Updates: On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 15:18, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 13:19, Sam Whited <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > 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. >> >> > There is a lot of history around this particular issue in other > organisations where the Code of Conduct has been applied unexpectedly to > activities outside its obvious remit, and to (what some believe) are > political ends. There are even cases where Codes of Conduct have been > changed in order to make this the case retroactively. I'm not going to go > into specifics of cases, but it's an area where I entirely understand that > people are concerned. > > Now, yes, I think there are cases where behaviour in an unrelated setting > is likely to be an issue for us, but what I don't want to imply is that > just because using sexualised language in a Summit would be a serious > problem, that means you can't have a hobby writing erotic fiction. My point > is that behaviour is often contextual, and unless other people reasonably > think it reflects on us, we should keep out. > > So if someone tweets something that - if said in our chatrooms, for > example - would be against our Code of Conduct, I would be very reticent to > suggest the Conduct Team should take any action beyond, at worst, reminding > that person that their tweet would be seen as exclusionary in our > community. To do otherwise risks becoming exclusionary ourselves, which is > counter to the whole point. But, as noted, if they were a Board member, > say, that changes the dynamic considerably. > > That said, a lot of behaviour that's against the Code of Conduct is > actually flat-out illegal, ranging from hate speech to actual murder, and > that's a different matter - though jurisdictional differences apply of > course - I would assume that actual illegal behaviour does reflect on us. > > As always, textual suggestions here are welcome. > > I've made the example about explicit language more explicit, as with the example above; I think that now reads that the exemplar case (of erotic fiction writing) is likely to be irrelevant, rather than reading like a general comment. > > 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". >> >> > The latter is itself against the CoC, so hopefully not. But yes, my intent > here was that - if people feel able to do so - to calmly and gently express > their concerns, privately or otherwise in response - and not escalate > things into a vicious row. > Clarified this, and added some rationale. > > >> > 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). >> >> > Yes, Jonas also pointed out this wasn't obvious, though you're spot on in > terms of the reasoning here. > > That said, I don't know if we want to ignore complaints (and I don't like > that word) if they have been reported incorrectly. My concern in this is > that I don't want a level of formality to dissuade people from reporting > incidents because they're minor, or they feel more intimidated by the > process than the incident itself. > > Added some text to clarify these thoughts. > > 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 am very open to opinions here. > After discussion, i've more or less left it up to Board whether to delegate, and let the Conduct Team "bump decisions upward" if they want. > > >> > 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. >> >> > Yes, there's a balancing act between providing expectations to the > community and providing guidance to the Conduct Team here. What I'm aiming > at here is that if there's a public discussion storm over the incident, > then that would suggest the result is announced publicly. But broadly, the > result and incident should be kept as low-key as possible, I think - not to > "cover up", but to avoid escalation. > > So while I'd rather not make it entirely a matter of the team's > discretion, perhaps more guidance and more observation that the > announcement is part of the "action" is warranted. > > Added more guidance, noted that announcing is an Action too. > > 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. >> >> > Yes, it was originally in the introduction, but an early steer from Ralph > was to minimize the introduction and get straight to the Code itself; > sloppy editing on my part has put it in an awkward place. > > Reworded, expanded, and put at the beginning of the sanctions/actions bit. > 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! > > > Thanks for your very useful review; I'll continue to consider much of what > you've said and may change my mind later because of it. > > Dave. >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
