Proposed addition to Drupal Planet guidelines: Must conform to the Drupal Code of Conduct

About this post:
I do agree that this post is snarky and puts the spotlight on an issue in a not really constructive way. Is it helpful? Debatable. Does it perhaps show a growing frustration shared by others? Debatable.

Does this constitute a personal attack? I think chx specifically chose not to link to an issue and not to name names which makes that point at least in my understanding mood.

However it definitely is not "collaborative".

Even without the CoC there can be a point made that this post doesn't belong on the Planet as its value for (at least parts) of the overall community is pretty much non-existent.
Specifically instrumenting the CoC for this specific takedown request (I guess you would want only this post removed and not the whole feed) feels too much to me.
(side-note: I find it quite funny that this issue is caused by a post by chx who himself is not shy to request bans for community members "obstructing" core issues.)

In general:
1. In any case the CoC is relevant to all community affairs doesn't it? Do we specifically mention it everywhere?

2. We do have to be careful not to make the CoC a tool for censorship. If chx removes the snark and adds some context would the post be ok? Who is it to decide where "attacking" starts and raising community/leadership relevant issues ends? Can leadership be critiqued or is this "not collaborative". (This point might be specifically relevant to posts critical of core decisions. Per definition those decisions tend to be made by leadership+a certain number of devs engaged in core development. Taking a stand against those decisions seems to be automatically "not collaborative". We have to be careful to avoid painting disagreement as against the CoC. Please note that this specific post by chx is imho NOT Planet material. This is not a chx defense.)

3. We do have to be VERY careful not to make the CoC a PERCEIVED tool for censorship. If people get the impression the CoC is misused to curb critique on institutions (Assoc, Working Groups etc), companies or leadership the toxic effects might be as big as leaving a post on the Planet.

Just noticed that if CoC is always relevant (which I think) my points in 2/3 are more general issues with the CoC. tl;dr: We need to be careful how to use the CoC hammer.

Another point: How do we go on here? Certainly the content team is not expected to proofread and police the Planet. Usually if someone deems content not Planet worthy this person comments on the post itself and afterwards (if not sufficiently addressed) raises an issue in the content queue. What would be a good procedure in this case? Webchick commenting on the post requesting to remove it from the Planet would certainly look and feel odd...

(addition to be clear: I do think the specific post by chx can be removed due to content problems alone. No need to use the CoC to argue for it. I want to stress that I think using the CoC here is contra-productive but that the CoC is applicable for Planet posts even without specifically mentioning it.)

I think it would be appropriate to add something to the planet guidelines like "Like all interactions with the Drupal community, posts to the Planet should follow the Code of Conduct." It's true that it is covered since everything is covered, but I see no harm in the repetition when the message being repeated is such an important one.

I think it's obvious that the DCOC would apply to the Planet posts and see no harm in adding it as a provision in the Planet guidelines.

However, I'd like to voice a concern.

I just do not want Drupal.org to be a vehicle through which said rants are disseminated, because the CoC is a contract in our community of how we are to behave with one another. As such, Drupal.org should not be pushing out content that is inconsiderate, disrespectful, and un-collaborative.

chx's post is a rant that does not name anyone or any issue, so I and the vast vast majority of people would see no ad hominem attack or harassment. However, as many of us know, that's not proof there isn't any. I assume there's context of which I'm not aware and this post resonates with one or more persons as potential harassment. But if that's the case, then let the claim be made as the DCOC provides.

What concerns me is addressing a particular instance of concern with nonspecific global policy statements that tread awfully close to community censorship. I would like to see us all (the community) act with great restraint, especially when it comes to making subjective judgments like labeling a statement as "un-collaborative". It sounds very much like the "unmutual" accusation in The Prisoner (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_prisoner).

To take different examples, one might argue that any mention of Backdrop CMS is un-collaborative, so do we ban all posts that mention it? Is disagreement itself un-collaborative and therefore actionable? Who decides what's un-collaborative? The majority? A few select judges? It's one thing to demand of everyone civility, which is only right and good. But if we go beyond to demand collaboration in all things, and flag disagreement in itself as unacceptable (which we're flirting with here, as there is no specific harassment claim), I feel we would end up irreparably harming the community.

As for red herrings, "never once seen anyone citing CoC as a reason to not allow discussion on Backdrop on Drupal Planet" gets back to who decides, because what's "inconsiderate" or "disrespectful", not to mention the other criteria in the CoC, can be very subjective. It's fuzzy.

If this issue is simply about whether the CoC should apply, it seems there's a consensus, and chx's post has nothing to do with it.

But if this is about whether chx's post is actionable, I feel the issue summary should be updated to reflect that, and let the community decide according to the CoC, because what comes of this will be precedent for future posts.

Personally I feel the CoC is a policy to prevent harassment, but not a cause for a right not to be offended. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I do feel that protecting free speech within the community is a worthwhile value as well.

+1 on the proposed clarification. Do we need more to implement?

Updated to include a link and clarify which Code of Conduct this is.

In terms of "Do we need more to implement?" I'd say we need about another week to wait for more feedback since it was RTBC on the 23rd and we're not at 2 weeks yet and within the 2 weeks was a significant holiday for a significant portion of d.o users.

Changes to Drupal.org policies regarding content are implemented by the Content Working Group based on community consensus. This additional text sounds good to me, and assuming there are no major objections, we'll go ahead and make the addition by the end of the year. Thanks, everyone!

The text has been rolled into the new Planet guidelines at #2089285: For Review: Updated Drupal Planet guidelines, and I believe they're the last proposed change to integrate.

I'll post to this issue when the new guidelines go live.

#2089285: For Review: Updated Drupal Planet guidelines has been marked as fixed; the guidelines at https://drupal.org/planet/guidelines are now updated. Thanks!