There are different types of XEPs as outlined in XEP-0001: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0001.html#types You are talking about Standards Track XEPs which, as the name suggests, define the standard for the protocol ("protocol extensions") and thus are typically rather technical. This is a Procedural XEP, which, as per XEP-0001, "defines a process or activity to be followed by the XSF". Thus, a procedural XEP is exactly the right place for a CoC that governs the XSF, should we want one.
On Feb 4 2022, at 11:43 am, Andrew Nenakhov <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > (mailto:[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] > > > (mailto:[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] > > > > (mailto:[email protected]) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Standards mailing list > > > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > > > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > > > (mailto:[email protected]) > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Standards mailing list > > Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards > > Unsubscribe: [email protected] > > (mailto:[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] _______________________________________________
