Hi, On Freitag, 2. Juli 2021 12:59:46 CEST Dave Cridland wrote: > There was an interesting discussion, alongside a reference to a free book > I'd not come across, in the XSF Chatroom starting here by "pep.": > > XSF Discussion - 2021-06-28 (xmpp.org) > <https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2021-06-28?p=h#2021-06-28-a3970c1480b7787b>
[… snip …]
> The book raises a lot of points, and I'm glad to say many of them I'd come
> across elsewhere and incorporated, but a few need to be noted and possibly
> incorporated:
>
>
> - Every sanction or action gets a report. This report might be
> anonymized. I've not discussed the possibility of anonymizing the report,
> and I think that's going to be sensible in most (perhaps all) cases. - The
> report should always be made available at least to those who witnessed
> and/or were affected by the event. The book discusses a case where the
> target of sexist comments left the community, unaware that the person
> making them had been talked to, understood the effect of their comments,
> and had agreed to stop. I think I had this in an unpublished draft, but
> it's not there now as explicitly.
Strong +1.
> - The book recommends that decisions made by the Conduct Team are
> unanimous, and the decision-making process isn't discussed outside of the
> team. I think collective responsibility for these decisions is important,
> but I think this may be one of the cases where we differ - the Conduct Team
> has the power to bounce things up to the Board. But we should probably
> stipulate that these discussions should remain confidential.
Interesting take. The effect of required unanimousity on the decision process
is probably complex ("collective responsibility" vs. the power of a single
member to drive discussion in one direction or another with their vote). I
cannot quite get the gist of your opinion on that from what you wrote. Could
you summarize the key points from the book arguing toward unamimousity as well
as why you think the possibility to bounce up to Board outweighs those?
> - The book also stipulates that a CoC should include that anyone on the
> Board or Conduct Team recuse themselves from a Conduct discussion if
> they've had the report about them. I didn't stipulate this in the
> document, but only because it didn't occur to me that someone so accused
> wouldn't do so - it makes sense to include this.
Also strong +1.
> The book also covers a lot more than this, and if you're considering being
> on the Board or the Conduct Team, I'd highly recommend reading it.
I suggest you forward your original mail to members@, too, because it seems
really useful.
It’s a bit unfortunate that discussions between members@ and standards@ are
split-brain, but that’s where we are currently.
kind regards,
Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
