> Note also that this is not intended to mean that any XMPP developer's > behaviour will be scrutinised constantly - using, for example, racist > language in a talk about your XMPP project would be problematic here, > but using sexualised language in an unrelated setting is likely to be > irrelevant to this Code of Conduct.
While I think it's fine to call out that we won't actively police behavior outside of XSF functions (which seems reasonable), I don't think that makes them irrelevant to the CoC. If we do hear about and verify some egregious behavior outside of the XSF we still may not want that person representing the XSF. If nothing else I'd remove "is likely to be irrelevant to this CoC" and put the decision in the hands of the working group. > please do call it out to that person at the time Should we define how this is done? I assume it means "gently mention that you don't believe this lives up to the CoC in the venue the behavior occurred in or in the chat" and not "post in every single forum you can find about it and include the users home phone number and email". > Who you report it to depends on who was involved in the incident. Can this be clarified? I would assume we'd always want to go to the contact team unless it was a member of the contact team (then maybe the board, or if they're the same, the rest of the board). > The Conduct Team will always hand its recommendation on Sanctions or > other Actions to the Board. The Board will discuss and vote on these > "in camera" (ie, not in public and not minuted). It seems like there's not much point having a conduct team if the board also has to relitigate their decisions. I'd just allow the board to delegate this authority fully (which presumably they could do anyways and this document doesn't curtail board power?) > In high profile cases, the result will be announced publicly. I'd also just say "At the conduct teams discretion" instead of limiting it to "high profile" cases which seems vague and confusing. > While the sanctions described herein are, by their nature, > exclusionary, and much of the behaviour discussed is negative, the > intent is the opposite - we want to maximize inclusion, and promote > positive behaviours. This is great, but feels out of place at the end of a section about appeals. Also a general nit picky note for the editor: all the various hyphens should be converted to em-dashes and "a XEP" should be "an XEP" (I thought? Maybe that's not true in all dialects but I didn't think this is one that would change). Overall this is a great start, thank you! —Sam _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
