Hear hear!
On 12/04/2015 7:11 PM, Chris Maclachlan wrote:
Hi all,Â
I've been lurking on the list for about a year, and I've only been to
one MPUG meetup so far - but I've read the entire discussion around this
with some interest. The community seems to be open, friendly, welcoming,
well-behaved and professional, so the discussion of a need for a code of
conduct at all initially surprised me - but having given it some
thought, I've seen first-hand how one bad seed can ruin things for
everyone, and it's frustrating at the best of times when it happens -
doubly so when the rules weren't laid down from the start.Â
So, having said all that, as a humble list-lurker, I just wanted to
personally voice my approval and support for MPUG adopting the Linux AU
CoC. I think it will provide a good underpinning for this group, and
encourage professionalism and inclusiveness without imposing any
overbearing regulations.Â
(Also, I think it's fantastic that Javier has championed this effort,
and I love the transparent and democratic method in which he's gone
about it. We're lucky to have people like him as part of this community). Â
Cheers
Chris
Â
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 10:39 PM Javier Candeira <jav...@candeira.com
<mailto:jav...@candeira.com>> wrote:
Hi MPUG.
As you can see by the discussion with Pycon AU and Linux Australia
people (quoted below), they think MPUG should move to the Linux
Australia Code of Conduct. It will be soon the one used by Pycon AU
as well anyway.
I've been persuaded, and I will change the links in the wiki and the
mailing list website header if no strong dissent is registered on
this list in the next 48 hours. Hopefully this will be the end of
this matter.
If instead of dissent you want to express approval and support,
that's cool as well. In fact I'd personally appreciate it.
Cheers,
Javier
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Javier Candeira <jav...@candeira.com
<mailto:jav...@candeira.com>> wrote:
Thanks, Chris.
If Pycon AU adopts the LA code of conduct, that would make me (I
speak personally) want MPUG to adopt it too. And many of the
other reasons for it (MPUG organisers and presenters are also
involved with Pycon, so their acceptance of the CoC is a given
in many cases) would stand too. Let's say that we'd be adopting
the Pycon AU CoC by reference, not by value.
Note that it's my opinion that a small user group has different
dynamics than a big conference, so the language itself did not
bother me much. I think the signaling aspect of having a CoC at
all and the commitment of the organisers to take issues seriusly
is much more important than the wording of the CoC. Having said
that, it's always better to adopt a well-maintained document.
For the reasons above I'm going to suggest on the MPUG list that
we adopt the LA CoC too, "since it's the one used by Pycon AU".
When do you expect/hope the Pycon AU organisation to make the
decision to switch?
J
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Chris Neugebauer
<chris...@gmail.com <mailto:chris...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 9 April 2015 at 04:06, Joshua Hesketh <j...@nitrotech.org
<mailto:j...@nitrotech.org>> wrote:
>
> The code of conduct isn't hard coded into the source but rather
supplied as
> part of the content management system built into zookeepr. This
year the URL
> is here:http://2015.pycon-au.org/register/code_of_conduct
>
>
> I'm actually surprised PyCon AU hasn't moved to Linux Australia's
one which
> has had a lot of work put into it and been exercised at multiple
different
> events (including debconf and others outside of just Linux
Australia). I
> understand less people of MPUG may have seen it, but I personally
don't see
> that as a reason not to use it.
>
> There is no obvious license on the pyconau 2015 code of conduct
so I'll
> leave that to others to reply.
Javier,
Some explanation as to the current code of conduct; some
detailed
reasons as to why you shouldn't adopt it; and some reasons
if you do
decide to adopt it, why you shouldn't link back to PyCon
AU's instance
of it.
A large part of the reason why PyCon AU has continued to use
the older
CoC is inertia -- many PyCon sponsors (especially the Python
Software
Foundation themselves) have required a declaration that a
conference
would adopt a code of conduct before agreeing to sponsor.
Pointing
back at an old Code of Conduct (which has been used
successfully for
some years now) has been sufficient for that.
Certainly when I was directly involved in the day-to-day
running of
the conference, I was hesitant to change the code after
telling the
sponsor what our decision was.
This year I've been responding with the historical code and
the LA
code. I've flagged with Clinton the intention of using the Linux
Australia code of conduct, and I believe consideration has
been given
to this.
My view is that MPUG should be adopting a LA's code of
conduct, or a
variant thereof, rather than the historical PyCon AU one:
- It is more detailed than PyCon AU's, but it covers all of the
provisions of the old PyCon AU code of conduct.
- Likewise, the LA code of conduct, written after PyCon AU's
contains
many of identical provisions: enforcement rules, and the
preamble,
were taken almost identically from the PyCon AU 2011 code.
- It is not location-specific -- PyCon AU's code specifies
things
specific to the location of the conference. MPUG would need
to fork
PyCon AU's code of conduct in order to make it appropriate
to their
place of meeting.
- PyCon AU's code of conduct specifies in detail expected
behaviour of
presenters[0], but much less so for delegates
- LA's code of conduct has been iterated by several
organisations
other than LA, including Debconf, which has resulted in amending
language where the code has proved problematic to enforce
[1][2].
As for whether you should be linking to PyCon AU's code
directly, I
also say no:
- If you adopt the 2014 version, you'll be telling your
members that
you'll alert Queensland police to incidents.
- the code will not remain static over the years. The
current code
requires minor changes every two years.
- There is also the chance that we'll change the code
completely (i.e.
to adopt LA's code of conduct).
--Chris
[0] A large part of this is, in my opinion, due to when the
code was
written, and the concerns of the community at the time
[1]
https://github.com/linuxaustralia/constitution_and_policies/commit/b8dfbb633bdb7ad1d16dee39f746345b2b85cfd8
[2]
https://github.com/linuxaustralia/constitution_and_policies/commit/043e78288a33615f8dca775ce0857c37e6a7f660
--
--Christopher Neugebauer
Jabber: chris...@gmail.com <mailto:chris...@gmail.com> --
IRC: chrisjrn on irc.freenode.net <http://irc.freenode.net> --
WWW: http://chris.neugebauer.id.au -- Twitter: @chrisjrn
_______________________________________________
melbourne-pug mailing list
melbourne-pug@python.org <mailto:melbourne-pug@python.org>
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
_______________________________________________
melbourne-pug mailing list
melbourne-pug@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
_______________________________________________
melbourne-pug mailing list
melbourne-pug@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
