+1 from me. I wrote: > Dear fellow directors, > > having discussed this and incorporated your feedback, calling for a > vote, to: > > * ratify attached best practices as current board communication > guidelines > (verbatim copy from > https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/900757 as of 2022-04-12 > 1600 UTC) > > Vote runs the usual 72 hours, please answer with +1/-1/abstain to this > email. > > Thanks, > > -- Thorsten
> # Best practices for board communication > > We believe that beyond common sense good manners, and the community > CoC, the TDF board bears the extra burden of leading by (excellent) > example when it comes to define interaction styles in the community. > > We therefore feel bound by the following board communication best > practices, to be used in all written board communication channels. > > Applies to: > - intra-TDF communication channels > (tdf-directors, working groups, direct emails, TDF matrix chat > rooms, MC- and staff-internal mailing lists) > - the public board-discuss email list > > ## Communication best practices we apply: > > - We are cognizant that people with whom we communicate are > located across the globe. We don't expect people to respond > immediately, they might not have the bandwidth beside their jobs > and private obligations to process all emails in a short time. > > We give them a chance to read and digest our text, form an > opinion and answer in their own time. If we find ourselves being > the only one sending a lot of messages in a short time frame, we > slow down. > - We always remember that the recipient is a human being whose > culture, language, and humor have different points of reference > from your own. We know that date formats, measurements, and > idioms may not travel well. We are especially careful with > sarcasm. > - We use smileys to indicate tone of voice, but use them > sparingly. We don't assume that the inclusion of a smiley will > make the recipient happy with what we say, or wipe out an > otherwise insulting comment. > - We wait overnight to send emotional responses to messages. No, > we don't answer immediately. > - We are brief without being overly terse. When replying to an > email, we include enough original material to be understood > but no more. It is extremely bad form to simply reply to a > message by including all the previous emails: we edit out all > the irrelevant material. Giving context helps everyone. We > delete irrelevant material and focus on what we want to comment > on. This makes for easier reading and takes up less space. > - We assume that individuals speak for themselves, and what they > say does not represent their organization (unless stated > explicitly). Conversely, we assume that while on the board, > what we write in public will certainly be attributed to TDF as > well! > - We keep messages brief and to the point. We don't wander > off-topic, don't ramble and don't send mail or post messages > solely to point out other people's errors in typing or spelling. > - If we should find ourselves in a strong disagreement with > another person, we make our responses to each other via private > messages rather than continue to send them to the list or the > group. If we are debating a point on which the group might have > some interest, we may summarize for them later. If we should > find even the private interaction hard, we ask a trusted peer > for help. > - We don't get involved in flame wars. Neither post nor respond > to incendiary material. > - We avoid "me-too" posts. It's wonderful to agree with each > other, but it's rare that pointing this out adds much to the > discussion. New information is always welcome; an echo chamber > is often less pleasant. > > In a word: we reply to messages only when we have something > substantive to contribute. "Good one, Joan" does not qualify as > substantive. > > That said, for discussions where checking support of opinions > is desirable, there should be an easy way for the _community_ to > give their feedback in a +1/-1 form, without running an official > vote. LimeSurvey or Nextcloud Polls could fit that purpose, and > in the hopefully not too distant future, Decidim can take over > that task. > - If we are caught in an argument, we keep the discussion focused > on issues rather than the personalities involved. Similarly, if > we inadvertently offend someone, we apologize quickly. > - If we feel that someone's response to one of our messages is > offensive, we take pains to reply generously rather than > defensively. "Taking the high road" will almost always diffuse > bad feelings. > - We resist taking a difference of opinion personally. Someone not > liking our position or the crazy thing we have done does not > mean that they dislike us. > - Not everybody will agree on everything. It's healthy to > recognise that differing views can't always be > reconciled. Often, we have to accept that someone else thinks > differently and move on. If a particular list or topic is > constantly leaving us irritable because of these kinds of > issues, the message is clear: take a break. > - We recognize that email conversations may become heated. In such a > case, we try to remember that adding more arguments may only add fuel > to the fire, and instead it is a good idea to end-thread, and make a > phone or video call with the involved parties instead. In many cases, > people have the same goal, just don't use the same words - leading to > misunderstandings in the email conversations. > > In the unlikely event that this policy would be repeatedly violated, > the board considers the consequences that [unparliamentary > language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language) > carries in a number of democracies, to remedy the situation. >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
