Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] How to retire membership status?
Well said Cameron. Bruce > On 23 Jun 2018, at 07:35, Cameron Shorter wrote: > > Could each of us please be a bit more measured and forgiving when responding. > It seems a few words have been selected which caused more offense than > intended. > I remember Jeff McKenna once saying that he sometimes takes a step back from > the keyboard for a day or so before responding, and being much kinder and > wiser as a consequence (my memory of Jeff's words). I can think of a few > emails Jeff sent where I think he did just that - his excellent email > describing his reasons for wanting to join the current OSGeo board comes to > mind. > > Confrontational tit-for-tat conversation is uncomfortable and if we take it > too far, we will find that productive members of our community will start > silently dropping off. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] How to retire membership status?
El vie., 22 jun. 2018 23:35, Cameron Shorter escribió: > > Maria, re the Code-of-Conduct, I agree with Christian. Rewriting it to > create rules which consider all future opportunities for human conflict is > utopian, impractical and ultimately unachievable. > I agree with that. But a static CoC is also impractical, considering that in the last years CoCs have advanced a lot and now we know what works better on each kind of organizations. What I propose is to evolve, not to throw all the work already done. As I already said on previous mails, the work done was outstanding for the time it was written. Which may seem very recently but considering how much we have advanced, is already old. There have been a huge number of person-hours which have been put into the > numerous Code-Of-Conducts which our OSGeo Code-Of-Conduct was based upon. I > think we keep our Code-of-Conduct as simple as possible, and rely on our > underlying morals, ethics, and collective intelligence to address concerns > as they arise. > My plan is not to complicate it, but to make it stronger. Let me give you one simple example of something that doesn't make sense right now: We cannot say dirty words, but we can harass someone using beautiful words as long as we claim good intent. That doesn't make sense. So, precisely one of the things you quote above as what we should do is one of the things that are wrong. This article can explain the situation better than me: https://thebias.com/2017/09/26/how-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-inclusion/ This would be the easiest thing to propose to change because once you understand it, it becomes obvious. But there's more. > ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] How to retire membership status?
Could each of us please be a bit more measured and forgiving when responding. It seems a few words have been selected which caused more offense than intended. I remember Jeff McKenna once saying that he sometimes takes a step back from the keyboard for a day or so before responding, and being much kinder and wiser as a consequence (my memory of Jeff's words). I can think of a few emails Jeff sent where I think he did just that - his excellent email describing his reasons for wanting to join the current OSGeo board comes to mind. Confrontational tit-for-tat conversation is uncomfortable and if we take it too far, we will find that productive members of our community will start silently dropping off. In response to Sara: On 22/6/18 7:50 am, Sara wrote: Cameron said: > We should do our best to ensure opinions are stated respectfully, and encourage forgiveness when we slip up and get a bit passionate. I'm not sure who you are referring to with this, but please do let me know if you mean me. Sara, I'll discus one statement: On 15/6/18 4:23 am, Sara wrote: Sure, happy to explain further: my request is for information that LocationTech already stated publicly was "open", "has always been", and would be posted to OSGeo's wiki -- to actually be made open and posted to the wiki. If LocationTech either misspoke, lied, or changed their mind on that then as a community member/volunteer/sponsor I would like to know why. I'm not alone in this, either: I'm just today's squeaky wheel. :) You have a valid concern, and a question which should be asked. But in asking it, consider how could Marc could answer and save face in the process. Consider that there might be internal conversations within LocationTech where someone, maybe Marc, is trying to defend a decision to back OSGeo. I think this is a leading question into any response by Marc leading to an implication of guilt. An extreme example of this type of question is when a man might be asked: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Both responses of "Yes" and "No" imply he has beaten his wife. I'd hope that if you decided to reword your question, you'd avoid selecting the word "lied", which implies deliberate wrong doing. Re Marc's comment: On 15/6/18 10:00 am, Marc Vloemans wrote: The demands made by Sara Safavi to give insight into the books are not appropriate. Comparable to a customer asking her employer (Planet Labs) to open their books to a customer. I think this statement also went too far. I suspect Marc might have felt threatened by having his employer attacked and replied using a similar line of argument. Hopefully if he responded again he'd select different words. But my bottom line is please lets empathise with the sometimes difficult situations that our co-volunteers are placed in, and see if we can help them work through them. Assume best intent, forgive, support, encourage. Maria, re the Code-of-Conduct, I agree with Christian. Rewriting it to create rules which consider all future opportunities for human conflict is utopian, impractical and ultimately unachievable. There have been a huge number of person-hours which have been put into the numerous Code-Of-Conducts which our OSGeo Code-Of-Conduct was based upon. I think we keep our Code-of-Conduct as simple as possible, and rely on our underlying morals, ethics, and collective intelligence to address concerns as they arise. On 22/6/18 10:24 pm, Christian Willmes wrote: I do not think this is about the CoC. It is about if and how a valid request by a community member is handled/answered (or not). This is a matter of transparency and openness on the one side, and assumed things like respect, manners, decency, or just civil good behavior of holding to a given word/promise. Marc can for sure just say, I/we do not want to publish the record. If there are no valid understandable reasons given for not publishing them, even if promised otherwise, OSGeo can say, ok thanks for letting us know, and draw their due consequence from this. Improving the CoC is good, but for this case it does not really matter, I think. Everybody can see, that there were unnecessary offense given and taken... how could the best CoC in the world help prevent this situation? Am 22.06.2018 um 12:51 schrieb Andrea Aime: On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:51 AM, María Arias de Reyna mailto:dela...@gmail.com>> wrote: I think this email, cited by Sara Safavi, from Marc Vloemans [1] is just unbelievable and thus unacceptable to this community. Personally I agree with you that it was an uncomfortable situation easy to misinterpret. I wasn't comfortable either reading it. (me, the person, not the board) Agreed, I was neither. The thing is, we still have this "assume good intent" clause on the CoC that makes it kind of useless on the gray area. I would suggest revising the CoC then, otherwise all the talk about supporting diversity is
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] How to retire membership status?
I do not think this is about the CoC. It is about if and how a valid request by a community member is handled/answered (or not). This is a matter of transparency and openness on the one side, and assumed things like respect, manners, decency, or just civil good behavior of holding to a given word/promise. Marc can for sure just say, I/we do not want to publish the record. If there are no valid understandable reasons given for not publishing them, even if promised otherwise, OSGeo can say, ok thanks for letting us know, and draw their due consequence from this. Improving the CoC is good, but for this case it does not really matter, I think. Everybody can see, that there were unnecessary offense given and taken... how could the best CoC in the world help prevent this situation? Am 22.06.2018 um 12:51 schrieb Andrea Aime: On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:51 AM, María Arias de Reyna mailto:dela...@gmail.com>> wrote: I think this email, cited by Sara Safavi, from Marc Vloemans [1] is just unbelievable and thus unacceptable to this community. Personally I agree with you that it was an uncomfortable situation easy to misinterpret. I wasn't comfortable either reading it. (me, the person, not the board) Agreed, I was neither. The thing is, we still have this "assume good intent" clause on the CoC that makes it kind of useless on the gray area. I would suggest revising the CoC then, otherwise all the talk about supporting diversity is kind of done in vain imho Cheers Andrea ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Board] How to retire membership status?
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:51 AM, María Arias de Reyna wrote: > I think this email, cited by Sara Safavi, from Marc Vloemans [1] is just >> unbelievable and thus unacceptable to this community. >> > Personally I agree with you that it was an uncomfortable situation easy to > misinterpret. I wasn't comfortable either reading it. (me, the person, not > the board) > Agreed, I was neither. > The thing is, we still have this "assume good intent" clause on the CoC > that makes it kind of useless on the gray area. > I would suggest revising the CoC then, otherwise all the talk about supporting diversity is kind of done in vain imho Cheers Andrea ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
