Thanks Peter, The improvements look good to me. I've left some minor feedback inline.
- Guus On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 3:16 AM Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote: > 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 <stpe...@stpeter.im > > <mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im>> 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. > To be honest, I lost my own train of thoughts on this (and reading back, I didn't make it clear what I was after). There might be some nitty-picky details in this causing us to explicitly define if a particular activity is or isn't an official (c)(r) XSF activity (when there are discussions of what CoC to apply) - but maybe that's actually a good thing: it forces us to be clear, in cases where it might not be now (if that's even the case). I see no reason to add more text for this now. > > > > 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. > > Do you mean this as _examples_ of situations requiring immediate action, or is this intended as the full collection of any situation in which immediate action is covered under the XEP? Making it more explicit that these are examples may give us a bit of flexibility in applying the CoC in unforeseen situations. > ### > > 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 mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org Info: Unsubscribe: %(real_name)s-unsubscribe@%(host_name)s _______________________________________________
