On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 at 16:59, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote:
> Hallo Guus, > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts. In my comments below, I haven't yet > provided suggested text, but I wanted to reply quickly and I will send > another note when I can make concrete proposals. > > On 10/31/23 3:18 PM, Guus der Kinderen wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Thank you for the work that has gone into this. > > > > To me, the document is clearly worded. > > That's good to hear. > > > I would appreciate elaboration on > > the sentence "Humour is not a mitigating factor here" in section 2.3. > > I expect that Dave meant "perhaps you were merely trying to be humorous, > but that doesn't excuse a poor choice of words". > > I think I had in mind: HAR HAR I WAS ONLY JOKING CAN'T YOU TAKE A JOKE??!??!!111 But yes, as usual, you put it better. > > An > > additional suggestions is to add a reminder that we do not all share a > > common cultural background or even a native language and that this can > > easily introduce confusion of tongues. > > That is an excellent point. I will formulate some text about that. > > This too. What is acceptable humour (or simply phrasing) in one culture isn't in another - see, for example, "bum bags" versus "fanny packs". > > To what extent will this document, once adopted, be not only applicable > > to all of the XSF's Activities, but also be the singular source of > > policy? Does that need to be specified? > > I expect this document would be the single source of policy on the > topics it covers. If we learn that we've missed something important, > we'll need to update the XEP. Defining policy for the same topic in two > places would be confusing. > > > As for the applicability: much (all?) of the violations that I witnessed > > are simple spamming or abusive behaviours in MUC rooms. The definition > > of desired vs undesirable behaviour that's in this document can help in > > those cases, but the process on section 5 is less applicable. I doubt > > that this document intends to make moderators of a room go through a > > procedure of Reporting to the Conduct Team, prior to issuing a ban. > > Should this document more explicitly allow for action to be taken > > outside of the procedure defined in section 5? > > Yes, it should. I'll think about this, as well, and propose text in a > future message. > > I think that there are occasions where an immediate action is warranted, and should be taken by those with the capacity to do so; moderators banning people from chatrooms is one case, though there are other cases. We should ensure that these actions are easily undone. (bans can be dropped, gaffer tape removed from - oh, wait, what was I saying?) > Peter > > > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org > Info: Unsubscribe: %(real_name)s-unsubscribe@%(host_name)s > _______________________________________________ >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org Info: Unsubscribe: %(real_name)s-unsubscribe@%(host_name)s _______________________________________________
