Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

delawen
Dear OSGeo community,

As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space. Recent events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work ahead.

We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning mentality that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our culture. Disclosing private data or hinting threats is not helpful and can only make our community less comfortable for everyone. We will work on improving actions on harmful behavior.

This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:

CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up the task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC member, but I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure that if I am involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take care of it properly as mediator.

I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC are reported. I noticed there are reports being done on person and on private email, but never through the official channels (which right now is a mailing list).To improve this, I will ask the SAC to replace the mailing list with an alias and a form on the website. Also, there will be a public list of who receives those emails so people reporting incidents will have a clear understanding of who is receiving the information and decide to contact privately only a subset of the team. Replacing the mailing list by an alias that sends the data directly to the inbox of the CoC team is important, as sometimes incidents are not reported just because the person reporting is scared to leave a trace of the report or is not sure who will be reading the report.

Another action I am going to propose is a change on the CoC itself. Our community has grown a lot both in diversity and in numbers, and we need a strict code of conduct that makes sure marginalized or harrased people is always covered by it. We can't rely anymore on just common sense and good faith.

Once the new board is settled, I am going to propose to change the current CoC for another like the Contributor Covenant[2]. As it is a CoC shared by many communities, this has the advantage of receiving the upgrades and experience from other communities. As you can see, it fixes some of the bugs from our CoC, like the assuming good intent and good faith[3] part that made the current CoC useless on most cases. I will propose to add some foreword to adapt to specifities for our community, but in my opinion, the latest version of the Contributor Covenant is easy to read, simple, and cover most of what we need. My hope is that this new CoC can be adapted to all OSGeo Projects and Events that don't already have a CoC, so we have full OSGeo universe covered by default.

I hope this actions will prove useful in the medium term and we don't have to see more members leaving the community. We should remember to be empathic and kind. We are all seeking the same goals and we should encourage cooperation, not hinder each other. I know that developer communities are very used to these bad behaviours, but I'm confident we can grow better.

Have a nice day!
María.


[1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2018-August/011640.html
[2] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
[3] https://thebias.com/2017/09/26/how-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-inclusion/

_______________________________________________
COC-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

Ben Caradoc-Davies-2
María,

thank you for taking the lead on this important issue. While in my view,
the majority of OSGeo participants act with consideration and in good
faith, a single malicious act is one too many. We get the behaviour we
tolerate, and a strong code of conduct helps us prevent behaviour that
we do not want. In addition to a code of conduct, we also need a
complaint procedure to enforce it.

Did we ever hear back from any other foundations about how they handle
code of conduct enforcement?

Note that I am not at this time available for any OSGeo roles, but I
have subscribed to the coc-discuss list.

Here are some of my opinions. In them, I will use words like "must"
solely because I think that these words should be used in the OSGeo
procedure, but please remember that these are just my opinions and I do
not claim to be right or an authority on these matters. I am also not a
lawyer. Whenever I refer to complaints, I mean CoC complaints not
general complaints:

- Everyone who is expected to handle a complaint must first be trained
in the complaint procedure and the OSGeo code of conduct, have access to
psychological and legal support, and be covered by OSGeo legal liability
insurance. The latter likely includes all OSGeo officers.

- Natural justice must apply to the complaint procedure. At some point,
the respondent will receive the complaint, including the identity of the
complainant and alleged witnesses. This must be disclosed to the
complainant before they submit their complaint. We cannot act on
anonymous complaints nor consider hearsay.

- Code of Conduct enforcement is a civil matter and the standard of
proof is balance of probability.

- Do we ask complainants what redress they seek? This could range from a
private or public apology from the respondent, private or public censure
of the respondent by the conduct committee, or expulsion from OSGeo.

- Complaints must be handled in confidence, except where the complainant
makes them public. Breaches of confidence must be considered a CoC
violation. Nothing in the procedure precludes the respondent from
responding in public to a public complaint, nor shall either party be
considered to have breached confidence if they seek redress through a
legal authority or the courts.

- María, you have already stated the need to have identified complaint
handlers so that a complainant knows who will receive their complaint,
and I agree. I think that, on receipt of a formal complaint, any
complaint handler or other OSGeo member must forward the complaint to
all complaint handlers who are not a party to the complaint (where
parties include witnesses). Even with a web site form, expect half of
complaints, especially the most serious ones, to be delivered to trusted
individuals. The list of complaint handlers and the policy on who will
receive a complaint must be prominent on the complaint submission form
and information pages.

- So, who is going to bell the cat? Consider outsourcing complaint
handling to an independent external investigation, mediation, and/or
arbitration service would remove any appearance of conflict of interest
or bias, reduce harm to OSGeo complaint handlers, and protect OSGeo from
legal liability.

- We need a better term for complaint handler. "Conduct officer"? This
would clarify their role and reduce inappropriate submission of general
complaints. We need more than one. Conduct officers in their role of
enforcing the code of conduct are acting on behalf of OSGeo and not as
individuals.

- Any complaint that may constitute a criminal offence must in the first
instance be reported to authorities with jurisdiction unless the
complainant is unwilling to do so. Local legal advice will likely be
required. This may cover online activities: for example, the New Zealand
Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015
<http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/DLM5711810.html>
<https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-help/consumer-laws/online-safety-laws-and-rules/>
prohibits online bullying and harassment and has resulted in successful
prosecutions by NZ Police. Criminal complaints will take priority over
but not supersede OSGeo CoC investigations, which can run concurrently;
our procedure will need rules on how to handle this situation and
protect the rights of both the complainant and the respondent. We should
never ever think that we can handle internally something that should in
the first instance be a police matter.

Thanks again, María. In my view, CoC enforcement is the dirtiest job in
the open source community, and I commend you for your efforts.

Happy Human Rights Day! Celebrating the 70th anniversary of the adoption
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 1948:
<https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/>

Kind regards,
Ben.

On 10/12/2018 01:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:

> Dear OSGeo community,
>
> As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in
> improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space. Recent
> events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work ahead.
>
> We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning mentality
> that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our culture. Disclosing
> private data or hinting threats is not helpful and can only make our
> community less comfortable for everyone. We will work on improving actions
> on harmful behavior.
>
> This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:
>
> CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up the
> task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC member, but
> I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure that if I am
> involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take care of it properly as
> mediator.
>
> I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC are
> reported. I noticed there are reports being done on person and on private
> email, but never through the official channels (which right now is a
> mailing list).To improve this, I will ask the SAC to replace the mailing
> list with an alias and a form on the website. Also, there will be a public
> list of who receives those emails so people reporting incidents will have a
> clear understanding of who is receiving the information and decide to
> contact privately only a subset of the team. Replacing the mailing list by
> an alias that sends the data directly to the inbox of the CoC team is
> important, as sometimes incidents are not reported just because the person
> reporting is scared to leave a trace of the report or is not sure who will
> be reading the report.
>
> Another action I am going to propose is a change on the CoC itself. Our
> community has grown a lot both in diversity and in numbers, and we need a
> strict code of conduct that makes sure marginalized or harrased people is
> always covered by it. We can't rely anymore on just common sense and good
> faith.
>
> Once the new board is settled, I am going to propose to change the current
> CoC for another like the Contributor Covenant[2]. As it is a CoC shared by
> many communities, this has the advantage of receiving the upgrades and
> experience from other communities. As you can see, it fixes some of the
> bugs from our CoC, like the assuming good intent and good faith[3] part
> that made the current CoC useless on most cases. I will propose to add some
> foreword to adapt to specifities for our community, but in my opinion, the
> latest version of the Contributor Covenant is easy to read, simple, and
> cover most of what we need. My hope is that this new CoC can be adapted to
> all OSGeo Projects and Events that don't already have a CoC, so we have
> full OSGeo universe covered by default.
>
> I hope this actions will prove useful in the medium term and we don't have
> to see more members leaving the community. We should remember to be
> empathic and kind. We are all seeking the same goals and we should
> encourage cooperation, not hinder each other. I know that developer
> communities are very used to these bad behaviours, but I'm confident we can
> grow better.
>
> Have a nice day!
> María.
>
>
> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2018-August/011640.html
> [2] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
> [3]
> https://thebias.com/2017/09/26/how-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-inclusion/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
New Zealand
_______________________________________________
COC-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

delawen
Thank you Ben!

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:09 AM Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
María,

thank you for taking the lead on this important issue. While in my view,
the majority of OSGeo participants act with consideration and in good
faith, a single malicious act is one too many. We get the behaviour we
tolerate, and a strong code of conduct helps us prevent behaviour that
we do not want. In addition to a code of conduct, we also need a
complaint procedure to enforce it.

Did we ever hear back from any other foundations about how they handle
code of conduct enforcement?

Note that I am not at this time available for any OSGeo roles, but I
have subscribed to the coc-discuss list.

Here are some of my opinions. In them, I will use words like "must"
solely because I think that these words should be used in the OSGeo
procedure, but please remember that these are just my opinions and I do
not claim to be right or an authority on these matters. I am also not a
lawyer. Whenever I refer to complaints, I mean CoC complaints not
general complaints:

- Everyone who is expected to handle a complaint must first be trained
in the complaint procedure and the OSGeo code of conduct, have access to
psychological and legal support, and be covered by OSGeo legal liability
insurance. The latter likely includes all OSGeo officers.

- Natural justice must apply to the complaint procedure. At some point,
the respondent will receive the complaint, including the identity of the
complainant and alleged witnesses. This must be disclosed to the
complainant before they submit their complaint. We cannot act on
anonymous complaints nor consider hearsay.

- Code of Conduct enforcement is a civil matter and the standard of
proof is balance of probability.

- Do we ask complainants what redress they seek? This could range from a
private or public apology from the respondent, private or public censure
of the respondent by the conduct committee, or expulsion from OSGeo.

- Complaints must be handled in confidence, except where the complainant
makes them public. Breaches of confidence must be considered a CoC
violation. Nothing in the procedure precludes the respondent from
responding in public to a public complaint, nor shall either party be
considered to have breached confidence if they seek redress through a
legal authority or the courts.

- María, you have already stated the need to have identified complaint
handlers so that a complainant knows who will receive their complaint,
and I agree. I think that, on receipt of a formal complaint, any
complaint handler or other OSGeo member must forward the complaint to
all complaint handlers who are not a party to the complaint (where
parties include witnesses). Even with a web site form, expect half of
complaints, especially the most serious ones, to be delivered to trusted
individuals. The list of complaint handlers and the policy on who will
receive a complaint must be prominent on the complaint submission form
and information pages.

- So, who is going to bell the cat? Consider outsourcing complaint
handling to an independent external investigation, mediation, and/or
arbitration service would remove any appearance of conflict of interest
or bias, reduce harm to OSGeo complaint handlers, and protect OSGeo from
legal liability.

- We need a better term for complaint handler. "Conduct officer"? This
would clarify their role and reduce inappropriate submission of general
complaints. We need more than one. Conduct officers in their role of
enforcing the code of conduct are acting on behalf of OSGeo and not as
individuals.

- Any complaint that may constitute a criminal offence must in the first
instance be reported to authorities with jurisdiction unless the
complainant is unwilling to do so. Local legal advice will likely be
required. This may cover online activities: for example, the New Zealand
Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015
<http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/DLM5711810.html>
<https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-help/consumer-laws/online-safety-laws-and-rules/>
prohibits online bullying and harassment and has resulted in successful
prosecutions by NZ Police. Criminal complaints will take priority over
but not supersede OSGeo CoC investigations, which can run concurrently;
our procedure will need rules on how to handle this situation and
protect the rights of both the complainant and the respondent. We should
never ever think that we can handle internally something that should in
the first instance be a police matter.

Thanks again, María. In my view, CoC enforcement is the dirtiest job in
the open source community, and I commend you for your efforts.

Happy Human Rights Day! Celebrating the 70th anniversary of the adoption
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 1948:
<https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/>

Kind regards,
Ben.

On 10/12/2018 01:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
> Dear OSGeo community,
>
> As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in
> improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space. Recent
> events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work ahead.
>
> We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning mentality
> that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our culture. Disclosing
> private data or hinting threats is not helpful and can only make our
> community less comfortable for everyone. We will work on improving actions
> on harmful behavior.
>
> This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:
>
> CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up the
> task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC member, but
> I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure that if I am
> involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take care of it properly as
> mediator.
>
> I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC are
> reported. I noticed there are reports being done on person and on private
> email, but never through the official channels (which right now is a
> mailing list).To improve this, I will ask the SAC to replace the mailing
> list with an alias and a form on the website. Also, there will be a public
> list of who receives those emails so people reporting incidents will have a
> clear understanding of who is receiving the information and decide to
> contact privately only a subset of the team. Replacing the mailing list by
> an alias that sends the data directly to the inbox of the CoC team is
> important, as sometimes incidents are not reported just because the person
> reporting is scared to leave a trace of the report or is not sure who will
> be reading the report.
>
> Another action I am going to propose is a change on the CoC itself. Our
> community has grown a lot both in diversity and in numbers, and we need a
> strict code of conduct that makes sure marginalized or harrased people is
> always covered by it. We can't rely anymore on just common sense and good
> faith.
>
> Once the new board is settled, I am going to propose to change the current
> CoC for another like the Contributor Covenant[2]. As it is a CoC shared by
> many communities, this has the advantage of receiving the upgrades and
> experience from other communities. As you can see, it fixes some of the
> bugs from our CoC, like the assuming good intent and good faith[3] part
> that made the current CoC useless on most cases. I will propose to add some
> foreword to adapt to specifities for our community, but in my opinion, the
> latest version of the Contributor Covenant is easy to read, simple, and
> cover most of what we need. My hope is that this new CoC can be adapted to
> all OSGeo Projects and Events that don't already have a CoC, so we have
> full OSGeo universe covered by default.
>
> I hope this actions will prove useful in the medium term and we don't have
> to see more members leaving the community. We should remember to be
> empathic and kind. We are all seeking the same goals and we should
> encourage cooperation, not hinder each other. I know that developer
> communities are very used to these bad behaviours, but I'm confident we can
> grow better.
>
> Have a nice day!
> María.
>
>
> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2018-August/011640.html
> [2] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
> [3]
> https://thebias.com/2017/09/26/how-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-inclusion/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

_______________________________________________
COC-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

Mark Iliffe-2
Dear María,

I'm glad to see this progressing now the dust has settled from the past FOSS4G where the limits of a CoC were so laid bare. As before, let me know how best to assist in developing the CoC further. I sincerely hope that we can progress as a community in response to this call. 

Best,

Mark

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 03:38, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thank you Ben!

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:09 AM Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
María,

thank you for taking the lead on this important issue. While in my view,
the majority of OSGeo participants act with consideration and in good
faith, a single malicious act is one too many. We get the behaviour we
tolerate, and a strong code of conduct helps us prevent behaviour that
we do not want. In addition to a code of conduct, we also need a
complaint procedure to enforce it.

Did we ever hear back from any other foundations about how they handle
code of conduct enforcement?

Note that I am not at this time available for any OSGeo roles, but I
have subscribed to the coc-discuss list.

Here are some of my opinions. In them, I will use words like "must"
solely because I think that these words should be used in the OSGeo
procedure, but please remember that these are just my opinions and I do
not claim to be right or an authority on these matters. I am also not a
lawyer. Whenever I refer to complaints, I mean CoC complaints not
general complaints:

- Everyone who is expected to handle a complaint must first be trained
in the complaint procedure and the OSGeo code of conduct, have access to
psychological and legal support, and be covered by OSGeo legal liability
insurance. The latter likely includes all OSGeo officers.

- Natural justice must apply to the complaint procedure. At some point,
the respondent will receive the complaint, including the identity of the
complainant and alleged witnesses. This must be disclosed to the
complainant before they submit their complaint. We cannot act on
anonymous complaints nor consider hearsay.

- Code of Conduct enforcement is a civil matter and the standard of
proof is balance of probability.

- Do we ask complainants what redress they seek? This could range from a
private or public apology from the respondent, private or public censure
of the respondent by the conduct committee, or expulsion from OSGeo.

- Complaints must be handled in confidence, except where the complainant
makes them public. Breaches of confidence must be considered a CoC
violation. Nothing in the procedure precludes the respondent from
responding in public to a public complaint, nor shall either party be
considered to have breached confidence if they seek redress through a
legal authority or the courts.

- María, you have already stated the need to have identified complaint
handlers so that a complainant knows who will receive their complaint,
and I agree. I think that, on receipt of a formal complaint, any
complaint handler or other OSGeo member must forward the complaint to
all complaint handlers who are not a party to the complaint (where
parties include witnesses). Even with a web site form, expect half of
complaints, especially the most serious ones, to be delivered to trusted
individuals. The list of complaint handlers and the policy on who will
receive a complaint must be prominent on the complaint submission form
and information pages.

- So, who is going to bell the cat? Consider outsourcing complaint
handling to an independent external investigation, mediation, and/or
arbitration service would remove any appearance of conflict of interest
or bias, reduce harm to OSGeo complaint handlers, and protect OSGeo from
legal liability.

- We need a better term for complaint handler. "Conduct officer"? This
would clarify their role and reduce inappropriate submission of general
complaints. We need more than one. Conduct officers in their role of
enforcing the code of conduct are acting on behalf of OSGeo and not as
individuals.

- Any complaint that may constitute a criminal offence must in the first
instance be reported to authorities with jurisdiction unless the
complainant is unwilling to do so. Local legal advice will likely be
required. This may cover online activities: for example, the New Zealand
Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015
<http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/DLM5711810.html>
<https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-help/consumer-laws/online-safety-laws-and-rules/>
prohibits online bullying and harassment and has resulted in successful
prosecutions by NZ Police. Criminal complaints will take priority over
but not supersede OSGeo CoC investigations, which can run concurrently;
our procedure will need rules on how to handle this situation and
protect the rights of both the complainant and the respondent. We should
never ever think that we can handle internally something that should in
the first instance be a police matter.

Thanks again, María. In my view, CoC enforcement is the dirtiest job in
the open source community, and I commend you for your efforts.

Happy Human Rights Day! Celebrating the 70th anniversary of the adoption
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 1948:
<https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/>

Kind regards,
Ben.

On 10/12/2018 01:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
> Dear OSGeo community,
>
> As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in
> improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space. Recent
> events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work ahead.
>
> We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning mentality
> that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our culture. Disclosing
> private data or hinting threats is not helpful and can only make our
> community less comfortable for everyone. We will work on improving actions
> on harmful behavior.
>
> This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:
>
> CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up the
> task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC member, but
> I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure that if I am
> involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take care of it properly as
> mediator.
>
> I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC are
> reported. I noticed there are reports being done on person and on private
> email, but never through the official channels (which right now is a
> mailing list).To improve this, I will ask the SAC to replace the mailing
> list with an alias and a form on the website. Also, there will be a public
> list of who receives those emails so people reporting incidents will have a
> clear understanding of who is receiving the information and decide to
> contact privately only a subset of the team. Replacing the mailing list by
> an alias that sends the data directly to the inbox of the CoC team is
> important, as sometimes incidents are not reported just because the person
> reporting is scared to leave a trace of the report or is not sure who will
> be reading the report.
>
> Another action I am going to propose is a change on the CoC itself. Our
> community has grown a lot both in diversity and in numbers, and we need a
> strict code of conduct that makes sure marginalized or harrased people is
> always covered by it. We can't rely anymore on just common sense and good
> faith.
>
> Once the new board is settled, I am going to propose to change the current
> CoC for another like the Contributor Covenant[2]. As it is a CoC shared by
> many communities, this has the advantage of receiving the upgrades and
> experience from other communities. As you can see, it fixes some of the
> bugs from our CoC, like the assuming good intent and good faith[3] part
> that made the current CoC useless on most cases. I will propose to add some
> foreword to adapt to specifities for our community, but in my opinion, the
> latest version of the Contributor Covenant is easy to read, simple, and
> cover most of what we need. My hope is that this new CoC can be adapted to
> all OSGeo Projects and Events that don't already have a CoC, so we have
> full OSGeo universe covered by default.
>
> I hope this actions will prove useful in the medium term and we don't have
> to see more members leaving the community. We should remember to be
> empathic and kind. We are all seeking the same goals and we should
> encourage cooperation, not hinder each other. I know that developer
> communities are very used to these bad behaviours, but I'm confident we can
> grow better.
>
> Have a nice day!
> María.
>
>
> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2018-August/011640.html
> [2] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
> [3]
> https://thebias.com/2017/09/26/how-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-inclusion/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
New Zealand
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
COC-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

delawen
Thank you Mark!

Right now my biggest concern is being alone on the CoC. Once the board finishes next year's budget, we can work on replacing the CoC with the simpler version.

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:12 PM Mark Iliffe <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear María,

I'm glad to see this progressing now the dust has settled from the past FOSS4G where the limits of a CoC were so laid bare. As before, let me know how best to assist in developing the CoC further. I sincerely hope that we can progress as a community in response to this call. 

Best,

Mark

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 03:38, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thank you Ben!

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:09 AM Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:
María,

thank you for taking the lead on this important issue. While in my view,
the majority of OSGeo participants act with consideration and in good
faith, a single malicious act is one too many. We get the behaviour we
tolerate, and a strong code of conduct helps us prevent behaviour that
we do not want. In addition to a code of conduct, we also need a
complaint procedure to enforce it.

Did we ever hear back from any other foundations about how they handle
code of conduct enforcement?

Note that I am not at this time available for any OSGeo roles, but I
have subscribed to the coc-discuss list.

Here are some of my opinions. In them, I will use words like "must"
solely because I think that these words should be used in the OSGeo
procedure, but please remember that these are just my opinions and I do
not claim to be right or an authority on these matters. I am also not a
lawyer. Whenever I refer to complaints, I mean CoC complaints not
general complaints:

- Everyone who is expected to handle a complaint must first be trained
in the complaint procedure and the OSGeo code of conduct, have access to
psychological and legal support, and be covered by OSGeo legal liability
insurance. The latter likely includes all OSGeo officers.

- Natural justice must apply to the complaint procedure. At some point,
the respondent will receive the complaint, including the identity of the
complainant and alleged witnesses. This must be disclosed to the
complainant before they submit their complaint. We cannot act on
anonymous complaints nor consider hearsay.

- Code of Conduct enforcement is a civil matter and the standard of
proof is balance of probability.

- Do we ask complainants what redress they seek? This could range from a
private or public apology from the respondent, private or public censure
of the respondent by the conduct committee, or expulsion from OSGeo.

- Complaints must be handled in confidence, except where the complainant
makes them public. Breaches of confidence must be considered a CoC
violation. Nothing in the procedure precludes the respondent from
responding in public to a public complaint, nor shall either party be
considered to have breached confidence if they seek redress through a
legal authority or the courts.

- María, you have already stated the need to have identified complaint
handlers so that a complainant knows who will receive their complaint,
and I agree. I think that, on receipt of a formal complaint, any
complaint handler or other OSGeo member must forward the complaint to
all complaint handlers who are not a party to the complaint (where
parties include witnesses). Even with a web site form, expect half of
complaints, especially the most serious ones, to be delivered to trusted
individuals. The list of complaint handlers and the policy on who will
receive a complaint must be prominent on the complaint submission form
and information pages.

- So, who is going to bell the cat? Consider outsourcing complaint
handling to an independent external investigation, mediation, and/or
arbitration service would remove any appearance of conflict of interest
or bias, reduce harm to OSGeo complaint handlers, and protect OSGeo from
legal liability.

- We need a better term for complaint handler. "Conduct officer"? This
would clarify their role and reduce inappropriate submission of general
complaints. We need more than one. Conduct officers in their role of
enforcing the code of conduct are acting on behalf of OSGeo and not as
individuals.

- Any complaint that may constitute a criminal offence must in the first
instance be reported to authorities with jurisdiction unless the
complainant is unwilling to do so. Local legal advice will likely be
required. This may cover online activities: for example, the New Zealand
Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015
<http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/DLM5711810.html>
<https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-help/consumer-laws/online-safety-laws-and-rules/>
prohibits online bullying and harassment and has resulted in successful
prosecutions by NZ Police. Criminal complaints will take priority over
but not supersede OSGeo CoC investigations, which can run concurrently;
our procedure will need rules on how to handle this situation and
protect the rights of both the complainant and the respondent. We should
never ever think that we can handle internally something that should in
the first instance be a police matter.

Thanks again, María. In my view, CoC enforcement is the dirtiest job in
the open source community, and I commend you for your efforts.

Happy Human Rights Day! Celebrating the 70th anniversary of the adoption
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 1948:
<https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/>

Kind regards,
Ben.

On 10/12/2018 01:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
> Dear OSGeo community,
>
> As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in
> improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space. Recent
> events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work ahead.
>
> We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning mentality
> that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our culture. Disclosing
> private data or hinting threats is not helpful and can only make our
> community less comfortable for everyone. We will work on improving actions
> on harmful behavior.
>
> This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:
>
> CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up the
> task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC member, but
> I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure that if I am
> involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take care of it properly as
> mediator.
>
> I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC are
> reported. I noticed there are reports being done on person and on private
> email, but never through the official channels (which right now is a
> mailing list).To improve this, I will ask the SAC to replace the mailing
> list with an alias and a form on the website. Also, there will be a public
> list of who receives those emails so people reporting incidents will have a
> clear understanding of who is receiving the information and decide to
> contact privately only a subset of the team. Replacing the mailing list by
> an alias that sends the data directly to the inbox of the CoC team is
> important, as sometimes incidents are not reported just because the person
> reporting is scared to leave a trace of the report or is not sure who will
> be reading the report.
>
> Another action I am going to propose is a change on the CoC itself. Our
> community has grown a lot both in diversity and in numbers, and we need a
> strict code of conduct that makes sure marginalized or harrased people is
> always covered by it. We can't rely anymore on just common sense and good
> faith.
>
> Once the new board is settled, I am going to propose to change the current
> CoC for another like the Contributor Covenant[2]. As it is a CoC shared by
> many communities, this has the advantage of receiving the upgrades and
> experience from other communities. As you can see, it fixes some of the
> bugs from our CoC, like the assuming good intent and good faith[3] part
> that made the current CoC useless on most cases. I will propose to add some
> foreword to adapt to specifities for our community, but in my opinion, the
> latest version of the Contributor Covenant is easy to read, simple, and
> cover most of what we need. My hope is that this new CoC can be adapted to
> all OSGeo Projects and Events that don't already have a CoC, so we have
> full OSGeo universe covered by default.
>
> I hope this actions will prove useful in the medium term and we don't have
> to see more members leaving the community. We should remember to be
> empathic and kind. We are all seeking the same goals and we should
> encourage cooperation, not hinder each other. I know that developer
> communities are very used to these bad behaviours, but I'm confident we can
> grow better.
>
> Have a nice day!
> María.
>
>
> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2018-August/011640.html
> [2] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
> [3]
> https://thebias.com/2017/09/26/how-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-inclusion/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
New Zealand
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
COC-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

delawen
In reply to this post by delawen
Hi,

I think it is better if we discuss this on the COC-discuss mailing list, just to avoid adding noise to the main discuss. My initial email, as you can see, was directed to both mailing lists and the idea of redirecting it to discuss was to make people aware that this was being done, not to start a discussion here.

I have a long answer for this, once I have some free time to write it properly down (this evening? tomorrow?) I will redirect it to the coc-discuss. TL;DR: one thing is to be rude due to cultural or lost in translation issues and another thing is to harrass someone. Going back to Sara's case: the assume good intent is what prevented us to do anything further as the discussed emails have two readings: harrasment or sincere worry about her job situation.

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:17 AM Daniel Morissette <[hidden email]> wrote:
I agree with Jonathan here. I also have my own similar personal story
from ~20 years ago where I used a French expression as the opening line
in an email where all the rest was in English... and some of the
recipients (co-workers) could very rightly have been offended. Actually
some wondered if I might have been mad at them, but instead of jumping
the gun, they asked me directly, I explained the meaning of the French
expression and why I used it in this context, they explained that there
was a corresponding slang word... that day they learned a new French
expression and I learned a new word of English slang. I was not being
careless, I simply had no way to know at the time that there was a
corresponding English slang word that could have been offending, because
I am not a native English speaker.

We all had a good laugh in the end, but if it was not for their
assumption of good faith this could have turned into a huge mess.

I realize that not everybody will agree and I am not planning to enter
this CoC debate... I just wanted to relay an experience.

Stepping out of this thread now.

Daniel



On 2018-12-10 7:44 p.m., Jonathan Moules wrote:
> Hi Maria,
>
> Just a thought, but I'm not sure getting rid of the assumption of good
> faith is a good idea. To do so would be basically assuming people are
> guilty until proven innocent which runs counter to how these things
> should work.
>
> To use a personal anecdote, many years ago I had a black flatmate who I
> was joking around with and I made a comment that it turns out is a
> negative racial epithet. Being young and unworldly, I didn't know that
> at the time and certainly didn't mean it in that context, it also has a
> perfectly innocent context - the only one I'd ever been exposed to -
> which is how I was using it.
>
> Now, reading your thebias.com link, I can see that the author there
> would suggest I be pilloried for what was an honest mistake. They'd say
> I was being "careless" or "ignorant" and stepping on their toes. But I
> don't think either is fair because it's not reasonable to expect people
> to know everything that could offend everyone, especially somewhere as
> multicultural as the internet.
>
> For example, consider this symbol: 👍a simple thumbs-up emoticon that's
> commonly used to signify "it's all good" and "thanks". Well, it turns
> out that it's "an obscene insult" in some cultures! I didn't know that
> until a few seconds ago when I went searching for a simple example.
>
> I have learnt over the years from experiences in both directions that
> it's best to always assume good faith if possible. Humans may be the
> species with the most complex communication on the planet, but that
> doesn't mean we don't fail often.
>
> @Ben - Thanks for sharing World Human Rights day. I'm a long time fan of
> the UNDHR!
>
> Cheers,
> Jonathan
>
>
> On 2018-12-09 12:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
>> Dear OSGeo community,
>>
>> As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in
>> improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space. Recent
>> events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work ahead.
>>
>> We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning
>> mentality that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our
>> culture. Disclosing private data or hinting threats is not helpful and
>> can only make our community less comfortable for everyone. We will
>> work on improving actions on harmful behavior.
>>
>> This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:
>>
>> CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up
>> the task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC
>> member, but I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure
>> that if I am involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take care
>> of it properly as mediator.
>>
>> I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC are
>> reported. I noticed there are reports being done on person and on
>> private email, but never through the official channels (which right
>> now is a mailing list).To improve this, I will ask the SAC to replace
>> the mailing list with an alias and a form on the website. Also, there
>> will be a public list of who receives those emails so people reporting
>> incidents will have a clear understanding of who is receiving the
>> information and decide to contact privately only a subset of the team.
>> Replacing the mailing list by an alias that sends the data directly to
>> the inbox of the CoC team is important, as sometimes incidents are not
>> reported just because the person reporting is scared to leave a trace
>> of the report or is not sure who will be reading the report.
>>
>> Another action I am going to propose is a change on the CoC itself.
>> Our community has grown a lot both in diversity and in numbers, and we
>> need a strict code of conduct that makes sure marginalized or harrased
>> people is always covered by it. We can't rely anymore on just common
>> sense and good faith.
>>
>> Once the new board is settled, I am going to propose to change the
>> current CoC for another like the Contributor Covenant[2]. As it is a
>> CoC shared by many communities, this has the advantage of receiving
>> the upgrades and experience from other communities. As you can see, it
>> fixes some of the bugs from our CoC, like the assuming good intent and
>> good faith[3] part that made the current CoC useless on most cases. I
>> will propose to add some foreword to adapt to specifities for our
>> community, but in my opinion, the latest version of the Contributor
>> Covenant is easy to read, simple, and cover most of what we need. My
>> hope is that this new CoC can be adapted to all OSGeo Projects and
>> Events that don't already have a CoC, so we have full OSGeo universe
>> covered by default.
>>
>> I hope this actions will prove useful in the medium term and we don't
>> have to see more members leaving the community. We should remember to
>> be empathic and kind. We are all seeking the same goals and we should
>> encourage cooperation, not hinder each other. I know that developer
>> communities are very used to these bad behaviours, but I'm confident
>> we can grow better.
>>
>> Have a nice day!
>> María.
>>
>>
>> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2018-August/011640.html
>> [2] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
>> [3]
>> https://thebias.com/2017/09/26/how-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-inclusion/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>


--
Daniel Morissette
Mapgears Inc
T: +1 418-696-5056 #201
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
COC-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

Arnulf Christl
In reply to this post by delawen

Adding one more comment: Please, I implore you: Do not remove the assumption of good faith from OSGeo's principles!

"Assumption of good faith" and "Quietening down somebody" are totally different things. In her blog on thebias.com Annalee somewhat hastily mixes the two up when she says:

"The harm is that telling people to “assume good intent” is a sign that if they come to you with a concern, you will minimize their feelings, police their reactions, and question their perceptions."

OSGeo and any open and welcoming community cannot exist without assumption of good faith. The opposite to assuming good faith is perfect paranoia which is only destructive. It is also quite impossible to set up rules to regulate everything without suffocating. So let us talk and interact as best we can from all our gender, cultural and individual background. If it starts to get out of hand - and this will happen again - look at it closely, have concerned people on a functioning CoC and repair the damage.

Unfortunately I have not followed the issue which Sara Safawi indicated as her reason to want to leave OSGeo closely enough to be able to understand all the intricacies. But it actually did not feel good, even from a distance. Maybe a functioning CoC could have helped? People on a CoC have to take every complaint serious (reverse citing Annalee): Do not "minimize their feelings, police their reactions, and question their perceptions".

And lastly, sometimes it is also time to let things go. If Sara has no intention of picking this up again we may want to let it rest.


Thanks,

Seven


Am 11.12.18 um 02:09 schrieb Daniel Morissette:

I agree with Jonathan here. I also have my own similar personal story from ~20 years ago where I used a French expression as the opening line in an email where all the rest was in English... and some of the recipients (co-workers) could very rightly have been offended. Actually some wondered if I might have been mad at them, but instead of jumping the gun, they asked me directly, I explained the meaning of the French expression and why I used it in this context, they explained that there was a corresponding slang word... that day they learned a new French expression and I learned a new word of English slang. I was not being careless, I simply had no way to know at the time that there was a corresponding English slang word that could have been offending, because I am not a native English speaker.

We all had a good laugh in the end, but if it was not for their assumption of good faith this could have turned into a huge mess.

I realize that not everybody will agree and I am not planning to enter this CoC debate... I just wanted to relay an experience.

Stepping out of this thread now.

Daniel



On 2018-12-10 7:44 p.m., Jonathan Moules wrote:
Hi Maria,

Just a thought, but I'm not sure getting rid of the assumption of good faith is a good idea. To do so would be basically assuming people are guilty until proven innocent which runs counter to how these things should work.

To use a personal anecdote, many years ago I had a black flatmate who I was joking around with and I made a comment that it turns out is a negative racial epithet. Being young and unworldly, I didn't know that at the time and certainly didn't mean it in that context, it also has a perfectly innocent context - the only one I'd ever been exposed to - which is how I was using it.

Now, reading your thebias.com link, I can see that the author there would suggest I be pilloried for what was an honest mistake. They'd say I was being "careless" or "ignorant" and stepping on their toes. But I don't think either is fair because it's not reasonable to expect people to know everything that could offend everyone, especially somewhere as multicultural as the internet.

For example, consider this symbol: 👍a simple thumbs-up emoticon that's commonly used to signify "it's all good" and "thanks". Well, it turns out that it's "an obscene insult" in some cultures! I didn't know that until a few seconds ago when I went searching for a simple example.

I have learnt over the years from experiences in both directions that it's best to always assume good faith if possible. Humans may be the species with the most complex communication on the planet, but that doesn't mean we don't fail often.

@Ben - Thanks for sharing World Human Rights day. I'm a long time fan of the UNDHR!

Cheers,
Jonathan


On 2018-12-09 12:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
Dear OSGeo community,

As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space. Recent events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work ahead.

We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning mentality that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our culture. Disclosing private data or hinting threats is not helpful and can only make our community less comfortable for everyone. We will work on improving actions on harmful behavior.

This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:

CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up the task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC member, but I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure that if I am involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take care of it properly as mediator.

I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC are reported. I noticed there are reports being done on person and on private email, but never through the official channels (which right now is a mailing list).To improve this, I will ask the SAC to replace the mailing list with an alias and a form on the website. Also, there will be a public list of who receives those emails so people reporting incidents will have a clear understanding of who is receiving the information and decide to contact privately only a subset of the team. Replacing the mailing list by an alias that sends the data directly to the inbox of the CoC team is important, as sometimes incidents are not reported just because the person reporting is scared to leave a trace of the report or is not sure who will be reading the report.

Another action I am going to propose is a change on the CoC itself. Our community has grown a lot both in diversity and in numbers, and we need a strict code of conduct that makes sure marginalized or harrased people is always covered by it. We can't rely anymore on just common sense and good faith.

Once the new board is settled, I am going to propose to change the current CoC for another like the Contributor Covenant[2]. As it is a CoC shared by many communities, this has the advantage of receiving the upgrades and experience from other communities. As you can see, it fixes some of the bugs from our CoC, like the assuming good intent and good faith[3] part that made the current CoC useless on most cases. I will propose to add some foreword to adapt to specifities for our community, but in my opinion, the latest version of the Contributor Covenant is easy to read, simple, and cover most of what we need. My hope is that this new CoC can be adapted to all OSGeo Projects and Events that don't already have a CoC, so we have full OSGeo universe covered by default.

I hope this actions will prove useful in the medium term and we don't have to see more members leaving the community. We should remember to be empathic and kind. We are all seeking the same goals and we should encourage cooperation, not hinder each other. I know that developer communities are very used to these bad behaviours, but I'm confident we can grow better.

Have a nice day!
María.


[1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2018-August/011640.html
[2] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
[3] https://thebias.com/2017/09/26/how-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-inclusion/


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



-- 
http://arnulf.us
drwxrw-r--

_______________________________________________
COC-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

Gregers Hedegaard Petersen
Dear all,

Arnulf puts so nicely into words, what has concerned me in the last few days. How can we ever be a welcoming community if we presume guilt?
The presumption of innocence is a core value of most (if not all?) of the justice systems we see as fair, why differ from that in OSGEO?
In fact presumption of guilt might very well be seen as being in direct opposition to our current CoC and the basic values of our community.

I see a frustration regarding a current "case", where "conviction" is not possible, due to the balance of the given evidence. 
Presumption of guilt might very well have changed this given case - but it would, in my mind, also be toxic and change our community for the (much) worse.

I therefore implore you: do not break down the basis of an open and fair community to "fix" a single case. The slope is slippery.

Best regards,

Greg


On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 11:16, Arnulf Christl (aka Seven) <[hidden email]> wrote:

Adding one more comment: Please, I implore you: Do not remove the assumption of good faith from OSGeo's principles!

"Assumption of good faith" and "Quietening down somebody" are totally different things. In her blog on thebias.com Annalee somewhat hastily mixes the two up when she says:

"The harm is that telling people to “assume good intent” is a sign that if they come to you with a concern, you will minimize their feelings, police their reactions, and question their perceptions."

OSGeo and any open and welcoming community cannot exist without assumption of good faith. The opposite to assuming good faith is perfect paranoia which is only destructive. It is also quite impossible to set up rules to regulate everything without suffocating. So let us talk and interact as best we can from all our gender, cultural and individual background. If it starts to get out of hand - and this will happen again - look at it closely, have concerned people on a functioning CoC and repair the damage.

Unfortunately I have not followed the issue which Sara Safawi indicated as her reason to want to leave OSGeo closely enough to be able to understand all the intricacies. But it actually did not feel good, even from a distance. Maybe a functioning CoC could have helped? People on a CoC have to take every complaint serious (reverse citing Annalee): Do not "minimize their feelings, police their reactions, and question their perceptions".

And lastly, sometimes it is also time to let things go. If Sara has no intention of picking this up again we may want to let it rest.


Thanks,

Seven


_______________________________________________
COC-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

delawen
In reply to this post by delawen
Hi,

You are right, let's continue on this list too.

Let me explain my point of view.

Removing the "assume good intention" is not "assuming people are guilty until proven innocent" or "perfect paranoia". It is just putting the intention aside when trying to solve a situation where someone feels unwelcome or attacked. Presumption of innocence will still be there, why not? But you can be innocent and good intented and still be harmful. What the CoC should focus on is on stopping the harmful action, no matter the intention.

A CoC is not a legal system to punish illegal actions, it is a set of rules to improve interaction on the best friendlier way. So I am not sure if the comparison with a legal system applies here. As I see it, the CoC main goal is not to punish, but to try to mediate and make people understand how to interact on a better way, removing and fixing any possible harm done. And, of course, in case of serious harrasment, specially if it is continued, remove (temporarily?) someone from the community. But most of the incidents should be able to be fixed with a good mediation where both parts understand what harm has been done and actions are taken to prevent further damage.

I also have examples of being unintentionally rude, from both sides. Whenever someone uses religious expressions like "bless you", I feel uncomfortable, even attacked depending on the circumstances. Due to literal translation from Spanish, sometimes my English sound rude to some cultures and some people may feel uncomfortable. Neither of those cases have bad intention, in fact, in both cases there is a good intention behind.

But the intention is irrelevant here: what is important is that we should try to be friendly on different circunmstances. When someone feels unwelcomed, attacked, harrased, that should be fixed. Does it matter which was the original intention? Shouldn't we be able to say "hey, you are doing harm, stop doing it and let's see how to repair that harm" even if the action was done in good faith? Don't you want to know if you are hurting someone?

I know you think this is only one case, but I have seen more inside this community. But, at the same time, I/we couldn't act because, again, it was an unintended harm. We could only act when it was obvious the intention was not friendly.

And also, define "good intention". Someone may have a perfectly good intention when doing sexual advances on someone and that doesn't make that action acceptable if the other person doesn't want it.

Having "common sense" and "assume good intention" rules are good for small communities, where everybody knows everyone. But we are no longer a small family. We are a huge family, with cousins we have never met all around the world. If we don't know each other personally, if we come from different environments and cultures, we can no longer trust that that will keep the community together. We need to be really open and understand that it is not an issue if the CoC approaches us and points at something we have done wrong. That's not bad! We are learning and improving on every step. Better to be pointed by the CoC and learn how to improve our behaviour than making someone feel uncomfortable and not knowing it.

The thing is, this is an important bug on the CoC from my perspective. If we don't remove that from the CoC, I don't think I will be able to mediate properly on the incidents that may arise. The worst cases, those that are hidden behind beautiful words and smiles, will not be possible to solve and people will continue leaving the community. So if we can't push this I think I will just step down from the CoC and let others, that have some idea on how to deal with the "assume good intent", take that place. Because I will be just useless there, not able to protect those attacked. This is not me threating anything, this is me being plain about me not knowing how to apply a broken CoC on common incidents.

Remember that this Contributor Covenant is not somethign we are making up on the fly, a lot of communities are adopting it[1] and improving it continuously. If it has this approach, it has a reason. There is experience behind backing this up.

Hope this has quieted your worries,
María.

[1] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/adopters

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:09 AM Jonathan Moules <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Ben,

I think the counterpoint to this is highlighting that most western
justice systems are based around intent (i.e. good-faith or bad-faith,
or "mens rea"). For example. the difference between murder and
homicide/manslaughter is solely intent and it is up to the system itself
to determine that intent.

As the famous old quote goes:

"Better that 10 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent
man" - William Blackstone

Personally I'm not a fan of the Covenant; it has big subjective
loopholes and components that be used to retroactively change the rules.

@Maria - a concern with having this conversation on the CoC list is that
that's a self-selecting group and there's a non-zero chance it can end
up as an echo chamber. How many of the folks who have put forth an
opinion in this thread on /discuss are also on /CoC for instance?

Cheers,
Jonathan


On 2018-12-12 01:32, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> Rather than guilty until proven innocent, I think the covenant
> proposes a neutral and evidence-based approach. Mandating good faith
> as a starting point unfortunately enables bullies who provoke a
> response and then hide behind "X can't take a joke" or other
> minimisation to further harm their victim. I have not seen this in
> OSGeo but I have seen it in several cases elsewhere and I hope we will
> all be sufficiently alert to prevent it. I think that a proportionate
> and sensitive response will encourage consideration of the feelings of
> others without harming our collegial atmosphere.
>
> As another cross-cultural example, several of our members have given
> names that are masculine in Italian but feminine in English, resulting
> in their occasional misgendering on mailing lists and pull requests.
> While I found this amusing and assumed that it was unintentional, I
> also knew that some might find such misgendering insulting or hurtful
> and in any case it was not a good precedent, so I took the time to
> gently point out the mistake in private (IIRC). In each case, the
> mistake was not repeated. We can all take little actions that
> contribute to a welcoming environment.
>
> Kind regards,
> Ben.
>
> On 11/12/2018 13:44, Jonathan Moules wrote:
>> Hi Maria,
>>
>> Just a thought, but I'm not sure getting rid of the assumption of
>> good faith is a good idea. To do so would be basically assuming
>> people are guilty until proven innocent which runs counter to how
>> these things should work.
>>
>> To use a personal anecdote, many years ago I had a black flatmate who
>> I was joking around with and I made a comment that it turns out is a
>> negative racial epithet. Being young and unworldly, I didn't know
>> that at the time and certainly didn't mean it in that context, it
>> also has a perfectly innocent context - the only one I'd ever been
>> exposed to - which is how I was using it.
>>
>> Now, reading your thebias.com link, I can see that the author there
>> would suggest I be pilloried for what was an honest mistake. They'd
>> say I was being "careless" or "ignorant" and stepping on their toes.
>> But I don't think either is fair because it's not reasonable to
>> expect people to know everything that could offend everyone,
>> especially somewhere as multicultural as the internet.
>>
>> For example, consider this symbol: 👍a simple thumbs-up emoticon
>> that's commonly used to signify "it's all good" and "thanks". Well,
>> it turns out that it's "an obscene insult" in some cultures! I didn't
>> know that until a few seconds ago when I went searching for a simple
>> example.
>>
>> I have learnt over the years from experiences in both directions that
>> it's best to always assume good faith if possible. Humans may be the
>> species with the most complex communication on the planet, but that
>> doesn't mean we don't fail often.
>>
>> @Ben - Thanks for sharing World Human Rights day. I'm a long time fan
>> of the UNDHR!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>> On 2018-12-09 12:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
>>> Dear OSGeo community,
>>>
>>> As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in
>>> improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space.
>>> Recent events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work
>>> ahead.
>>>
>>> We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning
>>> mentality that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our
>>> culture. Disclosing private data or hinting threats is not helpful
>>> and can only make our community less comfortable for everyone. We
>>> will work on improving actions on harmful behavior.
>>>
>>> This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:
>>>
>>> CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up
>>> the task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC
>>> member, but I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure
>>> that if I am involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take
>>> care of it properly as mediator.
>>>
>>> I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC
>>> are reported. I noticed there are reports being done on person and
>>> on private email, but never through the official channels (which
>>> right now is a mailing list).To improve this, I will ask the SAC to
>>> replace the mailing list with an alias and a form on the website.
>>> Also, there will be a public list of who receives those emails so
>>> people reporting incidents will have a clear understanding of who is
>>> receiving the information and decide to contact privately only a
>>> subset of the team. Replacing the mailing list by an alias that
>>> sends the data directly to the inbox of the CoC team is important,
>>> as sometimes incidents are not reported just because the person
>>> reporting is scared to leave a trace of the report or is not sure
>>> who will be reading the report.
>>>
>>> Another action I am going to propose is a change on the CoC itself.
>>> Our community has grown a lot both in diversity and in numbers, and
>>> we need a strict code of conduct that makes sure marginalized or
>>> harrased people is always covered by it. We can't rely anymore on
>>> just common sense and good faith.
>>>
>>> Once the new board is settled, I am going to propose to change the
>>> current CoC for another like the Contributor Covenant[2]. As it is a
>>> CoC shared by many communities, this has the advantage of receiving
>>> the upgrades and experience from other communities. As you can see,
>>> it fixes some of the bugs from our CoC, like the assuming good
>>> intent and good faith[3] part that made the current CoC useless on
>>> most cases. I will propose to add some foreword to adapt to
>>> specifities for our community, but in my opinion, the latest version
>>> of the Contributor Covenant is easy to read, simple, and cover most
>>> of what we need. My hope is that this new CoC can be adapted to all
>>> OSGeo Projects and Events that don't already have a CoC, so we have
>>> full OSGeo universe covered by default.
>>>
>>> I hope this actions will prove useful in the medium term and we
>>> don't have to see more members leaving the community. We should
>>> remember to be empathic and kind. We are all seeking the same goals
>>> and we should encourage cooperation, not hinder each other. I know
>>> that developer communities are very used to these bad behaviours,
>>> but I'm confident we can grow better.
>>>
>>> Have a nice day!
>>> María.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2018-August/011640.html
>>> [2] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
>>> [3]
>>> https://thebias.com/2017/09/26/how-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-inclusion/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
COC-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

Cameron Shorter
María,
I agree 99% with your intent, 80% with your implementation suggestions, and in responding, we are likely to focus on the 20% where we disagree. Please don't see that as a reason to leave the CoC committee.
I don't want you to leave for many reasons, but I'll focus on my selfish reason. I want you to stay because your ability to explain a problem I'm grappling from a different perspective helps me become a better person, and helps us collaboratively develop a better system. Hopefully you will feel the same.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 06:55, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

You are right, let's continue on this list too.

Let me explain my point of view.

Removing the "assume good intention" is not "assuming people are guilty until proven innocent" or "perfect paranoia". It is just putting the intention aside when trying to solve a situation where someone feels unwelcome or attacked. Presumption of innocence will still be there, why not? But you can be innocent and good intented and still be harmful. What the CoC should focus on is on stopping the harmful action, no matter the intention.

A CoC is not a legal system to punish illegal actions, it is a set of rules to improve interaction on the best friendlier way. So I am not sure if the comparison with a legal system applies here. As I see it, the CoC main goal is not to punish, but to try to mediate and make people understand how to interact on a better way, removing and fixing any possible harm done. And, of course, in case of serious harrasment, specially if it is continued, remove (temporarily?) someone from the community. But most of the incidents should be able to be fixed with a good mediation where both parts understand what harm has been done and actions are taken to prevent further damage.

I also have examples of being unintentionally rude, from both sides. Whenever someone uses religious expressions like "bless you", I feel uncomfortable, even attacked depending on the circumstances. Due to literal translation from Spanish, sometimes my English sound rude to some cultures and some people may feel uncomfortable. Neither of those cases have bad intention, in fact, in both cases there is a good intention behind.

But the intention is irrelevant here: what is important is that we should try to be friendly on different circunmstances. When someone feels unwelcomed, attacked, harrased, that should be fixed. Does it matter which was the original intention? Shouldn't we be able to say "hey, you are doing harm, stop doing it and let's see how to repair that harm" even if the action was done in good faith? Don't you want to know if you are hurting someone?

I know you think this is only one case, but I have seen more inside this community. But, at the same time, I/we couldn't act because, again, it was an unintended harm. We could only act when it was obvious the intention was not friendly.

And also, define "good intention". Someone may have a perfectly good intention when doing sexual advances on someone and that doesn't make that action acceptable if the other person doesn't want it.

Having "common sense" and "assume good intention" rules are good for small communities, where everybody knows everyone. But we are no longer a small family. We are a huge family, with cousins we have never met all around the world. If we don't know each other personally, if we come from different environments and cultures, we can no longer trust that that will keep the community together. We need to be really open and understand that it is not an issue if the CoC approaches us and points at something we have done wrong. That's not bad! We are learning and improving on every step. Better to be pointed by the CoC and learn how to improve our behaviour than making someone feel uncomfortable and not knowing it.

The thing is, this is an important bug on the CoC from my perspective. If we don't remove that from the CoC, I don't think I will be able to mediate properly on the incidents that may arise. The worst cases, those that are hidden behind beautiful words and smiles, will not be possible to solve and people will continue leaving the community. So if we can't push this I think I will just step down from the CoC and let others, that have some idea on how to deal with the "assume good intent", take that place. Because I will be just useless there, not able to protect those attacked. This is not me threating anything, this is me being plain about me not knowing how to apply a broken CoC on common incidents.

Remember that this Contributor Covenant is not somethign we are making up on the fly, a lot of communities are adopting it[1] and improving it continuously. If it has this approach, it has a reason. There is experience behind backing this up.

Hope this has quieted your worries,
María.

[1] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/adopters

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:09 AM Jonathan Moules <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Ben,

I think the counterpoint to this is highlighting that most western
justice systems are based around intent (i.e. good-faith or bad-faith,
or "mens rea"). For example. the difference between murder and
homicide/manslaughter is solely intent and it is up to the system itself
to determine that intent.

As the famous old quote goes:

"Better that 10 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent
man" - William Blackstone

Personally I'm not a fan of the Covenant; it has big subjective
loopholes and components that be used to retroactively change the rules.

@Maria - a concern with having this conversation on the CoC list is that
that's a self-selecting group and there's a non-zero chance it can end
up as an echo chamber. How many of the folks who have put forth an
opinion in this thread on /discuss are also on /CoC for instance?

Cheers,
Jonathan


On 2018-12-12 01:32, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> Rather than guilty until proven innocent, I think the covenant
> proposes a neutral and evidence-based approach. Mandating good faith
> as a starting point unfortunately enables bullies who provoke a
> response and then hide behind "X can't take a joke" or other
> minimisation to further harm their victim. I have not seen this in
> OSGeo but I have seen it in several cases elsewhere and I hope we will
> all be sufficiently alert to prevent it. I think that a proportionate
> and sensitive response will encourage consideration of the feelings of
> others without harming our collegial atmosphere.
>
> As another cross-cultural example, several of our members have given
> names that are masculine in Italian but feminine in English, resulting
> in their occasional misgendering on mailing lists and pull requests.
> While I found this amusing and assumed that it was unintentional, I
> also knew that some might find such misgendering insulting or hurtful
> and in any case it was not a good precedent, so I took the time to
> gently point out the mistake in private (IIRC). In each case, the
> mistake was not repeated. We can all take little actions that
> contribute to a welcoming environment.
>
> Kind regards,
> Ben.
>
> On 11/12/2018 13:44, Jonathan Moules wrote:
>> Hi Maria,
>>
>> Just a thought, but I'm not sure getting rid of the assumption of
>> good faith is a good idea. To do so would be basically assuming
>> people are guilty until proven innocent which runs counter to how
>> these things should work.
>>
>> To use a personal anecdote, many years ago I had a black flatmate who
>> I was joking around with and I made a comment that it turns out is a
>> negative racial epithet. Being young and unworldly, I didn't know
>> that at the time and certainly didn't mean it in that context, it
>> also has a perfectly innocent context - the only one I'd ever been
>> exposed to - which is how I was using it.
>>
>> Now, reading your thebias.com link, I can see that the author there
>> would suggest I be pilloried for what was an honest mistake. They'd
>> say I was being "careless" or "ignorant" and stepping on their toes.
>> But I don't think either is fair because it's not reasonable to
>> expect people to know everything that could offend everyone,
>> especially somewhere as multicultural as the internet.
>>
>> For example, consider this symbol: 👍a simple thumbs-up emoticon
>> that's commonly used to signify "it's all good" and "thanks". Well,
>> it turns out that it's "an obscene insult" in some cultures! I didn't
>> know that until a few seconds ago when I went searching for a simple
>> example.
>>
>> I have learnt over the years from experiences in both directions that
>> it's best to always assume good faith if possible. Humans may be the
>> species with the most complex communication on the planet, but that
>> doesn't mean we don't fail often.
>>
>> @Ben - Thanks for sharing World Human Rights day. I'm a long time fan
>> of the UNDHR!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>> On 2018-12-09 12:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
>>> Dear OSGeo community,
>>>
>>> As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in
>>> improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space.
>>> Recent events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work
>>> ahead.
>>>
>>> We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning
>>> mentality that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our
>>> culture. Disclosing private data or hinting threats is not helpful
>>> and can only make our community less comfortable for everyone. We
>>> will work on improving actions on harmful behavior.
>>>
>>> This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:
>>>
>>> CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up
>>> the task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC
>>> member, but I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure
>>> that if I am involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take
>>> care of it properly as mediator.
>>>
>>> I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC
>>> are reported. I noticed there are reports being done on person and
>>> on private email, but never through the official channels (which
>>> right now is a mailing list).To improve this, I will ask the SAC to
>>> replace the mailing list with an alias and a form on the website.
>>> Also, there will be a public list of who receives those emails so
>>> people reporting incidents will have a clear understanding of who is
>>> receiving the information and decide to contact privately only a
>>> subset of the team. Replacing the mailing list by an alias that
>>> sends the data directly to the inbox of the CoC team is important,
>>> as sometimes incidents are not reported just because the person
>>> reporting is scared to leave a trace of the report or is not sure
>>> who will be reading the report.
>>>
>>> Another action I am going to propose is a change on the CoC itself.
>>> Our community has grown a lot both in diversity and in numbers, and
>>> we need a strict code of conduct that makes sure marginalized or
>>> harrased people is always covered by it. We can't rely anymore on
>>> just common sense and good faith.
>>>
>>> Once the new board is settled, I am going to propose to change the
>>> current CoC for another like the Contributor Covenant[2]. As it is a
>>> CoC shared by many communities, this has the advantage of receiving
>>> the upgrades and experience from other communities. As you can see,
>>> it fixes some of the bugs from our CoC, like the assuming good
>>> intent and good faith[3] part that made the current CoC useless on
>>> most cases. I will propose to add some foreword to adapt to
>>> specifities for our community, but in my opinion, the latest version
>>> of the Contributor Covenant is easy to read, simple, and cover most
>>> of what we need. My hope is that this new CoC can be adapted to all
>>> OSGeo Projects and Events that don't already have a CoC, so we have
>>> full OSGeo universe covered by default.
>>>
>>> I hope this actions will prove useful in the medium term and we
>>> don't have to see more members leaving the community. We should
>>> remember to be empathic and kind. We are all seeking the same goals
>>> and we should encourage cooperation, not hinder each other. I know
>>> that developer communities are very used to these bad behaviours,
>>> but I'm confident we can grow better.
>>>
>>> Have a nice day!
>>> María.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2018-August/011640.html
>>> [2] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
>>> [3]
>>> https://thebias.com/2017/09/26/how-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-inclusion/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
COC-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss


--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254




_______________________________________________
COC-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

delawen


On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:05 PM Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> wrote:
María,
I agree 99% with your intent, 80% with your implementation suggestions, and in responding, we are likely to focus on the 20% where we disagree. Please don't see that as a reason to leave the CoC committee.
I don't want you to leave for many reasons, but I'll focus on my selfish reason. I want you to stay because your ability to explain a problem I'm grappling from a different perspective helps me become a better person, and helps us collaboratively develop a better system. Hopefully you will feel the same.

That's one of the reasons I like working with people from different countries: we have a lot in common, but we still take many things for granted and is always a surprise :)

 
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 06:55, María Arias de Reyna <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

You are right, let's continue on this list too.

Let me explain my point of view.

Removing the "assume good intention" is not "assuming people are guilty until proven innocent" or "perfect paranoia". It is just putting the intention aside when trying to solve a situation where someone feels unwelcome or attacked. Presumption of innocence will still be there, why not? But you can be innocent and good intented and still be harmful. What the CoC should focus on is on stopping the harmful action, no matter the intention.

A CoC is not a legal system to punish illegal actions, it is a set of rules to improve interaction on the best friendlier way. So I am not sure if the comparison with a legal system applies here. As I see it, the CoC main goal is not to punish, but to try to mediate and make people understand how to interact on a better way, removing and fixing any possible harm done. And, of course, in case of serious harrasment, specially if it is continued, remove (temporarily?) someone from the community. But most of the incidents should be able to be fixed with a good mediation where both parts understand what harm has been done and actions are taken to prevent further damage.

I also have examples of being unintentionally rude, from both sides. Whenever someone uses religious expressions like "bless you", I feel uncomfortable, even attacked depending on the circumstances. Due to literal translation from Spanish, sometimes my English sound rude to some cultures and some people may feel uncomfortable. Neither of those cases have bad intention, in fact, in both cases there is a good intention behind.

But the intention is irrelevant here: what is important is that we should try to be friendly on different circunmstances. When someone feels unwelcomed, attacked, harrased, that should be fixed. Does it matter which was the original intention? Shouldn't we be able to say "hey, you are doing harm, stop doing it and let's see how to repair that harm" even if the action was done in good faith? Don't you want to know if you are hurting someone?

I know you think this is only one case, but I have seen more inside this community. But, at the same time, I/we couldn't act because, again, it was an unintended harm. We could only act when it was obvious the intention was not friendly.

And also, define "good intention". Someone may have a perfectly good intention when doing sexual advances on someone and that doesn't make that action acceptable if the other person doesn't want it.

Having "common sense" and "assume good intention" rules are good for small communities, where everybody knows everyone. But we are no longer a small family. We are a huge family, with cousins we have never met all around the world. If we don't know each other personally, if we come from different environments and cultures, we can no longer trust that that will keep the community together. We need to be really open and understand that it is not an issue if the CoC approaches us and points at something we have done wrong. That's not bad! We are learning and improving on every step. Better to be pointed by the CoC and learn how to improve our behaviour than making someone feel uncomfortable and not knowing it.

The thing is, this is an important bug on the CoC from my perspective. If we don't remove that from the CoC, I don't think I will be able to mediate properly on the incidents that may arise. The worst cases, those that are hidden behind beautiful words and smiles, will not be possible to solve and people will continue leaving the community. So if we can't push this I think I will just step down from the CoC and let others, that have some idea on how to deal with the "assume good intent", take that place. Because I will be just useless there, not able to protect those attacked. This is not me threating anything, this is me being plain about me not knowing how to apply a broken CoC on common incidents.

Remember that this Contributor Covenant is not somethign we are making up on the fly, a lot of communities are adopting it[1] and improving it continuously. If it has this approach, it has a reason. There is experience behind backing this up.

Hope this has quieted your worries,
María.

[1] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/adopters

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:09 AM Jonathan Moules <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Ben,

I think the counterpoint to this is highlighting that most western
justice systems are based around intent (i.e. good-faith or bad-faith,
or "mens rea"). For example. the difference between murder and
homicide/manslaughter is solely intent and it is up to the system itself
to determine that intent.

As the famous old quote goes:

"Better that 10 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent
man" - William Blackstone

Personally I'm not a fan of the Covenant; it has big subjective
loopholes and components that be used to retroactively change the rules.

@Maria - a concern with having this conversation on the CoC list is that
that's a self-selecting group and there's a non-zero chance it can end
up as an echo chamber. How many of the folks who have put forth an
opinion in this thread on /discuss are also on /CoC for instance?

Cheers,
Jonathan


On 2018-12-12 01:32, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> Rather than guilty until proven innocent, I think the covenant
> proposes a neutral and evidence-based approach. Mandating good faith
> as a starting point unfortunately enables bullies who provoke a
> response and then hide behind "X can't take a joke" or other
> minimisation to further harm their victim. I have not seen this in
> OSGeo but I have seen it in several cases elsewhere and I hope we will
> all be sufficiently alert to prevent it. I think that a proportionate
> and sensitive response will encourage consideration of the feelings of
> others without harming our collegial atmosphere.
>
> As another cross-cultural example, several of our members have given
> names that are masculine in Italian but feminine in English, resulting
> in their occasional misgendering on mailing lists and pull requests.
> While I found this amusing and assumed that it was unintentional, I
> also knew that some might find such misgendering insulting or hurtful
> and in any case it was not a good precedent, so I took the time to
> gently point out the mistake in private (IIRC). In each case, the
> mistake was not repeated. We can all take little actions that
> contribute to a welcoming environment.
>
> Kind regards,
> Ben.
>
> On 11/12/2018 13:44, Jonathan Moules wrote:
>> Hi Maria,
>>
>> Just a thought, but I'm not sure getting rid of the assumption of
>> good faith is a good idea. To do so would be basically assuming
>> people are guilty until proven innocent which runs counter to how
>> these things should work.
>>
>> To use a personal anecdote, many years ago I had a black flatmate who
>> I was joking around with and I made a comment that it turns out is a
>> negative racial epithet. Being young and unworldly, I didn't know
>> that at the time and certainly didn't mean it in that context, it
>> also has a perfectly innocent context - the only one I'd ever been
>> exposed to - which is how I was using it.
>>
>> Now, reading your thebias.com link, I can see that the author there
>> would suggest I be pilloried for what was an honest mistake. They'd
>> say I was being "careless" or "ignorant" and stepping on their toes.
>> But I don't think either is fair because it's not reasonable to
>> expect people to know everything that could offend everyone,
>> especially somewhere as multicultural as the internet.
>>
>> For example, consider this symbol: 👍a simple thumbs-up emoticon
>> that's commonly used to signify "it's all good" and "thanks". Well,
>> it turns out that it's "an obscene insult" in some cultures! I didn't
>> know that until a few seconds ago when I went searching for a simple
>> example.
>>
>> I have learnt over the years from experiences in both directions that
>> it's best to always assume good faith if possible. Humans may be the
>> species with the most complex communication on the planet, but that
>> doesn't mean we don't fail often.
>>
>> @Ben - Thanks for sharing World Human Rights day. I'm a long time fan
>> of the UNDHR!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>> On 2018-12-09 12:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
>>> Dear OSGeo community,
>>>
>>> As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in
>>> improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space.
>>> Recent events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work
>>> ahead.
>>>
>>> We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning
>>> mentality that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our
>>> culture. Disclosing private data or hinting threats is not helpful
>>> and can only make our community less comfortable for everyone. We
>>> will work on improving actions on harmful behavior.
>>>
>>> This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:
>>>
>>> CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up
>>> the task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC
>>> member, but I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure
>>> that if I am involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take
>>> care of it properly as mediator.
>>>
>>> I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC
>>> are reported. I noticed there are reports being done on person and
>>> on private email, but never through the official channels (which
>>> right now is a mailing list).To improve this, I will ask the SAC to
>>> replace the mailing list with an alias and a form on the website.
>>> Also, there will be a public list of who receives those emails so
>>> people reporting incidents will have a clear understanding of who is
>>> receiving the information and decide to contact privately only a
>>> subset of the team. Replacing the mailing list by an alias that
>>> sends the data directly to the inbox of the CoC team is important,
>>> as sometimes incidents are not reported just because the person
>>> reporting is scared to leave a trace of the report or is not sure
>>> who will be reading the report.
>>>
>>> Another action I am going to propose is a change on the CoC itself.
>>> Our community has grown a lot both in diversity and in numbers, and
>>> we need a strict code of conduct that makes sure marginalized or
>>> harrased people is always covered by it. We can't rely anymore on
>>> just common sense and good faith.
>>>
>>> Once the new board is settled, I am going to propose to change the
>>> current CoC for another like the Contributor Covenant[2]. As it is a
>>> CoC shared by many communities, this has the advantage of receiving
>>> the upgrades and experience from other communities. As you can see,
>>> it fixes some of the bugs from our CoC, like the assuming good
>>> intent and good faith[3] part that made the current CoC useless on
>>> most cases. I will propose to add some foreword to adapt to
>>> specifities for our community, but in my opinion, the latest version
>>> of the Contributor Covenant is easy to read, simple, and cover most
>>> of what we need. My hope is that this new CoC can be adapted to all
>>> OSGeo Projects and Events that don't already have a CoC, so we have
>>> full OSGeo universe covered by default.
>>>
>>> I hope this actions will prove useful in the medium term and we
>>> don't have to see more members leaving the community. We should
>>> remember to be empathic and kind. We are all seeking the same goals
>>> and we should encourage cooperation, not hinder each other. I know
>>> that developer communities are very used to these bad behaviours,
>>> but I'm confident we can grow better.
>>>
>>> Have a nice day!
>>> María.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2018-August/011640.html
>>> [2] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
>>> [3]
>>> https://thebias.com/2017/09/26/how-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-inclusion/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
COC-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss


--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254




_______________________________________________
COC-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss