Off the Beat: Bruce Byfield's Blog

Two years ago, I suggested that the free and open source software community could use a code of conduct to make conversations more polite and more constructive. My views haven't changed any, so I am delighted at Canonical Community Manager Jono Bacon's launching of OpenRespect.org that attempts to codify respectful conduct. My only concern is that the effort is already receiving some of the abuse that it attempts to counter.

The project home page starts with the declaration that "Our methods and opinions may differ, and our definitions of what constitutes freedom and openness may vary, but this united belief in freedom and openness remains the same." It then goes on to list five characteristics of respectful interaction: judging people only by the quality of what they say, civility, agreeing when necessary to disagree, debating constructively, and being sensitive to other people's feelings. The site also includes some guidelines about how to carry out these goals, as well as some web buttons you can use to show your support of the project.

Bacon explains that he created the site because, while the free software community has always been a place where full and open debate was the norm, "over the last few years I feel like the discussions have got a little heated and a little disrespectful. What is concerning me is that our community is going to be torn apart by this norm."

He observes, too, that many of those who are abusive online "immediately become more respectful" if you talk to them on the phone. "Their viewpoint didn't change, but their conduct changed, because the can hear there's a human being at the end of the line."

Bacon acknowledges that "there are communities where harsh and often overly critical discussions are commonplace" that still manage to be productive, such as the Linux kernel. However, he adds, "while it's possible for that to happen, I don't think it should be that way. I don't see why we should expect it.

"The free and open source software community reminds me of the two little dogs that I have in England. They'll be playing with a toy, and this toy will be too big for one of them to carry, so the two of them will each take one end of the toy in their mouths, then run together towards the end of the room. But then, halfway down, they'll get into an argument about the toy."

The point, Bacon emphasizes, is not to try to enforce the guidelines in any way, but "to socialize a set of views, in the same way that the Four [Software] Freedoms are designed to socialize a point of view -- it keeps at the fore of people's minds what's important. What I'd like to see it become is a common set of guidelines that people reference in disrespectful circumstances."

He adds that, "If I invested all my time and energy into OpenRespect, it could become a big thing that a lot of people use. But I don't have the time and energy to do more than I've already done. I think it may become viral, and will start to pick up, which I'd be happy with."

Suspicious Reactions

At first thought, you might imagine that nothing was wrong with this idea. It's well-meaning, constructive, and leaves people to their own judgment. You might think that no one could object to OpenRespect -- but you'd be wrong.

I'm not talking about critiques of the idea like Aaron Seigo's. Seigo makes some valid points about how the meaning of respect can differ with the community or culture. When questioned, Bacon could find nothing to disagree with in Seigo's comments, and they could easily go towards modifying or expanding the effort at defining respect. On Bacon's blog, he acknowledges the contribution of Jef Spaleta, an outspoken and articulate criticizer of Ubuntu and Canonical, so he could have little trouble absorbing Seigo's own helpful comments.

Rather, I'm talking about those who have responded, especially in comments on Bacon's blog, accusing him of founding OpenRespect as a way to deflect some of the heavy criticism that Ubuntu and Canonical have been receiving in the last few months. (http://www.jonobacon.org/2010/11/05/making-our-world-more-respectful/).

To the naively cynical -- those who believe, without any evidence that people always act from the worst of motives -- this idea may seem plausible. And Bacon does freely admit "that some of the unnecessary bickering may have inspired me to work on this. I wouldn't be a human being if it didn't."

However, Bacon refutes the claim by pointing out that "OpenRespect is something I've done in my spare time. It's got nothing to do with Canonical or my Ubuntu work. I'd agree [with the criticism] if Ubuntu was the only project receiving disrespectful criticism, but I don't believe for a second that we are. Many people have experienced this disrespectful sort of conduct in other parts of the community as well. I've seen it in GNOME, I've seen it in Ubuntu and KDE, and I've seen it in very upstream project."

In addition, Bacon's behavior helps to refute the accusation. If the only purpose of OpenRespect was a clever public relations campaign, then I suspect he would have retained control of it, instead of letting the project stand by itself. He even decided against seeking endorsements from community leaders, on the grounds that doing so would be a form of bullying.

Then, as I was writing this entry, one of the first pieces covering OpenRespect appeared. It suggests that Bacon himself showed disrespect by failing to consult as promised with Jared Smith, the Fedora Project Leader, and states that, as a Canonical employee, Bacon is too self-interested to credibly lead such a project.

Such responses seem to me a textbook case of the difficulties of trying to change longstanding behavior. Given the sort of abuse that OpenRespect is trying to change, the very effort to change can only be interpreted by those involved as a clever tactic in the ongoing exchange. The idea that anyone might genuinely want change simply cannot be accepted by some at face value.

Never mind that, if you look at Bacon's blog and past activities, this is not the first time that he voiced such concerns -- and that he has never acted before as nothing more than a corporate mouthpiece. At the risk of being dismissed as a naive dupe myself, I have little doubt after talking to him that he is sincere.

If so, then, it would be a said irony if OpenRespect was dismissed by the very incivility that it is trying to overcome. No matter what the source of the message, the plea for greater respect is one that large segments of the free software community needs to ponder.

Comments