CoC and Inclusion

Continuing the conversation from here

@jakehamilton what part of the CoC did Jon break? This is big news for me.

1 Like

Particular discussion creating a hostile environment. Were I a moderator with the CoC established, I would have issued a correction to reign things in. I would rather we not open the can of worms that is adding this contributor.


you can read the suspension commit here

Thank you for linking, but Oh no, I’ve read not only read that, I spent 3 days reading Discord, Matrix and Discourse messages trying to find those derailed conversations and I couldn’t find any.

If you’ve got a link to a derailed conversation example, that would be news to me though and I’d be happy to see it.

Well this would be my first place I recommend you look

A correction to what comment? Or like what kind of warning?

1 Like

Yep. Read that top to bottom three times. I disagree with Jon, but I didnt see anything in there that broke the CoC, and it couldn’t have derailed the conversation because Jon started the conversation: the thread started on that topic and remained on that topic.

Maybe theres an external conversation that got derailed but I don’t know of it.

1 Like

Several threads of creating a toxic environment and whipping everyone into a fervor. Not to mention the claims of people who disagree with me being members of some organized coup attempt, lying about doxxing, etc.

I really don’t think it’s something we need to spend any additional time on. Aux exists from a desire to leave that environment.


Now this I saw, can confirm. But I think we can agree, heat of the moment stuff like delroth’s quips happen, and most would have probably walked that doxing claim back after things cooled down for a day. A short ban would be absolutely understandable for that.

This though, I cannot find.

I’m confused by this, which is why I think we need to talk about it. I was happy to participate here because I thought it would be a place where people could respectfully disagree and still coexist, unlike the nix Discourse. (And when I say this, I don’t think repect was maintained on either side, I’m not picking one)

Ignoring whether or not Jon specifically is allowed, knowing where the Aux project is going to stand on how disagreements are handled is of the utmost importance to me. I fundamentally believe a healthy community allows people to disagree on important topics and still coexist as long as their retain respect for one another.

I think, more than anything, I want to avoid the same problem that Nix just experienced and a decent catalyst for a lot of that was Jon, despite his otherwise great work.

For Aux, the CoC is what decides things like this. For all events moving forward, we will be adhering to it.

If a member joins and violates the Code of Conduct, then we will deal with it. I think that is a fair stance we would be able to agree on.

1 Like

If a member joins and violates the Code of Conduct, then we will deal with it. I think that is a fair stance we would be able to agree on.

On this note I think we should be as open as possible of users who have been suspended/banned and in order to do that we must create a repo or similar where we onboard mods/admins and have a log of all the “changes” that are made.


I would rather we take the Kubernetes approach to these problems. I think a public log of every action is the wrong solution here. As seen from the Nix community it just ends up with responses of “where’s the evidence???”


I’ll say this on the matter and nothing more - as an agender-identifying person, I, personally, would not feel comfortable having someone in this project who has reliably demonstrated that they will respond to the notion of explicit representation and consideration for gender minorities in governance with relentless sealioning about “but everyone should be equal actually” and “how are we not inclusive already”?

I’d really rather not relitigate this here - I have not seen a single productive conversation come out of this topic anywhere on the internet, and while I do have more faith in this community to approach these sorts of topics constructively, I don’t know what productive discussion we can have about this situation in partiicular.


Yep, we want to have a positive environment. Let’s end this conversation here with, again, the understanding that the Code of Conduct will be what we use to handle conduct in our community.


Okay so is it fair for me to summarize that as

  • Jon is an exception for now, and will likely be the only exception ever (we are bootstrapping after all)
  • Disagreement is allowed as long as nobody violates the CoC
  • Bans will follow the CoC. If theres an issue beyond that, then the CoC will be changed, applied universally, and then they will be banned

This is a valid point but I think not having a “log” is the wrong idea because it you will still end up with the same outcome but with more ambiguity just adding fuel to the flame. The people that say “where is the evidence” would say it no matter if we provided it or not. And in the case of jon and sigrd they just take to other platform to “rally the troops” to just lead us back to the start.


I very much agree. “Reciepts or it didnt happen”

1 Like

Yes, I think that is reasonable. I would also mention that we should prefer the lower end of punitive actions. The Coax outlines different actions that may be taken and I think it is important to start with a correction. A gentle but authoritative nudge is often all that is needed for someone to go “yep, gotcha, I’ll be respectful”.


I think this is a really important input and isnt just a rehash. I’m really glad you shared it.

I can agree. I want to change it, and at least for me this feels productive. The last message I sent to Jake feels like were actually communicating and getting somewhere.

I know this is a hard topic. I do want your input, and I don’t want to burn anyone out.


Perhaps, but I believe that the Kubernetes community is an excellent example of managing this kind of thing and would like to try to emulate that.

They do provide biannual (anonymized) reports which may be more useful than individual logs.