SIPB Social Principles

SIPB is an awesome place for interacting with computers, but there are
people here too! Sometimes though, the line between these gets blurred
in our heads, and we end up interacting with people like they are
machines, which results in a sour experience for all parties involved.
So, we've come up with a set of core principles that we feel is
important to keep in mind when interacting with our mortal
counterparts:

1) People don't remember what you tell them, they remember how you
make them feel.

2) Be sincere.

3) Don't be a jerk.

4) Keep (1) through (3) *especially* in mind when interacting online:
email, zephyr, etc. Computers have a knack for making human
interactions less than human.

Sounds simple, right? Unfortunately, it isn't. People aren't usually
purposefully being unfeeling, insincere, or a jerk, but it still
happens; c.f. computers vs. humans, we're not perfect. So, we've also
collected guidelines regarding common examples of where people forget
these principles and accidentally contribute to a junky social
environment.  They're not comprehensive, but we think they catch the
most common pitfalls.

Perfection is not required for participation

We want people to participate in SIPB projects without feeling like
they're going to get flamed for not knowing very much. Obviously, this
means that you shouldn't be chastising prospectives for making
mistakes. Less obviously, you shouldn't be chastising people who
"should know better" in public, either.  Remember that prospectives
are listening (in the office, on zephyr, on email lists, etc.) and
might think that such criticism might be directed at them if they make
an error.

This doesn't mean you can't give people suggestions on how to do
better, but please don't do so in a way that suggests that they're bad
person for doing what they did, that they should have done better, or
that their contribution wasn't worth making.

Be careful expressing surprise

This first principle is aimed at discouraging the practice of acting
overly surprised when some says they don't know something.  This
applies to both technical things ("What?! I can't believe you don't
know what Hesiod is!") and non-technical things ("You don't know who
RMS is?!").  That's not to say you may not be genuinely surprised when
someone doesn't know something that you have taken for granted.  But
consider whether the person, who has already admitted to not knowing
something, wants to be further reminded of it by your reaction.  Even
when it's not your intention to upset someone, it's almost ways the
end result.

We want SIPB to be a place where people feel safe saying "I don't
know" or "I don't understand", because those are the first steps to
learning.  We don't want an environment where people don't feel like a
"real" SIPB member/prospective because they don't know what wget(1) or
nc(1) are.

Avoid over-correcting others ("Well, actually...")

It's hard to resist the urge to demonstrate your knowledge about a
subject; SIPB is as much as place for teaching as it is a place for
learning. However, it can be really off-putting when that urge
manifests itself by someone over-correcting someone else, usually by
pointing out a subtle technicality. These are easy to spot because
they almost always start "Well, actually...". While "Well, actually"
may be appropriate when conveying a major correction or preventing
someone from making a dangerous mistake, you may wish to consider
finding a different way to say it.  Remember, people don't remember
what you tell them, they remember how you make them feel.

If you overhear people working through a problem, avoid
intermittently lobbing advice across the room. This can lead to the "too
many cooks" problem, but more importantly, it can be rude and disruptive
to half-participate in a conversation. This isn't to say you shouldn't
help, offer advice, or join conversations. On the contrary, we
encourage all those things. Rather, it just means that when you want
to help out or work with others, you should fully engage and not just
butt in sporadically.

Somewhat relatedly, when one person is trying to explain a tool or
concept, keep in mind that they may have a plan for what order they're
going to introduce ideas in. It can be very disruptive to have
somebody interject with something you weren't planning to cover until
later, and need to rearrange your ordering.

No subtle sexism, racism, etc.

Our next principle bans subtle sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.
(Overt prejudice is, of course, right out.)  This one is different
from the ones above it, because it's often not a specific, observable
phenomenon ("well-actually's" are easy to spot because they almost
always start with the words "well, actually...").

Unlike many of the situations described in our other guidelines, these
sorts of incidents may not take the form of a comment directed at a
specific individual. In situations like this, anyone who observes the
behavior should feel empowered to talk to the people involved or bring
it to the attention of the EC.

If someone says a comment you made was sexist, racist, or otherwise
discriminatory, please do not enter into a protracted debate about it,
and never tell someone that their feelings are not valid.  Instead,
apologize and move on.  If, after reflecting on your comment, you
still genuinely do not see any bias in your comment, you can contact a
member of the EC to discuss the incident further.

The most sincere apologies consist of "I'm sorry"

An apology should be a sincere expression of sadness for the sadness
of others. If you apologize but then qualify your apology with
"...that", "...if", "...but", you'll likely make the recipient feel
like you're implying that they share some of the blame for the
incident; it won't feel like an apology to them.

Sometimes, people are tempted to say "I'm sorry, but" (etc.) because
they don't want to concede their point in a discussion.  But this sort
of "I'm sorry" isn't really an apology, and is an insincere use of the
words.  Being sorry that someone else feels bad doesn't mean that you
necessarily agree with them, it just means that you recognize that
they're upset and sincerely wish that weren't the case.

What happens if someone violates these principles?

Our social principles and clarifying guidelines are intended to be a set
of things we can mutually agree to strive to live by as a community.
They aren't intended to be a stick to beat people with for "being bad".
However, it's still important that people be able to help improve the
social environment when they see something they think is destructive,
the following paragraphs describe the best way to go about it.  Under 
any circumstance, however, if someone's behavior or speech in the
office is making you feel uncomfortable or unwelcome, and you do not
feel comfortable talking to that person, please contact a member of
the EC.

If you feel someone has contributed negatively to a SIPB social
environment (in the office, on a SIPB email list, on our zephyr
classes, etc.), we encourage you to reach out to that person (or the
intended target, if you are a third party) and discuss your thoughts
with them.

Publicly calling someone out is generally ill-suited to any electronic
medium, because it can result in a heated conversation that is not only
distracting, but may in the long run be more toxic than the original
comment.  If you choose to call someone out in person, focus on what
they said or did, and not on the person themselves.

Finally, if you yourself realize that you just violated these
principles, call yourself out on it publicly.  Doing so will help
convey that these issues are important to the community, and may help
empower others to speak up.  It doesn't mean you're a "bad" person, or
even a "bad" SIPB member.

Above all, you should *always* feel welcome to approach the Chair or
any member of the EC regarding *any* issue, social or otherwise.

Appendix: Philosophical assumptions

This code of conduct was written making the following philosophical assumptions,
which we explictly state for completeness,
and to potentially provide a framework for future modifications should they become deemed necessary.

1. You can change people.
We make the assumption that people who would otherwise violate this code of conduct can be induced to modify their behavior not to do so, if, for example, told to read this document.
(This is in contrast to the opposing philosophical assumption, "You can't change people".)
However, if it is the case that a violating person cannot change,
we make the assumption that excluding that person from SIPB is worth the cost of others who would have been excluded due to the negativity of that person.

2. Monoculturalism.
We make the assumption that it is in the best interests of SIPB to be an organization such that every person in SIPB can get along with any other person in SIPB,
at least in that both sides can expect this code of conduct to be followed.
(This is in contrast to a "multiculturalism" philosophy,
which lets SIPB be a confederation of subsets of people who internally can get along with each other within each subset,
but there is no expectation for people in different subsets to get along with each other.)

3. Assign blame.
We make the assumption that assigning blame for harm is the proper way to deal with the harm. 
We further assume that SIPB's mechanisms for accurately discovering and fairly assigning blame are sufficient for the issues being addressed in this code of conduct.
(This is in contrast to a "truth and reconcilation" philosophy which attempts to avoid assigning blame.)
This assumption is necessary to support the next assumption.

4. Blame of the speaker.
We make the assumption that the harm due to speech is the fault of the speaker,
so this document is directed at those who would speak such speech.
(This is in contrast to philosophies which partly assign the blame of the harm to the listener or to larger issues of society.)

5. No underlying animosity. 
We make the assumption that there is no underlying animosity (for example, actual racism, sexism, etc.) that is inducing code of conduct violations.
This assumption means that, after correcting speech to abide by this code of conduct,
there will not be further actions (driven by underlying animosity) for which harmful speech was merely a symptom.
(This is in contrast to philosophies which treat offensive speech as merely a symptom of a deeper underlying problem
and attempt to address the underlying problem, rather than merely curtail speech.)