On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 17:10, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> I’m just picking at replies here - as I said in the chatroom I think this > is a generally positive direction and want to thank the people involved. > (I did make two suggestions there) > > For the record (and my notes), I'll paraphrase these here: * "No person has any automatic right to join a chatroom, or write a XEP." in §3 ought to be something else, since writing a XEP doesn't need the XSF's permission as such. I'm not sure what this can be, but I accept that writing private extensions using the XEP format and publishing them independently might be considered "writing a XEP", and that's not within the XSF's purview. * There's limitations on what the XSF (via the Board) can sanction a member for; in particular removal of any rights stipulated in the bylaws. The ramifications of this one are really interesting. Is ejecting a member from the members mailing list allowed? Probably, but that may mean they're not notified about a meeting, which is a bylaw right (or a responsibility of the XSF at least). Members can be removed, but with difficulty. I wouldn't want this to be made any easier, either. It may be as simple as noting that XSF Members, while held to a higher standard as regards the Code of Conduct, have certain immunities with regards to potential sanctions, and so members may have to take that into account when voting them in. > On 11 Jun 2021, at 15:18, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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?) >> >> > I was in two minds about this, so thanks for raising it. > > I went for Board ratification of decisions mostly for the ease of managing > the authority, but also in part because then the Conduct Team becomes an > investigatory and deliberatory team instead of both judge and jury. > > But you're right in that this might end up with Board relitigating the > decisions rather than just providing the final go-ahead decision and acting > as a blame deflector. > > > I think that if we were to find that the Board consistently disagrees with > decisions made by the Conduct Team, the Board would likely have to look at > who they’d put on the Conduct Team. > > If the Board has to approve the Conduct Team’s decision by really looking > at it and considering if it’s reasonable, is that not basically going > through the appeals procedure pre-emptively? > > I don't think so. Where there are valid appeals, this may mean the Conduct Team hasn't done its job right in finding the facts, or it may mean that despite their best efforts, there was information they were unaware of. But equally, I don't think most cases will result in any appeal at all, and frequently no actions. As a real example, two (or three, depending how you count) FOSDEMs ago I made a comment to Edwin, saying that I'd noticed - and I quote myself as best as I can recall after two and a half years - that there seemed to be "a much better proportion of girls in cybersecurity than elsewhere in our industry". Edwin rightly pointed out that referring to professional women as "girls" was more than a bit condescending, and I accepted that and nothing more was said. (As Sam suggests, he did so quietly and calmly, and didn't dox me on the mailing list, making it much less likely to put me on the defensive and escalate the situation). Under this Code of Conduct, Edwin (and perhaps also me) would drop an email to the Conduct Team, more for them to keep a finger on the pulse than anything else. Edwin would note that he called me out on it, and that I took the criticism in the way he'd intended. I'd expect the Conduct Team to do precisely nothing, maybe double check with me that I did now understand how my comment could be perceived - but possibly just take Edwin's word for it that I do. And for the record, I do - while referring to "the girls" and "the boys" to include adults is perfectly common idiom here, I do realise that in a professional context, and particularly with non-native speakers (and for all I know, non-UK speakers), it might well come across condescending, whatever my intent. By avoiding that idiom, I make our community a little more welcoming (see §2.1) for very little effort on my part. But back to the point - what am I going to appeal? Am I going to complain that they should remove me from the stand at FOSDEM? Am I going to say they shouldn't have spoken to me (and if so, how are they going to un-speak to me?). I've tried to make the policy "scale down" to quick resolutions and course-corrections like this, and I don't see any likelihood that these will generate appeals. The introduction of sanctions is, by its nature, exclusionary - sanctions may be required to minimize the exclusion, but they're a last resort. > I’m not sure I have a strong sensible opinion on this one, it seems > non-trivial. > Notwithstanding the above, it's not necessary for the Board to make the final decision - I did it that way based on a virtual coin-flip, but fully delegating the authority seems fair too. Or indeed partially - we could involve Board when sanctions or public statements are felt to be needed by the Conduct Team, but otherwise let them get on with it and just report. Honestly, I haven't even decided if I'm ambivalent on this point. Dave.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
