On 25/04/17 22:39, Virginia Fournier wrote: > Please keep in mind that Mozilla is already operating under > substantially similar Codes of Conduct through its participation in W3C > and WhatWG. It would be hard to imagine that something would be > acceptable under those SDOs, but not for CAB Forum.
While this may be true, I'm not Mozilla's representative to those organizations :-) And anyway, if "someone else does it" were a concluding argument, we would not be having any discussion at all about what's best for us. >> letter and spirit of this Code. This Code applies to all Forum >> activities, such as meetings, teleconferences, mailing lists, >> conferences, and other functions. > > Do you propose that it apply to non-business parts of face-to-face > meetings, such as dinners (official and/or unofficial)? > > VMF: It would apply to all CAB Forum activities. I would assume that > would include official dinners, but not unofficial dinners. Is there a > reason to be rude, insulting, and unprofessional to other Forum members > at unofficial dinners? ;-) :-) No. But one might discuss a wider range of topics in a wider range of styles. Just as one might have different discussions at the local pub after work than one might discuss around the water cooler. > What does this mean in practice? Are you proposing that our mailing > lists move to being moderated in some way? > > VMF: They _may_ be. Or they could be self-moderating. I'm not sure what you mean by self-moderating. It seems to me that our mailing lists are operating fine. If people need admonishing about their words, than can be done tactfully by private communication rather than by using a banhammer. Any sort of moderation requirement would mean someone had to take on the burden of being the moderator. > VMF: ... Members can raise the > issue with the moderator - but they can’t go on the public mailing list, > for example, and bad mouth the moderator, and complain about how they > didn’t really violate the Code of Conduct, etc. to stir up some bile. Doing it in that style might be a Code of Conduct violation anyway. But this clause bans any raising of questions about moderator behaviour, no matter how respectfully put. I think that's wrong, and leads to the suppression of the sort of debate which can improve the rules after dealing with a difficult situation. > VMF: ... I think again the key > is in the plain English meaning of the words. It’s ok to argue with > someone on the _ideological_ level, but not attack or insult the person > on an _individual_ level. I agree, but that's not what the text says. It says "avoid engaging in offensive or sensitive issues". > clear that the proposed Code of Conduct intends to kick the discussions > and activities up to a more reasonable, professional, respectful, and > conciliatory level. I’m not sure how anyone could object to that. I'm not objecting to the goal; I'm saying the words don't meet the goal. > I prefer only to apologise when the apology is genuine. I hope I'm not > alone in that; anything else is a recipe for insincerity, which does not > breed good relationships. As a matter of courtesy, if someone objects to > something you are doing, one would generally stop while investigating > what the problem is, but requiring an apology in all circumstances is, > to my mind, going too far. > > VMF: ... However, if others > also feel strongly about not apologizing, we can consider modifying this > language. The axioms I’ve heard are “when in doubt, apologize,” > and “apologize early and often.” But I get that other people have > different views. Thank you for being willing to entertain change on this point. > How is the applicability of such sanctions to be determined, and by whom? > > VMF: To be determined collectively by the Chair, Vice-Chair, and > appropriate violating Member executive. We’ll add this to the > provision. It would NOT go to a Forum vote. This certainly needs defining very carefully, particularly "collectively". Also, if someone is in "robust" debate with, say, the Vice-Chair, it may be that they would find it difficult to be objective if a CoC violation were alleged. Are you hoping to have a recusal process? Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
