On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Eli Adam <ea...@co.lincoln.or.us> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Bart van den Eijnden <bart...@osgis.nl> > wrote: >> Hey Jeff, >> >> if you truly feel this way, please put forward a motion on the next board >> meeting. This needs to be decided by the board as a whole I guess. >> >> Personally I’m not in favour of destroying all that good work, but I also >> understand the need to move forward. Where are those discussions happening >> right now? >> >> Best regards, >> Bart > > At State of the Map US in New York there was a BoF on CoC next steps > and implementation. Some of the results of that are on the wiki and > continuing there. The direction may be to form an OSGeo Code of > Conduct Committee which would also have an email list. It is still > being sorted out. >
The joys of email threads... see what Kristin already more clearly articulated, https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2015-June/003055.html > I agree with Bart, that all this work should not be discarded but > supported and refined into something that works. Arbitrary deadlines > may or may not be helpful for that process and I took Jeff's comment > as at least half joke or at least not a real deadline. In the worst > case, I see the appropriate action to be to add a note to the CoC that > it is aspirational as there is no process to report or respond to > reports and that help is needed to develop that. I don't see > repealing or replacing the CoC as an appropriate action. > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Jeff McKenna > <jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote: >> Hi Kate, >> >> I came up with a 1st September deadline in my head because I don't want the >> FOSS4G event to come along without some sort of way to handle reports. We >> can ignore the deadline, but I wanted to let everyone know that a process is >> really needed, besides text on a webpage. You and I and others were part >> of these offline implementation plan discussions, which were great, but I >> think it stalled when selecting the name of the committee. > > FOSS4G 2015 was bid without a CoC and was not part of the contract > when signed. Independently of the Conference Committee and Board, the > 2015 LOC adopted a CoC, http://2015.foss4g.org/about/codeofconduct/ > complete with contact information. > > Sanghee, while OSGeo sorts out the details of CoC reporting and > implementation, you and the LOC have a conference to run. The LOC > adopted a CoC and that is great. I suggest that the LOC stick with > that and make plans to implement it. The LOC could select 3-5 people > who are representative of the LOC and probable attendees to respond to > CoC reports. Ideally those people are reasonable and have some skills > or experience dealing with difficult situations and work well with > people. This group of people should decide on how to implement the > CoC (practicing on a list of hypothetical issues can be very helpful > thought exercise) and inform the rest of the LOC and train volunteers > where to direct issues. This group of people could seek additional > resources through either OSGeo or other venues. > > In the case of your slides, obviously you should not be involved in > deciding any action (if you are in the group that will implement the > CoC) and you and Charlie appear to have settled things between > yourselves, although in a public manner. > > >> >> Maybe what is best is if we move those private discussions to here, on this >> list. >> >> I do notice now that Camille has been recently adding to the initial wiki >> page for the possible committee: >> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct_Committee > > Bart, this is currently probably the best place to continue. > > >> >> As noted in offline discussions, we can always create a new wiki page if we >> need to rename the committee. >> >> -jeff >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2015-06-24 11:21 AM, Kate Chapman wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jeff, >>> >>> I thought this comment deserved its own discussion. While I agree that >>> not having an implementation plan for the Code of Conduct is not >>> acceptable I view it as just as unacceptable to switch to a diversity >>> statement. When I registered for FOSS4G last week it was with the >>> understanding that OSGEO has adopted a Code of Conduct. If this is >>> simply switched to a diversity statement I will not be attending FOSS4G. >>> I am not the only women I know that would feel the same way. > > Kate, thanks for bringing this issue out. I mostly took Jeff's > statements as hyperbole intended to move the process forward and > ignored it. But yes, it is serious, the solution to the problem of > reports is not to remove the ability to make reports but to build the > capacity to respond to reports. > >>> >>> I do not attend conferences without a Code of Conduct and some companies >>> do not sponsor conferences without a Code of Conduct. >>> >>> I will assist in the implementation, but I am not leading it. I am >>> willing to volunteer as a contact to assist people at FOSS4G if the >>> implementation plan includes the need for a contact person (which I >>> suspect it would). > > You've already made great contributions to the work that has been > completed. Thanks for that and your willingness to help further. The > 2015 LOC and others would be wise to take you up on your offer. > > Best regards, Eli > >>> >>> -Kate >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Jeff McKenna >>> <jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com <mailto:jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I thank Sanghee for bringing this to the community. I want to point >>> out >>> that having just a "Code of Conduct", words, on a website is not >>> enough, >>> there needs to be a whole structure of how to handle this. In bold >>> letters I want to state publicly: there is currently no implementation >>> plan for the OSGeo Code of Conduct. This is not acceptable. A few >>> good >>> volunteers have been discussing offline how to setup an implementation >>> plan, as well as possibly even a new OSGeo committee for this, great, >>> but, it is still in discussion stage. Without some sort of plan, >>> community members are already contacting me directly with reports, and >>> I >>> have no formal way to handle these reports. (Sanghee was nice enough >>> to >>> help me solve this together publicly, but, this obviously cannot apply >>> to all reports) >>> >>> I suggest, propose, that if there is no implementation plan for the >>> Code >>> of Conduct by the 1st of September, that the Code of Conduct is >>> removed >>> from all visible OSGeo pages, and is replaced with a simple Diversity >>> statement. >>> >>> I am sorry for being direct here, but, as you can see, this needs to >>> move forward, or not at all. >>> >>> -jeff >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
