GNOME ponders its code of conduct [LWN.net]

By Jake Edge
December 16, 2009

A wide-ranging discussion on the GNOME Foundation mailing list got rather heated at times, but touched on a number of different problems that many projects struggle with. The GNOME code of conduct (CoC) and how to keep the project's communication channels free of inappropriate content—including flamefests—was the topic, which makes it fairly ironic that a sub-thread descended into flames. While there was talk of voting on whether GNOME should leave the GNU project, cooler heads seem to have prevailed, so any vote on that is unlikely. The negative publicity that resulted from that proposal, however, led to suggestions that the mailing list cease being public—or that a private list be created—essentially keeping some portion of the foundation's discussion of its business out of the public eye.

The discussion sprung out of some complaints that the foundation board got about an inappropriate blog posting from a community member. Since many blogs of community members are aggregated on Planet GNOME (aka pgo), which is run by the project, inappropriate content could chase contributors away or reflect badly on the project. But the roots of the concern go back further than that. It was brought up by foundation member Dave Neary back in May, but it certainly wasn't new then either:

I have talked to too many people who don't read pgo, or have turned off individual blogs, don't use IRC any more, or avoid certain mailing lists, because they are unhappy with the tone & content of discussions & posts. If someone is behaving in a way which is negatively affecting a significant portion of the GNOME community, the board should be the place to go where you can complain, and have your complaint publicly recorded (in the minutes of a board meeting, for example) with anonymity, investigated and evaluated, and if necessary, have the guilty party censured and/or punished. Currently, this social policing role has been completely ignored by the foundation and its leaders.

Not surprisingly, there are mixed feelings about having a "policing" role for the board. But, any kind of solution to the problem requires an understanding of what "inappropriate" means, and that's where the CoC comes into play. The code itself is pretty general, listing four things that community members should strive for:

Be respectful and considerate
Be patient and generous
Assume people mean well
Try to be concise

The overall intent is summarized in the code: "GNOME creates software for a better world. We achieve this by behaving well towards each other." Also unsurprisingly there seems to be little disagreement about the contents of the code, at least until some kind of enforcement enters the picture.

In November, partially as a response to the problem reported to the board, board member Lucas Rocha proposed that the CoC become "an official document that new Foundation members are expected to explicitly agree with before being accepted". But the CoC explicitly states that there is no "official enforcement of these principles", so it doesn't sit well with some that folks could just agree without there being a way to do something if they fail to follow it. Others, of course, complain that the CoC is far too vague to serve as any kind of guide for punishing violations. There are also those who think the problem is small enough that it could be handled on an ad hoc basis by the pgo editors, as Philip Van Hoof suggested:

My opinion is that incidents like this can be better managed by asking the maintainers of the planet to do editorial control, and to not shun away from skipping blog posts.

I think this could use some guidelines (for both the bloggers and the planet maintainers who for example could inform the blogger about their decision, allow the blogger to adapt his text, etc).

Others are concerned that GNOME is losing community members because of the tone and content of Planet GNOME, mailing lists, and other channels. Would a more formal enforcement section of the CoC—like the one proposed (and later withdrawn) by Jason D. Clinton—actually help keep those members? Or would it just lead to a different set becoming disgruntled with the "rules" and leaving because of that? Those are difficult questions to answer. It is also unclear how many people have been put off by inappropriate behavior rather than having left because their interests or employment changed.

Most seemed to be reasonably comfortable with enforcement being left as it is. There are some obvious problems—porn or spam were mentioned—that will be dealt with immediately, any others will be left to the discretion of pgo editors, community members in mailing list threads, and/or the board.

For Planet GNOME, though, there is a great deal of content that falls well within the CoC, but might be objectionable for other reasons. The site is set up to be "a window into the world, work and lives of GNOME hackers and contributors", but some are not that thrilled with non-GNOME content being posted there. There was discussion of various technical measures that could be taken: getting bloggers to limit their pgo aggregation to posts with certain tags, adding some kind of voting system to pgo that would raise and lower the visibility of posts based on their popularity, and so on.

Many current and former GNOME contributors post about their work on their blog and sometimes those posts refer to non-free software they are working on. That seems perfectly in keeping with the stated mission of pgo, but it didn't sit well with Richard Stallman: "GNOME should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing." He suggested several different options for how he thought the project should discourage those kinds of postings. That set off a firestorm.

Stallman is strident, and steadfast, in his opposition to non-free software—something that should surprise no one—but he tends to be generally polite in his email. Those who were upset by his suggestions were rather less so. Their position is that the Planet is following its mission and that none of its content is endorsed by the project. David "Lefty" Schlesinger put it this way:

Planet GNOME is not presenting anything as anything. It does not have an editorial stance to espouse, nor a political position to promote. It's about people, not polemics.

Stallman disagreed, noting: "What it says [has] a substantial effect on what people think GNOME is all about." Eventually, Van Hoof proposed a vote on GNOME's membership in the GNU project, because he believes that GNOME members do not agree with Stallman:

I understand your position. I think you might not understand the position of a lot of GNOME foundation members and contributors.

Their position isn't necessarily compatible with your position that GNOME should "avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate".

Van Hoof eventually withdrew the proposal for lack of support, along with a recognition that GNOME's membership in GNU is largely symbolic. When Behdad Esfahbod pointed to the criteria for GNU software, Luis Villa noted that "we've always ignored about 90% of this page with no ill effects for either us or GNU." GNOME and GNU have broadly similar goals, but overall are not closely aligned. Villa continued:

Which is really my position on the whole thing: the adults in this project have always treated requests from GNU the same way we treat requests from any other community member- if it makes sense, we do it; if it doesn't make sense, we ignore it.

The proposal to leave the GNU project did hit Slashdot and other outlets, though, which was seen as a bit of negative publicity the project could just as soon do without. Esfahbod proposed closing the mailing list to members only, but later amended that to propose creating a new private list. The consensus seems to be against the proposal, citing decision-making transparency as a desirable feature for GNOME. Murray Cumming pointed out that hiding the discussions will not solve the problem:

You cannot stop silliness on the internet. If you try to hide things then you'll just make the hidden information seem even more interesting and you'll have to argue with random unrepresentative public statements without the benefit of pointing people to the archives for the facts.

Supporters of the idea point out that other projects do have some private lists, and that allowing non-members to post can just derail the conversation—much as Stallman and others did. Clinton describes the need for a private list as follows:

This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not about keeping secrets. It doesn't matter if someone leaks the discussion; in fact, we should always behave on -private as though it could and should happen. It objective is to cohesively attain consensus amongst ourselves without constant, distracting nit-picking by others whose weight of opinion is not as equal as ours.

One worry is that either all the conversations would migrate to the private list, reducing the transparency of the project, or that all would stay on the public list, which would make the new list moot. Sometimes projects need to struggle with issues, doing so in the open may not make for the best press, but it may make for the best decisions. As Miguel de Icaza put it:

Raw community discussion is like a kitchen, it might not be pretty, but what counts is the result. We should be proud of the software that we create, how we got there, and the fact that we have nothing to hide.

This is not the first time GNOME has struggled with some of these issues, nor is it likely to be the last. There is much for other projects to consider here: content of aggregation sites, codes of conduct and what to do if they are violated, project transparency, and so forth. We are lucky in many ways that GNOME did have these discussions in the open. Other projects may make other decisions based on what has been discussed here, but the recent threads certainly will provide much in the way of food for thought as those decisions are being made.

(Log in to post comments)

GNOME ponders its code of conduct

Posted Dec 17, 2009 8:21 UTC (Thu) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]

It did look as if Lefty was the primary mover of the anti-RMS sentiment. I can't say as I see the point.

GNOME ponders its code of conduct

Posted Dec 17, 2009 8:57 UTC (Thu) by AlexHudson (subscriber, #41828) [Link]

More fodder for his blog to complain about it:

http://www.boycott-boycottnovell.com/index.php/the-news/9...

Notice he writes about it as if a bystander to the discussion.

Sad, really - rather than highlight the nonsense that well-known web sites peddle about GNOME etc., he's instead joined their ranks on the opposite side - just another #BoycottBoy.

GNOME ponders its code of conduct

Posted Dec 17, 2009 9:25 UTC (Thu) by kragil (subscriber, #34373) [Link]

Yeah Lefty really does not get the FOSS community.

It is just a fact that we have two groups, open source people that think open source is superior in many ways and the best development model and then we have free software people that will not use proprietary software for reasons RMS points out.
Lefty hates free software people although they serve a very important purpose in our community.
Who else is going to use and improve unfinished buggy and inferior software just because it is their believe that everything else is no option?
When that software becomes featurefull and usable the OSS people will gladly use it, which is OK, but then don't attack the free software people for their believe in free software.

And besides I personally think he really is an unpleasant fella on a crusade and if PGO needs moderation it is his posts (which also include false anti Android propaganda and Access spam)

GNOME ponders its code of conduct

Posted Dec 17, 2009 12:06 UTC (Thu) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]

He was hurt in the past and then turned into this anti-anti boycott person. Since then Lefty's communications are precisely what the Gnome CoC says you shouldn't do. "Be respectful and considerate, Be patient and generous, Assume people mean well, Try to be concise." But say Respectful the rules, Free Software, FSF, GNU, etc. in front of him and he will explode.

But that is also the hard part. Clearly something went wrong with the communication in the past. Someone's feelings were hurt really badly. Now what? Just tell them "be the bigger person", follow these rules of respect for each other even though you feel others weren't following them in the past when talking to or about you? Could you do that?

GNOME ponders its code of conduct

Posted Dec 17, 2009 18:07 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

I ran into Lefty at a community summit out here a while back, and his emotional state was really high. He explained his beef with RMS with a cry in his voice, I kid you not. When I was less than sympathetic, he practically ran out of the room in tears.

Now, I am no stranger to getting emotional about things. But I've learned that it doesn't generally help me win the argument.

He really needs to focus on ACCESS, which, IMO, is a sinking ship. RMS isn't the big problem in front of him.

GNOME ponders its code of conduct

Posted Dec 19, 2009 18:20 UTC (Sat) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link]

Sigh. It's the holiday season, and while I'm not sure what Bruce is
attempting to accomplish with an otherwise content-free personal
attack like this, let me try to be charitable.

When I went to the Community Leadership Summit, I fell into a
conversation with Kirrily Robert, Dave Neary and several others about the
events at GCDS. Bruce joined us, at which point it became impossible for
anyone else to manage to complete a sentence without being interrupted.

Bruce explained to usat us, actuallyat some significant length, that Mr.
Stallman has undiagnosed Asperger's Syndrome, that he was "incapable of
apologizing", and that the order-of-magnitude lower level of participation
by women in community-based software development versus proprietary
wasn't indicative of any sort of a problem at all.

These are pretty much the same statements he made here on LWN when
the discussion here turned to Stallman's GCDS keynote. They earned him
some significant criticism here, and they served him no better at the
Leadership Summit.

Since the conversation had turned at that point into a lecture from Bruce,
and one which was becoming increasingly unrewarding, Ialong with
Kirrily, Dave and several of the others who had been in conversationgave
up and left the room to seek more worthwhile pursuits. No one "ran", no
one was "in tears".

If I'm passionate about attempting to point out and address the problems
that I see in our community, like sexism, like attempts at imposed "group
think", I don't apologize for that. It's unfortunate thatrather than
responding to the issues themselvesothers are as passionate in
"attacking the messenger" to shame and harass those who do see these
things as problems into silence and sweep such issues under the rug.

GNOME ponders its code of conduct

Posted Dec 20, 2009 0:53 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

David, I am really really sorry, but most of what you are relating is from the online conversation at LWN, not our personal conversation at the summit. I fear that you are confabulating. I am sorry and horrified.

And you are writing for a site called boycott-boycott-novell???

IMO very sincerely it isn't healthy. Take a break.

I am on a PDA-only connection for now and will not engage in this further, but anyway I have said all I should ever say about this. I hope you find a way out of it.

Bruce

GNOME ponders its code of conduct

Posted Dec 19, 2009 23:44 UTC (Sat) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link]

While that's a nice polemical effort to turn the discussion away from the
issue and onto a free-form attack on me personally, it makes little sense,
at least unless Philip van Hoof, who was the first (but far from the last) to
raise objections to RMS' "suggestions", is also part of this conspiracy you
feel you see.

In any case, your use of the term "jihad" is both accurate and inappropriate
here. I'm sure any Muslim readers will be kind enough to attribute your
(mis)use of it in this context to ignorance rather than bigotry, as do I.

This is not about Richard Stallman, except insofar as he's the one who's
attempted to impose his version of "approved group think" on Planet
GNOME; I'd have been equally averse to such a suggestion no matter from
whom it came. I'm in favor of freedom of expression, and dislike attempts
to exercise prior restraint on me or on the other contributors to the Planet.

Again, I'm far from unique in this reaction.

(Aren't we overdue for a revision of Godwin's Law...?)

you need to understand Schlesinger aka 'stonemirror' and his long history...

Posted Dec 19, 2009 19:29 UTC (Sat) by SandalFoan (guest, #62580) [Link]

David "Lefty" Schlesinger aka 'stonemirror the great and terrible' (his own chosen appellation) has been behaving in a vicious and literally demented manner online and in person since at least 1996, when he began his long career of legal threats, threats of violence, defamatory websites and general stalking and abuse - began with the stalking of Kathy Sutphen, which is well documented. Lefty has also written hideously sexist articles for the notorious troll site 'encyclopedia dramatica', and this is documented as his work beyond any doubt.

QUOTE

Stone Mirror aka David Lefty Schlesinger
to me
show details Oct 3 (10 days ago)

These messages were sent while you were offline.

2:01 PM
Stone: dont be a ninny, no ones trying to fuse Linux with Microsoft. thats paranoid rhetoric, but coming from a mental case such as yourself, its not surprising.

Groklaw is taking much abuse for their stance, as can be seen in the comments. Bad move on PJs part.
2:04 PM
Do you happen to know Celeste Lyn Paul.? Shes the head of the KDE Foundation Board
2:05 PM
She was in the audience at GCDS and tweeted her dismay at Stallmans bit of harmless fun while it was happening

May you know Stormy Peters?

Shes the Executive Director of the GNOME Foundation.
2:06 PM
she was there, too, and not happy, either.

itll be interesting if Dr. Stallman finds himself blacklisted from both KDE and GNOME events in the future, wont it?

UNQUOTE

documented evidence, mainly from his own emails and blogs, of David Lefty Schlesinger (he is an ACCESS employee) and his long career of illegal and menacing threats, stalking, harassment and blackmail.

here:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4902686590059408...

and here:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4902686590059408...

Lefty has written heinously sexist troll articles for the notorious troll site encyclopediadramatica.com.

I try to stop a bit short of full-blown monster-hood. David Lefty Schlesinger aka stonemirror

there is more evidence here, much much more. RMS has examined it personally, and he encouraged it as a complaint to the Gnome Foundation. He found it all credible and well evidenced, especially the abusive, defamatory websites that Lefty maintains for years on end over the slightest grudge, and in self admitted defiance of the DMCA. Lefty is also in his own emails and blogs (verified by whois and headers) actually blackmailing people over alleged sexual images he claims to have, which if they exist, were never public in any fashion.

GreyGeek
Global Moderator
Kubuntu Overload

Offline

Posts: 1424

He's proof that you are never too old to use Linux

Re: David Lefty Schlesinger aka 'stonemirror'
« Sent to: sandala lafoan on: December 12, 2009, 02:44:27 pm »
« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »

Yup, I've read about it most of it. Are you the book seller that he had a quarrel with? Most of the pages from his old "stonemirror" website are still in the WayBack machine, where one can read his taunting of the mentally ill, etc..... But, I try to stay away from the more gross stuff because most people wouldn't believe it even if you sent them the WayBack URL's.

GreyGeek
Global Moderator
Kubuntu Overload

Offline

Posts: 1424

He's proof that you are never too old to use Linux

Re: David Lefty Schlesinger aka 'stonemirror'
« Sent to: sandala lafoan on: December 12, 2009, 02:29:34 pm »
« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »

I've done an extensive investigation into "stonemirror" and the acolytes which populate his blog. You haven't seen the worse. "Lefty" exploited the "Linux isn't woman friendly" blowup a couple months ago in order to push MONO by trying to label those apposed to MONO (and thus Microsoft's API) on Linux as being "sexist". Those who were crying crocodile tears over RMS or Shuttlesworth's "sexist" comments have made identical jokes or statements themselves in times past. The "proof" often given is that 26-30% of corporate coders are women but "only 2%" of Linux coders are women, ergo Linux supporters are "sexist". However, they claim, since most .NET/MONO developers are corporate related, MONO is not sexist. It can be shown that 80% of graduates from Computer Science programs are women.. For just the 2.6.30 kernel alone there were 1,150 coders from 240 companies contributing code. IF the it is corporate policy to employ as many women as possible then roughly 250 of those coders should be women, but they are not. Whose fault is that? It's certainly not because Linux is "sexist". What it does prove is that the "sexist" charge is being used by pro MONO people to belittle the traditional Linux community to make it easier to subvert the Linux API from C, C++, GLib, GTK and Qt4 to C# and MONO.

Some of the MONO supporters bait those who do not support MONO with private messages, which they quote in public blogs, out of context, in attempts to discredit those who appose MONO.

GreyGeek
Global Moderator
Kubuntu Overload

Offline

Posts: 1424

He's proof that you are never too old to use Linux

Re: David Lefty Schlesinger aka 'stonemirror'
« Sent to: sandala lafoan on: December 12, 2009, 04:12:55 pm »
« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »

It's a "Lefty" trademark to threaten to sue people he's had online fights with. I suspect he sends out pseudo legal letters from "lawyers" to further the intimidation.

One of his current web pages is http://stonemirror.wordpress.com/, which also contains links to a theme he apparently has brought back out of retirement: Marsupials. On his front page he is posting attacks against "LiveJournal", which used to host his website but expelled him.

On the Marsupials page he's continuing his ranting at a variety of people, like "Mikey", and on a variety of topics.

Stop.

Posted Dec 19, 2009 22:14 UTC (Sat) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

There will be no more of this here. I am getting tired of people using LWN to throw darts at each other. Can we please put an end to it now?

Stop.

Posted Dec 19, 2009 23:07 UTC (Sat) by SandalFoan (guest, #62580) [Link]

and now censorship? that is not healthy at all.

Stop.

Posted Dec 19, 2009 23:09 UTC (Sat) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

Your catfight does not belong here. I left your original comment despite the fact that it's the kind of thing that leads to encounters with the courts because censorship is very much not our thing. But you have been asked to stop, and I will enforce that. LWN is not the place for that kind of thing.

truth

Posted Dec 19, 2009 23:24 UTC (Sat) by SandalFoan (guest, #62580) [Link]

the truth, evidenced by hard facts, is absolute defense against any accusation of libel.

read the man's own words, on his own websites and blogs and emails.

I rest my case, and this is not a 'catfight', it is a demand for some justice for the people he has harmed.