Re: [IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs

[Charles Cossé]

Hello,

Even in peaceful New Mexico my inbox is full of this discussion, so please
allow me to at least share a link to a Dictionary of English Idioms
<https://raw.githubusercontent.com/asymptopia/tuxwordsmith/master/xdxf/English-Idioms/dict.xdxf>
.

@Hilary, thanks for figuring out what was even going on!  I searched for a
reference to anyone's "mother" and skimmed right over "run to mommie".  It
did not even occur to me that that was the refernce, because I understand
it as an idiom immediately and automatically.

Charles

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Hilary Naylor <hnay...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi James and all,
>
> It appears to me that the phrase "run to Mommie" (or "mommy" as is more
> common) is a perfect example of your first scenario.  It just doesn't mean
> what the translation probably implies "run to your mother." I quick review
> of the phrase in Google (in English) illustrates how it is used (not that
> it is polite, but it has nothing to do with anyone's mother).
>I'd suggest that the first rule of multi-cultural, multi-lingual
> e-lists like this one should be "no English idioms"!
>
> thanks
> Hilary
>
> ---Original Message---
> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:06:09 +1000
> From: James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org>
> To: iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org, sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy
> - Sugar Labs
>
>
> Long reply.
>
> I'm very familiar with the geek feminism team and the conference
> anti-harassment policy, as I've been a regular speaker at
> linux.conf.au.  I support the work of the geek feminism team.  For my
> part, two of my friends who are female are part of the overall geek
> feminism movement.  The conference policy is essential.  I support the
> policy itself, but I don't think Sugar Labs needs it yet.
>
> I'm also familiar with abuse and harassment policies in general, as
> I've been studying and implementing them as part of another
> organisation.  Earlier this week 130 or so pages of canon law passed
> my eyes.
>
> Walter asked Laura why existing code of conduct is insufficient;
> perhaps another way of asking why the policy would be needed.  At time
> of my writing, Laura hasn't answered.  I look forward to an answer.
>
> For my part, I guess there are two possible scenarios, and which is
> correct I cannot be sure.  Perhaps none, perhaps one, perhaps both.
>
> 1.  a misunderstanding.
>
> Since almost everything here in Sugar Labs mailing lists is in
> English, and there is no independent third party doing translation,
> any non-english speaker is obliged to manage their own translation,
>
> Laura says english is not her first language.  So everything I say has
> to be translated.  When translating there are a choice of
> interpretations.  English has several meanings.
>
> This risks an uncharitable translation, which may result in silently
> taking offense, which may set a person against me.
>
> This in turn increases the probability of the next translation being
> uncharitable, caused now by a decision to act against all my
> interests, despite some interests being held in common.
>
> A positive feedback loop begins, with each communication raising the
> ire of each participant.  This may partly explain my stress and tears
> in the design meeting; I felt I wasn't listened to, as if a prejudice
> had already built to the point of deafness.
>
> For my part, I hope Sebastian isn't the translator.  If so, I'm
> doomed.  ;-)
>
> 2.  side attack.
>
> A less charitable interpretation is that Laura is searching around for
> procedural weapons to use against me, which in itself is a form of
> abuse.  This seems less likely now than a misunderstanding, because it
> would be such an unwise thing to do.  Laura should not be the one to
> propose this motion, because it could look like an attack.  Laura
> might instead have asked another to propose it, or the motion could
> have been private to slobs@.  It can only be an attack on me if it is
> copied to iaep@.
>
>
> Summary
>
> The proposed policy is not needed, because the code of conduct already
> includes a summary form, and says the oversight board will arbitrate.
> The oversight board is the response team, and reports would be private
> to them.
>
> (As an aside, If I had approached the board alleging harassment under
> the code of conduct, I would have written to the board without
> including anyone involved in the abuse or harassment.  If Laura had
> approach the board alleging harassment under the code of conduct, the
> board would have to acknowledge and then discuss without including
> Laura.  The proposed polic

Re: [IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs

[James Cameron]

Thanks Hilary, that's interesting.

My Australian culture doesn't use "run to mother", but does use "spit
the dummy", which in turn is usually not understood by American
cultural adherents.

Yes, idioms are risky, but they are not easily identified, especially
by those who use them.  They are subconscious, and form very efficient
semantic containers for communication within a culture.

Often we need to be told which are idioms and which are not.  We are
hasty and won't spend the time looking for idioms, in the same way
that our readers are hasty not to look for a charitable alternative
interpretation.

For amusement; in Australian idiomatic english, I'd say we're up a
creek without a paddle after an emu knocked the dunny down.

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 03:34:17PM -0700, Hilary Naylor wrote:
> Hi James and all,
> 
> It appears to me that the phrase "run to Mommie" (or "mommy" as is more 
> common)
> is a perfect example of your first scenario.  It just doesn't mean what the
> translation probably implies "run to your mother." I quick review of the 
> phrase
> in Google (in English) illustrates how it is used (not that it is polite, but
> it has nothing to do with anyone's mother). 
>    I'd suggest that the first rule of multi-cultural, multi-lingual e-lists
> like this one should be "no English idioms"! 
> 
> thanks
> Hilary
> 
> ---Original Message---
> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:06:09 +1000
> From: James Cameron <[1]qu...@laptop.org>
> To: [2]iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org, [3]sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy -
> Sugar Labs
> 
> Long reply.
> 
> I'm very familiar with the geek feminism team and the conference
> anti-harassment policy, as I've been a regular speaker at
> [4]linux.conf.au.  I support the work of the geek feminism team.  For my
> part, two of my friends who are female are part of the overall geek
> feminism movement.  The conference policy is essential.  I support the
> policy itself, but I don't think Sugar Labs needs it yet.
> 
> I'm also familiar with abuse and harassment policies in general, as
> I've been studying and implementing them as part of another
> organisation.  Earlier this week 130 or so pages of canon law passed
> my eyes.
> 
> Walter asked Laura why existing code of conduct is insufficient;
> perhaps another way of asking why the policy would be needed.  At time
> of my writing, Laura hasn't answered.  I look forward to an answer.
> 
> For my part, I guess there are two possible scenarios, and which is
> correct I cannot be sure.  Perhaps none, perhaps one, perhaps both.
> 
> 1.  a misunderstanding.
> 
> Since almost everything here in Sugar Labs mailing lists is in
> English, and there is no independent third party doing translation,
> any non-english speaker is obliged to manage their own translation,
> 
> Laura says english is not her first language.  So everything I say has
> to be translated.  When translating there are a choice of
> interpretations.  English has several meanings.
> 
> This risks an uncharitable translation, which may result in silently
> taking offense, which may set a person against me.
> 
> This in turn increases the probability of the next translation being
> uncharitable, caused now by a decision to act against all my
> interests, despite some interests being held in common.
> 
> A positive feedback loop begins, with each communication raising the
> ire of each participant.  This may partly explain my stress and tears
> in the design meeting; I felt I wasn't listened to, as if a prejudice
> had already built to the point of deafness.
> 
> For my part, I hope Sebastian isn't the translator.  If so, I'm
> doomed.  ;-)
> 
> 2.  side attack.
> 
> A less charitable interpretation is that Laura is searching around for
> procedural weapons to use against me, which in itself is a form of
> abuse.  This seems less likely now than a misunderstanding, because it
> would be such an unwise thing to do.  Laura should not be the one to
> propose this motion, because it could look like an attack.  Laura
> might instead have asked another to propose it, or the motion could
> have been private to slobs@.  It can only be an attack on me if it is
> copied to iaep@.
> 
> Summary
> 
> The proposed policy is not needed, because the code of conduct already
> includes a summary form, and says the oversight board will arbitrate.
> The oversight board is the response team, and reports would be private
> to them.
> 
> (As an aside, If I had approached the board alleging harassment under
> the code of conduct, I would have written to the board without
> including anyone involved in 

Re: [IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs

[Hilary Naylor]

Hi James and all,

It appears to me that the phrase "run to Mommie" (or "mommy" as is more
common) is a perfect example of your first scenario.  It just doesn't mean
what the translation probably implies "run to your mother." I quick review
of the phrase in Google (in English) illustrates how it is used (not that
it is polite, but it has nothing to do with anyone's mother).
   I'd suggest that the first rule of multi-cultural, multi-lingual e-lists
like this one should be "no English idioms"!

thanks
Hilary

---Original Message---
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 09:06:09 +1000
From: James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org>
To: iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org, sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
Subject: Re: [IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy -
Sugar Labs


Long reply.

I'm very familiar with the geek feminism team and the conference
anti-harassment policy, as I've been a regular speaker at
linux.conf.au.  I support the work of the geek feminism team.  For my
part, two of my friends who are female are part of the overall geek
feminism movement.  The conference policy is essential.  I support the
policy itself, but I don't think Sugar Labs needs it yet.

I'm also familiar with abuse and harassment policies in general, as
I've been studying and implementing them as part of another
organisation.  Earlier this week 130 or so pages of canon law passed
my eyes.

Walter asked Laura why existing code of conduct is insufficient;
perhaps another way of asking why the policy would be needed.  At time
of my writing, Laura hasn't answered.  I look forward to an answer.

For my part, I guess there are two possible scenarios, and which is
correct I cannot be sure.  Perhaps none, perhaps one, perhaps both.

1.  a misunderstanding.

Since almost everything here in Sugar Labs mailing lists is in
English, and there is no independent third party doing translation,
any non-english speaker is obliged to manage their own translation,

Laura says english is not her first language.  So everything I say has
to be translated.  When translating there are a choice of
interpretations.  English has several meanings.

This risks an uncharitable translation, which may result in silently
taking offense, which may set a person against me.

This in turn increases the probability of the next translation being
uncharitable, caused now by a decision to act against all my
interests, despite some interests being held in common.

A positive feedback loop begins, with each communication raising the
ire of each participant.  This may partly explain my stress and tears
in the design meeting; I felt I wasn't listened to, as if a prejudice
had already built to the point of deafness.

For my part, I hope Sebastian isn't the translator.  If so, I'm
doomed.  ;-)

2.  side attack.

A less charitable interpretation is that Laura is searching around for
procedural weapons to use against me, which in itself is a form of
abuse.  This seems less likely now than a misunderstanding, because it
would be such an unwise thing to do.  Laura should not be the one to
propose this motion, because it could look like an attack.  Laura
might instead have asked another to propose it, or the motion could
have been private to slobs@.  It can only be an attack on me if it is
copied to iaep@.


Summary

The proposed policy is not needed, because the code of conduct already
includes a summary form, and says the oversight board will arbitrate.
The oversight board is the response team, and reports would be private
to them.

(As an aside, If I had approached the board alleging harassment under
the code of conduct, I would have written to the board without
including anyone involved in the abuse or harassment.  If Laura had
approach the board alleging harassment under the code of conduct, the
board would have to acknowledge and then discuss without including
Laura.  The proposed policy identifies the same difficulty with the
response team.)

The proposed policy is unsustainable, because we have so few active
people in Sugar Labs.  With GCI and GSoC inactive, most posts are from
myself, Laura, or the oversight board.  It is unlikely there would be
agreement on making a separate response team, and the confidential
nature of the response team would make it hard for them to manage
communication.

Alternatives

However, I welcome any independent third party to assist Laura and
myself to be more charitable in our translations and interpretations,
and defuse what might be seen as mutual harassment born from
misunderstanding.  Others have become silent instead.

As Sugar Labs is so small, I don't expect an independent third party
will make such an offer, so as an alternative I ask that Laura and
others clearly identify any harassment, and in return I'll do the
same.  I've already begun this.  It will increase volume of mailing
list posts, which is unfortunate, but seems necessary.

I recognise that the proposed policy would also protect me, and I
could

Re: [IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs

[James Cameron]

On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 12:03:17PM -0500, Laura Vargas wrote:
> 
> 2017-09-27 13:03 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender <[1]walter.ben...@gmail.com>:
> 
> FWIW, the current Sugar Labs code of conduct is available in the wiki 
> here:
> 
> [2]https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Legal/Code_of_Conduct
> 
> And translated into Spanish here:
> 
> [3]http://co.sugarlabs.org/go/C%C3%B3digo_de_Conducta
> 
> Spanish link is broke.

Yes, the Spanish translation link is 404.

> @Laura, maybe you could explain why you think the current code of conduct
> is insufficient as regards harassment?
> 
> regards.
> 
> -walter
> 
> I think current Code of Conduct is insufficient because there is no
> procedure to follow in case of Harassment.
> 
> Sugar Labs Code of Conduct currently states:
> 
> " The Oversight Board will arbitrate in any dispute over the conduct
> of a member of the community." 
> 
> So, what happens in case of Harassment?
> 
> Harassment is not a dispute.

No.  Harassment is a conduct.  Where harassment occurs, there also
occurs a dispute about conduct.

The code of conduct says I may ask the oversight board to arbitrate
for me, as part of my appreciation of being bullied and harassed.

You would not have known this, because of recusal, but I've not yet
asked the oversight board to arbitrate.  It is an option I've yet to
select.  I'm keeping the option in reserve, as a last resort, because
I'm trying first to be open about the dispute, and also because it
will cost the oversight board significant time which could be better
spent on more useful matters.

> The Anti-harassment Policy proposed clearly defines what Community
> shall understand as Harassment and what Community member can do
> about it if he/she finds in such situation.

Two parts to your statement; a list of conducts, and response to
conducts.

- the list of harassing conducts is useful, however they are already
  implied in the code of conduct.  Should the oversight board wish to
  add this list, I've no objection.  As I've said before, I can see
  how this list may help to protect me.

- the response to harassing conduct needs no change; a community
  member like me can already ask the oversight board to arbitrate, and
  there's no reason to add yet another team to an already tiny
  organisation.

> Sugar Labs needs to be a place where anyone can speak freely,
> without fear.

Yes, please.

However, it will be never possible to be without fear given public
mailing lists and archives that can be searched.

Developers are now talking to me privately because they don't feel
they can speak freely.  That's wrong.

> To include a Diversity statement would also help encourage
> participation by everyone.

While a diversity statement would be a welcome addition to the Wiki
canon, it alone would not encourage my participation.

The Ubuntu diversity statement is good.

> Regards,
> 
> Laura V
> 

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs

[Laura Vargas]

2017-09-27 13:03 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender :

> FWIW, the current Sugar Labs code of conduct is available in the wiki here:
>
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Legal/Code_of_Conduct
>
> And translated into Spanish here:
>
> http://co.sugarlabs.org/go/C%C3%B3digo_de_Conducta
>

Spanish link is broke.


>
> @Laura, maybe you could explain why you think the current code of conduct
> is insufficient as regards harassment?
>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
>
I think current Code of Conduct is insufficient because there is no
procedure to follow in case of Harassment.

Sugar Labs Code of Conduct currently states:

" The Oversight Board will arbitrate in any dispute over the conduct of a
member of the community."

So, what happens in case of Harassment?

Harassment is not a dispute.

The Anti-harassment Policy proposed clearly defines what Community shall
understand as Harassment and what Community member can do about it if
he/she finds in such situation.

Sugar Labs needs to be a place where anyone can speak freely, without fear.

To include a Diversity statement
 would also help
encourage participation by everyone.


Regards,

Laura V


> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Laura Vargas 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello all, Hola a todos,
>>
>> [Thanks in advance to volunteer translators of this message]
>>
>> I would like to propose a Motion for: "The Sugar Labs Code of Conduct to
>> include the Geek Feminism Community anti-harassment Policy
>> 
>> and to dispose resources (if needed) for the complete text to be translated
>> to Sugar supported languages. This Policy contemplates the existence of a
>> RESPONSE TEAM and defining a way and procedure to contact them.
>>
>> Hope to hear opinions and feedback from all Sugar Labs members.
>>
>> Hopefully volunteers to integrate the RESPONSE TEAM.
>>
>> According to Geek Feminism
>>  anti-harassment
>> Policy, harassment includes:
>>
>>- Offensive comments related to gender, gender identity and
>>expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness,
>>neuro(a)typicality, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or 
>> religion.
>>- Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and
>>practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and
>>employment.
>>- Deliberate misgendering or use of ‘dead’ or rejected names.
>>- Gratuitous or off-topic sexual images or behaviour  in spaces where
>>they’re not appropriate.
>>- Physical contact and simulated physical contact (eg, textual
>>descriptions like “*hug*” or “*backrub*”) without consent or after a
>>request to stop.
>>- Threats of violence.
>>- Incitement of violence towards any individual, including
>>encouraging a person to commit suicide or to engage in self-harm.
>>- Deliberate intimidation.
>>- Stalking or following.
>>- Harassing photography or recording, including logging online
>>activity for harassment purposes.
>>- Sustained disruption of discussion.
>>- Unwelcome sexual attention.
>>- Pattern of inappropriate social contact, such as
>>requesting/assuming inappropriate levels of intimacy with others
>>- Continued one-on-one communication after requests to cease.
>>- Deliberate “outing” of any aspect of a person’s identity without
>>their consent except as necessary to protect vulnerable people from
>>intentional abuse.
>>- Publication of non-harassing private communication.
>>
>> 
>> Anti-harassment policy text Shorter version
>>
>> COMMUNITY NAME is dedicated to providing a harassment-free experience for
>> everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual
>> orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or
>> religion. We do not tolerate harassment of participants in any form.
>>
>> This code of conduct applies to all COMMUNITY NAME spaces, including
>> [list, eg "our mailing lists and IRC channel"], both online and off. Anyone
>> who violates this code of conduct may be sanctioned or expelled from these
>> spaces at the discretion of the RESPONSE TEAM.
>>
>> Some COMMUNITY NAME spaces may have additional rules in place, which will
>> be made clearly available to participants. Participants are responsible for
>> knowing and abiding by these rules.
>> Longer version
>>
>> COMMUNITY NAME is dedicated to providing a harassment-free experience for
>> everyone. We do not tolerate harassment of participants in any form.
>>
>> This code of conduct applies to all COMMUNITY NAME spaces, including
>> [give a list of your spaces, eg "our mailing lists and IRC channel"], both
>> online and off. Anyone who violates this code of conduct may be sanctioned
>> or expelled from these spaces at the discretion of the RESPONSE 

Re: [IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs

[James Cameron]

Long reply.

I'm very familiar with the geek feminism team and the conference
anti-harassment policy, as I've been a regular speaker at
linux.conf.au.  I support the work of the geek feminism team.  For my
part, two of my friends who are female are part of the overall geek
feminism movement.  The conference policy is essential.  I support the
policy itself, but I don't think Sugar Labs needs it yet.

I'm also familiar with abuse and harassment policies in general, as
I've been studying and implementing them as part of another
organisation.  Earlier this week 130 or so pages of canon law passed
my eyes.

Walter asked Laura why existing code of conduct is insufficient;
perhaps another way of asking why the policy would be needed.  At time
of my writing, Laura hasn't answered.  I look forward to an answer.

For my part, I guess there are two possible scenarios, and which is
correct I cannot be sure.  Perhaps none, perhaps one, perhaps both.

1.  a misunderstanding.

Since almost everything here in Sugar Labs mailing lists is in
English, and there is no independent third party doing translation,
any non-english speaker is obliged to manage their own translation,

Laura says english is not her first language.  So everything I say has
to be translated.  When translating there are a choice of
interpretations.  English has several meanings.

This risks an uncharitable translation, which may result in silently
taking offense, which may set a person against me.

This in turn increases the probability of the next translation being
uncharitable, caused now by a decision to act against all my
interests, despite some interests being held in common.

A positive feedback loop begins, with each communication raising the
ire of each participant.  This may partly explain my stress and tears
in the design meeting; I felt I wasn't listened to, as if a prejudice
had already built to the point of deafness.

For my part, I hope Sebastian isn't the translator.  If so, I'm
doomed.  ;-)

2.  side attack.

A less charitable interpretation is that Laura is searching around for
procedural weapons to use against me, which in itself is a form of
abuse.  This seems less likely now than a misunderstanding, because it
would be such an unwise thing to do.  Laura should not be the one to
propose this motion, because it could look like an attack.  Laura
might instead have asked another to propose it, or the motion could
have been private to slobs@.  It can only be an attack on me if it is
copied to iaep@.


Summary

The proposed policy is not needed, because the code of conduct already
includes a summary form, and says the oversight board will arbitrate.
The oversight board is the response team, and reports would be private
to them.

(As an aside, If I had approached the board alleging harassment under
the code of conduct, I would have written to the board without
including anyone involved in the abuse or harassment.  If Laura had
approach the board alleging harassment under the code of conduct, the
board would have to acknowledge and then discuss without including
Laura.  The proposed policy identifies the same difficulty with the
response team.)

The proposed policy is unsustainable, because we have so few active
people in Sugar Labs.  With GCI and GSoC inactive, most posts are from
myself, Laura, or the oversight board.  It is unlikely there would be
agreement on making a separate response team, and the confidential
nature of the response team would make it hard for them to manage
communication.

Alternatives

However, I welcome any independent third party to assist Laura and
myself to be more charitable in our translations and interpretations,
and defuse what might be seen as mutual harassment born from
misunderstanding.  Others have become silent instead.

As Sugar Labs is so small, I don't expect an independent third party
will make such an offer, so as an alternative I ask that Laura and
others clearly identify any harassment, and in return I'll do the
same.  I've already begun this.  It will increase volume of mailing
list posts, which is unfortunate, but seems necessary.

I recognise that the proposed policy would also protect me, and I
could make a report under the policy; on the issues of employment,
intimidation, and sustained disruption of discussion.

Thank you to the six people who responded privately to my concerns of
harassment, and I hope we can make Sugar Labs a place where you can
speak freely.


On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 02:03:25PM -0400, Walter Bender wrote:
> FWIW, the current Sugar Labs code of conduct is available in the wiki here:
> 
> [1]https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Legal/Code_of_Conduct
> 
> And translated into Spanish here:
> 
> [2]http://co.sugarlabs.org/go/C%C3%B3digo_de_Conducta
> 
> @Laura, maybe you could explain why you think the current code of conduct is
> insufficient as regards harassment?
> 
> regards.
> 
> -walter
> 
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Laura Vargas <[3]la...@somosazucar.org>

Re: [IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs

[Walter Bender]

FWIW, the current Sugar Labs code of conduct is available in the wiki here:

https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Legal/Code_of_Conduct

And translated into Spanish here:

http://co.sugarlabs.org/go/C%C3%B3digo_de_Conducta

@Laura, maybe you could explain why you think the current code of conduct
is insufficient as regards harassment?

regards.

-walter


On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Laura Vargas 
wrote:

>
> Hello all, Hola a todos,
>
> [Thanks in advance to volunteer translators of this message]
>
> I would like to propose a Motion for: "The Sugar Labs Code of Conduct to
> include the Geek Feminism Community anti-harassment Policy
>  and
> to dispose resources (if needed) for the complete text to be translated to
> Sugar supported languages. This Policy contemplates the existence of a
> RESPONSE TEAM and defining a way and procedure to contact them.
>
> Hope to hear opinions and feedback from all Sugar Labs members.
>
> Hopefully volunteers to integrate the RESPONSE TEAM.
>
> According to Geek Feminism
>  anti-harassment
> Policy, harassment includes:
>
>- Offensive comments related to gender, gender identity and
>expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness,
>neuro(a)typicality, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion.
>- Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and
>practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and
>employment.
>- Deliberate misgendering or use of ‘dead’ or rejected names.
>- Gratuitous or off-topic sexual images or behaviour  in spaces where
>they’re not appropriate.
>- Physical contact and simulated physical contact (eg, textual
>descriptions like “*hug*” or “*backrub*”) without consent or after a
>request to stop.
>- Threats of violence.
>- Incitement of violence towards any individual, including encouraging
>a person to commit suicide or to engage in self-harm.
>- Deliberate intimidation.
>- Stalking or following.
>- Harassing photography or recording, including logging online
>activity for harassment purposes.
>- Sustained disruption of discussion.
>- Unwelcome sexual attention.
>- Pattern of inappropriate social contact, such as requesting/assuming
>inappropriate levels of intimacy with others
>- Continued one-on-one communication after requests to cease.
>- Deliberate “outing” of any aspect of a person’s identity without
>their consent except as necessary to protect vulnerable people from
>intentional abuse.
>- Publication of non-harassing private communication.
>
> 
> Anti-harassment policy text Shorter version
>
> COMMUNITY NAME is dedicated to providing a harassment-free experience for
> everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual
> orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or
> religion. We do not tolerate harassment of participants in any form.
>
> This code of conduct applies to all COMMUNITY NAME spaces, including
> [list, eg "our mailing lists and IRC channel"], both online and off. Anyone
> who violates this code of conduct may be sanctioned or expelled from these
> spaces at the discretion of the RESPONSE TEAM.
>
> Some COMMUNITY NAME spaces may have additional rules in place, which will
> be made clearly available to participants. Participants are responsible for
> knowing and abiding by these rules.
> Longer version
>
> COMMUNITY NAME is dedicated to providing a harassment-free experience for
> everyone. We do not tolerate harassment of participants in any form.
>
> This code of conduct applies to all COMMUNITY NAME spaces, including [give
> a list of your spaces, eg "our mailing lists and IRC channel"], both online
> and off. Anyone who violates this code of conduct may be sanctioned or
> expelled from these spaces at the discretion of the RESPONSE TEAM.
>
> Some COMMUNITY NAME spaces may have additional rules in place, which will
> be made clearly available to participants. Participants are responsible for
> knowing and abiding by these rules.
>
> Harassment includes:
>
>- Offensive comments related to gender, gender identity and
>expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness,
>neuro(a)typicality, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion.
>- Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and
>practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and
>employment.
>- Deliberate misgendering or use of ‘dead’ or rejected names.
>- Gratuitous or off-topic sexual images or behaviour  in spaces where
>they’re not appropriate.
>- Physical contact and simulated physical contact (eg, textual
>descriptions like “*hug*” or “*backrub*”) without consent or after a
>request to stop.
>- 

[IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs

[Laura Vargas]

Hello all, Hola a todos,

[Thanks in advance to volunteer translators of this message]

I would like to propose a Motion for: "The Sugar Labs Code of Conduct to
include the Geek Feminism Community anti-harassment Policy
 and
to dispose resources (if needed) for the complete text to be translated to
Sugar supported languages. This Policy contemplates the existence of a
RESPONSE TEAM and defining a way and procedure to contact them.

Hope to hear opinions and feedback from all Sugar Labs members.

Hopefully volunteers to integrate the RESPONSE TEAM.

According to Geek Feminism
 anti-harassment
Policy, harassment includes:

   - Offensive comments related to gender, gender identity and expression,
   sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neuro(a)typicality,
   physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion.
   - Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and
   practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and
   employment.
   - Deliberate misgendering or use of ‘dead’ or rejected names.
   - Gratuitous or off-topic sexual images or behaviour  in spaces where
   they’re not appropriate.
   - Physical contact and simulated physical contact (eg, textual
   descriptions like “*hug*” or “*backrub*”) without consent or after a
   request to stop.
   - Threats of violence.
   - Incitement of violence towards any individual, including encouraging a
   person to commit suicide or to engage in self-harm.
   - Deliberate intimidation.
   - Stalking or following.
   - Harassing photography or recording, including logging online activity
   for harassment purposes.
   - Sustained disruption of discussion.
   - Unwelcome sexual attention.
   - Pattern of inappropriate social contact, such as requesting/assuming
   inappropriate levels of intimacy with others
   - Continued one-on-one communication after requests to cease.
   - Deliberate “outing” of any aspect of a person’s identity without their
   consent except as necessary to protect vulnerable people from intentional
   abuse.
   - Publication of non-harassing private communication.


Anti-harassment policy text Shorter version

COMMUNITY NAME is dedicated to providing a harassment-free experience for
everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual
orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or
religion. We do not tolerate harassment of participants in any form.

This code of conduct applies to all COMMUNITY NAME spaces, including [list,
eg "our mailing lists and IRC channel"], both online and off. Anyone who
violates this code of conduct may be sanctioned or expelled from these
spaces at the discretion of the RESPONSE TEAM.

Some COMMUNITY NAME spaces may have additional rules in place, which will
be made clearly available to participants. Participants are responsible for
knowing and abiding by these rules.
Longer version

COMMUNITY NAME is dedicated to providing a harassment-free experience for
everyone. We do not tolerate harassment of participants in any form.

This code of conduct applies to all COMMUNITY NAME spaces, including [give
a list of your spaces, eg "our mailing lists and IRC channel"], both online
and off. Anyone who violates this code of conduct may be sanctioned or
expelled from these spaces at the discretion of the RESPONSE TEAM.

Some COMMUNITY NAME spaces may have additional rules in place, which will
be made clearly available to participants. Participants are responsible for
knowing and abiding by these rules.

Harassment includes:

   - Offensive comments related to gender, gender identity and expression,
   sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neuro(a)typicality,
   physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion.
   - Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and
   practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and
   employment.
   - Deliberate misgendering or use of ‘dead’ or rejected names.
   - Gratuitous or off-topic sexual images or behaviour  in spaces where
   they’re not appropriate.
   - Physical contact and simulated physical contact (eg, textual
   descriptions like “*hug*” or “*backrub*”) without consent or after a
   request to stop.
   - Threats of violence.
   - Incitement of violence towards any individual, including encouraging a
   person to commit suicide or to engage in self-harm.
   - Deliberate intimidation.
   - Stalking or following.
   - Harassing photography or recording, including logging online activity
   for harassment purposes.
   - Sustained disruption of discussion.
   - Unwelcome sexual attention.
   - Pattern of inappropriate social contact, such as requesting/assuming
   inappropriate levels of intimacy with others
   - Continued one-on-one communication after requests to cease.
   - Deliberate “outing” of any aspect of a