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

[Charles Cossé]

Hello,

Even in peaceful New Mexico my inbox is full of this discussion, so please
allow me to at least share a link to a Dictionary of English Idioms

.

@Hilary, thanks for figuring out what was even going on!  I searched for a
reference to anyone's "mother" and skimmed right over "run to mommie".  It
did not even occur to me that that was the refernce, because I understand
it as an idiom immediately and automatically.

Charles

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Hilary Naylor  wrote:

> Hi James and all,
>
> It appears to me that the phrase "run to Mommie" (or "mommy" as is more
> common) is a perfect example of your first scenario.  It just doesn't mean
> what the translation probably implies "run to your mother." I quick review
> of the phrase in Google (in English) illustrates how it is used (not that
> it is polite, but it has nothing to do with anyone's mother).
>I'd suggest that the first rule of multi-cultural, multi-lingual
> e-lists like this one should be "no English idioms"!
>
> thanks
> Hilary
>
> ---Original Message---
> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:06:09 +1000
> From: James Cameron 
> To: iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org, sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy
> - Sugar Labs
>
>
> Long reply.
>
> I'm very familiar with the geek feminism team and the conference
> anti-harassment policy, as I've been a regular speaker at
> linux.conf.au.  I support the work of the geek feminism team.  For my
> part, two of my friends who are female are part of the overall geek
> feminism movement.  The conference policy is essential.  I support the
> policy itself, but I don't think Sugar Labs needs it yet.
>
> I'm also familiar with abuse and harassment policies in general, as
> I've been studying and implementing them as part of another
> organisation.  Earlier this week 130 or so pages of canon law passed
> my eyes.
>
> Walter asked Laura why existing code of conduct is insufficient;
> perhaps another way of asking why the policy would be needed.  At time
> of my writing, Laura hasn't answered.  I look forward to an answer.
>
> For my part, I guess there are two possible scenarios, and which is
> correct I cannot be sure.  Perhaps none, perhaps one, perhaps both.
>
> 1.  a misunderstanding.
>
> Since almost everything here in Sugar Labs mailing lists is in
> English, and there is no independent third party doing translation,
> any non-english speaker is obliged to manage their own translation,
>
> Laura says english is not her first language.  So everything I say has
> to be translated.  When translating there are a choice of
> interpretations.  English has several meanings.
>
> This risks an uncharitable translation, which may result in silently
> taking offense, which may set a person against me.
>
> This in turn increases the probability of the next translation being
> uncharitable, caused now by a decision to act against all my
> interests, despite some interests being held in common.
>
> A positive feedback loop begins, with each communication raising the
> ire of each participant.  This may partly explain my stress and tears
> in the design meeting; I felt I wasn't listened to, as if a prejudice
> had already built to the point of deafness.
>
> For my part, I hope Sebastian isn't the translator.  If so, I'm
> doomed.  ;-)
>
> 2.  side attack.
>
> A less charitable interpretation is that Laura is searching around for
> procedural weapons to use against me, which in itself is a form of
> abuse.  This seems less likely now than a misunderstanding, because it
> would be such an unwise thing to do.  Laura should not be the one to
> propose this motion, because it could look like an attack.  Laura
> might instead have asked another to propose it, or the motion could
> have been private to slobs@.  It can only be an attack on me if it is
> copied to iaep@.
>
>
> Summary
>
> The proposed policy is not needed, because the code of conduct already
> includes a summary form, and says the oversight board will arbitrate.
> The oversight board is the response team, and reports would be private
> to them.
>
> (As an aside, If I had approached the board alleging harassment under
> the code of conduct, I would have written to the board without
> including anyone involved in the abuse or harassment.  If Laura had
> approach the board alleging harassment under the code of conduct, the
> board would have to acknowledge and then discuss without including
> Laura.  The proposed policy identifies the same difficulty with the
> response team.)
>
> The proposed policy is unsustainable, because we have so few active
> people in Sugar Labs.  With GCI and GSoC inactive, most posts are from
> myself, Laura, or the oversight board.  It is unlikely there would be
> agreement on making a separate response team, and the confidential
> nature of the 

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

[James Cameron]

Thanks Hilary, that's interesting.

My Australian culture doesn't use "run to mother", but does use "spit
the dummy", which in turn is usually not understood by American
cultural adherents.

Yes, idioms are risky, but they are not easily identified, especially
by those who use them.  They are subconscious, and form very efficient
semantic containers for communication within a culture.

Often we need to be told which are idioms and which are not.  We are
hasty and won't spend the time looking for idioms, in the same way
that our readers are hasty not to look for a charitable alternative
interpretation.

For amusement; in Australian idiomatic english, I'd say we're up a
creek without a paddle after an emu knocked the dunny down.

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 03:34:17PM -0700, Hilary Naylor wrote:
> Hi James and all,
> 
> It appears to me that the phrase "run to Mommie" (or "mommy" as is more 
> common)
> is a perfect example of your first scenario.  It just doesn't mean what the
> translation probably implies "run to your mother." I quick review of the 
> phrase
> in Google (in English) illustrates how it is used (not that it is polite, but
> it has nothing to do with anyone's mother). 
>    I'd suggest that the first rule of multi-cultural, multi-lingual e-lists
> like this one should be "no English idioms"! 
> 
> thanks
> Hilary
> 
> ---Original Message---
> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:06:09 +1000
> From: James Cameron <[1]qu...@laptop.org>
> To: [2]iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org, [3]sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy -
> Sugar Labs
> 
> Long reply.
> 
> I'm very familiar with the geek feminism team and the conference
> anti-harassment policy, as I've been a regular speaker at
> [4]linux.conf.au.  I support the work of the geek feminism team.  For my
> part, two of my friends who are female are part of the overall geek
> feminism movement.  The conference policy is essential.  I support the
> policy itself, but I don't think Sugar Labs needs it yet.
> 
> I'm also familiar with abuse and harassment policies in general, as
> I've been studying and implementing them as part of another
> organisation.  Earlier this week 130 or so pages of canon law passed
> my eyes.
> 
> Walter asked Laura why existing code of conduct is insufficient;
> perhaps another way of asking why the policy would be needed.  At time
> of my writing, Laura hasn't answered.  I look forward to an answer.
> 
> For my part, I guess there are two possible scenarios, and which is
> correct I cannot be sure.  Perhaps none, perhaps one, perhaps both.
> 
> 1.  a misunderstanding.
> 
> Since almost everything here in Sugar Labs mailing lists is in
> English, and there is no independent third party doing translation,
> any non-english speaker is obliged to manage their own translation,
> 
> Laura says english is not her first language.  So everything I say has
> to be translated.  When translating there are a choice of
> interpretations.  English has several meanings.
> 
> This risks an uncharitable translation, which may result in silently
> taking offense, which may set a person against me.
> 
> This in turn increases the probability of the next translation being
> uncharitable, caused now by a decision to act against all my
> interests, despite some interests being held in common.
> 
> A positive feedback loop begins, with each communication raising the
> ire of each participant.  This may partly explain my stress and tears
> in the design meeting; I felt I wasn't listened to, as if a prejudice
> had already built to the point of deafness.
> 
> For my part, I hope Sebastian isn't the translator.  If so, I'm
> doomed.  ;-)
> 
> 2.  side attack.
> 
> A less charitable interpretation is that Laura is searching around for
> procedural weapons to use against me, which in itself is a form of
> abuse.  This seems less likely now than a misunderstanding, because it
> would be such an unwise thing to do.  Laura should not be the one to
> propose this motion, because it could look like an attack.  Laura
> might instead have asked another to propose it, or the motion could
> have been private to slobs@.  It can only be an attack on me if it is
> copied to iaep@.
> 
> Summary
> 
> The proposed policy is not needed, because the code of conduct already
> includes a summary form, and says the oversight board will arbitrate.
> The oversight board is the response team, and reports would be private
> to them.
> 
> (As an aside, If I had approached the board alleging harassment under
> the code of conduct, I would have written to the board without
> including anyone involved in the abuse or harassment.  If Laura had
> approach the board alleging harassment under the code of conduct, the
> board would have to acknowledge and then discuss without including
> Laura.  The proposed policy identifies the same difficulty with the
> response team.)
> 
> The proposed policy is unsustainable, because we have so few 

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

[Hilary Naylor]

Hi James and all,

It appears to me that the phrase "run to Mommie" (or "mommy" as is more
common) is a perfect example of your first scenario.  It just doesn't mean
what the translation probably implies "run to your mother." I quick review
of the phrase in Google (in English) illustrates how it is used (not that
it is polite, but it has nothing to do with anyone's mother).
   I'd suggest that the first rule of multi-cultural, multi-lingual e-lists
like this one should be "no English idioms"!

thanks
Hilary

---Original Message---
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:06:09 +1000
From: James Cameron 
To: iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org, sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
Subject: Re: [IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy -
Sugar Labs


Long reply.

I'm very familiar with the geek feminism team and the conference
anti-harassment policy, as I've been a regular speaker at
linux.conf.au.  I support the work of the geek feminism team.  For my
part, two of my friends who are female are part of the overall geek
feminism movement.  The conference policy is essential.  I support the
policy itself, but I don't think Sugar Labs needs it yet.

I'm also familiar with abuse and harassment policies in general, as
I've been studying and implementing them as part of another
organisation.  Earlier this week 130 or so pages of canon law passed
my eyes.

Walter asked Laura why existing code of conduct is insufficient;
perhaps another way of asking why the policy would be needed.  At time
of my writing, Laura hasn't answered.  I look forward to an answer.

For my part, I guess there are two possible scenarios, and which is
correct I cannot be sure.  Perhaps none, perhaps one, perhaps both.

1.  a misunderstanding.

Since almost everything here in Sugar Labs mailing lists is in
English, and there is no independent third party doing translation,
any non-english speaker is obliged to manage their own translation,

Laura says english is not her first language.  So everything I say has
to be translated.  When translating there are a choice of
interpretations.  English has several meanings.

This risks an uncharitable translation, which may result in silently
taking offense, which may set a person against me.

This in turn increases the probability of the next translation being
uncharitable, caused now by a decision to act against all my
interests, despite some interests being held in common.

A positive feedback loop begins, with each communication raising the
ire of each participant.  This may partly explain my stress and tears
in the design meeting; I felt I wasn't listened to, as if a prejudice
had already built to the point of deafness.

For my part, I hope Sebastian isn't the translator.  If so, I'm
doomed.  ;-)

2.  side attack.

A less charitable interpretation is that Laura is searching around for
procedural weapons to use against me, which in itself is a form of
abuse.  This seems less likely now than a misunderstanding, because it
would be such an unwise thing to do.  Laura should not be the one to
propose this motion, because it could look like an attack.  Laura
might instead have asked another to propose it, or the motion could
have been private to slobs@.  It can only be an attack on me if it is
copied to iaep@.


Summary

The proposed policy is not needed, because the code of conduct already
includes a summary form, and says the oversight board will arbitrate.
The oversight board is the response team, and reports would be private
to them.

(As an aside, If I had approached the board alleging harassment under
the code of conduct, I would have written to the board without
including anyone involved in the abuse or harassment.  If Laura had
approach the board alleging harassment under the code of conduct, the
board would have to acknowledge and then discuss without including
Laura.  The proposed policy identifies the same difficulty with the
response team.)

The proposed policy is unsustainable, because we have so few active
people in Sugar Labs.  With GCI and GSoC inactive, most posts are from
myself, Laura, or the oversight board.  It is unlikely there would be
agreement on making a separate response team, and the confidential
nature of the response team would make it hard for them to manage
communication.

Alternatives

However, I welcome any independent third party to assist Laura and
myself to be more charitable in our translations and interpretations,
and defuse what might be seen as mutual harassment born from
misunderstanding.  Others have become silent instead.

As Sugar Labs is so small, I don't expect an independent third party
will make such an offer, so as an alternative I ask that Laura and
others clearly identify any harassment, and in return I'll do the
same.  I've already begun this.  It will increase volume of mailing
list posts, which is unfortunate, but seems necessary.

I recognise that the proposed policy would also protect me, and I
could make a report under the policy; on the issues of 

Re: [IAEP] Arbitration request: Caryl Bigenho a first warning for moderation [WAS: Re: Improving our Code of Conduct (was: Re: Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs)

[Benjamin Berg]

Hi,

I am not following this list closely these days, but I happened to see
this thread and was rather baffled by the (covert) hostility
perpetrated and apparently observed by people on all sides.

I do *not* know the background of the whole issue. But I don't think
that this matters right now. If people have strongly opposing positions
on a topic, then it can be next to impossible that no one will be hurt
at some point. In my experience that can easily happen even if everyone
tries to keep the discussion civil.

Keep in mind that priorities differ a lot. Ideological believes differ
a lot. People may agree on most facts about an issue and still come to
entirely independent conclusions.
At first glance this does appear to be a case where there is no clear
perpetrator or victim and each sides escalation is likely a sane
response from their point of view. Focusing on a few selected ("well
defined") infractions seems odd, when the history of the conflict shows
that all parts have done their part in escalating things further and
further. And such escalation can already happen due to communication
issues like bad wording or misinterpretation based incomplete
information or false assumptions.


Starting an arbitration process does seem like a viable course of
action to me. However, I strongly believe that any punitive action must
be at the discretion of an independent party. I am noting this as this
request appears rather direct in asking for a certain action to be
taken. I believe that this is incompatible with the purpose of an
arbitration process where it is likely that all sides will need to make
an effort to understand each others motives to then find some common
ground.

In such a process an (enforcement/punitive) action may be a possible
outcome in the end. But as I said, the party doing such a decision
needs to be independent and hopefully is able to understand the motives
and arguments of each side.


I do hope that everyone involved is dedicated to a proper arbitration
effort. I expect that untangling the whole situation will require a lot
of effort. This is an effort that requires both time and emotional
energy from all parties so that they can try to understand the
different aspects.

If successful, there is the potential of resolving the conflict well
enough that everyone can still be part of the community and work
together. If unsuccessful, my guess that one or more parties will be
alienated from or pushed out of the community.

Benjamin


On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 22:00 -0500, Laura Vargas wrote:
> Dear SLOBs and community members;
> 
> cc Ombusman
> 
> 
> We need to clearly state every member when interacting within the
> Sugar Labs project channels is expected to serve as an example for
> children.
> 
> This is logical as within Sugar Labs, children make software,
> documentation, art, testing, etc. 
> 
> 
> I am sad because today, again, me and my family have been mistreated
> on a Sugar Labs mailing list by a Sugar Labs member.
> 
> I am sad because our Code of Conduct is not sufficient to deal with
> these situations and other than Walter no other SLOB notice me
> needing the addition of the anti-harassment Policy earlier.
> 
> It is necessary we make a list of acceptable and unacceptably
> behaviors within Sugar Labs communication channels so we can add that
> to the Sugar Labs Code of Conduct.
> 
> In this case Caryl might be unaware: in our culture, it is completely
> unacceptable to mention someone's mother.
> 
> Sebastian's mother is my mother in law, a real person. 
> 
> 
> So my petition is: to send Caryl a first warning for moderation and a
> suggestion to apologize to Sebastian.
> 
> 
> Thank you for your consideration.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Laura V
> 
> 
> 
> 2017-10-04 19:34 GMT-05:00 Caryl Bigenho :
> > Sebastian, 
> > 
> > In my culture and, possibly in James's culture, accusations such as
> > this one you are making against James, and the one Laura made
> > against me a few weeks ago, are considered "harassment"...
> > actually, extreme harassment.
> > 
> 
> Caryl,
> 
> We are far from understanding what your culture is.
>  
> > You are denying us the freedom to express our opinions or feelings
> > in a rational way without fearing reprisals and intimidation as
> > what the two of you have chosen to do. 
> > 
> > We are all adults here (at least will be after Samson turns 18 on
> > Halloween  ). It's time we start acting like adults and sto
> > p "running to Mommie!"
> > 
> 
> In my culture you can be a "Grannie" but it would still be extremelly
> rude and disrespectfull to talk about someone's mother.
> 
> I may have to make you realize this person you are talking about
> actually exists!
> 
> We are a family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > GrannieB 
> > 
> > From: IAEP  on behalf of
> > Sebastian Silva 
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 7:41 PM
> > To: James Cameron; Laura Vargas
> > Cc: iaep; SLOBs
> > Subject: 

[IAEP] why do accountants prefer facts over inaccurate wikis, undocumented board votes & screaming matches?

[Adam Holt]

[1] The Software Freedom Conservancy has sent $1605.73 above and beyond
Samson's Nigeria-California $1583.34 flight costs ($3189.07 total).

As such the total SFC has transmitted for Samson Goddy's GSoC weekend in
the San Francisco area is now $3189.07

If in fact the $1605.73 (708+550+347.73) already transmitted is not enough
(above and beyond Samson's Nigeria-California $1583.34 = 1279.14+161.20+143
Port Harcourt-California flight costs) Samson Goddy is again asked to file
a public motion supporting and documenting why he needs more.

At age 17 Samson Goddy might not yet realize that accountants will never
accept ambiguity around double-spending of GSoC or any other funds.  It is
a lesson we each and all learn before we die, the final accounting for our
contributions, whether the world chooses to listen to accounting
professionals or not in our final resting place at the end of my life, and
at the end of all our lives.


[2] As the June 2017 historical record and 2017's entire numbering of
motions is incorrect/incomplete at
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board/Decisions (it still fails to
mention that Samson Goddy was approved for up to $500 on June 12th,
conditional on his visiting France's Scratch conference:
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2017-June/019870.html) I'd ask a
neutral 3rd party like Dave Crossland or Ombudsman Bert Freudenberg to fix
this, as edit wars at
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board/Decisions=history
regrettably do not move Sugar Labs forward.

Similarly on September 29th Laura Vargas appears to have accidentally made
things worse by changing the April 2017 historical record here, while
perhaps not understanding that all Sugar Labs motions must be resolved
within 1 week (168 hours):
https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/index.php?title=Oversight_Board%2FDecisions=revision=100892=100821


[3] So that we can all keep track of the number of board members who want
$500 or more and the private discussions on sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org that
prevent Sugar Labs ~138 other members (and the public) from understanding,
let this serve as a reminder that changing the historical record and
screaming matches on sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org [4] are not the way to
achieve thoughtful financial support for insider (or outsider!) projects.

The Worst possible precedent we could set is board members privately voting
institutional funds into each others' pockets.

The Best way to achieve this (in all cases) is a public board vote en plain
air.


[4] A profound thank you to Walter who powerfully intervened on Sunday
October 1st to scale back Samson's verbal assaults on other board members.
Samson's words were so shocking that I will not quote them here.  This was
completely unacceptable and Walter did the right thing by forcefully
putting an end to that; we can only hope that the stars begin to align in
2017 and this serious ongoing pattern of harassment please begins to
dissipate with a new dawn arising in coming months and years:

"For some of us, it is the season of forgiveness. Selfishness and
self-dealing, pettiness and small-thinking, arrogance and
self-aggrandizement are all easily forgiven. What is more difficult to
forgive is when members of this board engage in character assassination,
personal attacks, and question the motivation and goodwill of their
colleagues and fellow community members. This sort of behavior is poison to
our credibility as an oversight board and is seriously undermining the
cohesiveness of our community. I am not seeking consensus -- it is natural
and healthy for us to disagree -- but I am asking that you tone down the
rhetoric and show more respect to your peers and colleagues."
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Fwd: Wire transfer of $897.73 initiated to Goddy today.

[Samson Goddy]

I want to publicly apologize to everyone that i have offended.

To Lionel and Adam, i am very sorry for strong use of bad words. I let my
anger get best of me.

But you have to understand the reason why i am angry.

Especially Adam, i just realised that my words are uncool.

I haven't had enough sleep for days due to this mis-information.

I urge you to do the right thing.

Thanks

Regards

On Oct 5, 2017 10:16 AM, "Samson Goddy"  wrote:

> According to SFC calculation, suggested by Adam. My travel advance is now
> $202.27, instead of $550.
>
> I am still waiting for explanation.. From Adam what happen to the original
> motion approved by SLOBS.
>
> Or can Adam now, overrule SLOBS decision?
>
> Is SLOBS decision not worthy enough? why do we have SLOBS? if adam can
> drastically reduce my funds without SLOBS approval.
>
> I am still making this public, to show what is going on and also a way for
> us to prevent it in future.
>
> Why was i given $202 instead of $550?
>
> "Motion: Approve a travel advance for US $2550 (US $2000 SFC prepurchase
> of an airline ticket and $550 towards local transport) for Samson Goddy's
> travel to the Google Summer of Code mentor's summit.
> 5 in favor, 1 recuse, 1 vote yet to be counted [1]
> "
>
> out of $2550 + $695.46 (Samson and Walter GSoc stipend), i was given
> $897.73 - ($30 dollars from bank/wired charges) - (5% of withdrawal fee
> from the bank ~$43)
>
> $824.73 is what, i will be getting.
>
> while my budget shows
> ..
> $1125  ($416 from approved $2550, $550 travel advance = $966, my share of
> gsoc stipend 347.73 and donated walter's stipend to help cover accidental
> cost in Boston and Nigeria).
>
> And this is what i get ($824.73), pathetic I am highly disappointed,
> if i was Adam suggested this months back before my visa.. I would have
> forfeited coming to Gsoc Mentor's summit. This is how i am been repaid for
> contributing in Gsoc and Sugar Labs for over 6 months.
>
> Karma is a funny thing you know.
>
> Actions like this, chase volunteers in a community. Beware of your actions
> and how they affect members.
>
> FYI, Lionel please ignore this report, i don't want you input in this..
>
> Adam Thank You!!!
> I see this as a personal attack, no offence Adam. I am not enjoying this
> situation at all!
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Accounting at Software Freedom Conservancy <
> account...@sfconservancy.org>
> Date: Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:10 PM
> Subject: Wire transfer of $897.73 initiated to Goddy today.
> To: Samson Goddy 
> Cc: su...@sfconservancy.org
>
>
> Adam Holt wrote at 14:17 (PDT) on Tuesday:
> > Please wire this $550 + $347.73 = $897.73 cash advance to Samson Goddy
> > immediately if possible.
>
> This payment has been issued by wire transfer today.
>
> For clarity: only $202.27 was a cash advance for travel expenses.  The
> remainder, $695.46, was *not a cash advance*, but rather a payment of a
> stipend for mentoring during GSoC 2017.
>
> Samson, for the $202.27, note that this is an advance of your travel
> expenses for GSoC Mentor Summit.  Please note that you must follow the
> travel policy:
>https://sfconservancy.org/projects/policies/conservancy-tra
> vel-policy.html
>
> ... including keeping receipts for all expenditures.  We need you to do
> this
> so we can count your expenses toward the advance and/or reimburse
> additional
> expenses (if the PLC approves further expenses).  Note that such PLC
> approval does not overrule the travel policy; both are needed for valid
> Project travel.
>
> Again, please be sure to save receipts.  This is essential and a
> requirement.  We cannot reimburse expenses for which receipts are not
> provided.
>
> I know Karen and Brett, who will be at Mentor Summit, are looking forward
> to
> meeting you.  I had a scheduling conflict for Mentor Summit this year so I
> unfortunately won't get to meet you.
> --
> 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] [SLOBS] Arbitration request: Caryl Bigenho a first warning for moderation [WAS: Re: Improving our Code of Conduct (was: Re: Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs

[Walter Bender]

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Laura Vargas  wrote:

> Dear SLOBs and community members;
>
> cc Ombusman
>
>
> We need to clearly state every member when interacting within the Sugar
> Labs project channels is expected to serve as an example for children.
>
> This is logical as within Sugar Labs, children make software,
> documentation, art, testing, etc.
>
>
>
>
> *I am sad because today, again, me and my family have been mistreated on a
> Sugar Labs mailing list by a Sugar Labs member.*
> I am sad because our Code of Conduct is not sufficient to deal with these
> situations and other than Walter no other SLOB notice me needing the
> addition of the anti-harassment Policy earlier.
>
> It is necessary we make a *list of acceptable and unacceptably behaviors
> within Sugar Labs communication channels *so we can add that to the Sugar
> Labs Code of Conduct.
>
> In this case Caryl might be unaware: in our culture, it is completely
> unacceptable to mention someone's mother.
>
> Sebastian's mother is my mother in law, a real person.
>
>
> So my petition is: to send Caryl a first warning for moderation and a
> suggestion to apologize to Sebastian.
>
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> Regards,
>
> Laura V
>
>
>
> 2017-10-04 19:34 GMT-05:00 Caryl Bigenho :
>
>> Sebastian,
>>
>>
>> In my culture and, possibly in James's culture, accusations such as this
>> one you are making against James, and the one Laura made against me a few
>> weeks ago, are considered "harassment"... actually, extreme harassment.
>>
>
> Caryl,
>
> We are far from understanding what your culture is.
>
>
>> You are denying us the freedom to express our opinions or feelings in a
>> rational way without fearing reprisals and intimidation as what the two of
>> you have chosen to do.
>>
> We are all adults here (at least will be after Samson turns 18 on
>> Halloween  ). It's time we start acting like adults and stop "running
>> to Mommie!"
>>
>>
> In my culture you can be a "Grannie" but it would still be* extremelly
> rude and disrespectful*l to talk about someone's mother.
>
> I may have to make you realize this person you are talking about actually
> exists!
>
> We are a family.
>
>
>
>
> GrannieB
>>
>
>> --
>> *From:* IAEP  on behalf of Sebastian
>> Silva 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 3, 2017 7:41 PM
>> *To:* James Cameron; Laura Vargas
>> *Cc:* iaep; SLOBs
>> *Subject:* [IAEP] Improving our Code of Conduct (was: Re: Code of
>> Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs)
>>
>>
>> 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 

[IAEP] Fwd: Wire transfer of $897.73 initiated to Goddy today.

[Samson Goddy]

According to SFC calculation, suggested by Adam. My travel advance is now
$202.27, instead of $550.

I am still waiting for explanation.. From Adam what happen to the original
motion approved by SLOBS.

Or can Adam now, overrule SLOBS decision?

Is SLOBS decision not worthy enough? why do we have SLOBS? if adam can
drastically reduce my funds without SLOBS approval.

I am still making this public, to show what is going on and also a way for
us to prevent it in future.

Why was i given $202 instead of $550?

"Motion: Approve a travel advance for US $2550 (US $2000 SFC prepurchase of
an airline ticket and $550 towards local transport) for Samson Goddy's
travel to the Google Summer of Code mentor's summit.
5 in favor, 1 recuse, 1 vote yet to be counted [1]
"

out of $2550 + $695.46 (Samson and Walter GSoc stipend), i was given
$897.73 - ($30 dollars from bank/wired charges) - (5% of withdrawal fee
from the bank ~$43)

$824.73 is what, i will be getting.

while my budget shows
..
$1125  ($416 from approved $2550, $550 travel advance = $966, my share of
gsoc stipend 347.73 and donated walter's stipend to help cover accidental
cost in Boston and Nigeria).

And this is what i get ($824.73), pathetic I am highly disappointed, if
i was Adam suggested this months back before my visa.. I would have
forfeited coming to Gsoc Mentor's summit. This is how i am been repaid for
contributing in Gsoc and Sugar Labs for over 6 months.

Karma is a funny thing you know.

Actions like this, chase volunteers in a community. Beware of your actions
and how they affect members.

FYI, Lionel please ignore this report, i don't want you input in this..

Adam Thank You!!!
I see this as a personal attack, no offence Adam. I am not enjoying this
situation at all!
-- Forwarded message --
From: Accounting at Software Freedom Conservancy <
account...@sfconservancy.org>
Date: Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:10 PM
Subject: Wire transfer of $897.73 initiated to Goddy today.
To: Samson Goddy 
Cc: su...@sfconservancy.org


Adam Holt wrote at 14:17 (PDT) on Tuesday:
> Please wire this $550 + $347.73 = $897.73 cash advance to Samson Goddy
> immediately if possible.

This payment has been issued by wire transfer today.

For clarity: only $202.27 was a cash advance for travel expenses.  The
remainder, $695.46, was *not a cash advance*, but rather a payment of a
stipend for mentoring during GSoC 2017.

Samson, for the $202.27, note that this is an advance of your travel
expenses for GSoC Mentor Summit.  Please note that you must follow the
travel policy:
   https://sfconservancy.org/projects/policies/conservancy-
travel-policy.html

... including keeping receipts for all expenditures.  We need you to do this
so we can count your expenses toward the advance and/or reimburse additional
expenses (if the PLC approves further expenses).  Note that such PLC
approval does not overrule the travel policy; both are needed for valid
Project travel.

Again, please be sure to save receipts.  This is essential and a
requirement.  We cannot reimburse expenses for which receipts are not
provided.

I know Karen and Brett, who will be at Mentor Summit, are looking forward to
meeting you.  I had a scheduling conflict for Mentor Summit this year so I
unfortunately won't get to meet you.
--
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