[Standards] Re: LAST CALL: XEP-0458 (Community Code of Conduct)

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Hi all,

Don't forget that the Last Call ends tomorrow (well, today for many of 
you). If you have comments to share, please send them soon.


As to the specifics of the feedback from Guus, see further comments 
inline...


On 11/2/23 12:23 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:



On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 at 16:59, Peter Saint-Andre > wrote:


Hallo Guus,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. In my comments below, I haven't yet
provided suggested text, but I wanted to reply quickly and I will send
another note when I can make concrete proposals.

On 10/31/23 3:18 PM, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
 > Hello,
 >
 > Thank you for the work that has gone into this.
 >
 > To me, the document is clearly worded.

That's good to hear.

 > I would appreciate elaboration on
 > the sentence "Humour is not a mitigating factor here" in section 2.3.

I expect that Dave meant "perhaps you were merely trying to be
humorous,
but that doesn't excuse a poor choice of words".


I think I had in mind:

HAR HAR I WAS ONLY JOKING CAN'T YOU TAKE A JOKE??!??!!111

But yes, as usual, you put it better.


OK, I will incorporate that text or something very much like it.


 > An
 > additional suggestions is to add a reminder that we do not all
share a
 > common cultural background or even a native language and that
this can
 > easily introduce confusion of tongues.

That is an excellent point. I will formulate some text about that.


This too. What is acceptable humour (or simply phrasing) in one culture 
isn't in another - see, for example, "bum bags" versus "fanny packs".


Here is proposed text for adding to Section 2.3:

"Additionally, because participants in XSF events and venues typically 
do not all share a common native language or culture, take extra care to 
ensure that your words can be understood clearly and without offense."



 > To what extent will this document, once adopted, be not only
applicable
 > to all of the XSF's Activities, but also be the singular source of
 > policy? Does that need to be specified?

I expect this document would be the single source of policy on the
topics it covers. If we learn that we've missed something important,
we'll need to update the XEP. Defining policy for the same topic in two
places would be confusing.


Guus, do you think we should add text to address that point? I suppose 
it might best belong in the Introduction.



 > As for the applicability: much (all?) of the violations that I
witnessed
 > are simple spamming or abusive behaviours in MUC rooms. The
definition
 > of desired vs undesirable behaviour that's in this document can
help in
 > those cases, but the process on section 5 is less applicable. I
doubt
 > that this document intends to make moderators of a room go through a
 > procedure of Reporting to the Conduct Team, prior to issuing a ban.
 > Should this document more explicitly allow for action to be taken
 > outside of the procedure defined in section 5?

Yes, it should. I'll think about this, as well, and propose text in a
future message.


I think that there are occasions where an immediate action is warranted, 
and should be taken by those with the capacity to do so; moderators 
banning people from chatrooms is one case, though there are other cases. 
We should ensure that these actions are easily undone. (bans can be 
dropped, gaffer tape removed from - oh, wait, what was I saying?)


I suggest that we add a separate section 5.5 to address this point. Here 
is proposed text:


###

5.5 Situations Requiring Immediate Action

The foregoing process assumes that there is time for reporting, 
consideration, and well-reasoned decision-making "in a quiet hour". 
However, two very different kinds of situation might require immediate 
action:


1. Clearly offensive but somewhat minor behaviour, such as "drive-by" 
comments in online chatrooms.


2. Behaviour that poses a clear and present threat of physical harm, 
such as a fist-fight at an in-person event.


In both situations, venue moderators are empowered to take immediate 
action (in the first example, banning the sender from a chatroom; in the 
second example, breaking up a fight or calling building security). 
However, the actions of venue moderators are always subject to appeal.


###

If the text I have proposed above seems mostly acceptable, I will submit 
a pull request to modify XEP-0458.


Peter
___
Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org
Info: Unsubscribe: %(real_name)s-unsubscribe@%(host_name)s
___

[Standards] XMPP Council Agenda 2023-11-29

[Daniel Gultsch]

Good morning Council,
the next XMPP Council Meeting will take place today, on Wednesday,
November 29th 2023 at 16:00 UTC in xmpp:coun...@muc.xmpp.org?join

The Agenda is as follows:

1) Roll call

2) Agenda Bashing

3) Election of new Chair

4) Election of Board Liaison

5) Schedule regular council meetings

6) AOB

7) Close
___
Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org
Info: Unsubscribe: %(real_name)s-unsubscribe@%(host_name)s
___