These links are so great, i am really appreciating this thread! I will be
+1 on whatever CoC the group is into practicing on this listserve, it will
be a big step forward.

The HOT Complaint Handling Process is super clear -- something like this,
and like the reporting structure of OSGeo, is critical for a CoC to come
into practice and not just be another poster on the wall/web. Similarly,
check out the process described at the top of the anonymous reporting form
on is a great reference on

Being based in rights was critical for Public Lab as we set up a CoC to
describe how we want to relate to each other, which goes beyond stopping
harassment as it reframes the internal power dynamics of open source
communities from being like a clubhouse to being like a society. It is
useful to explain with clear, mundane examples how to relate to each other
when introducing sometimes abstract / high minded principles of
responsibility, empathy, dignity, consent.

Adjacently, I will mention the book "Conflict Is Not Abuse" by Sarah
Schulman, which details in a very readable, relatable manner the cost of
*not* figuring out how to hold a caring democratic space amongst each other
-- the extension of external power into our individual and community lives.
I have an inkling that some of the dynamics that she walks through might
apply to some of the misunderstandings about CoCs that we've seen in OSM --
perhaps not enough self-checking, meaning that those whose actions are
sometimes harassing to others actually perceive themselves as victims and
continue to escalate in a misdirected effort against peers to resist the
perceived expansion of external power, when in fact, these escalations only
weaken our community from the inside out. I would happily re-read this book
and book club it with any group of people thinking deeply about open source
community health.

I am really grateful for everyone here, thanks for reading,

PS, in case you still feel like reading, here's the full sourcing of the
lineage that we pulled into Public Lab's CoC <>
(copied from about halfway down in this post

We framed the very top of the document with language from in-person
democratic space holding that emphasizes the combination of respect and
responsibility. The sentiment of "for democracy to work for everybody..."
as practiced by the Highlander Center for grassroots organizing and
movement building in Appalachia / the South is described in the book by
Miles Horton "The Long Haul: an autobiography". Also see We also drew from the Jemez Principles for
Democratic Organizing <> which was written
in 1996 by forty people of color and European-American representatives who
met in Jemez, New Mexico with an "intention of hammering out common
understandings between participants from different cultures, politics and
organizations." Carla
<> added the
clarifying points on dignity during interactions.

For the fundamentals, we looked to the Ada Initiative guide to writing
Codes of Conduct (CoCs),
specifically these three points:

   - List specific common behaviors that are not okay
   - Include detailed directions for reporting violations
   - Have a defined and documented complaint handling process

Over that, we added a heavy overlay of JoyConf consent and empathy culture:

   - After Geek Feminism and
   Django, we described the set of
   spaces that our community is active in and to which the CoC applies
   - From @Mathew <> suggestion of we added a list
   of who the CoC applies to, seeking to level status
   - @Klie <> designed the reporting
   process via anonymous online submission form, and converted the list of
   unwanted behaviors to "Do's and Don'ts": (updated for 2017)
   - @Kanarinka <> wrote in our
   existing practice of checking in before posting people on social media
   - Potentially unique to Public Lab, we created a dual moderators group
   and facilitation group which cannot entirely be described by an
   online/offline dichotomy. The Addendum clarifies that staff of the
   non-profit are additionally bound by their Employment handbooks which meet
   federal and state laws.
   - Generally, a lot of solid and clarifying editing by Nick, Shannon,
   Klie, Carla and Public Lab staffers, and the organizers.


+1 336-269-1539 / @lizbarry <> /

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Sérgio V. <> wrote:

> I agree with this CoC, think it's pretty sufficient. Thanks.
> Also agree with Blake, I would consider adding to the draft "Offensive
> comments related to..." something like "national origin, cultural
> affiliation", as well as "ethnicity", "language", "level of instruction".
> Things in which people find consists the very being of any people,
> perhaps could be added; any offensive comments related to the being
> of someone, its value.
> And the sort of positive acts that are welcome.
> I think perhaps the draft could be considered as a CoC already in use
> here, if it would be needed to invoke it.
> Any improvements or adjusts could be done on the going.
> Also, diversity talks lay not only in preventive instances, that
> instance being assured is good, lay in many subjects related to diversity
> of people and initiatives too.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Sérgio -
> ------------------------------
> *De:* Rory McCann <>
> *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 1 de março de 2018 15:53
> *Para:* Blake Girardot; Paul Norman
> *Cc:* OSM Diversity
> *Assunto:* Re: [Diversity-talk] Code of Conduct & Moderation for this list
> Hi all,
> I have put the GF one as a draft on the OSM wiki:
> MailingList/CodeOfConduct
> Feel free to edit it as appropriate. At some point I'll go through and
> add the suggestions.
> On 28/02/18 15:27, Blake Girardot wrote:
> > From my perspective, and I am not sure why it is left out of
> > geekfeminism's policy is that item one under "Harassment includes"
> > should list "national origin, cultural affiliation" to address the
> > issue of people making offensive comments about people from
> > particular countries or cultures.
> Agreed. "national origin" has been included in anti-racism laws in the
> UK since the 1960s.
> > We might even include something like "OpenStreetMap participation
> > style" in that list so we do not have to tolerate disparaging remarks
> > about remote mappers, craft mappers, newbie mappers or folks that
> > participate through non-mapping contributions.
> Broadly in favour. Ilya Zverik said:
> > OpenStreetMap needs everything. More editors, more tutorials, more >
> > rendering styles, more mappers, more software. Anyone has something
> > to contribute, although most don’t know what to do.
> ilya-zverev-level0
> Is there a chance a broad wording could be interpreted as "Don't
> criticize reckless, bad faith, mapping *ever*"? 🤔 I wouldn't want that.
> > And I would change or add to the first line "Offensive or
> > disparaging comments..." because "disparaging" or "derogatory" are
> > open to much less debate than the very subjective "offensive". How
> > many endless discussions will there be (or have their been) about
> > what is offensive as opposed to the somewhat easier to identify,
> > disparaging or derogatory comment.
> Agreed. "offensive" is vague and can be used against marginalized people
> (e.g. "LGBTQ rights are offensive my sincerely held religious beliefs").
> Usually I use "harmful", but those work too.
> On 01/03/18 19:13, Paul Norman wrote:
> > A couple of issues I would consider if I were doing the selection
> > again are readability and education or socioeconomic status.
> Classism is a harmful thing, so I agree we should put that in.
> Better readability makes it easier for non-native English speakers.
> Rory
> _______________________________________________
> Diversity-talk mailing list
> Code of Conduct: TBD
> Contact the mods (private):
> _______________________________________________
> Diversity-talk mailing list
> Code of Conduct: TBD
> Contact the mods (private):
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: TBD
Contact the mods (private):

Reply via email to