It's sounds nice, but no. It is not a feature. One of the arguments I was given when the CoC was initially pushed through was that of course it wasn't perfect as was, that it would be amended and fixed based on the real incidents it came into contact with. I maintain that it is impossible to do this - to amend, fix, and generally refine a document based on the real cases - when the details of the real cases and even the stats about what they are in general remain unavailable, and yet this is clearly precisely what is needed to avoid incidents like this in the future.

There has been considerable disagreement as to where we should be drawing the line between the public cases, the generalised, and the private, but this too is something we need to figure out out a community and clearly draw, and the only way to do so is with clear information on what is possible, common, and feasible.

-I

On 09/08/18 22:39, David Barratt wrote:
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



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Reply via email to