Carbon Language community transparency report through 2022-08-31

[chandlerc]

The Carbon community works to be welcoming and kind among itself and to others, with a deep commitment to psychological safety, and we want to ensure that doesn’t change as we grow and evolve. To that end, we have a few ground rules that we ask all community members to adhere to:

• be welcoming,
• be friendly and patient,
• be considerate,
• be kind,
• be careful in the words that we choose, when we disagree, we try to understand why, and recognize when progress has stopped, and take a step back.

The following summary is intended to help the community understand what kinds of Code of Conduct (CoC) incidents were brought to our attention lately, and how we dealt with them.

Publishing such transparency reports in the future will help us track progress and hold ourselves accountable to high standards of community culture.

Summary

Since the public announcement, we observed recurring harmful language in our Discord channels, and automated some moderation via a bot. After activation this bot caught 3 such incidents automatically. There have been 64 other documented incidents during that same period. That means 67+ conduct-related incidents were taken care of by our moderation team, in one way or another.

Please note that some incidents may have escaped our attention. Please help us keep our spaces welcoming and fostering a spirit of collaboration, and report any situation that may require our intervention: https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/trunk/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

Our interventions from 2022-07-19 through 2022-08-31

Carbon’s moderation team, including our Code of Conduct team, participated in moderation workshops run by an external diversity, equity and inclusion specialist prior to the Carbon Language public announcement. Further support by this external professional was provided throughout the recorded period (2022-07-19 thru 2022-08-31).

We have proactively insisted on expected behavior within our community while requesting all our contributors and Discord users to accept our Code of Conduct, and we made a point of highlighting our focus on community and culture during the Carbon Language public announcement.

These are the conduct incidents that were brought to our attention since then and up until the end of August 2022:

• "Be welcoming. We strive to be a community that welcomes and supports people of all backgrounds and identities. This includes, but is not limited to, members of any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, color, immigration status, social and economic class, educational level, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, physical appearance, age, size, family status, relationship status, political belief, religion or lack thereof, and mental and physical ability."
  Carbon community Code of Conduct, version from 2022-10-20

  The Carbon community has been addressed in the default masculine on Discord 8+ times. Most people reacted positively to our feedback about using gender-inclusive language. There were 22 reported cases of the use of otherwise harmful language, resulting in educational opportunities (8), message editing/hiding (7), warnings (3) or bans (7). 12 cases happened on Discord, 10 on GitHub.

• “Be kind. Not all of us will agree all the time, but disagreement is no excuse for poor behavior and hurtful words. We might all experience some frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to turn into a personal attack. It’s important to remember that a community where people feel threatened is not a productive one. Members of our community should be kind when dealing with other members as well as with people outside the Carbon community.”
  Carbon community Code of Conduct, version from 2022-10-20

  There were 10 cases of reported personal attacks ranging from demeaning comments to insults on Discord (4), GitHub (4), as well as in the live chat during our CppNorth 2022 public announcement premiere event on YouTube (2). 1 person edited their comment after being prompted, 5 comments were edited, hidden or deleted, 5 users got a warning, and 1 was banned. 1 case was escalated to the CoC team. Our moderation team intervened in 5 trolling situations, 3 on GitHub, 2 on Discord. 3 cases were used as educational opportunities, and overall 4 users involved in trolling behavior were banned.

• “Be friendly and patient. We want to encourage people to participate in our community in a constructive manner, so we can keep a friendly atmosphere. This is especially important because many of our communication tools on the Internet are low-fidelity and make it difficult to understand each other. Be patient, acknowledge that we are all on a learning journey, and stay supportive so that we can learn how to collaborate effectively as a group.”
  Carbon community Code of Conduct, version from 2022-10-20

  There were 7 otherwise destructive comments, 3 on GitHub and 4 on Discord. 3 were used as educational opportunities without further consequences, there were also 2 warnings, 1 ban, and 1 case in which the user was banned for harassing individuals in our moderation team later on. There were 6 interventions due to sarcasm or otherwise destructive humor. 3 cases were used as educational opportunities, 3 comments were edited/hidden/deleted by our team, 1 user was banned temporarily.

• “Recognize when progress has stopped, and take a step back. Regardless of whether you're trying to resolve a disagreement or anything else, think about whether you're making progress. Sometimes messaging doesn't give time to think about a situation fully, and repeating positions can make people defensive. Step back for a few minutes or hours to think through the issue before responding again. Consider pulling in another community member to give a fresh perspective. Maybe meet over VC instead. Switching approaches can help resume progress.”
  Carbon community Code of Conduct, version from 2022-10-20

  6 conversations on GitHub were deemed off-topic. Corresponding comments were hidden.

• “In rare cases, violations of this code outside of these spaces may affect, and be detrimental to, a person’s ability to participate within these spaces. Important examples include, but are not limited to, sexual and gender-based violence and/or harassment, hate crimes, and hate speech. Although we do not conduct proactive research, we have an obligation to respond to reported and, to the extent possible, corroborated concerns. Our motivations are not rooted in responding punitively, or holding people accountable. Instead, our response will be focused on how the continued participation of the person at issue could impact the community's safety, well-being, and inclusivity. It is our priority to remain a welcoming community to victims as well as groups subjected to systemic marginalization or underrepresentation.”
  Carbon community Code of Conduct, version from 2022-10-20

  1 user with a pre-existing history of online-harassment was banned from our spaces, another user harassed the moderation team, including the CoC team, after attacking a moderation team member publicly, and was banned as well.

Closing observations

The intensity of our moderation work has been rapidly decreasing, and we expect the community to keep mostly self-moderating in the near future. And we’ll keep watching and providing support when needed.

Thank you for your contributions and see you around,
-- The (interim) Carbon Language conduct team: our community lead, together with the Carbon leads

[FromCppToCarbon]

Good luck for carbon language and the team.
I think carbon channel is a design channel and not a compliment one for those people.
Being able to login to many channels in Discord at same time makes it easy to jump between channels and disturb others

[rpavlik]

I really like this report and appreciate the detail in it, even though I haven't really been in the community, just watching from afar. I may "constructively borrow" this concept/technique, maybe with a bit of positive stuff added (size of community, new participants, etc) to try to be more than negative, but honestly "8 default he" is pretty small, though I don't really know the "denominator" for that number.

[comradekingu]

If it isn't positive, why would you do it, or coat it in positivity?

[chandlerc]

I don't think "coating" it in positivity is the point...

Generally, there is a lot of positive stuff that doesn't show up here -- the vast majority of engagement we've seen has been totally positive and in line with the CoC.

But that's not what we need to be transparent about IMO. That is just the baseline we expect and fortunately get here.

Transparency is all about how we behave when things go awry. When we deal with behavior outside of our expectations and CoC. That does eventually happen. When it does and we respond to ensure the community and culture stays strong and positive, we want to be transparent about the steps needed. That's what gives rise to a transparency report -- an accounting of how we retain our culture and welcoming community even in the face of adversity.

But still, we could better balance this effort with what goes well and positive anecdotes. It's something I think we'll incorporate going forward.

[sirlordt]

Please don't make off-topic jokes here. Whatever your intent, this appears to be mocking our efforts to run a welcoming community which isn't OK.

Is not a joke is a warning. Please read the book 1984 from author George Orwell. Is about policial states.

I believe the inclusion a welcoming community is good idea. but extremist is bad.

In additional be aware about not all people are native English speaker. And is really hard follow the inclusive rules specially because this not teach in English resource learner.

to be more inclusive you can create channel in another languages different of the English.

I born and lived long time in policial state, i know how is live in this class of policial states, i know how censure by any minimal fault.

Of course you can censure this message by "off-topic" but is really "off-topic"? or is a issue of think about?.

[comradekingu]

Was looking for my own 1984 joke thinking I had made one.

For it to be relevant it has to be used for something sectarian.
For the purpose of calling out this type of behaviour, the response will be negative on account of otherwise dealing with inconveniences of social hierarchy and navigation, but moreover challenging whatever sectarian system has been instrumented in its place to deal with it.
The cost for me to say something about it is obviously low.
It bears the moniker "community culture", and shrouds itself in rosy language, but it is chillingly authoritarian.
From paving the road to "self-moderating", there is mere mention of dissidence in between, with incidents boiled down into numbers. Yet it champions "transparency"…
It is faceless, as it encourages reporting other community members to the authority. Where it revels in invoking the immutable characteristics of community members, it also figures itself "welcoming and fostering a spirit of collaboration".

"intended to help the community understand" is the tell.
In an irony of consistency, this discussion of authoritarianism has the initial post censored.

[jonmeow]

It bears the moniker "community culture", and shrouds itself in rosy language, but it is chillingly authoritarian.

We stand by our Code of Conduct and believe it's the right choice for our community. There are certainly good ways to discuss improving the Code of Conduct, but calling it "chillingly authoritarian" or making 1984 jokes isn't conducive towards constructive discussions.

The purpose of the Code of Conduct is to promote constructive discussion. This is a forum for the Carbon Language, so we will work to maintain a focus on promoting language development.

From paving the road to "self-moderating", there is mere mention of dissidence in between, with incidents boiled down into numbers. Yet it champions "transparency"…

The "transparency" aspect of the report is to keep the community informed about what's going on. Some details of incidents won't be shared, such as the individuals involved or specific content, in order to respect the privacy of all parties. Are there other details that you think should be included in future transparency reports? If you let us know, we will consider including it.

In an irony of consistency, this discussion of authoritarianism has the initial post censored.

The post was hidden because it didn't add to the conversation; if this thread had been a followup, I would've unhidden it due to the additional context offered. You're still able to click on the message to see contents (when logged into GitHub, click "show comment").

[comradekingu]

That "We", isn't the same as the proverbial "when we disagree, we try to understand why".
There is plenty more to my description, it in no words embodies your critique.
There are no 1984 jokes here.
There is a strength in unity appeal eerily similar to it, but we don't know where the jokes start and end.

This is a forum for the Carbon Language, so we will work to maintain a focus on promoting language development.

And in so doing, you have it there already. That is the entire point.

The purpose of the Code of Conduct is to promote constructive discussion.

The tally of undesired behaviour for public display I find does none of the former, and everything in its power to codify conduct.
Despite this, people are only asked to follow it…

Enforcing a system of codifying conduct as righteous doesn't make it any more community oriented because the authority thinks it befitting. In essence shoving community before the cart does not make it a community-driven operation.

The opposite of community is a system with no oversight, and no transparency other than public terror.
The word "transparency" doesn't mean opaque. You could have all of those qualities and redact the names of individuals involved.
Intrinsically that is already on offer unless that history is also redacted. (Again it aligns.)
"Informed about what is going on" is left in the air. That the hammer comes down and how much is the only disclosed capacity of power.

Despite heralding "psychological safety", the text from which the implied authority stems doesn't actually apply itself to the rigour of clinical psychology.
As it ends in "effective tools for open source communities" they fail at effective, aren't tools, nor are for or by open source communities.

I can't make sense of the above post outside of it entertaining a greater tautology.
Why is a code of conduct improved in not getting rid of it?

The world outside the monocultural modern American online-centric downfall of freedom has created many things.
You don't have to legitimise censorship, it is your boat to rock.

[jonmeow]

@comradekingu I've asked if you had suggestions for improvement, and your only suggestion is that we should get rid of the Code of Conduct. That's not something we're open to: we think it's important to set a standard for discussion, and we've seen what happens in other communities without one. We understand not everyone agrees, but this is our choice. If the Code of Conduct is something you won't agree to, Carbon's forums aren't the right place for you.

If you want to discuss American society, this is not the right forum for it. Any further comment on that subject will be treated as off topic.

[chandlerc]

"The intensity of our moderation work has been rapidly decreasing, and we expect the community to keep mostly self-moderating in the near future. And we’ll keep watching and providing support when needed."

Just to close the loop here, happy to clarify exactly what I think this was intended to mean by "self-moderation" -- the "self" here is the community as a whole. I was trying to observe that folks within the community are already helping each other figure out how to communicate most effectively within the community, giving helpful reminders, etc., and learning by example. It wasn't meant to imply anything more specific than that.