I'm not sure I completely understand the problem. What is being called a "lack of transparency" is the opposite of "privacy by design." What is being called a bug, is perhaps a feature. The irony of this, ought not be missed.
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 6:33 PM Isarra Yos <zhoris...@gmail.com> wrote: > An interesting comparison, democracy. Community consensus and > transparency were what brought our shared project to the great heights > we now see, and yet the CoC and especially its enforcement are rooted in > none of this. If this trainwreck that we are currently experiencing on > this list is truly our best shot at an open, welcoming, and supportive > environment when it flies in the face of everything that brought us here > in the first place, then all of that was a lie. > > I'm pretty sure that's just wrong, though. Keeping everything behind > closed doors is the opposite of open. Community members having the CoC > used against them as a club and being afraid of retribution for seeking > help is the opposite of a welcoming and supportive environment. I would > put forth that the CoC, or more accurately, this heavy-handed > implementation of it, has been an abject failure that requires us all to > step back and try to look at all of this more objectively. To move > forward, we must address the issues with the CoC and its enforcement, > but to do so as a community, to come to any meaningful and informed > consensuses as such, will not be possible so long as nobody outside the > committee has any access to the stats, as no logging of actions taken is > available publicly, as the cases themselves remain largely invisible > even when they do not pertain to sensitive situations or materials. > > Because if we do not base this in open process, consensus, and > transparency, then all platitudes aside, it's just not going to be > very... good. It's not going to address our needs, and we're not going > to be able to refine it as things come up. Not doing this /isn't > working/, and we need it work. > > -I > > On 09/08/18 20:48, Victoria Coleman wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > I’ve been following this discussion from afar (literally from a remote > mountainous part of Greece [1]) so please excuse the reflection. I saw this > today: > > > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/ > <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/ > > > > > > This is us. This is our shared project. What an incredible privilege it > is to have the opportunity to be part of something utopian, yet real, that > is seen by the world as the last bastion of shared reality. This is no > accident, no fluke. It’s because of us. This incredible community of ours. > We are all different and yet we all, staff and volunteers alike, strive to > bring the best of ourselves to this monumental project of ours. Sometimes > we get it wrong. We get emotional, we say the wrong thing, we get > frustrated with each other. But we are all in this together. And we hold > ourselves to a higher standard. I hope we can also forgive each other when > we fall down and offer a helping hand instead of a harsh, hurtful word. The > CoC , like democracy, is not perfect but it’s our best shot at an open, > welcoming and supportive environment in our technical spaces. Let’s > continue refining it and let’s get back to work. > > > > Warmly, > > > > Victoria > > > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelion < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelion> > > > > > > > >> On Aug 9, 2018, at 7:24 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi! > >> > >>> to me that this could easily be used as a shaming and blaming list. If > the > >>> block is over and the person wants to change their behavior, it might > be > >>> hard for them to start with a clean sheet if we keep a backlog public > of > >>> everyone. I'd see it not only as a privacy issue for the people > reporting, > >>> but also the reported. > >> You have a good point here. Maybe it should not be permanent, but should > >> expire after the ban is lifted. I can see how that could be better > >> (though nothing that was ever public is completely forgotten, but still > >> not carrying it around in our spaces might be good). So I'd say public > >> record while the ban is active is a must, but after that expunging the > >> record is fine. > >> > >> -- > >> Stas Malyshev > >> smalys...@wikimedia.org > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikitech-l mailing list > >> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
