> > yet this is clearly precisely what is needed to avoid incidents like this > in the future. >
Based on what has been provided in this thread, I do *not* see this as an incident that needs to be avoided in the future. On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:23 AM Isarra Yos <zhoris...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
