Add "assume good faith" to Expected Behavior

[msporny]

I've found the principle of "assuming good intent" or "assuming good faith" to be powerful -- and can be a good reminder to folks that are not doing so in the heat of the moment. It's probably been the most powerful tool I have to help me reframe how I respond to people and has helped me de-escalate situations by pointing out that a party may be assuming I'm acting in bad faith and to, for a moment, assume that we're both trying to work toward the same goal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

[TzviyaSiegman]

Hi @msporny. This is a really interesting suggestion. and I am glad that assuming good faith helps you get through difficult moments. I am concerned about putting this in CEPC though. If we ask people to assume good faith it potentially puts them in a position of questioning whether something unpleasant has really happened to them and can potentially open the door for repeat offenses. That might sound a bit harsh, but I do not think it's a good idea to put in our code that people should assume good faith. That is a choice, and many people, especially those in marginalized communities, may not wish to bear the burden of good faith.

[msporny]

That is a choice, and many people, especially those in marginalized communities, may not wish to bear the burden of good faith.

I think that's a solid point.

My concern is the "hostile engineering culture" at W3C -- where a non-trivial number of engineers get to a point where they think the people they're arguing against have some ulterior and sinister motive for why they are pushing back... and then the discussion gets nasty with personal attacks.

I agree that it's hard to determine what would lead to a less hostile work environment... getting the engineers to speak more kindly to each other (by assuming good faith), or not pushing a burden of good faith on marginalized communities (by not having to assume good faith).

[msporny]

Perhaps stating that there are things that people in a position of privilege can do that those not in a position of privilege cannot do. For example, my position of privilege is being a CEO and speaking with the financial and engineering weight of my organization behind me, as opposed to a Level II Engineer in a large organization. So, if I were to engage w/ that Level II Engineer, I should assume good faith by understanding the power dynamic in play.

I'm also a minority in a position of privilege, so while the CEO and male thing benefits me sometimes, it doesn't carry into all situations. For example I made a conscious choice long ago to NOT confront the white men at W3C dinners when they're throwing a joke with the N-word around the table (has happened twice in the past decade, not often, but when it does it's like getting hit by a stun grenade because a W3C dinner is one of the last places I expect stuff like that to happen).

I'm not going to take on the burden of assuming good faith in that situation because they should know better, but I also don't want to ruin my night by choosing to engage my colleagues and trying to convince them that they're being insensitive in the best case and racist in the worst case (and hoping that the conversation will just move on to less offensive topics).

I don't know how we would convey the nuance... and that's in the territory of microaggressions... which the CEPC does talk about. It's almost like we need a place to write down "Things that have actually happened at W3C" and outline all the reasons the behavior is problematic and what should have been done (that was not done at the time).

[TzviyaSiegman]

I'm sorry you've had to go through that @msporny. I am wondering if what we should attempt to document is recognition of power dynamics and how that affects all interactions. This is partially addressed in the "Safety vs Comfort" section, but only in the negative. There is no parallel in the Expected Behaviors. I welcome input on how we can word this.

[swickr]

See also #150; how might we describe where the boundary lies in assuming good faith in "... persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity." [sealioning]?