On 04/02/2022 13:00, Ralph Meijer wrote: > > On 04/02/2022 11.39, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> >> [..] >> >> I don't understand why the CoC is being subject to a standards process. >> It is a social phenomena. In many organizations this type of thing is >> part of the constitution or a very closely related document. In such >> cases no member can be censored unless they do something that is >> obviously over the threshold to justify an expulsion process. Such a >> process often involves evidence and a right of reply. The CoC >> undermines the rights of members in such a case and therefore it could >> be seen as a hack against the organization. > > Every organization needs a process to develop policies that complement > its bylaws. It is a long established process in the XSF that we develop > policy documents through our XEP process, as outlined in XEP-0001. It > provides a structured way to work on such policy documents, allowing for > input from, and discussion between, members and non-members alike. > > In no way does developing such policies this way diminish the rights of > members. The Board may eventually decide to make a version of this > document Active, after carefully issuing last-calls and processing > feedback. As with any decision made by the Board, is simply part of the > role of the Board to “manage the business and affairs of the > Corporation”, on behalf of the membership. That is what they are elected > to do. As always, the membership has the ultimate say and can formally > disagree and reverse any action by the Board. > > There is no hack.
Bylaws Section 2.5 Removal by Members: A Member may be involuntarily removed from membership by an affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Members of the Corporation. xep-0458 section 5.3 In high profile cases, therefore, the Conduct Team may decide the result will be announced publicly (this may look like an expulsion and this would violate defamation laws in some countries) ... Sanctions may consist of having the ability to participate reduced or removed from some or all XSF Activities. The effect of 5.3 appears quite dangerous. For example, a conduct team could spread defamation about somebody before members take a vote. By putting a rubber stamp on an accusation and using their titles they may create bias and undermine any fair trial. Moreover, after making such a defamation, they may do so much damage to the victim's reputation that they don't need to have any 2/3 vote. 5.3 says that somebody can be removed but that appears to be a power that only the members can exercise with a 2/3 majority. An interpretation of the bylaws can not change that. On a personal level, I'm not suggesting the XSF proponents of the CoC are organizing such a hack. I'm asserting that the overall phenomena across the ecosystem amounts to a social engineering hack. Look at the lynching of Dr Stallman in 2021: some people who signed the anti-RMS petition in the heat of the moment came back to try and remove their names. When people spread these attacks, whether it was RMS or anybody else, they try to rush the Conduct Team (or equivalent) to shoot first and ask questions later, "we need to act fast", etc. The defamation comes like the spread of Omicron. Sometimes they even use blackmail, telling the Conduct Team "we won't talk to you if you don't join the attack on this volunteer". The bylaws of most non-profits are deliberately designed to slow down such accusations and give people time to think. An alternative to the CoC may be an Acceptable Use Policy that has a tight focus on the use of XSF-managed communication platforms. This would be much less controversial and would probably take less effort to manage. Regards, Daniel -- Debian Developer https://danielpocock.com _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
