GNOME finalizes its speaker guidelines

Various free software communities, from distributions to individual software projects, have codes of conduct that are meant to govern the behavior of their members, at least in the projects' common areas. The intent is to reduce friction—flamewars and other unproductive communication—between project participants and to present a more welcoming face to newcomers. The GNOME project has a code of conduct that it has been discussing for some time; more recently it has also taken up guidelines for speakers at GNOME conferences.

Based on the discussion, it seems clear that Richard Stallman's keynote at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit (GCDS) was one of the main reasons that some felt speaker guidelines were needed. His talk ended with a segment about "Emacs virgins" (or the "Saint IGNUcius comedy routine" as Stallman calls it) that was considered to be sexist and thus offensive by some in the community. Stallman has been reprising that particular bit for many years, and he, at least, doesn't see it as sexist. But it certainly offended some, and set off a firestorm of controversy last July.

Sometime after that, concerned folks contacted the GNOME Foundation board to see what could be done to try to prevent that kind of thing from happening again. As part of that effort, Matthew Garrett drafted guidelines, Murray Cumming "improved the wording", and Vincent Untz posted a link to the guidelines for discussion back in March.

That earlier draft was a bit different than the current, adopted version, but quite similar in spirit. In the discussion back in March, there was some wordsmithing about the "Dealing With Problems" section, but the draft was mostly well-received. Stallman, though, had a concern that the guidelines were overbroad:

Stallman noted that part of his GCDS talk was about the riskiness of using C#, but Sandy Armstrong was quick to point out that the guidelines were aimed at a different part of his presentation:

The discussion tailed off at that point, but was rekindled when Untz announced the final guidelines. Complaints about the guidelines seem to break down into two basic categories: that the rules are too vague, much as Stallman argued in March, or that they constitute "censorship" of speakers. While, strictly speaking, it may not be "censorship" (depending on which of the many definitions is used), it is certainly meant to steer speakers away from certain topics—those that might offend the audience or community.

Patryk Zawadzki doesn't like the vagueness, but thinks that there are other ways to address the problem:

The guidelines are somewhat vague, but that is done on purpose:

There are six separate guidelines listed, some of which are, or should be, pretty obvious, for example: "Avoid things likely to offend some people. Your presentation content should be suitable for viewing by a wide range of audiences so avoid slides containing sexual imagery, violence or gratuitous swearing." Others, though, try to cut to the heart of the issue and, instead of proscribing conduct or topics, provide overarching advice:

Stallman's earlier concern was addressed in the revision process, and he is firmly behind the guidelines: "If the community wants these guidelines, I support them." While the particulars of the GCDS keynote kept popping up in the discussion, it's clear that only a few really want to continue that particular debate. As Brian Cameron put it in a message worth reading in its entirety:

There is something of a sense of resignation to the fact that a policy like this is needed. But, as Cameron noted, the board has been criticized for how quickly and effectively it has responded to offensive presentations in the past. The guidelines provide a solid footing for any action the board may wish to take in the future; one possibility is explicitly mentioned: "Furthermore, if necessary, the GNOME Foundation might publicly distance itself from your opinions." Michael Meeks summed up the situation well:

The final "Dealing With Problems" section is the part of the document that has drawn most of the comments this time around. Joanmarie Diggs is concerned that parts of that section are "neither 'positive' nor 'welcoming' to would-be speakers". In particular, the "disclaimer" paragraph, which is meant to head off anticipated complaints, may be reworked. There seems to be a consensus that changes are needed in that section, though it's not clear whether it should be expanded to fill in the gaps, reworked in more welcoming terms, or eliminated entirely. As Cameron said, the guidelines will likely be a "living document", and if there are problems with it, changes will be made.

While there is no specific enforcement language in the document ("Enforcement is subject to the judgment of the session overseer"), Garrett, at least, sees that as a possible hole. His original draft "suggested that event runners be able to stop presentations if they felt they were gratuitously in breach of the guidelines", but that was contentious and was removed. He is concerned that "guidelines mean little without enforcement", but does see the current language as a reasonable compromise. As he notes, there are those who will find the current watered-down version to be too intrusive, so something of a balance has been struck between the needs of speakers and their audiences.

There have been plenty of examples of presentations made at free software conferences that offended some subset of their audience. As it is unlikely that the speakers set out to do that, guidelines like these will be helpful to speakers by making them at least stop and think about their words and imagery. That is likely to lead to better presentations and happier audiences, which can only be a good thing.