I put together this open letter on the topic, it itemizes many of the points in CoCs and may be useful for measuring the proposed XSF CoC:
https://danielpocock.com/open-letter-acm-codes-of-ethics-conduct/ On 04/02/2022 11:39, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > > On 04/02/2022 10:40, JC Brand wrote: > >>> 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 > > > What about Jacob Appelbaum? > > In 5 years since the lynching, not one person ever recorded a complaint > at a police station. > > They used the CoC as an alternative to the law. In other words, using > the CoC without any official justice process was an act of vigilantism. > > They used the CoC to spread the defamation from one group to the next > like spreading a virus or worm. They spread it all the way to major > newspapers like the Washington Post. > > Is that "safety" or is it a dangerous form of social engineering? > > Prince Andrew will soon be subject to a trial by jury. Free software > developers like Appelbaum are subject to an inferior system, trial by > CoC. Why? > > If somebody genuinely uses an XSF communication platform to promote > criminal activity then the existing laws already empower the > administrators to remove that content and prevent it coming back. > > For everything else I feel that online communities need to invest in > leadership skills and improving the quality of human relations. Doing > those things will go a lot further to advance the cause of the XSF, XMPP > and open standards in the wider world. > > 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. > > Regards, > > Daniel > _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
