied a few days of auditions for a new musical. The creators
and entire artistic panel were from Newfoundland, Canada. One actor came in
and,
just before singing, asked if she should “use a Newfie accent”. The rest of the
audition was a complete waste of time for her: once she had said "the 'N'
word",
there was literally zero chance of her getting the gig, or ever being called
back for any work by those creators or directors.

Was the panel too sensitive? Maybe to some people’s minds. That’s beside the
point. Here’s the point: I *guarantee* that if there had been a "Code of
Conduct", posted outside the audition room, which included something like "The
word 'Newfie' is deeply offensive to the people of Newfoundland; please do not
use it here.", that actor (a) wouldn’t have said it, and (b) would consequently
have had an excellent chance at getting the gig [because, as it turns out, she
is quite talented and did a great job in the audition, modulo the
'unforgivable'
offence].

I think it’s useful, kind, and helpful to offer advice to people entering an
unknown community on how they should expect to behave and be treated in that
community. It’s their prerogative to not join the community, either because of
the content of such a document or its very existence.

> I've recently have a belly-full of being told that X is good because 
> "...everyone else is doing it" or that Y is needed because ... "...well 
> it's just 'easier' if we do it ..." without any real justification.

We lost at least 30 [!!] person-years of extremely high-level programming
assistance because of the past tone in this community — yes, I can justify that
claim with concrete data — and we’re currently in danger of losing more,
indefinitely, because a few people in the community are unwilling to
collaborate
on a piece of prose which would offer that we try to be a welcoming community.

To my mind, that’s a real wasted opportunity, and sufficient justification to
at
least consider a CoC — a document which, for the record, I would have fell
afoul
of multiple times in the 17 [!!] years I’ve been posting.

> Apple carts unfortunately get upset once in a while. That is just life.

So if someone goes around regularly knocking over everyone’s cart —
intentionally or otherwise — and as a result drives the sellers with the best
apples to another village, there’s no benefit in trying to figure out a way to
direct the person’s energies to more constructive and less disruptive
purpose(s)? I’m sure glad the real world doesn’t work on that model.

Best regards,
Kieren.

[Karlin High, 2020-02-07 00:05:37]

On 2/6/2020 2:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> I am working on an Email signature that might be helping to convey the
> message.

Nice idea, but sometimes drawing attention to a problem only makes 
things worse. How about focusing on the success mode instead of the 
failure mode?

"
I aim to communicate with empathy. Have I failed? Reply "OUCH!"
"

I'm thinking along the lines of the "How's my driving? Call (phone)" 
stickers often seen on long-haul trucks in America.
-- 
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

[hanwenn, 2020-02-07 10:05:36]

On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:05 AM Karlin High <karlinhigh@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/6/2020 2:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> > I am working on an Email signature that might be helping to convey the
> > message.
>
> Nice idea, but sometimes drawing attention to a problem only makes
> things worse. How about focusing on the success mode instead of the
> failure mode?
>
> "
> I aim to communicate with empathy. Have I failed? Reply "OUCH!"
> "
>

I like this one better too.


-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanwenn@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

[hanwenn, 2020-02-07 10:14:24]

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:55 AM David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

> Thomas Morley <thomasmorley65@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > As an example look at the review of one of my own patches
> > https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043
> > Quoting dak:
> > "This looks like a total mess."
> > "Total waste of effort."
> > "Aaand another one."
>
> Ouch.  Fortunately in context this looks less dire ("Aaand another one."
> for example just means "And here is another thing I found after looking
> more carefully.").  Those sentences are part of a larger line-by-line
> review and more or less the cream of the crop.
>
>
When I do reviews, I often write similar things as well.

But then, before sending it back, I read over the reply once more. I then
change things like

  This is messy, you want to do X which is wrong.

to

  Have you tried Y instead? I think might make things cleaner.

This will get the same outcome coding-wise, but avoids treading on the ego
of the person on the other side.

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanwenn@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

[dak, 2020-02-07 11:07:00]

Karlin High <karlinhigh@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2/6/2020 2:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I am working on an Email signature that might be helping to convey the
>> message.
>
> Nice idea, but sometimes drawing attention to a problem only makes
> things worse. How about focusing on the success mode instead of the 
> failure mode?
>
> "
> I aim to communicate with empathy. Have I failed? Reply "OUCH!"
> "
>
> I'm thinking along the lines of the "How's my driving? Call (phone)"
> stickers often seen on long-haul trucks in America.

Well, it's sort of like a sign "I aim to speak in the Queen's English.
Have I failed?" on Eliza Doolittle's flower basket.  Those who'd be most
likely to take offense in the first place would feel rightfully
ridiculed as well.

-- 
David Kastrup

[dak, 2020-02-07 20:08:37]

Karlin High <karlinhigh@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2/6/2020 2:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I am working on an Email signature that might be helping to convey the
>> message.
>
> Nice idea, but sometimes drawing attention to a problem only makes
> things worse. How about focusing on the success mode instead of the 
> failure mode?
>
> "
> I aim to communicate with empathy. Have I failed? Reply "OUCH!"
> "
>
> I'm thinking along the lines of the "How's my driving? Call (phone)"
> stickers often seen on long-haul trucks in America.

Well, when the signature becomes relevant, that would likely appear akin
to an "I aim to speak the Queen's English" sign on a gorilla cage.  If
somebody is already rightfully upset, I don't want to give the
impression of making fun of them to boot.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".

[janek, 2020-02-08 22:57:13]

Because of significant disagreement, and to ensure that LilyPond contributors
don't feel pushed, I am hereby officially withdrawing this proposal. I apologize
for the disturbance caused by the way I have introduced this.

Maybe I'll submit a revised proposal, but if I do, I'll definitely start with a
discussion on the mailing list first.

[dak, 2020-02-08 23:31:45]

On 2020/02/08 22:57:13, janek wrote:
> Because of significant disagreement, and to ensure that LilyPond contributors
> don't feel pushed, I am hereby officially withdrawing this proposal. I
apologize
> for the disturbance caused by the way I have introduced this.
> 
> Maybe I'll submit a revised proposal, but if I do, I'll definitely start with
a
> discussion on the mailing list first.

I should apologize for my reaction here.  I need to learn to express "I don't
see how I could do the part required by me to make this work" in a manner
distinguishable from a preventive strike.  A skill that could have helped in a
few situations.

[janek, 2020-02-08 23:52:11]

niedz., 9 lut 2020 o 00:31 <dak@gnu.org> napisał(a):

> On 2020/02/08 22:57:13, janek wrote:
> > Because of significant disagreement, and to ensure that LilyPond
> contributors
> > don't feel pushed, I am hereby officially withdrawing this proposal. I
> apologize
> > for the disturbance caused by the way I have introduced this.
> >
> > Maybe I'll submit a revised proposal, but if I do, I'll definitely
> start with a
> > discussion on the mailing list first.
>
> I should apologize for my reaction here.  I need to learn to express "I
> don't see how I could do the part required by me to make this work" in a
> manner distinguishable from a preventive strike.  A skill that could
> have helped in a few situations.
>

Thank you, David, for this message. I appreciate it a lot!
"Apologize" is a magic word indeed; most of my irritation vanished after
reading your message and I feel we're part of the team again :-)

all the best,
Janek