Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] Code of conduct

To be honest, I am not quite sure what to make of this, but maybe there is something worthwhile and helpful I can share here as someone that does believe in the importance of both codes of conduct and Jakarta EE.

In my view, the Contributor Covenant is a very good code of conduct. Eclipse Foundation aside, we decided to adopt it a few years ago for the Jakarta EE Ambassadors for all the right and unfortunately necessary reasons: As is outlined for the Jakarta EE Ambassadors, it really all comes down to what one is able to enforce in a reasonable, fair, balanced and good faith manner. When I have personally asked about such issues offline, it is clear the Eclipse Foundation takes these matters very seriously. If one in good faith and sound judgement really does believe there is an issue to be resolved, I would perhaps consider Mike's advice in following up with the outlined enforcement body before suggesting too many other large scale changes.

I would urge some due care and effort, however. In particular, I think it is best to explore all other reasonable options either with an organization or person before taking a path that might be ultimately unnecessary and counter productive. One reasonable approach is to have an offline chat. If it's a person, that's rather easy I think. For an organization if it really is a pervasive, persistent and intractable problem that cannot be solved at the individual level, I don't think it is that hard to find an official channel such as corporate human resources. Whatever one does, I think patience and persistence in trying to solve things offline and amicably is necessary even if difficult or uncomfortable. It is possible that this effort may even help provide a different perspective on the issue.

I will say though, that we do seem to somehow devolve quickly to unnecessary emotional elements in discussions directly or indirectly related to MicroProfile alignment. There are many things that worry me about the whole Java EE/Java open standards transition but this is the observation that has bothered me the most for quite a few months now. We really do need to return to a point where we can discuss legitimate and difficult issues in a open, fair, inclusive fashion without emotions getting involved so quickly and so overtly. I do hope we get there soon.

Crossing my fingers that the above thoughts are received in the spirit that it is being provided.

Reza Rahman
Jakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Blogger, Speaker

Please note views expressed here are my own as an individual community member and do not reflect the views of my employer.

On 4/13/2020 3:00 PM, Werner Keil wrote:
In certain areas Eclipse Foundation so far has less strict rules e.g. when it comes to attendance in Jakarta EE committees (those in the JCP familiar with the EC remember, you lose your voting rights if you don't participate for a longer time) and even the nomination for those committees are guided by a "Gentleman's Agreement" that committers who are employed by another member company should not run as committer member so individual members of the community can also get a seat in each committee. This doesn't always see the case in the board btw. just to mention it.

Since MP plans to create a separate WG adding any of that to Jakarta EE WG only seems bloated because you'd end up having to apply something similar there again. As Mike mentioned, there is an Eclipse Code of Conduct which seems to have worked for most WGs even those that no longer exist now.


On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 7:53 PM David Lloyd <david.lloyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for the response Mike, and the pointers.  I'd like to clarify
that I'm not proposing changing the code of conduct that applies to
Eclipse as a whole.  What I am proposing is twofold: additional rules
of conduct and remedial tools specific to Jakarta along the lines of
what I've outlined above for the reasons I've already given, and also
an explicit endorsement and affirmation from those within the relevant
Jakarta group(s) expressing that the code of conduct and the
consequent ethical implications are in fact something that is core to
the Jakarta community and will be actively applied on a day to day
basis.  I believe that neither of these things requires any
intervention by the Board, but if I'm incorrect about that, please let
me know.

I generally won't plea for a more professional tone.  In my view,
professionalism and seriousness are mutually necessary, and Jakarta
will be ultimately dysfunctional if either are lacking.  As I am not
required by my employer to contribute to Jakarta EE, I (and, I
presume, other would-be contributors) have the luxury of simply
disinvolving myself if I feel that the quality of governance does not
meet (or attempt to meet) my own personal professional and/or ethical
standards.  But, I feel I would be remiss if I didn't at least make
some gesture in that direction as opposed to simply walking away, thus
my note.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 12:26 PM Mike Milinkovich
<mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> David,
> Thanks for this note, as it raises some important topics.
> The Eclipse Foundation Code of Conduct applies to all activities held under the auspices of this organization. This clearly includes Jakarta EE. This document has been reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors, and adopting an alternative would require the same level of review and approval. If you have specific revisions to propose, you should discuss them with Red Hat's director and have her bring them forward to our Board. (I am happy to provide an introduction if necessary.)
> If you have a specific concern that needs to be raised, I would encourage you to use the enforcement mechanisms described in the existing policy.
> If this is intended to be a general plea for a more gentle and professional tone in discussions, that is always welcome.
> On 2020-04-13 11:22 a.m., David Lloyd wrote:
> The Eclipse Foundation has a Community Code of Conduct [1] that one
> would assum also covers Jakarta.  But given recent discussions, I
> (speaking just as a community member) would propose that it would be
> greatly beneficial to the Jakarta community and brand if Jakarta
> itself were to specifically adopt an official code of conduct (the
> Eclipse one or a more specific one) which governs the experts as well
> as the community.
> I would suggest that the following areas be covered by such a code:
> * Behavior (being respectful, accepting responsibility, honesty,
> empathy, safety)
> * Content (clarifying objective vs subjective language, being concise
> and rigorous, avoiding hyperbole and "argument strategies")
> * Remedy (what to do in case of violations, how to correct problems,
> how to deal with mistakes)
> The behavior area I consider to be what a traditional "project" code
> of conduct (such as Contributor Covenant, the existing Eclipse Code of
> Conduct or similar) would normally cover.  This would cover
> unacceptable behavior such as abuse, harassment, trolling, personal
> attacks, etc.
> Jakarta strives to generate specifications.  This is more involved,
> difficult, and complex than many "normal" open source projects that
> one might find on Eclipse or elsewhere.  Because of the special needs
> of specifications - particularly, the role of clear, concise, and
> rigorously correct language in a coherent specification - I would
> propose that clear content and communication is also an area of
> conduct that should be covered.  Just as we must all work a bit harder
> to respect one another, we must also work a bit harder to be precise
> in our language, in order to provide the best specifications possible.
> Imprecise language goes over the line into misconduct when opinions
> are asserted as though they were facts, hyperbolic or bombastic
> statements are made to maximize emotional impact, or broad
> generalizations or other logically fallacious statements are used
> deliberately to derail constructive discussion.  When developing a
> specification - which is by nature required to be as objective as
> possible - these kinds of machinations can disrupt or undermine what
> may already be a very difficult endeavor.
> Finally, a remedial path is necessary because, as humans, all of us
> have (and will) make mistakes.  The code should outline a path not
> only for the spec committee and other official structures to cope with
> problems, but also for those community members who have in fact found
> themselves in violation of the code, so that they understand how to
> make amends and avoid lingering resentment, which can have a
> detrimental long term effect on the community.  Many such strategies
> can be found in typical autism behavior programs, but are (in my
> opinion) actually quite useful for any person who finds themselves on
> the wrong side of a behavioral problem and are unsure what to do.  In
> particular, there seems to be credible evidence that "zero tolerance"
> policies neither deter nor repair undesirable behavior.
> Having a comprehensive code of conduct which is consistently applied
> is, in my opinion, a necessary feature of a serious specification body
> in this decade.  I believe that the lack of a CoC covering these areas
> is a deterrent to participation.  I know that it is a deterrent to me,
> at any rate.
> [1]
> --
> Mike Milinkovich
> Executive Director | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
> mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> @mmilinkov
> +1.613.220.3223 (m)
> _______________________________________________
> mailing list
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit


_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit

_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top