Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

[María Arias de Reyna]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:31 PM Ben Caradoc-Davies 
wrote:

> On 12/12/2018 23:08, Jonathan Moules wrote:
> > Personally I'm not a fan of the Covenant; it has big subjective
> > loopholes and components that be used to retroactively change the rules.
>
> My biggest problem with the Covenant is that it places responsibility
> for enforcement on project maintainers who did not realise that they
> might have to do this, may not have the skills, resources, or support
> required, and may be exposed to legal liability. If we adopt the
> Covenant, I think that enforcement should led by OSGeo officers who are
> trained, supported, and insured.
>

Completely agree. This should be a CoC assembled for OSGeo in general. If
some event or project want to have their own CoC and team, that's fine, but
let's make OSGeo take care of those projects that can't or don't want to
take care of this.


>
> The Covenant is not AFAIK a covenant in the legal sense. If we use it,
> we can withdraw if it is changed in a way we do not like. It is CC BY so
> we can use it as the basis for a customised CoC, which we would then
> have to maintain.
>

Beauty of freedom :)


>
> Kind regards,
>
> --
> Ben Caradoc-Davies 
> Director
> Transient Software Limited 
> New Zealand
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

[Ben Caradoc-Davies]

On 12/12/2018 23:08, Jonathan Moules wrote:
Personally I'm not a fan of the Covenant; it has big subjective 
loopholes and components that be used to retroactively change the rules.


My biggest problem with the Covenant is that it places responsibility 
for enforcement on project maintainers who did not realise that they 
might have to do this, may not have the skills, resources, or support 
required, and may be exposed to legal liability. If we adopt the 
Covenant, I think that enforcement should led by OSGeo officers who are 
trained, supported, and insured.


The Covenant is not AFAIK a covenant in the legal sense. If we use it, 
we can withdraw if it is changed in a way we do not like. It is CC BY so 
we can use it as the basis for a customised CoC, which we would then 
have to maintain.


Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies 
Director
Transient Software Limited 
New Zealand
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

[adam steer]

Hi everyone

Thanks for this discussion, I think it reflects that whatever changes to
the CoC are made will be strong. Thanks Maria for starting it - please keep
the discussion going and don't give up yet!

I don't see the Contributor Covenant removing any assumptions 'good faith'
or 'innocence', I believe the intention is exactly to respectfully remind
us all to take responsibility for ourselves and how we look after a
community that is growing with many different points of view.

Cheers, I'll keep listening.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

[María Arias de Reyna]

Hi,

You are right, let's continue on this list too.

Let me explain my point of view.

Removing the "assume good intention" is not "assuming people are guilty
until proven innocent" or "perfect paranoia". It is just putting the
intention aside when trying to solve a situation where someone feels
unwelcome or attacked. Presumption of innocence will still be there, why
not? But you can be innocent and good intented and still be harmful. What
the CoC should focus on is on stopping the harmful action, no matter the
intention.

A CoC is not a legal system to punish illegal actions, it is a set of rules
to improve interaction on the best friendlier way. So I am not sure if the
comparison with a legal system applies here. As I see it, the CoC main goal
is not to punish, but to try to mediate and make people understand how to
interact on a better way, removing and fixing any possible harm done. And,
of course, in case of serious harrasment, specially if it is continued,
remove (temporarily?) someone from the community. But most of the incidents
should be able to be fixed with a good mediation where both parts
understand what harm has been done and actions are taken to prevent further
damage.

I also have examples of being unintentionally rude, from both sides.
Whenever someone uses religious expressions like "bless you", I feel
uncomfortable, even attacked depending on the circumstances. Due to literal
translation from Spanish, sometimes my English sound rude to some cultures
and some people may feel uncomfortable. Neither of those cases have bad
intention, in fact, in both cases there is a good intention behind.

But the intention is irrelevant here: what is important is that we should
try to be friendly on different circunmstances. When someone feels
unwelcomed, attacked, harrased, that should be fixed. Does it matter which
was the original intention? Shouldn't we be able to say "hey, you are doing
harm, stop doing it and let's see how to repair that harm" even if the
action was done in good faith? Don't you want to know if you are hurting
someone?

I know you think this is only one case, but I have seen more inside this
community. But, at the same time, I/we couldn't act because, again, it was
an unintended harm. We could only act when it was obvious the intention was
not friendly.

And also, define "good intention". Someone may have a perfectly good
intention when doing sexual advances on someone and that doesn't make that
action acceptable if the other person doesn't want it.

Having "common sense" and "assume good intention" rules are good for small
communities, where everybody knows everyone. But we are no longer a small
family. We are a huge family, with cousins we have never met all around the
world. If we don't know each other personally, if we come from different
environments and cultures, we can no longer trust that that will keep the
community together. We need to be really open and understand that it is not
an issue if the CoC approaches us and points at something we have done
wrong. That's not bad! We are learning and improving on every step. Better
to be pointed by the CoC and learn how to improve our behaviour than making
someone feel uncomfortable and not knowing it.

The thing is, this is an important bug on the CoC from my perspective. If
we don't remove that from the CoC, I don't think I will be able to mediate
properly on the incidents that may arise. The worst cases, those that are
hidden behind beautiful words and smiles, will not be possible to solve and
people will continue leaving the community. So if we can't push this I
think I will just step down from the CoC and let others, that have some
idea on how to deal with the "assume good intent", take that place. Because
I will be just useless there, not able to protect those attacked. This is
not me threating anything, this is me being plain about me not knowing how
to apply a broken CoC on common incidents.

Remember that this Contributor Covenant is not somethign we are making up
on the fly, a lot of communities are adopting it[1] and improving it
continuously. If it has this approach, it has a reason. There is experience
behind backing this up.

Hope this has quieted your worries,
María.

[1] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/adopters

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:09 AM Jonathan Moules <
jonathan-li...@lightpear.com> wrote:

> Hi Ben,
>
> I think the counterpoint to this is highlighting that most western
> justice systems are based around intent (i.e. good-faith or bad-faith,
> or "mens rea"). For example. the difference between murder and
> homicide/manslaughter is solely intent and it is up to the system itself
> to determine that intent.
>
> As the famous old quote goes:
>
> "Better that 10 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent
> man" - William Blackstone
>
> Personally I'm not a fan of the Covenant; it has big subjective
> loopholes and components that be used to retroactively change the rules.
>
> @Maria - a 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

[Jonathan Moules]

Hi Ben,

I think the counterpoint to this is highlighting that most western 
justice systems are based around intent (i.e. good-faith or bad-faith, 
or "mens rea"). For example. the difference between murder and 
homicide/manslaughter is solely intent and it is up to the system itself 
to determine that intent.


As the famous old quote goes:

"Better that 10 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent 
man" - William Blackstone


Personally I'm not a fan of the Covenant; it has big subjective 
loopholes and components that be used to retroactively change the rules.


@Maria - a concern with having this conversation on the CoC list is that 
that's a self-selecting group and there's a non-zero chance it can end 
up as an echo chamber. How many of the folks who have put forth an 
opinion in this thread on /discuss are also on /CoC for instance?


Cheers,
Jonathan


On 2018-12-12 01:32, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
Rather than guilty until proven innocent, I think the covenant 
proposes a neutral and evidence-based approach. Mandating good faith 
as a starting point unfortunately enables bullies who provoke a 
response and then hide behind "X can't take a joke" or other 
minimisation to further harm their victim. I have not seen this in 
OSGeo but I have seen it in several cases elsewhere and I hope we will 
all be sufficiently alert to prevent it. I think that a proportionate 
and sensitive response will encourage consideration of the feelings of 
others without harming our collegial atmosphere.


As another cross-cultural example, several of our members have given 
names that are masculine in Italian but feminine in English, resulting 
in their occasional misgendering on mailing lists and pull requests. 
While I found this amusing and assumed that it was unintentional, I 
also knew that some might find such misgendering insulting or hurtful 
and in any case it was not a good precedent, so I took the time to 
gently point out the mistake in private (IIRC). In each case, the 
mistake was not repeated. We can all take little actions that 
contribute to a welcoming environment.


Kind regards,
Ben.

On 11/12/2018 13:44, Jonathan Moules wrote:

Hi Maria,

Just a thought, but I'm not sure getting rid of the assumption of 
good faith is a good idea. To do so would be basically assuming 
people are guilty until proven innocent which runs counter to how 
these things should work.


To use a personal anecdote, many years ago I had a black flatmate who 
I was joking around with and I made a comment that it turns out is a 
negative racial epithet. Being young and unworldly, I didn't know 
that at the time and certainly didn't mean it in that context, it 
also has a perfectly innocent context - the only one I'd ever been 
exposed to - which is how I was using it.


Now, reading your thebias.com link, I can see that the author there 
would suggest I be pilloried for what was an honest mistake. They'd 
say I was being "careless" or "ignorant" and stepping on their toes. 
But I don't think either is fair because it's not reasonable to 
expect people to know everything that could offend everyone, 
especially somewhere as multicultural as the internet.


For example, consider this symbol: a simple thumbs-up emoticon 
that's commonly used to signify "it's all good" and "thanks". Well, 
it turns out that it's "an obscene insult" in some cultures! I didn't 
know that until a few seconds ago when I went searching for a simple 
example.


I have learnt over the years from experiences in both directions that 
it's best to always assume good faith if possible. Humans may be the 
species with the most complex communication on the planet, but that 
doesn't mean we don't fail often.


@Ben - Thanks for sharing World Human Rights day. I'm a long time fan 
of the UNDHR!


Cheers,
Jonathan


On 2018-12-09 12:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:

Dear OSGeo community,

As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in 
improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space. 
Recent events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work 
ahead.


We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning 
mentality that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our 
culture. Disclosing private data or hinting threats is not helpful 
and can only make our community less comfortable for everyone. We 
will work on improving actions on harmful behavior.


This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:

CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up 
the task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC 
member, but I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure 
that if I am involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take 
care of it properly as mediator.


I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC 
are reported. I noticed there are reports being done on person and 
on private email, but never through the 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

[Hans Gregers Hedegaard Petersen]

Dear Ben, all,

I think people might be confused about the "presumption of good faith".
Presumption does not mean that one can "hide behind" obvious bullying, it
does not even mean that people who actually do joke will not be
"convicted". The presumption of good faith means that reasonable doubt
should benefit the accused - not the accuser. From a probability viewpoint
removing the presumption of good faith would balance "guilt" at 50/50%. In
other words this would give an ill-intended accuser a 50/50 chance of
success by the act of accusation alone. With the presumption there is a
shift such that you might need to be guilty with a probability of more
than, say, 70% before conviction.

Probabilities aside I think that Arnulfs philosophical point is by far more
important: The openness and assumption of good faith is the keystone[1] of
our foundation.


Best regards,

Greg



[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_(architecture)

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 02:32, Ben Caradoc-Davies  wrote:

> Rather than guilty until proven innocent, I think the covenant proposes
> a neutral and evidence-based approach. Mandating good faith as a
> starting point unfortunately enables bullies who provoke a response and
> then hide behind "X can't take a joke" or other minimisation to further
> harm their victim. I have not seen this in OSGeo but I have seen it in
> several cases elsewhere and I hope we will all be sufficiently alert to
> prevent it. I think that a proportionate and sensitive response will
> encourage consideration of the feelings of others without harming our
> collegial atmosphere.
>
> As another cross-cultural example, several of our members have given
> names that are masculine in Italian but feminine in English, resulting
> in their occasional misgendering on mailing lists and pull requests.
> While I found this amusing and assumed that it was unintentional, I also
> knew that some might find such misgendering insulting or hurtful and in
> any case it was not a good precedent, so I took the time to gently point
> out the mistake in private (IIRC). In each case, the mistake was not
> repeated. We can all take little actions that contribute to a welcoming
> environment.
>
> Kind regards,
> Ben.
>
> On 11/12/2018 13:44, Jonathan Moules wrote:
> > Hi Maria,
> >
> > Just a thought, but I'm not sure getting rid of the assumption of good
> > faith is a good idea. To do so would be basically assuming people are
> > guilty until proven innocent which runs counter to how these things
> > should work.
> >
> > To use a personal anecdote, many years ago I had a black flatmate who I
> > was joking around with and I made a comment that it turns out is a
> > negative racial epithet. Being young and unworldly, I didn't know that
> > at the time and certainly didn't mean it in that context, it also has a
> > perfectly innocent context - the only one I'd ever been exposed to -
> > which is how I was using it.
> >
> > Now, reading your thebias.com link, I can see that the author there
> > would suggest I be pilloried for what was an honest mistake. They'd say
> > I was being "careless" or "ignorant" and stepping on their toes. But I
> > don't think either is fair because it's not reasonable to expect people
> > to know everything that could offend everyone, especially somewhere as
> > multicultural as the internet.
> >
> > For example, consider this symbol: a simple thumbs-up emoticon that's
> > commonly used to signify "it's all good" and "thanks". Well, it turns
> > out that it's "an obscene insult" in some cultures! I didn't know that
> > until a few seconds ago when I went searching for a simple example.
> >
> > I have learnt over the years from experiences in both directions that
> > it's best to always assume good faith if possible. Humans may be the
> > species with the most complex communication on the planet, but that
> > doesn't mean we don't fail often.
> >
> > @Ben - Thanks for sharing World Human Rights day. I'm a long time fan of
> > the UNDHR!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > On 2018-12-09 12:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
> >> Dear OSGeo community,
> >>
> >> As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in
> >> improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space. Recent
> >> events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work ahead.
> >>
> >> We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning
> >> mentality that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our
> >> culture. Disclosing private data or hinting threats is not helpful and
> >> can only make our community less comfortable for everyone. We will
> >> work on improving actions on harmful behavior.
> >>
> >> This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:
> >>
> >> CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up
> >> the task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC
> >> member, but I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

[Ben Caradoc-Davies]

Rather than guilty until proven innocent, I think the covenant proposes 
a neutral and evidence-based approach. Mandating good faith as a 
starting point unfortunately enables bullies who provoke a response and 
then hide behind "X can't take a joke" or other minimisation to further 
harm their victim. I have not seen this in OSGeo but I have seen it in 
several cases elsewhere and I hope we will all be sufficiently alert to 
prevent it. I think that a proportionate and sensitive response will 
encourage consideration of the feelings of others without harming our 
collegial atmosphere.


As another cross-cultural example, several of our members have given 
names that are masculine in Italian but feminine in English, resulting 
in their occasional misgendering on mailing lists and pull requests. 
While I found this amusing and assumed that it was unintentional, I also 
knew that some might find such misgendering insulting or hurtful and in 
any case it was not a good precedent, so I took the time to gently point 
out the mistake in private (IIRC). In each case, the mistake was not 
repeated. We can all take little actions that contribute to a welcoming 
environment.


Kind regards,
Ben.

On 11/12/2018 13:44, Jonathan Moules wrote:

Hi Maria,

Just a thought, but I'm not sure getting rid of the assumption of good 
faith is a good idea. To do so would be basically assuming people are 
guilty until proven innocent which runs counter to how these things 
should work.


To use a personal anecdote, many years ago I had a black flatmate who I 
was joking around with and I made a comment that it turns out is a 
negative racial epithet. Being young and unworldly, I didn't know that 
at the time and certainly didn't mean it in that context, it also has a 
perfectly innocent context - the only one I'd ever been exposed to - 
which is how I was using it.


Now, reading your thebias.com link, I can see that the author there 
would suggest I be pilloried for what was an honest mistake. They'd say 
I was being "careless" or "ignorant" and stepping on their toes. But I 
don't think either is fair because it's not reasonable to expect people 
to know everything that could offend everyone, especially somewhere as 
multicultural as the internet.


For example, consider this symbol: a simple thumbs-up emoticon that's 
commonly used to signify "it's all good" and "thanks". Well, it turns 
out that it's "an obscene insult" in some cultures! I didn't know that 
until a few seconds ago when I went searching for a simple example.


I have learnt over the years from experiences in both directions that 
it's best to always assume good faith if possible. Humans may be the 
species with the most complex communication on the planet, but that 
doesn't mean we don't fail often.


@Ben - Thanks for sharing World Human Rights day. I'm a long time fan of 
the UNDHR!


Cheers,
Jonathan


On 2018-12-09 12:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:

Dear OSGeo community,

As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in 
improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space. Recent 
events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work ahead.


We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning 
mentality that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our 
culture. Disclosing private data or hinting threats is not helpful and 
can only make our community less comfortable for everyone. We will 
work on improving actions on harmful behavior.


This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:

CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up 
the task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC 
member, but I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure 
that if I am involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take care 
of it properly as mediator.


I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC are 
reported. I noticed there are reports being done on person and on 
private email, but never through the official channels (which right 
now is a mailing list).To improve this, I will ask the SAC to replace 
the mailing list with an alias and a form on the website. Also, there 
will be a public list of who receives those emails so people reporting 
incidents will have a clear understanding of who is receiving the 
information and decide to contact privately only a subset of the team. 
Replacing the mailing list by an alias that sends the data directly to 
the inbox of the CoC team is important, as sometimes incidents are not 
reported just because the person reporting is scared to leave a trace 
of the report or is not sure who will be reading the report.


Another action I am going to propose is a change on the CoC itself. 
Our community has grown a lot both in diversity and in numbers, and we 
need a strict code of conduct that makes sure marginalized or harrased 
people is always covered by it. We can't rely anymore on 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

[Massimiliano Cannata]

+1 for keeping the assumption of good faith !!
Maxi

Il giorno mar 11 dic 2018 alle ore 11:10 Arnulf Christl (aka Seven) <
se...@arnulf.us> ha scritto:

> Adding one more comment: Please, I implore you: Do not remove the
> assumption of good faith from OSGeo's principles!
>
> "Assumption of good faith" and "Quietening down somebody" are totally
> different things. In her blog on thebias.com Annalee somewhat hastily
> mixes the two up when she says:
>
> "The harm is that telling people to “assume good intent” is a sign that if
> they come to you with a concern, you will minimize their feelings, police
> their reactions, and question their perceptions."
>
> OSGeo and any open and welcoming community cannot exist without assumption
> of good faith. The opposite to assuming good faith is perfect paranoia
> which is only destructive. It is also quite impossible to set up rules to
> regulate everything without suffocating. So let us talk and interact as
> best we can from all our gender, cultural and individual background. If it
> starts to get out of hand - and this will happen again - look at it
> closely, have concerned people on a functioning CoC and repair the damage.
>
> Unfortunately I have not followed the issue which Sara Safawi indicated as
> her reason to want to leave OSGeo closely enough to be able to understand
> all the intricacies. But it actually did not feel good, even from a
> distance. Maybe a functioning CoC could have helped? People on a CoC have
> to take every complaint serious (reverse citing Annalee): Do not "minimize
> their feelings, police their reactions, and question their perceptions".
>
> And lastly, sometimes it is also time to let things go. If Sara has no
> intention of picking this up again we may want to let it rest.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Seven
>
>
> Am 11.12.18 um 02:09 schrieb Daniel Morissette:
>
> I agree with Jonathan here. I also have my own similar personal story from
> ~20 years ago where I used a French expression as the opening line in an
> email where all the rest was in English... and some of the recipients
> (co-workers) could very rightly have been offended. Actually some wondered
> if I might have been mad at them, but instead of jumping the gun, they
> asked me directly, I explained the meaning of the French expression and why
> I used it in this context, they explained that there was a corresponding
> slang word... that day they learned a new French expression and I learned a
> new word of English slang. I was not being careless, I simply had no way to
> know at the time that there was a corresponding English slang word that
> could have been offending, because I am not a native English speaker.
>
> We all had a good laugh in the end, but if it was not for their assumption
> of good faith this could have turned into a huge mess.
>
> I realize that not everybody will agree and I am not planning to enter
> this CoC debate... I just wanted to relay an experience.
>
> Stepping out of this thread now.
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> On 2018-12-10 7:44 p.m., Jonathan Moules wrote:
>
> Hi Maria,
>
> Just a thought, but I'm not sure getting rid of the assumption of good
> faith is a good idea. To do so would be basically assuming people are
> guilty until proven innocent which runs counter to how these things should
> work.
>
> To use a personal anecdote, many years ago I had a black flatmate who I
> was joking around with and I made a comment that it turns out is a negative
> racial epithet. Being young and unworldly, I didn't know that at the time
> and certainly didn't mean it in that context, it also has a perfectly
> innocent context - the only one I'd ever been exposed to - which is how I
> was using it.
>
> Now, reading your thebias.com link, I can see that the author there would
> suggest I be pilloried for what was an honest mistake. They'd say I was
> being "careless" or "ignorant" and stepping on their toes. But I don't
> think either is fair because it's not reasonable to expect people to know
> everything that could offend everyone, especially somewhere as
> multicultural as the internet.
>
> For example, consider this symbol: a simple thumbs-up emoticon that's
> commonly used to signify "it's all good" and "thanks". Well, it turns out
> that it's "an obscene insult" in some cultures! I didn't know that until a
> few seconds ago when I went searching for a simple example.
>
> I have learnt over the years from experiences in both directions that it's
> best to always assume good faith if possible. Humans may be the species
> with the most complex communication on the planet, but that doesn't mean we
> don't fail often.
>
> @Ben - Thanks for sharing World Human Rights day. I'm a long time fan of
> the UNDHR!
>
> Cheers,
> Jonathan
>
>
> On 2018-12-09 12:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
>
> Dear OSGeo community,
>
> As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in
> improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space. Recent
> events in the 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

[Arnulf Christl (aka Seven)]

Adding one more comment: Please, I implore you: Do not remove the 
assumption of good faith from OSGeo's principles!


"Assumption of good faith" and "Quietening down somebody" are totally 
different things. In her blog on thebias.com Annalee somewhat hastily 
mixes the two up when she says:


"The harm is that telling people to “assume good intent” is a sign that 
if they come to you with a concern, you will minimize their feelings, 
police their reactions, and question their perceptions."


OSGeo and any open and welcoming community cannot exist without 
assumption of good faith. The opposite to assuming good faith is perfect 
paranoia which is only destructive. It is also quite impossible to set 
up rules to regulate everything without suffocating. So let us talk and 
interact as best we can from all our gender, cultural and individual 
background. If it starts to get out of hand - and this will happen again 
- look at it closely, have concerned people on a functioning CoC and 
repair the damage.


Unfortunately I have not followed the issue which Sara Safawi indicated 
as her reason to want to leave OSGeo closely enough to be able to 
understand all the intricacies. But it actually did not feel good, even 
from a distance. Maybe a functioning CoC could have helped? People on a 
CoC have to take every complaint serious (reverse citing Annalee): Do 
not "minimize their feelings, police their reactions, and question their 
perceptions".


And lastly, sometimes it is also time to let things go. If Sara has no 
intention of picking this up again we may want to let it rest.



Thanks,

Seven


Am 11.12.18 um 02:09 schrieb Daniel Morissette:

I agree with Jonathan here. I also have my own similar personal story 
from ~20 years ago where I used a French expression as the opening 
line in an email where all the rest was in English... and some of the 
recipients (co-workers) could very rightly have been offended. 
Actually some wondered if I might have been mad at them, but instead 
of jumping the gun, they asked me directly, I explained the meaning of 
the French expression and why I used it in this context, they 
explained that there was a corresponding slang word... that day they 
learned a new French expression and I learned a new word of English 
slang. I was not being careless, I simply had no way to know at the 
time that there was a corresponding English slang word that could have 
been offending, because I am not a native English speaker.


We all had a good laugh in the end, but if it was not for their 
assumption of good faith this could have turned into a huge mess.


I realize that not everybody will agree and I am not planning to enter 
this CoC debate... I just wanted to relay an experience.


Stepping out of this thread now.

Daniel



On 2018-12-10 7:44 p.m., Jonathan Moules wrote:

Hi Maria,

Just a thought, but I'm not sure getting rid of the assumption of 
good faith is a good idea. To do so would be basically assuming 
people are guilty until proven innocent which runs counter to how 
these things should work.


To use a personal anecdote, many years ago I had a black flatmate who 
I was joking around with and I made a comment that it turns out is a 
negative racial epithet. Being young and unworldly, I didn't know 
that at the time and certainly didn't mean it in that context, it 
also has a perfectly innocent context - the only one I'd ever been 
exposed to - which is how I was using it.


Now, reading your thebias.com link, I can see that the author there 
would suggest I be pilloried for what was an honest mistake. They'd 
say I was being "careless" or "ignorant" and stepping on their toes. 
But I don't think either is fair because it's not reasonable to 
expect people to know everything that could offend everyone, 
especially somewhere as multicultural as the internet.


For example, consider this symbol: a simple thumbs-up emoticon 
that's commonly used to signify "it's all good" and "thanks". Well, 
it turns out that it's "an obscene insult" in some cultures! I didn't 
know that until a few seconds ago when I went searching for a simple 
example.


I have learnt over the years from experiences in both directions that 
it's best to always assume good faith if possible. Humans may be the 
species with the most complex communication on the planet, but that 
doesn't mean we don't fail often.


@Ben - Thanks for sharing World Human Rights day. I'm a long time fan 
of the UNDHR!


Cheers,
Jonathan


On 2018-12-09 12:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:

Dear OSGeo community,

As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in 
improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space. 
Recent events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work 
ahead.


We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning 
mentality that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our 
culture. Disclosing private data or hinting threats is not helpful 
and can only 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

[María Arias de Reyna]

Hi,

I think it is better if we discuss this on the COC-discuss mailing list,
just to avoid adding noise to the main discuss. My initial email, as you
can see, was directed to both mailing lists and the idea of redirecting it
to discuss was to make people aware that this was being done, not to start
a discussion here.

I have a long answer for this, once I have some free time to write it
properly down (this evening? tomorrow?) I will redirect it to the
coc-discuss. TL;DR: one thing is to be rude due to cultural or lost in
translation issues and another thing is to harrass someone. Going back to
Sara's case: the assume good intent is what prevented us to do anything
further as the discussed emails have two readings: harrasment or sincere
worry about her job situation.

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:17 AM Daniel Morissette 
wrote:

> I agree with Jonathan here. I also have my own similar personal story
> from ~20 years ago where I used a French expression as the opening line
> in an email where all the rest was in English... and some of the
> recipients (co-workers) could very rightly have been offended. Actually
> some wondered if I might have been mad at them, but instead of jumping
> the gun, they asked me directly, I explained the meaning of the French
> expression and why I used it in this context, they explained that there
> was a corresponding slang word... that day they learned a new French
> expression and I learned a new word of English slang. I was not being
> careless, I simply had no way to know at the time that there was a
> corresponding English slang word that could have been offending, because
> I am not a native English speaker.
>
> We all had a good laugh in the end, but if it was not for their
> assumption of good faith this could have turned into a huge mess.
>
> I realize that not everybody will agree and I am not planning to enter
> this CoC debate... I just wanted to relay an experience.
>
> Stepping out of this thread now.
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> On 2018-12-10 7:44 p.m., Jonathan Moules wrote:
> > Hi Maria,
> >
> > Just a thought, but I'm not sure getting rid of the assumption of good
> > faith is a good idea. To do so would be basically assuming people are
> > guilty until proven innocent which runs counter to how these things
> > should work.
> >
> > To use a personal anecdote, many years ago I had a black flatmate who I
> > was joking around with and I made a comment that it turns out is a
> > negative racial epithet. Being young and unworldly, I didn't know that
> > at the time and certainly didn't mean it in that context, it also has a
> > perfectly innocent context - the only one I'd ever been exposed to -
> > which is how I was using it.
> >
> > Now, reading your thebias.com link, I can see that the author there
> > would suggest I be pilloried for what was an honest mistake. They'd say
> > I was being "careless" or "ignorant" and stepping on their toes. But I
> > don't think either is fair because it's not reasonable to expect people
> > to know everything that could offend everyone, especially somewhere as
> > multicultural as the internet.
> >
> > For example, consider this symbol: a simple thumbs-up emoticon that's
> > commonly used to signify "it's all good" and "thanks". Well, it turns
> > out that it's "an obscene insult" in some cultures! I didn't know that
> > until a few seconds ago when I went searching for a simple example.
> >
> > I have learnt over the years from experiences in both directions that
> > it's best to always assume good faith if possible. Humans may be the
> > species with the most complex communication on the planet, but that
> > doesn't mean we don't fail often.
> >
> > @Ben - Thanks for sharing World Human Rights day. I'm a long time fan of
> > the UNDHR!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > On 2018-12-09 12:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
> >> Dear OSGeo community,
> >>
> >> As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in
> >> improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space. Recent
> >> events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work ahead.
> >>
> >> We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning
> >> mentality that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our
> >> culture. Disclosing private data or hinting threats is not helpful and
> >> can only make our community less comfortable for everyone. We will
> >> work on improving actions on harmful behavior.
> >>
> >> This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:
> >>
> >> CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up
> >> the task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC
> >> member, but I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure
> >> that if I am involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take care
> >> of it properly as mediator.
> >>
> >> I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC are
> >> reported. I noticed there are reports 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

[Daniel Morissette]

I agree with Jonathan here. I also have my own similar personal story 
from ~20 years ago where I used a French expression as the opening line 
in an email where all the rest was in English... and some of the 
recipients (co-workers) could very rightly have been offended. Actually 
some wondered if I might have been mad at them, but instead of jumping 
the gun, they asked me directly, I explained the meaning of the French 
expression and why I used it in this context, they explained that there 
was a corresponding slang word... that day they learned a new French 
expression and I learned a new word of English slang. I was not being 
careless, I simply had no way to know at the time that there was a 
corresponding English slang word that could have been offending, because 
I am not a native English speaker.


We all had a good laugh in the end, but if it was not for their 
assumption of good faith this could have turned into a huge mess.


I realize that not everybody will agree and I am not planning to enter 
this CoC debate... I just wanted to relay an experience.


Stepping out of this thread now.

Daniel



On 2018-12-10 7:44 p.m., Jonathan Moules wrote:

Hi Maria,

Just a thought, but I'm not sure getting rid of the assumption of good 
faith is a good idea. To do so would be basically assuming people are 
guilty until proven innocent which runs counter to how these things 
should work.


To use a personal anecdote, many years ago I had a black flatmate who I 
was joking around with and I made a comment that it turns out is a 
negative racial epithet. Being young and unworldly, I didn't know that 
at the time and certainly didn't mean it in that context, it also has a 
perfectly innocent context - the only one I'd ever been exposed to - 
which is how I was using it.


Now, reading your thebias.com link, I can see that the author there 
would suggest I be pilloried for what was an honest mistake. They'd say 
I was being "careless" or "ignorant" and stepping on their toes. But I 
don't think either is fair because it's not reasonable to expect people 
to know everything that could offend everyone, especially somewhere as 
multicultural as the internet.


For example, consider this symbol: a simple thumbs-up emoticon that's 
commonly used to signify "it's all good" and "thanks". Well, it turns 
out that it's "an obscene insult" in some cultures! I didn't know that 
until a few seconds ago when I went searching for a simple example.


I have learnt over the years from experiences in both directions that 
it's best to always assume good faith if possible. Humans may be the 
species with the most complex communication on the planet, but that 
doesn't mean we don't fail often.


@Ben - Thanks for sharing World Human Rights day. I'm a long time fan of 
the UNDHR!


Cheers,
Jonathan


On 2018-12-09 12:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:

Dear OSGeo community,

As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in 
improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space. Recent 
events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work ahead.


We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning 
mentality that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our 
culture. Disclosing private data or hinting threats is not helpful and 
can only make our community less comfortable for everyone. We will 
work on improving actions on harmful behavior.


This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:

CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up 
the task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC 
member, but I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure 
that if I am involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take care 
of it properly as mediator.


I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC are 
reported. I noticed there are reports being done on person and on 
private email, but never through the official channels (which right 
now is a mailing list).To improve this, I will ask the SAC to replace 
the mailing list with an alias and a form on the website. Also, there 
will be a public list of who receives those emails so people reporting 
incidents will have a clear understanding of who is receiving the 
information and decide to contact privately only a subset of the team. 
Replacing the mailing list by an alias that sends the data directly to 
the inbox of the CoC team is important, as sometimes incidents are not 
reported just because the person reporting is scared to leave a trace 
of the report or is not sure who will be reading the report.


Another action I am going to propose is a change on the CoC itself. 
Our community has grown a lot both in diversity and in numbers, and we 
need a strict code of conduct that makes sure marginalized or harrased 
people is always covered by it. We can't rely anymore on just common 
sense and good faith.


Once the new board is settled, I am 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

[Jonathan Moules]

Hi Maria,

Just a thought, but I'm not sure getting rid of the assumption of good 
faith is a good idea. To do so would be basically assuming people are 
guilty until proven innocent which runs counter to how these things 
should work.


To use a personal anecdote, many years ago I had a black flatmate who I 
was joking around with and I made a comment that it turns out is a 
negative racial epithet. Being young and unworldly, I didn't know that 
at the time and certainly didn't mean it in that context, it also has a 
perfectly innocent context - the only one I'd ever been exposed to - 
which is how I was using it.


Now, reading your thebias.com link, I can see that the author there 
would suggest I be pilloried for what was an honest mistake. They'd say 
I was being "careless" or "ignorant" and stepping on their toes. But I 
don't think either is fair because it's not reasonable to expect people 
to know everything that could offend everyone, especially somewhere as 
multicultural as the internet.


For example, consider this symbol: a simple thumbs-up emoticon that's 
commonly used to signify "it's all good" and "thanks". Well, it turns 
out that it's "an obscene insult" in some cultures! I didn't know that 
until a few seconds ago when I went searching for a simple example.


I have learnt over the years from experiences in both directions that 
it's best to always assume good faith if possible. Humans may be the 
species with the most complex communication on the planet, but that 
doesn't mean we don't fail often.


@Ben - Thanks for sharing World Human Rights day. I'm a long time fan of 
the UNDHR!


Cheers,
Jonathan


On 2018-12-09 12:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:

Dear OSGeo community,

As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in 
improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space. Recent 
events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work ahead.


We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning 
mentality that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our 
culture. Disclosing private data or hinting threats is not helpful and 
can only make our community less comfortable for everyone. We will 
work on improving actions on harmful behavior.


This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:

CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up 
the task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC 
member, but I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure 
that if I am involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take care 
of it properly as mediator.


I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC are 
reported. I noticed there are reports being done on person and on 
private email, but never through the official channels (which right 
now is a mailing list).To improve this, I will ask the SAC to replace 
the mailing list with an alias and a form on the website. Also, there 
will be a public list of who receives those emails so people reporting 
incidents will have a clear understanding of who is receiving the 
information and decide to contact privately only a subset of the team. 
Replacing the mailing list by an alias that sends the data directly to 
the inbox of the CoC team is important, as sometimes incidents are not 
reported just because the person reporting is scared to leave a trace 
of the report or is not sure who will be reading the report.


Another action I am going to propose is a change on the CoC itself. 
Our community has grown a lot both in diversity and in numbers, and we 
need a strict code of conduct that makes sure marginalized or harrased 
people is always covered by it. We can't rely anymore on just common 
sense and good faith.


Once the new board is settled, I am going to propose to change the 
current CoC for another like the Contributor Covenant[2]. As it is a 
CoC shared by many communities, this has the advantage of receiving 
the upgrades and experience from other communities. As you can see, it 
fixes some of the bugs from our CoC, like the assuming good intent and 
good faith[3] part that made the current CoC useless on most cases. I 
will propose to add some foreword to adapt to specifities for our 
community, but in my opinion, the latest version of the Contributor 
Covenant is easy to read, simple, and cover most of what we need. My 
hope is that this new CoC can be adapted to all OSGeo Projects and 
Events that don't already have a CoC, so we have full OSGeo universe 
covered by default.


I hope this actions will prove useful in the medium term and we don't 
have to see more members leaving the community. We should remember to 
be empathic and kind. We are all seeking the same goals and we should 
encourage cooperation, not hinder each other. I know that developer 
communities are very used to these bad behaviours, but I'm confident 
we can grow better.


Have a nice day!
María.


[1] 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

[Mark Iliffe]

Dear María,

I'm glad to see this progressing now the dust has settled from the past
FOSS4G where the limits of a CoC were so laid bare. As before, let me know
how best to assist in developing the CoC further. I sincerely hope that we
can progress as a community in response to this call.

Best,

Mark

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 03:38, María Arias de Reyna 
wrote:

> Thank you Ben!
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:09 AM Ben Caradoc-Davies 
> wrote:
>
>> María,
>>
>> thank you for taking the lead on this important issue. While in my view,
>> the majority of OSGeo participants act with consideration and in good
>> faith, a single malicious act is one too many. We get the behaviour we
>> tolerate, and a strong code of conduct helps us prevent behaviour that
>> we do not want. In addition to a code of conduct, we also need a
>> complaint procedure to enforce it.
>>
>> Did we ever hear back from any other foundations about how they handle
>> code of conduct enforcement?
>>
>> Note that I am not at this time available for any OSGeo roles, but I
>> have subscribed to the coc-discuss list.
>>
>> Here are some of my opinions. In them, I will use words like "must"
>> solely because I think that these words should be used in the OSGeo
>> procedure, but please remember that these are just my opinions and I do
>> not claim to be right or an authority on these matters. I am also not a
>> lawyer. Whenever I refer to complaints, I mean CoC complaints not
>> general complaints:
>>
>> - Everyone who is expected to handle a complaint must first be trained
>> in the complaint procedure and the OSGeo code of conduct, have access to
>> psychological and legal support, and be covered by OSGeo legal liability
>> insurance. The latter likely includes all OSGeo officers.
>>
>> - Natural justice must apply to the complaint procedure. At some point,
>> the respondent will receive the complaint, including the identity of the
>> complainant and alleged witnesses. This must be disclosed to the
>> complainant before they submit their complaint. We cannot act on
>> anonymous complaints nor consider hearsay.
>>
>> - Code of Conduct enforcement is a civil matter and the standard of
>> proof is balance of probability.
>>
>> - Do we ask complainants what redress they seek? This could range from a
>> private or public apology from the respondent, private or public censure
>> of the respondent by the conduct committee, or expulsion from OSGeo.
>>
>> - Complaints must be handled in confidence, except where the complainant
>> makes them public. Breaches of confidence must be considered a CoC
>> violation. Nothing in the procedure precludes the respondent from
>> responding in public to a public complaint, nor shall either party be
>> considered to have breached confidence if they seek redress through a
>> legal authority or the courts.
>>
>> - María, you have already stated the need to have identified complaint
>> handlers so that a complainant knows who will receive their complaint,
>> and I agree. I think that, on receipt of a formal complaint, any
>> complaint handler or other OSGeo member must forward the complaint to
>> all complaint handlers who are not a party to the complaint (where
>> parties include witnesses). Even with a web site form, expect half of
>> complaints, especially the most serious ones, to be delivered to trusted
>> individuals. The list of complaint handlers and the policy on who will
>> receive a complaint must be prominent on the complaint submission form
>> and information pages.
>>
>> - So, who is going to bell the cat? Consider outsourcing complaint
>> handling to an independent external investigation, mediation, and/or
>> arbitration service would remove any appearance of conflict of interest
>> or bias, reduce harm to OSGeo complaint handlers, and protect OSGeo from
>> legal liability.
>>
>> - We need a better term for complaint handler. "Conduct officer"? This
>> would clarify their role and reduce inappropriate submission of general
>> complaints. We need more than one. Conduct officers in their role of
>> enforcing the code of conduct are acting on behalf of OSGeo and not as
>> individuals.
>>
>> - Any complaint that may constitute a criminal offence must in the first
>> instance be reported to authorities with jurisdiction unless the
>> complainant is unwilling to do so. Local legal advice will likely be
>> required. This may cover online activities: for example, the New Zealand
>> Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015
>> <
>> http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/DLM5711810.html>
>>
>> <
>> https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-help/consumer-laws/online-safety-laws-and-rules/>
>>
>> prohibits online bullying and harassment and has resulted in successful
>> prosecutions by NZ Police. Criminal complaints will take priority over
>> but not supersede OSGeo CoC investigations, which can run concurrently;
>> our procedure will need rules on how to handle this situation and
>> protect the 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

[María Arias de Reyna]

Thank you Ben!

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:09 AM Ben Caradoc-Davies  wrote:

> María,
>
> thank you for taking the lead on this important issue. While in my view,
> the majority of OSGeo participants act with consideration and in good
> faith, a single malicious act is one too many. We get the behaviour we
> tolerate, and a strong code of conduct helps us prevent behaviour that
> we do not want. In addition to a code of conduct, we also need a
> complaint procedure to enforce it.
>
> Did we ever hear back from any other foundations about how they handle
> code of conduct enforcement?
>
> Note that I am not at this time available for any OSGeo roles, but I
> have subscribed to the coc-discuss list.
>
> Here are some of my opinions. In them, I will use words like "must"
> solely because I think that these words should be used in the OSGeo
> procedure, but please remember that these are just my opinions and I do
> not claim to be right or an authority on these matters. I am also not a
> lawyer. Whenever I refer to complaints, I mean CoC complaints not
> general complaints:
>
> - Everyone who is expected to handle a complaint must first be trained
> in the complaint procedure and the OSGeo code of conduct, have access to
> psychological and legal support, and be covered by OSGeo legal liability
> insurance. The latter likely includes all OSGeo officers.
>
> - Natural justice must apply to the complaint procedure. At some point,
> the respondent will receive the complaint, including the identity of the
> complainant and alleged witnesses. This must be disclosed to the
> complainant before they submit their complaint. We cannot act on
> anonymous complaints nor consider hearsay.
>
> - Code of Conduct enforcement is a civil matter and the standard of
> proof is balance of probability.
>
> - Do we ask complainants what redress they seek? This could range from a
> private or public apology from the respondent, private or public censure
> of the respondent by the conduct committee, or expulsion from OSGeo.
>
> - Complaints must be handled in confidence, except where the complainant
> makes them public. Breaches of confidence must be considered a CoC
> violation. Nothing in the procedure precludes the respondent from
> responding in public to a public complaint, nor shall either party be
> considered to have breached confidence if they seek redress through a
> legal authority or the courts.
>
> - María, you have already stated the need to have identified complaint
> handlers so that a complainant knows who will receive their complaint,
> and I agree. I think that, on receipt of a formal complaint, any
> complaint handler or other OSGeo member must forward the complaint to
> all complaint handlers who are not a party to the complaint (where
> parties include witnesses). Even with a web site form, expect half of
> complaints, especially the most serious ones, to be delivered to trusted
> individuals. The list of complaint handlers and the policy on who will
> receive a complaint must be prominent on the complaint submission form
> and information pages.
>
> - So, who is going to bell the cat? Consider outsourcing complaint
> handling to an independent external investigation, mediation, and/or
> arbitration service would remove any appearance of conflict of interest
> or bias, reduce harm to OSGeo complaint handlers, and protect OSGeo from
> legal liability.
>
> - We need a better term for complaint handler. "Conduct officer"? This
> would clarify their role and reduce inappropriate submission of general
> complaints. We need more than one. Conduct officers in their role of
> enforcing the code of conduct are acting on behalf of OSGeo and not as
> individuals.
>
> - Any complaint that may constitute a criminal offence must in the first
> instance be reported to authorities with jurisdiction unless the
> complainant is unwilling to do so. Local legal advice will likely be
> required. This may cover online activities: for example, the New Zealand
> Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015
> <
> http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/DLM5711810.html>
>
> <
> https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-help/consumer-laws/online-safety-laws-and-rules/>
>
> prohibits online bullying and harassment and has resulted in successful
> prosecutions by NZ Police. Criminal complaints will take priority over
> but not supersede OSGeo CoC investigations, which can run concurrently;
> our procedure will need rules on how to handle this situation and
> protect the rights of both the complainant and the respondent. We should
> never ever think that we can handle internally something that should in
> the first instance be a police matter.
>
> Thanks again, María. In my view, CoC enforcement is the dirtiest job in
> the open source community, and I commend you for your efforts.
>
> Happy Human Rights Day! Celebrating the 70th anniversary of the adoption
> of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

[Ben Caradoc-Davies]

María,

thank you for taking the lead on this important issue. While in my view, 
the majority of OSGeo participants act with consideration and in good 
faith, a single malicious act is one too many. We get the behaviour we 
tolerate, and a strong code of conduct helps us prevent behaviour that 
we do not want. In addition to a code of conduct, we also need a 
complaint procedure to enforce it.


Did we ever hear back from any other foundations about how they handle 
code of conduct enforcement?


Note that I am not at this time available for any OSGeo roles, but I 
have subscribed to the coc-discuss list.


Here are some of my opinions. In them, I will use words like "must" 
solely because I think that these words should be used in the OSGeo 
procedure, but please remember that these are just my opinions and I do 
not claim to be right or an authority on these matters. I am also not a 
lawyer. Whenever I refer to complaints, I mean CoC complaints not 
general complaints:


- Everyone who is expected to handle a complaint must first be trained 
in the complaint procedure and the OSGeo code of conduct, have access to 
psychological and legal support, and be covered by OSGeo legal liability 
insurance. The latter likely includes all OSGeo officers.


- Natural justice must apply to the complaint procedure. At some point, 
the respondent will receive the complaint, including the identity of the 
complainant and alleged witnesses. This must be disclosed to the 
complainant before they submit their complaint. We cannot act on 
anonymous complaints nor consider hearsay.


- Code of Conduct enforcement is a civil matter and the standard of 
proof is balance of probability.


- Do we ask complainants what redress they seek? This could range from a 
private or public apology from the respondent, private or public censure 
of the respondent by the conduct committee, or expulsion from OSGeo.


- Complaints must be handled in confidence, except where the complainant 
makes them public. Breaches of confidence must be considered a CoC 
violation. Nothing in the procedure precludes the respondent from 
responding in public to a public complaint, nor shall either party be 
considered to have breached confidence if they seek redress through a 
legal authority or the courts.


- María, you have already stated the need to have identified complaint 
handlers so that a complainant knows who will receive their complaint, 
and I agree. I think that, on receipt of a formal complaint, any 
complaint handler or other OSGeo member must forward the complaint to 
all complaint handlers who are not a party to the complaint (where 
parties include witnesses). Even with a web site form, expect half of 
complaints, especially the most serious ones, to be delivered to trusted 
individuals. The list of complaint handlers and the policy on who will 
receive a complaint must be prominent on the complaint submission form 
and information pages.


- So, who is going to bell the cat? Consider outsourcing complaint 
handling to an independent external investigation, mediation, and/or 
arbitration service would remove any appearance of conflict of interest 
or bias, reduce harm to OSGeo complaint handlers, and protect OSGeo from 
legal liability.


- We need a better term for complaint handler. "Conduct officer"? This 
would clarify their role and reduce inappropriate submission of general 
complaints. We need more than one. Conduct officers in their role of 
enforcing the code of conduct are acting on behalf of OSGeo and not as 
individuals.


- Any complaint that may constitute a criminal offence must in the first 
instance be reported to authorities with jurisdiction unless the 
complainant is unwilling to do so. Local legal advice will likely be 
required. This may cover online activities: for example, the New Zealand 
Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 
 
 
prohibits online bullying and harassment and has resulted in successful 
prosecutions by NZ Police. Criminal complaints will take priority over 
but not supersede OSGeo CoC investigations, which can run concurrently; 
our procedure will need rules on how to handle this situation and 
protect the rights of both the complainant and the respondent. We should 
never ever think that we can handle internally something that should in 
the first instance be a police matter.


Thanks again, María. In my view, CoC enforcement is the dirtiest job in 
the open source community, and I commend you for your efforts.


Happy Human Rights Day! Celebrating the 70th anniversary of the adoption 
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 1948: 



Kind regards,
Ben.

On 10/12/2018 01:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:

Dear OSGeo community,

As you may already 

[OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

[María Arias de Reyna]

Dear OSGeo community,

As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in
improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space. Recent
events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work ahead.

We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning mentality
that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our culture. Disclosing
private data or hinting threats is not helpful and can only make our
community less comfortable for everyone. We will work on improving actions
on harmful behavior.

This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:

CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up the
task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC member, but
I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure that if I am
involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take care of it properly as
mediator.

I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC are
reported. I noticed there are reports being done on person and on private
email, but never through the official channels (which right now is a
mailing list).To improve this, I will ask the SAC to replace the mailing
list with an alias and a form on the website. Also, there will be a public
list of who receives those emails so people reporting incidents will have a
clear understanding of who is receiving the information and decide to
contact privately only a subset of the team. Replacing the mailing list by
an alias that sends the data directly to the inbox of the CoC team is
important, as sometimes incidents are not reported just because the person
reporting is scared to leave a trace of the report or is not sure who will
be reading the report.

Another action I am going to propose is a change on the CoC itself. Our
community has grown a lot both in diversity and in numbers, and we need a
strict code of conduct that makes sure marginalized or harrased people is
always covered by it. We can't rely anymore on just common sense and good
faith.

Once the new board is settled, I am going to propose to change the current
CoC for another like the Contributor Covenant[2]. As it is a CoC shared by
many communities, this has the advantage of receiving the upgrades and
experience from other communities. As you can see, it fixes some of the
bugs from our CoC, like the assuming good intent and good faith[3] part
that made the current CoC useless on most cases. I will propose to add some
foreword to adapt to specifities for our community, but in my opinion, the
latest version of the Contributor Covenant is easy to read, simple, and
cover most of what we need. My hope is that this new CoC can be adapted to
all OSGeo Projects and Events that don't already have a CoC, so we have
full OSGeo universe covered by default.

I hope this actions will prove useful in the medium term and we don't have
to see more members leaving the community. We should remember to be
empathic and kind. We are all seeking the same goals and we should
encourage cooperation, not hinder each other. I know that developer
communities are very used to these bad behaviours, but I'm confident we can
grow better.

Have a nice day!
María.


[1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2018-August/011640.html
[2] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
[3]
https://thebias.com/2017/09/26/how-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-inclusion/
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss