On Mon Jan 19 2015 at 7:52:45 PM Carl-Daniel Hailfinger < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Marc, > > On 19.01.2015 01:49, Marc Jones wrote: > > On Sat Jan 17 2015 at 8:12:20 PM Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> Hi Marc, > >> > >> thanks for writing this up. > >> > >> On 16.01.2015 19:15, Marc Jones wrote: > >>> A coreboot code of conduct has been posted on the wiki. > >>> - http://www.coreboot.org/Code_of_Conduct > >>> > >>> I have written a blog post about why we have a code of conduct. > >>> - http://blogs.coreboot.org/blog/2015/01/16/coreboot-code-of- > conduct/ > >>> > >>> Feel free to give feedback on the policy and how else we can contribute > >>> to a welcoming and collaborative environment. > >> Given that the Code of Conduct has been announced publicly in a blog > >> post, the feedback is probably expected to be public as well. Apologies > >> if that is not the case. > >> > >> The current wording suggests that anyone can be expelled from the > >> community permanently without warning for either perceived harrassment > >> or for strongly enforcing the code of conduct. This is probably not the > >> intention. > > Open discussion is acceptable. > > Adding that sentence to the CoC would be helpful. > > > >> Furthermore, the second paragraph of "Unacceptable Behaviour" is either > >> redundant or woefully incomplete. If you really think the word > >> "harassing" from the first paragraph needs to be defined, you should > >> define the other words from the first paragraph "intimidating", > >> "abusive", "discriminatory", "derogatory" and "demeaning" as well. I > >> suggest deleting that second paragraph. > > I'll disagree. Harassment is the most common problem in online > communities > > Real citation needed, not just some sentiment. For example, quite a few > feminist blogs point to intimidating and derogatory speech/actions as > the primary hurdles against female participation in online communities. > > This was based on discussions at the GSOC summit as I mentioned in my blog post. Several community leaders and more experience policy makers lead the discussion. > > and warrants the paragraph about those unacceptable behaviors. > > If harassment is the most common problem, that definitely warrants > listing harassment first (which is not the case in the current CoC). > > > > Defining > > every other term would not make this policy any more robust. > > Is the term "harassment" so unclear it warrants explanation? I thought > there was universal agreement that harassment is bad, but having to > define harassment implies that there is no such universal agreement (you > can't agree on something undefined). > I argue that creating our own homegrown definition of harassment (or > copying someone else's homegrown definition) makes this policy less > robust because this current homegrown definition is woefully incomplete. > > > Your point has been noted and we will examine how a change would improve the policy. Thanks for your contribution. I admit that this is not an area we are experts in, but we tried to choose a reference policy that was recognized a good a positive representation of our community. Please forward any expert recommendation or examples from other communities that improves the coreboot community policy, interactions, increase diversity within this community. > >> Please define "community organizers". Did you mean "arbitration team"? > >> Or is it the community members present at an event? > > It isn't not meant to be specific to an arbitration team. These members > may > > not be present in all cases and organizers of events and online > communities > > should uphold the good standards of the community. > > Thanks for clarifying. The CoC would benefit from adding this > clarification. > > > >> How can we deploy this against people not part of our community? If > >> they're not part of the community in the first place, it is by > >> definition impossible to exclude them from our community and the Code of > >> Conduct in its current form does not apply. If, on the other hand, we > >> define everyone on the mailing list, everyone on IRC and everyone > >> visiting our booths at various conferences and trade shows as being part > >> of our community, we're going to overshoot the mark. I don't want to be > >> guilty by association just because some troll on IRC joins all channels, > >> spews some random offensive crap and disappears. > > It applies to everyone that participates in coreboot communication, > online, > > at an event or in a conference booth. People that are not up to this > > standard of behavior are not welcome in our community and they should be > > asked to leave. If a troll joins and spams the channel, clearly ask them > to > > leave. If they don't leave report them to a channel or IRCOP. If there > is a > > question of the policy or of a behavior, please contact an organizer or > > someone from the arbitration team. > > Great, thanks for the explanation and guideline! > > > Regards, > Carl-Daniel > >
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
