Re: code of conduct question for Board candidates

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 07:11:42PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I'm entirely in favor of an improved code of conduct, both for events
and in general.  And thank you for raising this issue.

Some searching turned up
, but that's definitely insufficient.  (It's a nice set of sentiments,
but not a functional code of conduct.)  By contrast, the GUADEC 2014
code of conduct you linked to sets the higher standard I would expect,
and that I've come to expect from other conferences as well.  I'm in
favor of improving the general code of conduct to the same standard.

Why and how is it "definitely insufficient"?

Marina linked to several resources about codes of conduct and their
effectiveness; specifically, see .

For instance, a more effective Code of Conduct should include
information like "For issues arising on mailing lists, IRC, or Bugzilla,
contact example gnome org, who can help address issues, and if
necessary, can limit or ban access to those resources."  Which I would
hope is simply a statement of what we'd *already* do; I'd be shocked,
for instance, if the IRC channel operators or server admins have never
had to ban anyone.

For the record: I'm not personally looking to put forth a proposal to
update the current community code of conduct; I'm simply stating that I
would be quite receptive to a well-considered proposal to do so.

I quite like the Code of Conduct and I've signed it. By contrast, the
2014 GUADEC one is a very long statement specifically about a
conference, not about a community. I don't see how the board has _any_
influence on the GNOME community. This while the conference one assumes
you're attending a conference and that someone can "expel" you, can
possibility contact law enforcement, etc.

And that's the upper limit of what a Code of Conduct for a mailing list,
IRC channel, Bugzilla, or other community resource should do as well:
expel someone from a list, channel, Bugzilla server, etc.  Nobody's
talking about a document that has legal effect.

While I disagree with the portion of the current CoC that says "There is
no official enforcement of these principles" (not least of which for
almost certainly being inaccurate), I agree with the "this should not be
interpreted like a legal document".  For instance, nobody should be
saying "well, they're acting terribly and being disruptive, we all know
it, but they're not violating the exact letter of the CoC, so my hands
are tied".

I don't follow why I'd sign something can cause legal issues for me if I
could do without that.

Nobody is asking anyone to sign anything.  A CoC would simply be a
stated policy for expected behavior on community resources, such as
mailing lists, IRC, Bugzilla, wikis, email, etc.

- Josh Triplett

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]