Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-03-07 Thread rupert THURNER
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > On 8 March 2017 at 06:45, MZMcBride wrote: >> Risker wrote: >> >I am very curious. Why is it that there seems to be so much resistance to >> >this draft code of conduct? >> >> You may find

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-03-07 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, With all respect, the summary is not a summary. Wading through long, long more of the same is not helpful. We have had more of the same here on this list. Thanks, GerardM On 8 March 2017 at 06:45, MZMcBride wrote: > Risker wrote: > >I am very curious. Why is it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-03-07 Thread MZMcBride
Risker wrote: >I am very curious. Why is it that there seems to be so much resistance to >this draft code of conduct? You may find these links helpful: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-February/086595.html

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-03-07 Thread Pine W
Commenting generally (i.e. not specifically to Risker), this topic has been giving me enough of a headache that I would like to see some kind of path forward, preferably one with the most harmony. I suggest that what should happen based on my admittedly not-detailed look at the draft's history and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-03-07 Thread Risker
I am very curious. Why is it that there seems to be so much resistance to this draft code of conduct? This document closely parallels both the WMF friendly space policy and similar policies in the broader tech/developer community. It is also not that far from policies that exist on many Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-03-07 Thread Matthew Flaschen
On 02/26/2017 01:23 PM, Adrian Raddatz wrote: The benefit to individual admins (and whatever the equivalent is on phab) making decisions about blocks is that you know who did it and how to appeal it. There is no equivalent on Phabricator. That just had enforcement by Developer Relations,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-03-07 Thread Matthew Flaschen
On 02/25/2017 02:15 PM, MZMcBride wrote: The "no conduct policy for technical spaces" argument was debunked here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-November/085573.html This is false. None of the three policies you cited are a code of conduct for technical spaces that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-28 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
So is there a Community RFC or not? If so, where? "Rogol" On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Pine W wrote: > As I'm looking at that talk page, I see a situation which looks like no one > will "win", which is the opposite of how I would like discussions about > policy to go

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-27 Thread Pine W
As I'm looking at that talk page, I see a situation which looks like no one will "win", which is the opposite of how I would like discussions about policy to go in the ideal world. Trying to salvage that situation is more than I can take on at this time. My hunch is that if the RfC is approved,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-27 Thread Gergő Tisza
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki < steinsplitter-w...@live.com> wrote: > Apart from that, i see a big COI - the staffer in question is voting at > the voting sections, striking out votes, defending the code of conduct and > the he is marking a section as "consensus". Imho the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-27 Thread Steinsplitter Wiki
imedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> im Auftrag von Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com> Gesendet: Montag, 27. Februar 2017 08:32 An: Wikimedia Mailing List Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces Yes. See https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Code_of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
Yes. See https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft=2409367 at section "Final approval of CoC", where Matt's statement at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft=784 is discussed. On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Pine W

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Joseph Seddon
I would like to also point out a central notice banner was displayed on Mediawiki.org to logged in users. Seddon On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Gergő Tisza wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Adrian Raddatz > wrote: > > > A lack of other

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Gergő Tisza
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Adrian Raddatz wrote: > A lack of other community members participation is perhaps half on a lack > of advertising, and half on a lack of interest. > The drafting process was advertised to the point of obnoxiousness. I count 30 announcements

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Todd Allen
The idea was floated that since discussion has taken place on individual sections, discussion was not needed for the final document. I did not see any indication that this was the final decision on the matter. Though clarification would be quite appreciated. Todd On Feb 26, 2017 5:12 PM, "Pine

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Pine W
>now reneged on previous agreements to hold a final vote Has that actually happened? I'm hoping that no statement like "the total document isn't subject to an RfC" was actually made. That would add needless disagreement to a process that is challenging enough even in the best of circumstances,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Leila Zia
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Tim Landscheidt wrote: > Leila Zia wrote: > > > […] > > > On a separate note to those of you who contribute to technical spaces and > > are not happy about how some aspects have gone: > > > Matthew and a few other

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
Perhaps this need for use cases was addressed in the "report" which the staff commissioned from consultants over a year ago but which was never shared with the community at large – assuming that it was ever produced. "Rogol" On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Isarra Yos

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Isarra Yos
On 26/02/17 18:21, MZMcBride wrote: Then you and others should have no problem providing specific examples. I'd like to see links to Gerrit changesets and Phabricator tasks where this new policy and its committee would help. If you want to make claims of serious unacknowledged problems,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Tim Landscheidt
David Gerard wrote: >> Eh, they do and that is one of the reasons to oppose the >> Code of Conduct. Its draft implicitly alleges that the >> technical spaces currently are a cesspit that is in urgent >> need of someone with a rake while protecting actual offend- >> ers by

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread
On 26 February 2017 at 18:12, Pax Ahimsa Gethen wrote: > Thank you for sharing that Rachel Nabors post, David; bookmarked. I think > some on this list are missing the point that codes of conduct are necessary > to help provide a welcoming and safer environment for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Adrian Raddatz
In terms of substantive concerns, the ArbCom model is what most non-staff commenters seem to be caught up on. I'm personally concerned with any creation of a dispute resolution "class" of editor, since I feel that the community does a terrible job of mob resolution at places like ANI on enwiki, or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread MZMcBride
David Gerard wrote: >This is a pretty reasonable presumption regarding technical spaces: if >you *don't* have a code of conduct, it's a reasonable conclusion from >outside that there will be serious unacknowledged problems. Then you and others should have no problem providing specific examples.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Pax Ahimsa Gethen
Thank you for sharing that Rachel Nabors post, David; bookmarked. I think some on this list are missing the point that codes of conduct are necessary to help provide a welcoming and safer environment for marginalized people, including the neuroatypical that Tim refers to (somewhat

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
I don't think the WMF is "trying to exempt itself from its own creation", it is simpy giving its own staff a privileged position within it. Anyone who makes a complaint against a member of staff will have the privacy of their complaint breached by having details sent to the WMF with its millions

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread David Gerard
On 26 February 2017 at 17:49, Tim Landscheidt wrote: > Eh, they do and that is one of the reasons to oppose the > Code of Conduct. Its draft implicitly alleges that the > technical spaces currently are a cesspit that is in urgent > need of someone with a rake while

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Tim Landscheidt
Robert Fernandez wrote: >>Personally I'm much more grateful for the people who did not >>spend their energy on this code of conduct to "accidentally" >>exercise power over others > If the organizers of this proposal responded in kind with even a fraction > of the bad

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread MZMcBride
Tim Landscheidt wrote: >This is a circular and illogical argument. Just because >someone has good intentions or invested time and effort does >not mean that the path they chose is the right one to take. >And if someone is steering towards a cliff, encouraging peo- >ple to keep pushing the cart to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Vi to
I think methodological objections shouldn't prevail over substantial objections. I can agree most of consensus in CoC draft came from WMF staffers/contractors, but: *no one was prevented from weighing-in *lists were filled with invitations to weigh-in *I think most of us didn't comment just

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-26 Thread Robert Fernandez
>Personally I'm much more grateful for the people who did not >spend their energy on this code of conduct to "accidentally" >exercise power over others If the organizers of this proposal responded in kind with even a fraction of the bad faith accusations that have been leveled at them, the howls

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-25 Thread Tim Landscheidt
Leila Zia wrote: > […] > On a separate note to those of you who contribute to technical spaces and > are not happy about how some aspects have gone: > Matthew and a few other people have been trying /really hard/ to make > Wikimedia's technical spaces better. You know that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-25 Thread Leila Zia
Hi MZMcBride, On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 11:15 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > > > Matthew Flaschen wrote: > >English Wikipedia policy is clear > >(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry): > >"In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-25 Thread MZMcBride
Pine W wrote: >When I last spent some time looking at the proposal, I too felt that the >contributions indicated that the policy had far too little community >influence. *However*, if you'll entertain a hypothetical with me for a >moment, let's suppose that the status quo continues and there is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-24 Thread Pine W
> * The people in the WMF and the Affiliates are /part of/ of the communities. > * Even the people without extensive years of volunteering, or those who > only started volunteering at the same time as they became professionally > involved, are part of the communities. > * It is illogical for us to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-24 Thread Adrian Raddatz
WMF staff are certainly contributors within the technical spaces. There's no reason why they shouldn't be able to participate in the COC formation process (which I have unrelated concerns with...) A lack of other community members participation is perhaps half on a lack of advertising, and half

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-24 Thread quiddity
* The people in the WMF and the Affiliates are /part of/ of the communities. * Even the people without extensive years of volunteering, or those who only started volunteering at the same time as they became professionally involved, are part of the communities. * It is illogical for us to tell the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-24 Thread Pine W
Let me rephrase and elaborate on that point. Phabricator and MediaWiki aren't the WMF wiki. I think that WMF employees' proposals, comments, questions, and suggestions can be welcome for TCoC drafting. However, in terms of process leadership and in terms of proportion of input, I would like to see

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-24 Thread Erik Bernhardson
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Pine W wrote: > > A point I should make is that I think that Matthew and others made some > good-faith efforts with the current draft. I would have proposed far less > WMF involvement with the draft One thing I just don't understand here,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-24 Thread Todd Allen
I think we definitely should think about next steps if the draft fails to gain consensus. (And, for that matter, if it does get consensus, there will be a lot of followup work in that case too.) But if it fails, one of the most important questions will be "Why did people object to this and how

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-24 Thread Pine W
Well, WMF will have to deal with this policy too. (: I'm cautious about using a plurality of comments on this list as a proxy for an RfC, but if I was WMF and I was looking at the comments on this thread, I would be giving a lot of thought to fallbacks in case the RfC either fails to achieve

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-24 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
Pine When I last spent some time looking at the proposal, I too felt that the > contributions indicated that the policy had far too little community > influence. *However*, if you'll entertain a hypothetical with me for a > moment, let's suppose that the status quo continues and there is >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-23 Thread Steinsplitter Wiki
: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces On 02/21/2017 05:42 PM, Erik Bernhardson wrote: >> It's not particularly clear hear, which community? The developers of > mediawiki-core? extension developers? people who attend hackathons and > such? It seems all of these gr

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-23 Thread Pine W
Hi Rogol, When I last spent some time looking at the proposal, I too felt that the contributions indicated that the policy had far too little community influence. *However*, if you'll entertain a hypothetical with me for a moment, let's suppose that the status quo continues and there is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-22 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote: > However, both volunteers and staff participants have joined the CoC > process. Matthew is too modest – the discussions has been managed by staff since late 2015, almost all of the contributions to the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-22 Thread Matthew Flaschen
On 02/21/2017 06:24 PM, Todd Allen wrote: No. The community I am referring to is all WMF project participants who might be interested in presenting their opinion on the subject, regardless of whether or not they currently participate in any given specific area. That is always the case. No, it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-22 Thread Matthew Flaschen
On 02/21/2017 05:42 PM, Erik Bernhardson wrote: It's not particularly clear hear, which community? The developers of mediawiki-core? extension developers? people who attend hackathons and such? It seems all of these groups have been bombarded with calls to participate in the process over the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-22 Thread Matthew Flaschen
On 02/21/2017 05:36 PM, Lane Rasberry wrote: I would like for whatever is adopted to match other similar proposals. So far as I know, the technical space proposal is not compared with the "online" proposal or the "events" proposal. Although those are training modules and the Code of Conduct

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-21 Thread Todd Allen
No. The community I am referring to is all WMF project participants who might be interested in presenting their opinion on the subject, regardless of whether or not they currently participate in any given specific area. That is always the case. Todd On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Erik

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-21 Thread Erik Bernhardson
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Todd Allen wrote: > Actually, I had no idea it was going on until very recently. It seems the > initial communications were pretty much restricted to those already > involved in technical areas or mailing lists. > > "The community", when

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-21 Thread Todd Allen
Actually, I had no idea it was going on until very recently. It seems the initial communications were pretty much restricted to those already involved in technical areas or mailing lists. "The community", when we're talking about something that will affect everyone, means, well, everyone who

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-21 Thread Erik Bernhardson
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > This code has been under discussion at > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft since the summer > of 2015, and is finally nearing completion. The original consensus in 2015 > had been that the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-21 Thread Lane Rasberry
Hello, As of January the WMF has presented these also - Dealing with online harassment < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Training_modules/Online_harassment/First_draft > Keeping events safe < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Training_modules/Keeping_events_safe/First_draft > I would like for

[Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

2017-02-21 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
This code has been under discussion at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft since the summer of 2015, and is finally nearing completion. The original consensus in 2015 had been that the completed code would be submitted to the community for ratification and adoption.