[IAEP] Improving our Code of Conduct (was: Re: Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs)

[Sebastian Silva]

Hi,

I had asked that we discuss changes to our Code of Conduct in a wiki
page  I have worked
on, where I put the result of a lot of research.

The time I spent, back in January, on this document, is because I myself
felt not only harassed but threatened. It came as a realization then,
that perhaps more people have had similar experiences and have abandoned
Sugar Labs because they were less tenacious than others. Hopefully
you'll find the references I put there (beyond geek feminism)
interesting. They represent a broad spectrum of approaches to making a
community more welcoming.

I found our current Code of Conduct
 was not
sufficient because (1) it is vague and difficult to evaluate when it's
been infringed. Cultures vary widely with regard to what is
/considerate/, /respectful/, /collaborative/, and /flexible/. It would
be much better if specific acceptable or not acceptable behaviors were
listed. (2) There is no defined procedure on how to report a problem and
what the expected outcome, timeline, or response could be. (3) There's
no defined solution or action such as warning or temporarily moderating
a person to signal bad behavior.

James, you insist on victimizing yourself and have a confrontational
form of writing. Perhaps I'm misreading you. Please improve your tone. I
have only seen vague complaints on the alleged dispute (/"rate of
posting and Wiki editing"/, and /"use of many paths to achieve your
goals"/).

If all of this is because I had the audacity to merge an icon, I feel
your attitude is disproportionate, unfair and itself sufficient for a
complaint. Trying to flag my github profile seems particularly
aggressive and harmful, considering the market use of such profiles.

The trademarked icon has already been reinstated in master branch, but
my valid concern (that neither Sugar Labs nor downstream distributors
have permission to use it), has not been resolved. I raised the same
question openly in 2016, and you responded with sarcasm
.
I don't think this is acceptable.

At the moment I don't support Laura's motion because I think it's
necessary to write something more specific for Sugar Labs, taking into
consideration the other references listed in the page at the least.

Regards,

Sebastian


___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] Fwd: wire will go out tomorrow, approval received after wire deadline in USA (was Re: [Urgent, Adam] clarifying amount to wire to Samson (Re: Fwd: [SLOBS] Urgent Motion for Modifying GSOc mento

[Samson Goddy]

I am publicly mailing this, because at this point, i will say Adam is
ruining my trip with suggestions and it is greatly affecting me.

Adam can you *please undo * this before SFC makes payment twice or thrice
that will attracts a lot of bank fees(sending to Nigeria).

I am making this public, because after waiting for days, your personal
changes is affecting me.

First SLOBS approved $2000 for my ticketing and $550 travel advance. You
made suggestions to SFC book Emirate with attracts a lot of layovers in
Lagos(over 24hrs) and Dubai(15hr). Instead of the British airways i
suggested. Now, i booked the emirate flights with local flights included.
Remaining $419 from the $2000.

I ask SFC to send me $416(balance from $2,000) + $550(travel advance) =
$966.66(to cover the rejected budget)

1. Emirates - $1,279.14
2. JetBlue - 161.20
3. Arik Air (local flight) - around $143

Since Adam is the liaison person to SFC, he gave SFC order not to send me
the $416 balance. I am asking SLOBS and Adam why? because i cannot give SFC
order only adam can. Am i not eligible to receive the $416?

walter donated his share of the stiped from Gsoc $347.73 + my own share
$347.73 = $695.46..

But Adam instructed SFC to do this instead, why?

"Walter Bender has asked that his own portion GSoC's (9 non-admins x $500)
/ 11 mentors[*] - 10% SFC - 5% SL = $347.73 be sent to Samson immediately
as well, based on 2016-34 here:
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions#2016-06-10

Please wire this $550 + $347.73 = $897.73 cash advance to Samson Goddy
immediately if possible" - Adam

Each transfer from the US cost more than $30 bank charges..

Meaning i will be be losing $30 twice or thrice, and also time wasting.


I am letting this community and member of SLOBS to see what is going on,
and i will like this to be fix asap.

FYI, SFC is sending my just $897.73 tomorrow, thanks to Adam.

I need explanation, because at this point.. I am Tired!

Sad!!!





-- Forwarded message --
From: Accounting at Software Freedom Conservancy <
account...@sfconservancy.org>
Date: Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: wire will go out tomorrow, approval received after wire
deadline in USA (was Re: [Urgent, Adam] clarifying amount to wire to Samson
(Re: Fwd: [SLOBS] Urgent Motion for Modifying GSOc mentor summit travel.))
To: Samson Goddy 
Cc: su...@sfconservancy.org


Samson Goddy wrote:
>Thank you but you ignored my last email showing Adam made wrong
>calculation

I did not ignore it; it just isn't relevant to accounting@ yet.
As previously explained, we can only send the funds
that have been approved by the PLC as communicated to Conservancy by the
Representative under the Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement (FSA) between
Conservancy and Sugar Labs.  Given the situation, we really do need to just
follow what the FSA says, and that's what it indicates should happen.

Also, I reiterate again our request that  not
be cc'ed except on finally approved matters relating to payment and
documenting approved payments.

Your request for additional funds is not yet an accounting matter; it
relates
to approvals not yet given.  I suggest that discussion about approval, if
needed, continue on ; It only slows down
Conservancy's work for Sugar Labs if  is cc'ed
on that discussion.  Please ask the Representative to send any concluded
approvals to  at the end of that discussion.

We do plan to wire $897.73 to Samson tomorrow.  If the Representative
communicates to us additional amounts approved for payment -- be they for a
stipend or travel advance -- we will make reasonable efforts to expedite
them
because we're well aware of the funding difficulty of traveling from
Nigeria.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn
Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy
 |--> & also, de-facto Bookkeeper for the moment
Pls support Conservancy!: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs

[James Cameron]

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 12:03:17PM -0500, Laura Vargas wrote:
> 
> 2017-09-27 13:03 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender <[1]walter.ben...@gmail.com>:
> 
> FWIW, the current Sugar Labs code of conduct is available in the wiki 
> here:
> 
> [2]https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Legal/Code_of_Conduct
> 
> And translated into Spanish here:
> 
> [3]http://co.sugarlabs.org/go/C%C3%B3digo_de_Conducta
> 
> Spanish link is broke.

Yes, the Spanish translation link is 404.

> @Laura, maybe you could explain why you think the current code of conduct
> is insufficient as regards harassment?
> 
> regards.
> 
> -walter
> 
> I think current Code of Conduct is insufficient because there is no
> procedure to follow in case of Harassment.
> 
> Sugar Labs Code of Conduct currently states:
> 
> " The Oversight Board will arbitrate in any dispute over the conduct
> of a member of the community." 
> 
> So, what happens in case of Harassment?
> 
> Harassment is not a dispute.

No.  Harassment is a conduct.  Where harassment occurs, there also
occurs a dispute about conduct.

The code of conduct says I may ask the oversight board to arbitrate
for me, as part of my appreciation of being bullied and harassed.

You would not have known this, because of recusal, but I've not yet
asked the oversight board to arbitrate.  It is an option I've yet to
select.  I'm keeping the option in reserve, as a last resort, because
I'm trying first to be open about the dispute, and also because it
will cost the oversight board significant time which could be better
spent on more useful matters.

> The Anti-harassment Policy proposed clearly defines what Community
> shall understand as Harassment and what Community member can do
> about it if he/she finds in such situation.

Two parts to your statement; a list of conducts, and response to
conducts.

- the list of harassing conducts is useful, however they are already
  implied in the code of conduct.  Should the oversight board wish to
  add this list, I've no objection.  As I've said before, I can see
  how this list may help to protect me.

- the response to harassing conduct needs no change; a community
  member like me can already ask the oversight board to arbitrate, and
  there's no reason to add yet another team to an already tiny
  organisation.

> Sugar Labs needs to be a place where anyone can speak freely,
> without fear.

Yes, please.

However, it will be never possible to be without fear given public
mailing lists and archives that can be searched.

Developers are now talking to me privately because they don't feel
they can speak freely.  That's wrong.

> To include a Diversity statement would also help encourage
> participation by everyone.

While a diversity statement would be a welcome addition to the Wiki
canon, it alone would not encourage my participation.

The Ubuntu diversity statement is good.

> Regards,
> 
> Laura V
> 

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs

[Laura Vargas]

2017-09-27 13:03 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender :

> FWIW, the current Sugar Labs code of conduct is available in the wiki here:
>
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Legal/Code_of_Conduct
>
> And translated into Spanish here:
>
> http://co.sugarlabs.org/go/C%C3%B3digo_de_Conducta
>

Spanish link is broke.


>
> @Laura, maybe you could explain why you think the current code of conduct
> is insufficient as regards harassment?
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
>
I think current Code of Conduct is insufficient because there is no
procedure to follow in case of Harassment.

Sugar Labs Code of Conduct currently states:

" The Oversight Board will arbitrate in any dispute over the conduct of a
member of the community."

So, what happens in case of Harassment?

Harassment is not a dispute.

The Anti-harassment Policy proposed clearly defines what Community shall
understand as Harassment and what Community member can do about it if
he/she finds in such situation.

Sugar Labs needs to be a place where anyone can speak freely, without fear.

To include a Diversity statement
 would also help
encourage participation by everyone.


Regards,

Laura V


> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Laura Vargas 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello all, Hola a todos,
>>
>> [Thanks in advance to volunteer translators of this message]
>>
>> I would like to propose a Motion for: "The Sugar Labs Code of Conduct to
>> include the Geek Feminism Community anti-harassment Policy
>> 
>> and to dispose resources (if needed) for the complete text to be translated
>> to Sugar supported languages. This Policy contemplates the existence of a
>> RESPONSE TEAM and defining a way and procedure to contact them.
>>
>> Hope to hear opinions and feedback from all Sugar Labs members.
>>
>> Hopefully volunteers to integrate the RESPONSE TEAM.
>>
>> According to Geek Feminism
>>  anti-harassment
>> Policy, harassment includes:
>>
>>- Offensive comments related to gender, gender identity and
>>expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness,
>>neuro(a)typicality, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or 
>> religion.
>>- Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and
>>practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and
>>employment.
>>- Deliberate misgendering or use of ‘dead’ or rejected names.
>>- Gratuitous or off-topic sexual images or behaviour  in spaces where
>>they’re not appropriate.
>>- Physical contact and simulated physical contact (eg, textual
>>descriptions like “*hug*” or “*backrub*”) without consent or after a
>>request to stop.
>>- Threats of violence.
>>- Incitement of violence towards any individual, including
>>encouraging a person to commit suicide or to engage in self-harm.
>>- Deliberate intimidation.
>>- Stalking or following.
>>- Harassing photography or recording, including logging online
>>activity for harassment purposes.
>>- Sustained disruption of discussion.
>>- Unwelcome sexual attention.
>>- Pattern of inappropriate social contact, such as
>>requesting/assuming inappropriate levels of intimacy with others
>>- Continued one-on-one communication after requests to cease.
>>- Deliberate “outing” of any aspect of a person’s identity without
>>their consent except as necessary to protect vulnerable people from
>>intentional abuse.
>>- Publication of non-harassing private communication.
>>
>> 
>> Anti-harassment policy text Shorter version
>>
>> COMMUNITY NAME is dedicated to providing a harassment-free experience for
>> everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual
>> orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or
>> religion. We do not tolerate harassment of participants in any form.
>>
>> This code of conduct applies to all COMMUNITY NAME spaces, including
>> [list, eg "our mailing lists and IRC channel"], both online and off. Anyone
>> who violates this code of conduct may be sanctioned or expelled from these
>> spaces at the discretion of the RESPONSE TEAM.
>>
>> Some COMMUNITY NAME spaces may have additional rules in place, which will
>> be made clearly available to participants. Participants are responsible for
>> knowing and abiding by these rules.
>> Longer version
>>
>> COMMUNITY NAME is dedicated to providing a harassment-free experience for
>> everyone. We do not tolerate harassment of participants in any form.
>>
>> This code of conduct applies to all COMMUNITY NAME spaces, including
>> [give a list of your spaces, eg "our mailing lists and IRC channel"], both
>> online and off. Anyone who violates this code of conduct may be sanctioned
>> or expelled from these spaces at the discretion of the RESPONSE