Many of the people who *work* (as you rightly pointed out) in those "communities" may not be there of their own volition, but may have been pressured to join various workflows and/or events because of their occupation.
As such, the idea that there would be a "shared set of behavioural expectations" which is somehow distinct from society is problematic. I believe this is an aspect which merits a bit more consideration of your part.
You should, at the very least, properly define what "community" and "membership" means. (E.g., being a "Debian developer" is a clear thing, and Debian is very disciplined about who holds which powers. This has a huge cost—much higher than "just adopting a CoC"—but also builds legitimacy.)
Your tweet was advocating "disciplining" members. (Your post, at least, is a bit tamer.) That word in particular is why I am reacting to your write-up; I think there is enough authoritarian talk around without you adding to it.
I know of only one case where we accept that people be involuntarily placed under the authority of a system which can discipline them, and that's citizenship. Everything else must be a *contract*, and fully voluntary—or the authority is fundamentally illegitimate.
(Note that I fully support reporting "cases" to judicial authorities, and finding ways of improving the judiciary. I fully agree that police forces must be fully held accountable for their use of their vested authority. I am also happy when the likes of Weinstein are forced to reconsider their position by a lucky turn of events—but we must still consider that a temporary fix rather than an "independent justice which works.")
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: "Discipline"? "Members"? What kind of "community" are you talking about?
Date: 2017-12-21 12:32 pm (UTC)As such, the idea that there would be a "shared set of behavioural expectations" which is somehow distinct from society is problematic. I believe this is an aspect which merits a bit more consideration of your part.
You should, at the very least, properly define what "community" and "membership" means. (E.g., being a "Debian developer" is a clear thing, and Debian is very disciplined about who holds which powers. This has a huge cost—much higher than "just adopting a CoC"—but also builds legitimacy.)
Your tweet was advocating "disciplining" members. (Your post, at least, is a bit tamer.) That word in particular is why I am reacting to your write-up; I think there is enough authoritarian talk around without you adding to it.
I know of only one case where we accept that people be involuntarily placed under the authority of a system which can discipline them, and that's citizenship. Everything else must be a *contract*, and fully voluntary—or the authority is fundamentally illegitimate.
(Note that I fully support reporting "cases" to judicial authorities, and finding ways of improving the judiciary. I fully agree that police forces must be fully held accountable for their use of their vested authority. I am also happy when the likes of Weinstein are forced to reconsider their position by a lucky turn of events—but we must still consider that a temporary fix rather than an "independent justice which works.")