Re: Events Code of Conduct: Ratification by the community
Hey Benjamin, Not sure the previous board can talk anymore as a single entity since no more meetings happen etc. However, I can express here my own take as a member of the previous board. I found that given that there was a period of two months for feedback and the small amount of feedback got, the general consensus was that it's fine and that going around and making this more convoluted wasn't very useful or interesting for most of the people. Even more if the current set up was intended also as a good starting point but that something to improve over time. This is something I experienced with the GitLab initiative itself, and that got much more attention and feedback, and even though that feedback happened, some topics weren't just getting much feedback, they were just okay with it. What I felt was that although CoC is a sensible and delicate topic and I would have expected it would have got much more attention, at the end it didn't got so much and most people were okay with the current set up and processes and were okay by the board approving/readjusting as we do with many other things. Personally, the amount of feedback got together with what I could gather around in person with different members is I believe a good sign of that. Hope that clarifies a bit or that it gives a different perspective. Cheers On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 at 00:11, Benjamin Berg wrote: > Hi, > > This is more of a question to the previous board. > > Note that it may well be that I have simply missed the information in > the minutes. It could also be that the information is currently not > available to me as the minutes containing the ratification vote are > currently still private[1][2]. > > This question relates to the original Board ticket[2] on the topic and > an earlier meeting discussing the event Code of Conduct and > ratification[3]. This ticket says that the "board needs to consider > letting the community vote eventually". The referenced meeting suggests > an "affirmation vote at GUADEC" was planned. > > However, no such vote by the community has happened. Instead, it > appears that the Board ratified the event Code of Conduct and related > documents without further community involvement. > > Could the Board please elaborate as to why these considerations were > dismissed again at a later point? > > Benjamin > > [1] https://gitlab.gnome.org/Community/Board/issues/60 > [2] https://gitlab.gnome.org/Community/Board/issues/10 > [3] https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes/20180424 > ___ > 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
Events Code of Conduct: Ratification by the community
Hi, This is more of a question to the previous board. Note that it may well be that I have simply missed the information in the minutes. It could also be that the information is currently not available to me as the minutes containing the ratification vote are currently still private[1][2]. This question relates to the original Board ticket[2] on the topic and an earlier meeting discussing the event Code of Conduct and ratification[3]. This ticket says that the "board needs to consider letting the community vote eventually". The referenced meeting suggests an "affirmation vote at GUADEC" was planned. However, no such vote by the community has happened. Instead, it appears that the Board ratified the event Code of Conduct and related documents without further community involvement. Could the Board please elaborate as to why these considerations were dismissed again at a later point? Benjamin [1] https://gitlab.gnome.org/Community/Board/issues/60 [2] https://gitlab.gnome.org/Community/Board/issues/10 [3] https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes/20180424 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Events Code of Conduct: Effects on Hackfests
On Thu, 2018-07-19 at 11:21 +0100, Allan Day wrote: > [I'm replying as someone who helped to draft the CoC, and who was on > the board when it was approved. The CoC committee is responsible for > applying the code, and we have a new board now.] > > Benjamin Berg wrote: > ... > > The Code of Conduct Committee charter[1] explicitly grants committee > > members the following rights for any "GNOME event": > > > > * Issuing warnings > > * Banning individuals from events > > * Halting or cancelling talks > > * Removing individual privileges and responsibilities > > > > In how far are these rights applicable to Hackfests? > > The board voted in favour of this charter, as written. "GNOME events" > include hackfests. However, in practical terms, it isn't envisaged > that members of the CoC committee will be at hackfests. If the > committee receives a report, it is probably only going to be able to > respond after the event has ended, so I'm not sure how many of these > powers would apply. I agree that this is more of a theoretical question rather than something that is likely to happen soon. However, I don't think your response clearly answers my question. And I do think it is important to understand possible implications of Board decisions as they may directly affect community members who organise events. My current understanding of your response is, that the CoC committee holds the all of the above powers for all "GNOME events" (unless maybe an explicit exception has been made). Is that interpretation correct? > > The response guidelines[2] state: > > > > "It is your responsibility to make a record of any Code of Conduct > > violations you become aware of, and to share those records with the > > Code of Conduct Committee." > > > > Is this a requirement for hackfest organisers? > > The incident response guidelines are guidelines, rather than a hard > set of rules. They were primarily written with the Code of Conduct > committee and code of conduct teams in mind. So formally speaking, I > wouldn't say that the guideline you've quoted is a requirement. That sounds reasonable in principle. Does these mean that "Section V: Data retention" is purely a suggestion that events should adopt? As I understand it right now, the consequence would be that all "GNOME events" are free to adopt a data retention policy of their choosing. > That said, my view is that, if a hackfest organiser is aware of a > serious incident at their event, they ought to inform the Code of > Conduct Committee. There have been discussions in the past that this may trigger data protection and export regulations. Is there an official opinion on whether such regulations are relevant, and, if yes, whether small events may be expected to e.g. sign a contract with the Foundation to ensure such data exchange can happen legally. Benjamin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Travel assistance applications to attend to Libre Application Summit (LAS)
Dear hackers, The Travel Committee is receiving applications for travel sponsorship requests for the next Libre Application Summit (LAS by GNOME) which will be held in Denver, Colorado, USA. The deadline is July 27, 2018 at 23:59 AOT (Anywhere On Earth). However, we will try rolling approvals, if you submit and get your talk accepted before than July 27, we should get an answer for your sponsorship request more or less at the same time. The sponsorship is aimed for GNOME Foundation members or contributors in the way to become a member. Read carefully the instructions and the process' explanation at http://live.gnome.org/Travel Cordially, -- Germán Poo-Caamaño http://calcifer.org/___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Events Code of Conduct: Effects on Hackfests
[I'm replying as someone who helped to draft the CoC, and who was on the board when it was approved. The CoC committee is responsible for applying the code, and we have a new board now.] Benjamin Berg wrote: ... > The Code of Conduct Committee charter[1] explicitly grants committee > members the following rights for any "GNOME event": > > * Issuing warnings > * Banning individuals from events > * Halting or cancelling talks > * Removing individual privileges and responsibilities > > In how far are these rights applicable to Hackfests? The board voted in favour of this charter, as written. "GNOME events" include hackfests. However, in practical terms, it isn't envisaged that members of the CoC committee will be at hackfests. If the committee receives a report, it is probably only going to be able to respond after the event has ended, so I'm not sure how many of these powers would apply. > The response guidelines[2] state: > > "It is your responsibility to make a record of any Code of Conduct > violations you become aware of, and to share those records with the > Code of Conduct Committee." > > Is this a requirement for hackfest organisers? The incident response guidelines are guidelines, rather than a hard set of rules. They were primarily written with the Code of Conduct committee and code of conduct teams in mind. So formally speaking, I wouldn't say that the guideline you've quoted is a requirement. That said, my view is that, if a hackfest organiser is aware of a serious incident at their event, they ought to inform the Code of Conduct Committee. Allan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: New Foundation and Emeritus members
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > Congrats everyone!! > +1 -- -mvh Oliver Propst ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
