As for your last paragraph, it’s necessary to enumerate gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability, and maybe other traits because when we *don’t* enumerate them, lots of people believe it’s okay to harass women, trans people, queer people, people of color, non-Christian people (or possibly, in tech circles, people who have any serious religious views whatsoever), and disabled people. We don’t live in a world where when we say “respect”, we can afford to assume that our audience knows we mean to include all of the people in all of those groups. So we have to make it clear.

As to sending a clear message, that is done through the statement I offered (that the organizers reserve the right to remove people), combined with a demonstrated willingness to follow through. That’s what’s most important, I think, and what’s been missing: the organizers actually taking action when it’s necessary. This includes the people who select the talks (and I’ve been on that end of it for OSCON), and the people during the conference: they need to step in when something is inappropriate, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen that done during the conference, and (in years past) I saw many people allow talks to get through I thought were inappropriate.

If we just have a statement that respectfulness is required, and lack of it enforced, I think that’s enough. Whether some people “feel” they need more isn’t really evidence, to me, that we do need more. By that standard, we should do anything that any community “feels” they need.

Lastly, I don’t think the “CoC” should include political views: I think picking and choosing which characteristics about people that we will deem “protected” is entirely wrongheaded. You can always add more to it, but in the meantime, those things you might want to add later will be “unprotected.” Better to not enumerate them in the first place, IMO, even if we are to have a “CoC.” For example, say: “[YOUR ORGANIZATION] believes our community should be truly open for everyone. As such, we are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all people, regardless of personal characteristics.”

Even more obviously (to me), how about, instead of: “Harassment includes: offensive verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability …”, just having “Harassment includes: offensive verbal comments …”?

At no point in my post did I call any group of people “assholes” or “evil.” Moreover, the last section of my post does not refer to people who are simply uninformed about this issues. It refers those who have been presented with ample evidence that harassment occurs yet continue to deny it exists or is a problem.

The code of conduct doesn’t currently included political views and maybe it should.

I think OSCON actually did a better job of that this year in that one of their main evening activities was a carnival (there was alcohol, but it wasn’t the main focus).

This seems simple to me: if someone is acting inappropriately, conference organizers pull them aside and ask them to stop. If they continue, they are removed. There’s nothing you need a “CoC” for.

I could go on about how I disagree with you on some major points: such as, I have never seen an example of how censorship of ideas has ever prevented harm being done to any vulnerable (adult) population. Children are a special case; I think censoring hate speech is wrong (and in the U.S., usually unconstitutional) and solves no problem; and we actually don’t “censor” incitement, as incitement is an act distinct from the speech used as the medium of the incitement.

Plus, I could point out that none of this has anything whatsoever to do with a tech conference, because that is all about government force, which actually then brings me back to agreement with you: there’s nothing wrong with a tech conference, or ANY private group in a private place, saying what must, or cannot, be expressed. If OSCON wants me to pledge fealty to the Nazi Party in order to attend, that’s their right, and it’s my right to not attend.

But it’s so much simpler than this: all OSCON needs to say is, “be respectful of other conference attendees” and “O’Reilly reserves the right to ask anyone to leave for conduct that, in O’Reilly’s judgment, is contrary to purpose of the conference and the best interests of the attendees.”

That’s it. Why do we need more? Your “CoC” is far too specific and far too limiting. You can’t come up with everything, so why bother trying? And even what’s said in those two sentences is unnecessary: they simply serve as a reminder. And why is anything more than that needed?

I have a real philosophical problem with breaking out your preferred protected classes of people for protection. I’m a Christian and a Republican; is someone allowed to use offensive verbal comments about Republicans, or are the only excluded from doing so about Christians?

Again: why not just say to “be respectful”? Nothing you write in the “CoC” isn’t covered by that. What are you trying to accomplish beyond that simple phrase? Is it to put pressure on the conference organizers to enforce it, rather than to give them the tools to do so? Or is it to push an agenda that specific classes of people should be protected? Or is it because like many tech people (myself included), you have a tendency toward overengineering? Or is it that you just don’t think much of the participants, that “be respectful” isn’t clear enough?

I am not implying an answer; I honestly don’t have any idea. I tend to think it’s probably the penultimate answer, because I see tech people overengineering things just about every day.

However, I think you are being a bit confrontational with people who have difficulties with the code of conduct. Yes, there are chauvenist (and other -ist) assholes out there who will complain, and if those people are unhappy, that’s fine.

But there are also regular folks who will read the language of the CoC as saying something different from what you intended. There are also people who have never personally witnessed discrimination and inappropriate behavior at OSS events, and don’t understand why CoCs are necessary. You don’t help persuade those folks by lumping them together with the assholes in your blog post.

I appreciate your exasperation, but please remember that we win by persuading people to behave better … not by telling them they’re evil. OSB has done a great job of persuading in the CoC; please do the same in your blog.