Updates: On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 21:12, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 17:10, Kevin Smith <kevin.sm...@isode.com> 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. > > I've reworded this slightly to use "the XEP series" as an example of "XSF documents" > * 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. > > Done something like this. > On 11 Jun 2021, at 15:18, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> 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: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
