I think that offering both would be an excellent solution. Direct contact to the right people would be best but is not always timely. A generic e-mail is more in terms of 'I would like to talk to someone, call me back' rather than a ticket detailing the case.
Given how crowded the conferences can be, it can be difficult to find the right people to talk to on short notice. The risk is that the lack of availability leads to lack of follow up. Tim From: Lauren Sell [mailto:lau...@openstack.org] Sent: 22 October 2013 00:35 To: Anne Gentle Cc: Tim Bell; David Mortman; foundat...@lists.openstack.org; openstack@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Openstack] Making the Hong Kong Summit as inclusive as possible On Oct 21, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Anne Gentle <a...@openstack.org<mailto:a...@openstack.org>> wrote: On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Tim Bell <tim.b...@cern.ch<mailto:tim.b...@cern.ch>> wrote: Lauren, Great.... Can the 'Report Harrassment' section have an explicit e-mail address such as reportharassm...@opentack.org<mailto:reportharassm...@opentack.org>. It would be useful to keep the barrier for reporting problems low as some people may not know how to find a member of the foundation staff. Hi Tim and everyone on the list - I was actually one who gave them input that I wouldn't use a generic email address to report anything as serious as harassment, because of wanting to control who knew what about the incident and knowing the person I was reporting to. Hopefully that works well for others. I'm still reading it all the way through but I think this is just what we needed. Thanks, Anne We could also offer both if that's helpful -- an alias and specific people to contact like there are now. Best, Lauren From: Lauren Sell [mailto:lau...@openstack.org<mailto:lau...@openstack.org>] Sent: 21 October 2013 20:35 To: David Mortman Cc: foundat...@lists.openstack.org<mailto:foundat...@lists.openstack.org>; openstack@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] [Openstack] Making the Hong Kong Summit as inclusive as possible Hi everyone, As a quick update, the community code of conduct has now been publicized on the Summit website, wrapped in more event-specific language recommended by this thread and the PyCon code of conduct. There is also a clear process for reporting and responding to any complaints. http://www.openstack.org/summit/openstack-summit-hong-kong-2013/the-openstack-summit-code-of-conduct/ We're planning to promote the code of conduct in an email blast to all registered attendees this week, make printed copies available at the registration desk on-site and provide a reminder on the back of each badge. We're also sending it directly to sponsors because there are special notes about booth and party conduct. Please let us know if you have any additional feedback or ideas. Thanks! Lauren On Oct 3, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Lauren Sell <lau...@openstack.org<mailto:lau...@openstack.org>> wrote: Hi Anne, David, Yes, the transparency committee update is on the board meeting agenda, but I think the code of conduct for our Summit is a different issue. The transparency committee had three main tasks: develop a written policy documenting our approach to transparency, investigate creating an independent ombudsman, and figuring out a way to move non-confidential Board communications to a public mailing list. I circulated the transparency policy on the Foundation mailing list (http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/2013-July/001447.html) for comment, and we're hoping to review the policy in today's Board meeting. You can see the latest version here (https://docs.google.com/a/openstack.org/document/d/1sGBtza-mjRXcDzFBSS9aUrYlAtu1se-eerHZN16DPyU/edit). Regarding the Summit code of conduct, I have an update since my last email about working on reporting/response procedures. We have a draft going here (https://etherpad.openstack.org/reporting-response-procedures) and had a good call with the Ada Initiative last week for input. We're also planning to engage with them to train our event staff before the Summit. I'd welcome any feedback on the procedures, as well as if there are any other policies we should be looking at (our procedures are based largely on PyCon, also influenced by Ada Initiative) or other organizations we should be engaging with along these lines. While we won't be able to change the official code of conduct before the Summit, we can wrap it with more specific behavior examples like David had suggested and publicize the reporting/response procedures on our website, in a pre-event email to attendees and on-site. If there are any issues in the meantime, the Foundation staff, including Jonathan, Stef, Tom and me, are always available and happy to get involved. As a reminder, I encourage anyone who is interested to dial into the board meeting. The meeting invites are always posted to the Foundation mailing list, and there's a link to register in the agenda: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/3Oct2013BoardMeeting Thanks, Lauren On Oct 1, 2013, at 12:53 PM, David Mortman <launch...@mortman.com<mailto:launch...@mortman.com>> wrote: Thanks Anne! On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Anne Gentle <a...@openstack.org<mailto:a...@openstack.org>> wrote: Hi David and list and everybody, The Board meets Oct 3, and Josh has an agenda item for the Transparency WorkGroup. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/3Oct2013BoardMeeting Anne On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:25 PM, David Mortman <launch...@mortman.com<mailto:launch...@mortman.com>> wrote: So given that it's been nearly two weeks since anyone has responded is it time to rebrand it the Opacity Committee? On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:23 PM, David Mortman <launch...@mortman.com<mailto:launch...@mortman.com>> wrote: Joshua, I found this answer hilariously short and opaque especially given the context of it being part of the Transparency Committee. Can you go into more details about what has been discussed in the past as well as what might be proposed at the next board meeting. Speaking of which, when is the next board meeting anyways? thanks -David On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Joshua McKenty <jos...@pistoncloud.com<mailto:jos...@pistoncloud.com>> wrote: David - yes, the ombudsperson office is one of the goals of the Transparency Committee, and we've got an agenda item to dig into again at the next board meeting. -- Joshua McKenty Chief Technology Officer Piston Cloud Computing, Inc. +1 (650) 242-5683<tel:%2B1%20%28650%29%20242-5683> +1 (650) 283-6846<tel:%2B1%20%28650%29%20283-6846> http://www.pistoncloud.com<http://www.pistoncloud.com/> "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!" "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has." On Sep 15, 2013, at 5:18 PM, David Mortman <launch...@mortman.com<mailto:launch...@mortman.com>> wrote: Joshua, I'll leave it up to the event staff to determine how they want to handle it in this on-site case. Certainly someone needs to be empowered or the exercise is pointless. For the community as a whole, does the Board of Directors have the authority to create an ombuds office? -DM On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Joshua McKenty <jos...@pistoncloud.com<mailto:jos...@pistoncloud.com>> wrote: David, while I think having an onsite group able to field complaints and address incidents is critical, we need to make sure that such a group has the ability to address any complaints. So I'd suggest we pass this directly to the foundation staff, and make sure that the event coordination team is coached appropriately. Having community members act as ombudsperson is both complicated from a legal standpoint, and potentially inappropriate. Lauren, can you make sure the on-site events team is briefed on the proposed code-of-conduct, and is ready to respond to any complaints that might arise? -- Joshua McKenty Chief Technology Officer Piston Cloud Computing, Inc. +1 (650) 242-5683<tel:%2B1%20%28650%29%20242-5683> +1 (650) 283-6846<tel:%2B1%20%28650%29%20283-6846> http://www.pistoncloud.com<http://www.pistoncloud.com/> "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!" "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has." On Sep 15, 2013, at 3:59 AM, David Mortman <launch...@mortman.com<mailto:launch...@mortman.com>> wrote: On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 4:26 PM, David Mortman <launch...@mortman.com<mailto:launch...@mortman.com>> wrote: Agreed. There should be at least a small group, especially for events, so that one person doesn't get hammered but also so there's a committee to make judgement calls etc. Love the idea of some training too. Given the closeness of the summit (only 2 months away), it's seems like a good idea to put together the initial group of folks who can be the onsite committee to help address any issues that hopefully won't arise. While I'll continue to participate in this effort, unfortunately, I won't be attending the summit myself so I can't help onsite. I will however like nominate both Anne Gentle and George Reese be initial members of the committee. Anyone else interested? A group of three is probably plenty. thanks -David _______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack@lists.openstack.org> Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack _______________________________________________ Foundation mailing list foundat...@lists.openstack.org<mailto:foundat...@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
