Just agree to change a set of documents using a "community-driven governance". Protocol extensions should contain protocol extensions, and nothing but them. It is a technical documentation, but such things turn it into a political manifest.
On Fri, 4 Feb 2022, 15:39 JC Brand, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 04.02.22 11:20, Andrew Nenakhov wrote: > > 1. From what I've seen, CoCs are used so silence or scare into silence > people with differing political opinions (so much for tolerance). The > language of this CoC, too, is too broad and allows for such misuse. > > 2. XEPs are not the place for such documents. If XSF wants to have a code > of conduct, it can well publish it on it's website in a Code of Conduct > section. > > Use of XEPs for such purposes is a sign of bureaucracy apparatus that had > forgotten its original goal and is now a self-serving process. > > > I think one argument in favour of using a XEP is that this allows for a > community-driven governance process of managing and changing the document > over time. > > A CoC simply hosted as a webpage outside of the XEP process is much more > open to abuse since it can be changed at any time without oversight. > > > - JC > > > On Fri, 4 Feb 2022, 15:10 JC Brand, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear list >> >> The community code of conduct (xep-0458) came up for an approval vote in >> a recent board meeting. >> >> I've gone through the document and am writing down my thoughts and >> feedback here. >> >> Quoted parts are directly from the document. >> >> > The examples in this document of what not to do are intended to be >> just that - examples. They are not intended to be exhaustive. Many of these >> examples have formal definitions, either in law or elsewhere - in general, >> if you are reliant on such a definition to argue why your behaviour might >> be acceptable, you have already lost the argument. >> >> I don't think it's in the purview of this document to pre-emptively >> decide whether someone has "won" or "lost" an argument. Even phrasing it >> that way, as a competition, is in my opinion problematic. >> >> > Ordinarily, the XMPP Standards Foundation welcomes and encourages >> participation in XSF Activities, but this guiding principle allows the XSF >> to partially or completely exclude anyone from any activity, for any reason. >> >> I think the phrasing "for any reason" is too harsh and leaves this >> document open to abuse. It makes it sound as if the XSF claims the right to >> be capricious. I would drop that last bit. >> >> > By explicitly stating that this Code of Conduct applies this allows >> the XSF to sanction bad behaviour outside of XSF Activities should the need >> arise. >> >> I'm against this statement as written. What someone does in their private >> life, unrelated to the XSF and outside of XSF activities has no bearing on >> the XSF and the XSF has no justifiable basis to sanction that person for it. >> >> Also "bad behaviour" is incredibly broad. What is "bad behaviour"? In >> some societies things that are considered bad behaviour are celebrated in >> other societies. Social norms change and a sentence such as this makes this >> document and its related process open to abuse. >> >> This makes me think of Brendan Eich who got fired by Mozilla for donating >> money to a campaign against gay marriage. With this kind of wording in the >> document, I wouldn't be surprised if something similar could be attempted >> in the XSF. I would be against that, particularly because it's outside the >> purview of the XSF. The argument made in Mozilla at the time was that >> Eich's act caused Mozilla employees to feel "excluded", a word that pops up >> regularly in this document as well. >> >> Ideally politics is left outside of the XSF and I've made the argument >> before that the XSF is apolitical and we should not get involved in >> politics. One of my concerns of a document such as this is that it can be >> used as a tool to start political fights and campaigns inside the XSF. >> >> > using sexualised language in your erotic fiction hobby is likely to be >> irrelevant to this Code of Conduct. >> >> The use of "likely" here leaves the door open to sanction people for >> their private endeavors. >> >> > It may also be in some cases people may prefer to report informally; >> while reporting "properly" is preferred, the Conduct Team should strive to >> handle informal reports in the same way if possible. >> >> To me this reads as encouraging gossip and for the Conduct Team to >> respond to gossip. If someone doesn't report formally, I don't think the >> Conduct Team should get involved in any dispute. >> >> > The Conduct Team may ask for further information from you, the person >> accused of bad conduct, or others who were present >> >> This sentence and most of this section is written as if the reader is the >> reporter. I find this biased. It might also be that the reader is being >> reported, and I therefore think this should all be written in the 3rd >> person, i.e. no use of "you". >> >> >Finally, the Conduct Team will make a decision on sanctions or other >> action. >> >> This makes it sound like some action will be taken. In some cases, no >> actions might be taken. >> >> Considering the "Security Considerations" section. >> >> > It is possible for almost any behaviour to have some argument why it >> is not, in fact, exclusionary, and why it's just someone taking offence too >> easily. It also is possible for the Code of Conduct to be weaponised for >> exclusionary purposes, by using the complaints mechanism to stall or >> silence valid debate. >> >> There are other ways to weaponise a CoC and not just to silence debate, >> but also to exclude and create ideological conformity inside the XSF. >> >> There are of course situations where this might be valid, for example >> someone openly expressing illegal speech (e.g. calling for genocide etc.), >> but IMO the bar should be very high here. >> >> I see the terms "inclusion" and "exclusion" used a lot in this document, >> but I don't see anything about tolerance. Tolerance means that while you >> don't necessarily approve of someone's personal decisions, you tolerate it >> in order to keep the peace and to not let the disagreement interfere with >> goal or task at hand. >> >> >> Regards >> JC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Standards mailing list >> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards >> Unsubscribe: [email protected] >> _______________________________________________ >> > > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > > > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
