Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

[meg ford]

Hi,
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Alexandre Franke  wrote:
>
> Did you mean to quote a specific part of Allan’s email? Because my
> email was about what happened during the time when discussions were
> still within the WG (and the conflict that emerged from it) and yours
> is about what happened after that, so you replying to my email this
> way is misleading.
>

That's actually not true. Allan was saying (correct me if I'm wrong, Allan)
that he and Neil finishing the final draft without Ben was "direct response
to
repeated unacceptable behaviour on Ben's part." By that point in time
Allan, Ben and Neil were the only members of the group who were active. In
my email I was saying that most of us became inactive in response to the
atmosphere in the working group, before Ben was excluded from the final
drafting.

In addition, I was saying that I don't agree with Allan that Ben was the
only member of the working group who was not included in the final drafting
(both before and after the time that the discussions were still happening
within working group). I can't speak for other WG members, but I was not
included in the discussion surrounding the final drafting process that Neil
and Allan completed. The only time I have seen the final draft has been as
a member of the Board.

Does that clarify things?

Meg

>
> --
> Alexandre Franke
> GNOME Hacker & Foundation Director
>
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

[Alexandre Franke]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:54 PM, meg ford  wrote:
> I do not completely agree with Allan's explanation here. While I have been
> involved in the current discussions about the CoC proposal, it has been as a
> member of the Board, not as a member of the WG. I was not involved in the
> final draft of the document as a member of the WG. As Allan stated, many of
> us had stopped participating in the WG before the final draft was finished
> because Ben's behavior had become unacceptable.

Did you mean to quote a specific part of Allan’s email? Because my
email was about what happened during the time when discussions were
still within the WG (and the conflict that emerged from it) and yours
is about what happened after that, so you replying to my email this
way is misleading.

-- 
Alexandre Franke
GNOME Hacker & Foundation Director
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

[meg ford]

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Alexandre Franke  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Allan Day  wrote:
> > because Ben's behaviour had become so unacceptable (despite multiple
> > warnings regarding basic behaviour) that it was difficult to get
> > anything done within the wider working group context.
>
> And on Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:45 AM, he added:
> > It should be noted that the board group includes every active member
> > of the code of conduct working group, with the exception of Ben. So
> > "without including the rest of the WG" translates to "without
> > including Ben".
>
> The WG is a group working on a document that invites people involved
> in a conflict to seek assistance from a third party. Yet it seems
> that, when a conflict arised, they didn’t call for external
> arbitration, and even went as far as issuing warnings to one of the
> parties involved on their own. I find this highly disturbing.
>

I do not completely agree with Allan's explanation here. While I have been
involved in the current discussions about the CoC proposal, it has been as
a member of the Board, not as a member of the WG. I was not involved in the
final draft of the document as a member of the WG. As Allan stated, many of
us had stopped participating in the WG before the final draft was finished
because Ben's behavior had become unacceptable.

Meg

>
> He then concludes:
> > As already stated, this was a direct response to
> > repeated unacceptable behaviour on Ben's part.
>
> Whether that was the appropriate behaviour is still an open question
> though.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Alexandre Franke
> GNOME Hacker & Foundation Director
> ___
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
>
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

[Alexandre Franke]

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 6:30 PM, Allan Day  wrote:
> because Ben's behaviour had become so unacceptable (despite multiple
> warnings regarding basic behaviour) that it was difficult to get
> anything done within the wider working group context.

And on Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:45 AM, he added:
> It should be noted that the board group includes every active member
> of the code of conduct working group, with the exception of Ben. So
> "without including the rest of the WG" translates to "without
> including Ben".

The WG is a group working on a document that invites people involved
in a conflict to seek assistance from a third party. Yet it seems
that, when a conflict arised, they didn’t call for external
arbitration, and even went as far as issuing warnings to one of the
parties involved on their own. I find this highly disturbing.

He then concludes:
> As already stated, this was a direct response to
> repeated unacceptable behaviour on Ben's part.

Whether that was the appropriate behaviour is still an open question though.

Cheers,

-- 
Alexandre Franke
GNOME Hacker & Foundation Director
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Proposal for an Events Code of Conduct and Policy Referendum

[Carlos Soriano]

Hello all,

The board discussed in the last meeting the validity of the document and
has approved that the current proposal, including its last changes, is
legitimate, so its evaluation will be continued.


Best,
Carlos Soriano

On 24 April 2018 at 10:45, Allan Day  wrote:

> Benjamin Berg  wrote:
> ...
> > I think my stance is quite clear. As Allan stated quite literally, he
> > continued working on the Draft without including the rest of the WG in
> > this work. Regardless of whether Allan was acting as a board member or
> > chairman of the WG, he has overstepped his authority by doing so.
>
> Or, to put it another way - Neil and I made a small number of edits to
> a document which had previously been worked on for 14 months, which we
> then put to the board to review and vote on.
>
> It should be noted that the board group includes every active member
> of the code of conduct working group, with the exception of Ben. So
> "without including the rest of the WG" translates to "without
> including Ben". As already stated, this was a direct response to
> repeated unacceptable behaviour on Ben's part.
>
> There is no formal process for the code of conduct working group, so
> talk of "authority" and "legitimacy" is moot. However, I do believe
> that the proposal that has been sent to the board is a fair reflection
> of the group's work as a whole, and that's the important thing.
>
> > As
> > such, I do not consider the current documents to be a legitimate
> > proposal from the WG that the board could even start to consider.
>
> The proposal that has been sent to the board is the result of the
> entire group's work for 14 months. It is also the outcome of the
> community consultation that we ran. The vast majority of the working
> group will have the opportunity to review the proposal before it goes
> to a vote.
>
> Allan
> --
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/board-list
>
> From time to time confidential and sensitive information will be discussed
> on this mailing list. Please take care to mark confidential information as
> confidential, and do not redistribute this information without permission.
>
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list