Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l]

Hi, 

This has just been published on the Mozilla community blog by Emma Irwin and I 
thought it could interest some of you here. 

https://blog.mozilla.org/community/2020/09/10/weaving-safety-into-the-fabric-of-open-source/

It brings insight into the experience of enforcing a code of conduct in an open 
source community.

Wikilove! 

Nattes à chat 
Envoyé de mon iPhone

> Le 12 sept. 2020 à 05:23, Zainan Zhou (a.k.a Victor)  a écrit :
> 
> 
> I might be wrong, but I couldn't help noticing some disagreements of whether 
> we should have a Universal CoC lies in the different mindset of how conflicts 
> should be governed, just like legal systems of Common Laws vs Civil Laws. 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:25 AM Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l 
>>  wrote:
>> {{trigger warning : French joke included}}
>> 
>> Dear Pete, let me explain  why this is problematic.  
>> 
>> First I am sorry to say there is no hidden agenda or awful witchery plot to 
>> uncover including WMF influence. I have myself severely criticised the WMF 
>> in the course of the branding process (and was never scolded for that so I 
>> think we can express criticism). Maybe not all the time, maybe not just in 
>> any format. 
>> 
>>  I made the initial comment, and no one pushed me into.  If it has offended 
>> people, I am sorry, maybe I should in effect have reached out to Dan 
>> privately first. Dan I am sorry of the attention, your wording is being 
>> given, and I would like us to move on, as suggested by Alphos to a more 
>> constructive debate. 
>> 
>> Pete, because your are asking repeatedly for clarification and only because 
>> of that, what I have learned from my #black lives matter friends, it that s 
>> not my obligation to educate you on why this is problematic.  In fact when 
>> you ask for clarifications, you are putting pressure on people who find the 
>> use of disrespectful language a problem instead of  asking why the initial 
>> comment had to include flatulistic scenery (and this for French speakers has 
>> nothing to do with Brice de Nice’s expression « ça farte » see for reference 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhZ_kkVzx18 
>> ) which blurrs the actual 
>> meaning behind the criticisml, especially for people whose language is not 
>> English in the first place. Then one could argue that it is targeting people 
>> of an institution. Full stop. 
>> 
>> I wish to  move on to why I believe spaces should be moderated, which 
>> basically would mean enforcing a code of conduct, that many members of our 
>> community have been asking for for years.
>> 
>>  « As I am a nice guy » I will give a few ressources explaining why I think 
>> lists, and wikimedia spaces should be moderated. Basically it is because you 
>> can : 
>> 
>> 1- allow free roaming speech and leaving agressive behaviours unchecked 
>> creating a space where only certain social groups are over represented but 
>> thus you can’t claim to be designing the sum of all human knowledge
>> 
>> OR 
>> 
>> 2 - design free open source inclusive spaces  that are allowing anyone to 
>> participate but you then have to moderate content because, people have 
>> different « cultures" and may not understand what offends others, there is a 
>> learning curve. 
>> 
>> Here is  a timeline of incidents 
>> https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents#2018for 
>>  
>> 
>> This time line of incidents is often cited by women as a reason for having 
>> OS code of conducts (which includes moderation of mailing lists most of the 
>> time) 
>> 
>> History tells us, that in the early internet days, the first experiments of 
>> virtual spaces encountered less harassment and more women. This is told in 
>> the following book : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35953464-broad-band 
>> , where the story 
>> of Stacy Horn and how she actually designed the Esat Coast Hanger (ECHO) see 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_Horn 
>>  is detailed.  Why? Because Stacy 
>> Horn moderated each chan and reached out to every member that left the 
>> community so that she would eventually know about abusive behaviours and 
>> document it. 
>> 
>> Designing a safe space does not mean you cannot address just any topic, it 
>> just means that you do so paying attention to how you treat potential 
>> readers, and contributors to create a discussion that is actually evolving 
>> around the subject, and not the format of it. 
>> 
>> A 2018 incident about wether or not a joke should be removed  
>> https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/  
>> questions wether there is a need for a safe space or not in open source 
>> projects. I’m taking this example, because it shows how power and privilege 
>> iin a community can be used to influence « keeping a 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l]

If someone states that something is unclear, they very obviously intend
“unclear” to apply to their perception of it.

For example, I just used the words “very obviously.” That is my perception,
my opinion, what I gathered from the information available to me. Should I
note “it is my opinion that...” before every adjective I use?

Regardless, it would be beneficial to civil discourse if you focused on
addressing the arguments of those who disagree with you rather than
attacking them personally and the method in which they put forward their
ideas, especially when it results in such unnecessary (see, my opinion
again) semantics such as this. This also applies to your: “I hope the
moderators are considering moderation for several posters beyond Dan.”, the
message of which was fully clear and not constructive.

Best,
Verm

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 15:25 Paul J. Weiss  wrote:

> To expand on the last part of my previous post, one of the things that
> Peter and other posters are doing that is problematic in my eyes is
> phrasing their opinions as fact. It is quite clear to me why Dan was put on
> moderation. So it is a false statement to say that "this is patently
> unclear". I believe that opinion should be stated as such. When I see
> opinion being spun as fact, I am less interested in reading the rest of
> such a message, and that writer loses credibility in my eyes.
>
> Paul
>
> - Original Message -
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
> From: "Peter Southwood" 
> Date: 9/11/20 4:20 am
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
>
> In that case, can we please have an explanation of exactly how the relevant
> text was found to be inappropriate, as this is patently unclear, and
> apparently the reason for all this debate. I have my own speculation, but
> as
> it is speculation, it would be inappropriate to publicise unless there is
> no
> official explanation.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Asaf Bartov
> Sent: 11 September 2020 11:46
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
>
> No, it is not "forbidden words" that are the problem, and we have no
> intention of maintaining a list.
>
> We expect list subscribers to maintain civil discourse, which does include
> avoiding vulgarity, and expressing oneself with respect to both one's
> interlocutors (or addressees of criticism) and the broader audience.
>
> Happily, this is something more than 99 percent of subscribers manage to do
> without effort.
>
> As I have repeatedly clarified, respectful discourse absolutely does not
> preclude criticism. Indeed, it is liable to make the criticism more likely
> to be heard.
>
> A.
>
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, 12:26 Peter Southwood 
> wrote:
>
> > Is there somewhere we can refer to the list of offensive and unacceptable
> > expressions, and how they are determined?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf
> > Of Anders Wennersten
> > Sent: 11 September 2020 10:33
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review
> >
> > There are many of us on this list who have given the feedback we find
> > that expression offensive and unacceptable.
> >
> > Do not forget the readers of this list comes from may different cultures
> > and if you and the people close to you find it "acceptable" it is not a
> > valid judgment for all, and why do you want us to leave this list just
> > so you can use a language like that. (I certainly would if that was
> > accepted as a norm)
> >
> > The language on this list is English, it means we non-native have to
> > adjust our entries to a unfamiliar language. It mean we have to limit
> > our means of expression (we will not be experts on nuances). You who
> > are native English speaker have all the advantages, would it then be too
> > hard for you to adjust you language to what is acceptable to us others?
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> > Den 2020-09-11 kl. 09:31, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:
> > >
> > > Please, enlighten me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
> > >> :
> > >>> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do
> I
> > have a deeply flawed understanding of civility?
> > >> Well, are you open to consider the possibility that the latter might
> > >> theoretically be the case, at least partially?
> > >> Kind regards
> > >> Ziko
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> a.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

[Eduardo Testart]

Hi All,

I just wanted to give my opinion on how to make things more civil and
gentle in general, and also to add clarity to the threads. As a non-English
native speaker, there are many things I consider do not help at all in
written discussions in general in any given list, most of the time when
these things are done, then everything turns challenging, complicated, or
sadly blatantly uncivil:

1) Irony
2) Jokes
3) Long and numerous paragraphs (extensive writing)
4) Acronyms

I believe these things are very important to pay attention too and should
be avoided, no matter what we are feeling or thinking about any specific
subject. Not doing so regularly leads to conflictive states, and paying
attention to the latter and restraining from doing so normally contributes
to open discussions.

I believe also that helps a lot to reduce:
5) Sayings and expressions

Maybe all this resonates with someone, and if not, it's also ok :]


Cheers!

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 1:00 PM Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 6:50 PM Dan Szymborski 
> wrote:
>
> > As long as people are going to continue to talk about me and imply that
> I'm
> > actually *harassing* people, then I feel I have a right to defend myself.
> >
>
> Nobody ever denied you that right.
>
> I brought up that the UCoC standard is a reasonable person standard, not a
> > "most offended person" standard and this was never addressed. Instead, I
> > was demeaned by being placed on a special moderation protocol. Asaf
> Bartov
> > threatened me that if I continued to defend myself -- even as people
> > continued to discuss me -- that *I'm* hijacking the thread.
>
>
> What I actually wrote to you, and I quote, was:
>
> "I also must insist that you not hijack this thread, which is for
> discussing the draft UCoC.  If you see value in bringing up your concerns
> on those other matters on this list, please do so on separate threads.
> Since you have expressed the opinion that this UCoC draft is illegitimate,
> I suggest there is really no reason for you to post further on this thread,
> leaving it for those who *would* like to discuss it."
>
> I then did indeed threaten that *if you continue to disrupt the UCoC
> thread*, your messages won't be let through. As you can see, your latest
> letter, since it was no longer disrupting the UCoC thread, *was* let
> through.
>
> I asked Asaf if Koerner was given a similar warning for a very long, smug,
> > patronizing screed about me as on-topic. Bartov reiterated that nobody
> else
> > was given any warning about off-topic communication. Only *I* am not
> > allowed to talk about *my* apparent offense.
> >
>
> Since now you quote a question you asked privately, I will quote the answer
> I gave you:
>
> 
> "No, I did not warn Ms. Koerner about thread hijacking, because the very
> problem with thread hijacking is that once the change of topic is made,
> people legitimately want to respond. I have not observed Ms. Koerner
> *initiating* a thread hijack.
>
> I do encourage you to continue contributing on the list, including in
> criticizing whatever flaws you find in the Foundation's actions.  I
> certainly find such flaws myself.
>
> But again, as a professional, perhaps you can be less ornery and more
> measured in expressing the *substance* of your concerns. It would at the
> very least be no less effective, and perhaps more so."
> 
>
>A.
> --
> Asaf Bartov 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>


-- 
Eduardo Testart
(56)(98) 293 5278 Móvil
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

[Peter Southwood]

This is the point I was working on. I also have no confident answer to this 
problem, but have a gut feel it is somewhere in between the extremes. There is 
also the point that most people have some choice in where they live, though I 
do not have any useful suggestion of how that should be factored into the 
calculation. San Francisco does seem to be a rather expensively arbitrary 
choice of address, which may be influencing the way the foundation operates. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Dan Garry (Deskana)
Sent: 12 September 2020 18:38
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job 
ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 12:39, Nathan  wrote:

> Shouldn't two candidates for the same position for the same company get
> roughly the same salary, regardless of where they live?
>

I don't know. Maybe.

Within the US, there are markets where decent, experienced software
engineers earn half of what a software engineer in San Francisco would
earn, and they would also probably have a comparable quality of life.
Outside the US, there are markets out there where the going rate
for decent, experienced software engineers is 15 times less than the going
rate for a software engineer in San Francisco. Due to the relative decrease
in purchasing power, the salary that's 15 times lower gives these people a
good quality of life comparable to (or possibly even better than) life in
San Francisco. Is it exploiting them to pay them 15 times less given that
their quality of life is the same, or even higher, than people in San
Francisco? Would it be fair to people in San Francisco, or other locations,
to do this? Should the Wikimedia Foundation pay people in this market 15
times more than they would earn at another company? As Gergő said, would
that be a responsible use of donor funds?

I don't have the answer to these questions. They are very hard questions
where there is no obviously correct answer.

Dan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 12:39, Nathan  wrote:

> Shouldn't two candidates for the same position for the same company get
> roughly the same salary, regardless of where they live?
>

I don't know. Maybe.

Within the US, there are markets where decent, experienced software
engineers earn half of what a software engineer in San Francisco would
earn, and they would also probably have a comparable quality of life.
Outside the US, there are markets out there where the going rate
for decent, experienced software engineers is 15 times less than the going
rate for a software engineer in San Francisco. Due to the relative decrease
in purchasing power, the salary that's 15 times lower gives these people a
good quality of life comparable to (or possibly even better than) life in
San Francisco. Is it exploiting them to pay them 15 times less given that
their quality of life is the same, or even higher, than people in San
Francisco? Would it be fair to people in San Francisco, or other locations,
to do this? Should the Wikimedia Foundation pay people in this market 15
times more than they would earn at another company? As Gergő said, would
that be a responsible use of donor funds?

I don't have the answer to these questions. They are very hard questions
where there is no obviously correct answer.

Dan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 22:23, Michael Peel  wrote:

> This seems to be a restriction against employers asking for someone’s
> salary history, not against including the expected salary range in a job
> advert.


Yes. Apologies, the "undoubtedly not doing this" written in my earlier
email was a bit unclear. Thanks for the clarity.

Dan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

[Kunal Mehta]

Hi,

On 2020-09-10 04:34, Asaf Bartov wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020, 14:05 Fæ  wrote:
>> Who are the list mods?
> 
> The current list admins are John Vandenberg, Shani Evenstein, and I.
> 
>> Unfortunately, this is not made clear at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> 
> That is indeed unfortunate! It *used* to list explicit email addresses of
> the admins. I'll see if there's any setting that can be changed.

This change was intentional, see
 (presumably there's some
mailman config to toggle it if people really wanted).

I documented the list admins on wiki:
.
Maybe consider adding it to the list description?

-- Legoktm

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,