Re: [diversity-talk] OSM code of conduct: starting points
On 10/11/2014 3:48 PM, Darrell Fuhriman wrote: Here’s my question, and this needs to be clarified (probably deserves its own thread): Who is responsible for deciding what action needs to be taken in the case of CoC violations? A CoC without a body willing and able to enforce it is just window dressing. This is, in practice, not a huge issue. Violations on mailing lists would fall under the responsibilities of the list moderators, and I think the CWG (or MT) is the working group ultimately responsible. Violations on the API (website) are a DWG responsibility, governed by the ban policy[1]. SOTM is under the responsibility of the SOTM WG, and I imagine they'd delegate responsibility to the event planners when it comes to the actual event. This is of course straying from the topic of diversity-talk@ a great deal, do in violation of what some have proposed for a Code of Conduct[2]. A more suitable venue for the entire CoC discussion would be the general talk list or other non-topic specific lists. [1]: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Ban_Policy [2]: https://github.com/osmlab/CoC-mailing-lists/blob/master/code_of_conduct.md ___ diversity-talk mailing list diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
Re: [diversity-talk] OSM code of conduct: starting points
2014-10-11 23:48 GMT+01:00 Darrell Fuhriman darr...@garnix.org: On Oct 10, 2014, at 19:45, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: One last thought - where would the forums fit in this? They're on openstreetmap.org, but not run by the OSMF, so the forum admins would be perfectly capable of saying no to any code of conduct. What would happen then? Does OSMF not have any control over what’s on openstreetmap.org? What’s wrong with saying “You can agree to the code of conduct, or you can get off of openstreetmap.org and we’ll replace the forums”? Probably in theory that's possible, but such a stand-off situation is extremely unlikely, given the social and admin structure of OSM/OSMF, in particular OSMF's oft-stated ambition to support rather than control OSM. But more importantly, we don't need to worry about these particular hypotheticals, since we have no need to ensure roll-out across all channels. As others have said, it makes more sense to develop our CoC usage incrementally rather than as a top-down dictat, for many reasons. It wouldn't worry me if the gatekeepers to one particular channel decide against adopting/enforcing a particular CoC. We can develop the approach in other channels, and try to spread good practice as we go, learning from the experience we accumulate. Here’s my question, and this needs to be clarified (probably deserves its own thread): Who is responsible for deciding what action needs to be taken in the case of CoC violations? A CoC without a body willing and able to enforce it is just window dressing. Well I disagree that it would be just window dressing: written guidelines can often serve as community norms, even with no official enforcers. Having said that, it definitely helps to have some responsiblity for making it happen. But we already have that! It seems likely that the people who moderate the individual components of OSM (forum moderators, mailing list moderators, the Data Working Group) would decide, just as they decide now when to block spammers/vandals or whatever. We already have these moderators, and the responsibility is decentralised across them. Best Dan ___ diversity-talk mailing list diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
Re: [diversity-talk] OSM code of conduct: starting points
Hi, On 10/09/2014 05:49 AM, Jo Walsh wrote: If you kept a central Code very short and obvious then you could adopt it and then kind of subclass it when you had more specific needs - such as at SoTM or on the mailing lists... This sounds like a good plan to me. If done well, the central Code could essentially be a just slightly more verbose version of Don't be an asshole (like Jo said, a few points that a person would obviously have to be a real asshole to disagree with.). More specific Codes could then be made as subclasses for mailing lists (potentially including the help site, forums, IRC - or have separate for those), for mapping itself, conferences etc. where the basic rule of not being an asshole is elaborated and examples are given about how you could be an asshole at a conference, on a mailing list, etc. Some things would have to be carefully worked out - for example, don't break the law couldn't be part of a mapping code of conduct because our (Chinese) mappers *do* break (Chinese) law and we're actually rather thankful that they do. Also, if a code is really only any good where it can be enforced, we should avoid establishing codes of conduct for areas beyond our reach - for example, I hear that in some countries the OSM community is largely organised in Facebook groups and we can't do anything about that, nor can we do anything about people behaving like an asshole at a pub meet somewhere. (Or can we - should we attempt cross-media prosecution so that we ban someone from editing when they're misbehaving on Facebook etc.? Worth a thought but fraught with problems.) What really gives me pause is Serge's statement. It seems to me that the very idea of a Code is to create a norm beyond which nobody must stray; at the same point the raison d'etre of the Code is to make things more inclusive. Now Serge raises the issue that there might be people who, due to a condition they cannot influence, don't fit the norm - they always talk too loud, always interrupt others, or whatnot. Standard societal behaviour would be to - sooner or later - exclude them because they don't fit the norm. Sorry, no loudmouths - clinical or otherwise. It's a bit of a contradiction to build a Code of conduct that will actually codify the exclusion of these people and therefore create a less welcoming environment for them than the current non-Code environment. But my gut feeling is to not make an exemption for them. If someone violates the Code because of a clinical condition then I might be a little more polite towards them but a transgression remains a transgression and the inclusiveness must stop somewhere. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ diversity-talk mailing list diversity-t...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
Re: [diversity-talk] OSM code of conduct: starting points
On 10/8/2014 8:49 PM, Jo Walsh wrote: Okay, my gloss on this is that the Code of Conduct is a kind of shibboleth and a kind of insurance policy. You need one in order to be seen taking this stuff seriously The argument raised recently was that having a CoC helps diversity, and is not a symbolic move. ___ diversity-talk mailing list diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
Re: [diversity-talk] OSM code of conduct: starting points
I'm not arguing for an exception for unacceptable behavior, but I am saying that we need to be cognizant of a few issues: 1. Whereas the Code of Conduct presumes that most behavior is done with full knowledge and intent, we cannot really assume that. We can't assume that if someone is behaving in a way that we dislike, that it must be purposeful. 2. We can't assume that in all cases, someone is able to modify some behavior just because they're aware of it. 3. If the purpose of a code of conduct is to increase diversity, then it should focus on correction and inclusion, rather than shame and exclusion. The current mailing list CoC proposes public shaming and a three strikes rule. Based on messages I'm getting off list from people who seem afraid to speak up, this is concerning people, but they do not want to be seen as being against the process in general. I share this concern. As an aside, how can those people who seem to be leading this CoC process make those people feel safe enough to speak on their own? 4. Understanding and utilizing the communication channels involved is really important here. A mailing list can allow someone to be moderated, whereas you can't moderate someone at an event. At the same time, you can be more strict on a mailing list about being on topic, not having a social (or sexual) component to the discussion, etc. 5. We must also allow for cultural differences. What is acceptable and normal in San Fransisco is going to be different from what's normal and acceptable in Jakarta. We need to allow for tweaks and changes to reflect local culture and mores. - Serge ___ diversity-talk mailing list diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
Re: [diversity-talk] OSM code of conduct: starting points
A few quick comments (more thoughtful ones hopefully to follow). 1. Whereas the Code of Conduct presumes that most behavior is done with full knowledge and intent, we cannot really assume that. We can't assume that if someone is behaving in a way that we dislike, that it must be purposeful. Absolutely not. One of the points of the Code of Conduct is to draw attention to behaviors that people may not realize are distasteful to others. 2. We can't assume that in all cases, someone is able to modify some behavior just because they're aware of it. But then we need to ask if we actually want those people included. If one’s person behavior is chasing away multiple people, do we just accept it regardless of if they’re able to help themselves or not? A mailing list can allow someone to be moderated, whereas you can't moderate someone at an event. Of course you can, you just do it differently. You can ask someone to leave for example, and in severe or repeat-offender cases, make it clear that they are no longer welcome at this or at future events. 5. We must also allow for cultural differences. What is acceptable and normal in San Fransisco is going to be different from what's normal and acceptable in Jakarta. We need to allow for tweaks and changes to reflect local culture and mores. Some, but “cultural differences” cannot be used to excuse certain behaviors. Many cultures are deeply sexist, should we just automatically accept sexism? I think not. Darrell ___ diversity-talk mailing list diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
Re: [diversity-talk] OSM code of conduct: starting points
I think the right way forward is to focus on directed efforts, rather than try to have a single, unified code of conduct at the start. This is for a few reasons: 1. I tried to create a CoC from the top down in 2010. It didn't work. People don't like top down things imposed upon them. 2. There is no central OSM Community but rather several communities and several ways of interacting and communicating, and any code of conduct needs to respect that. If there's one central unifying document- that won't work. 3. The mailing list code of conduct is still in an experimental phase. It will undoubtely need additions, corrections, etc. It's better to make something small and flexible now than try to set it up in stone and try to fix. - Serge On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Both Jo and Kathleen recently suggested ways forward for us, and they both placed code of conduct as their first suggestion. (Jo also said diversity statement.) So I'd like to ask if we can collectively decide on a good starting point for developing a code of conduct. I hope it's OK to start a thread specifically for this. Here I'll aggregate the starting points suggested from Jo and Kathleen's emails: * Puppet community guidelines: https://docs.puppetlabs.com/community/community_guidelines.html * QGIS code of conduct plus diversity statement: http://www.qgis.org/en/site/getinvolved/governance/codeofconduct/codeofconduct.html http://www.qgis.org/en/site/getinvolved/governance/codeofconduct/diversitystatement.html * Draft OSM code of conduct (drafted in 2010): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_Code_of_Conduct_%28Draft%29 * HOT OSM code of conduct: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Lo7o9YuOCdH94XCFcK-HsH5Ja4fPnpVl7GioKg_4Ht8/edit * Recommendations from Geekfeminism: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct Plus I may have missed out suggestions from others! My immediate reactions: I don't think the HOT one is an appropriate starting point, because it's much more related to formal membership and therefore has loads of focus on members' and associates' relation to the HOT brand and the HOT executive. So if it's OK with everyone I'd like to propose we can save our energy by ignoring that one at least for now. Second, it's good that we have at least a draft osm code of conduct. One might want to simply pick that back up again and run with it. However, in the light of recent conversations it's entirely possible that the osm draft (since it's from 2010) doesn't address the specific reasons people are currently requesting a code of conduct. That would be a reason to start somewhere else. I simply don't know, though. It's very hard (IMHO) to get a clear overview, given all the recent conversations, plus the conversations from 2010. Hence I'd be grateful to hear your perspective, and I hope I haven't missed any obvious threads of thought! Best Dan ___ diversity-talk mailing list diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk ___ diversity-talk mailing list diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
