Re: CoC Committee - the state of things (Cameron Shorter)

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

Re: CoC Committee - the state of things (Cameron Shorter)

Camille Acey-3
Sorry for the delay in response, Cameron. I was using digest mode and as a result, I lost track of this email.

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 3:00 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Camille,
Probably first step would be listing CoC Committee members, probably
here: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct_Committee

This is something that is just determined by who signs up for the mailing list. I can grab the list from there, but I imagine membership will change fairly regularly.
 


One thing I've been pondering since seeing the first few questions about
CoC being discussed is how to "classify" what is considered a CoC
breach. I'm yet to see any hard guidelines as to what is/is not
acceptable. (And this sucks up large amounts of bandwidth on email lists).

You did good research on this for FOSS4G CoC so it'd be great if you could get the ball rolling here!

Looking around for what we can borrow as a standard reference, I wonder
whether we can borrow from film classifications:

I'm familiar with the Australian classifications (being an Australian
myself), which are well defined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#Film_and_video_game_classifications

For a conference, we could suggest a classification at a level or G or PG:
/Parental Guidance (PG) ? Not recommended for viewing or playing by
people under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians. Contains
material that young viewers may find confusing or upsetting. The content
is mild in impact.//
//Violence should be mild and infrequent, and should be presented in "a
stylised or theatrical fashion, or in an historical context".//
//Themes should have a "mild sense of menace or threat" and be "discreet"//
//Frightening or Intense Scenes should be "mildly frightening" and have
"low intensity"//
//Crude Humor should be "mild" or "low level"//
//Sex, nudity and drug use should be mild, infrequent, "discreetly
implied" and "justified by context".//
//Coarse language should be mild and infrequent, and be justified by
context./

This *might* work.

Camille


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

Re: CoC Committee - the state of things (Cameron Shorter)

Cameron Shorter
Hi Camille,

On 15/10/2015 7:22 am, Camille Acey wrote:
Sorry for the delay in response, Cameron. I was using digest mode and as a result, I lost track of this email.
Thanks for getting back.  I was surprised not to get a response and thought it was uncharacteristic of you. Lost email would explain it.

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 3:00 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Camille,
Probably first step would be listing CoC Committee members, probably
here: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct_Committee

This is something that is just determined by who signs up for the mailing list. I can grab the list from there, but I imagine membership will change fairly regularly.

Based on http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct_Committee , there is intended to be a core voting committee. I know that you put out a call for volunteers for that committee. Did you get a good response for volunteers? Have you selected the core voting committee? If so, I suggest it worth while publishing who they are.

With regards to publishing members of the mailing list, I suggest following the practices of other OSGeo committees and invite people to add themselves, probably here:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct_Committee#Membership

Some people might want to remain anonymous, which should be ok. There are a number of good reasons for wanting to be anonymous - such as it conflicting with current employment.
 


One thing I've been pondering since seeing the first few questions about
CoC being discussed is how to "classify" what is considered a CoC
breach. I'm yet to see any hard guidelines as to what is/is not
acceptable. (And this sucks up large amounts of bandwidth on email lists).

You did good research on this for FOSS4G CoC so it'd be great if you could get the ball rolling here!
Ok, I'll start looking into it.

Looking around for what we can borrow as a standard reference, I wonder
whether we can borrow from film classifications:

I'm familiar with the Australian classifications (being an Australian
myself), which are well defined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#Film_and_video_game_classifications

For a conference, we could suggest a classification at a level or G or PG:
/Parental Guidance (PG) ? Not recommended for viewing or playing by
people under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians. Contains
material that young viewers may find confusing or upsetting. The content
is mild in impact.//
//Violence should be mild and infrequent, and should be presented in "a
stylised or theatrical fashion, or in an historical context".//
//Themes should have a "mild sense of menace or threat" and be "discreet"//
//Frightening or Intense Scenes should be "mildly frightening" and have
"low intensity"//
//Crude Humor should be "mild" or "low level"//
//Sex, nudity and drug use should be mild, infrequent, "discreetly
implied" and "justified by context".//
//Coarse language should be mild and infrequent, and be justified by
context./

This *might* work.

Camille



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

-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099

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

Re: Classification framework

Cameron Shorter
Hi all,
I've drafted a suggested amendment to our CoC to help us answer the question of what is/is not in scope of a CoC breach.

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Code_Of_Conduct#Classification_Context

Classification Context

This additional section proposed for version 2.0:

As guidance, content should align with a film classification of: 12+ or PG or similar. There are many country classifications. To remove ambiguity, we refer to the Australian PG Classification:

  • Parental Guidance (PG) – Not recommended for viewing or playing by people under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians. Contains material that young viewers may find confusing or upsetting. The content is mild in impact.
    • Violence should be mild and infrequent, and should be presented in "a stylised or theatrical fashion, or in an historical context".
    • Themes should have a "mild sense of menace or threat" and be "discreet"
    • Frightening or Intense Scenes should be "mildly frightening" and have "low intensity"
    • Crude Humor should be "mild" or "low level"
    • Sex, nudity and drug use should be mild, infrequent, "discreetly implied" and "justified by context".
    • Coarse language should be mild and infrequent, and be justified by context.


On 16/10/2015 6:38 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:

One thing I've been pondering since seeing the first few questions about
CoC being discussed is how to "classify" what is considered a CoC
breach. I'm yet to see any hard guidelines as to what is/is not
acceptable. (And this sucks up large amounts of bandwidth on email lists).

You did good research on this for FOSS4G CoC so it'd be great if you could get the ball rolling here!
Ok, I'll start looking into it.

Looking around for what we can borrow as a standard reference, I wonder
whether we can borrow from film classifications:

I'm familiar with the Australian classifications (being an Australian
myself), which are well defined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#Film_and_video_game_classifications

-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099

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

Re: Classification framework

Camille Acey-3

Thanks, Cameron.

We are not looking to make any changes to the CoC at this point. Our job is to:

  1. put together process around how members can submit reports of CoC violations
  2. create specific guidance for LOCs, moderators and the board about how to deal with those reports and reporters.

We put together a list of places to start here - http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeofConduct_Documents#Resources

I suggest we:

  1. use this form as a starting point for Task #1 - https://www.drupal.org/governance/community-working-group/incident-report (not sure if its ok to use Google Forms, that's what drupal.org uses)
  2. start an Enforcement page (useful info here http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Responding_to_reports )

What do you think? Is anyone else out there? if so, please chime in!

Camille

On Oct 16, 2015 6:57 PM, "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,
I've drafted a suggested amendment to our CoC to help us answer the question of what is/is not in scope of a CoC breach.

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Code_Of_Conduct#Classification_Context

Classification Context

This additional section proposed for version 2.0:

As guidance, content should align with a film classification of: 12+ or PG or similar. There are many country classifications. To remove ambiguity, we refer to the Australian PG Classification:

  • Parental Guidance (PG) – Not recommended for viewing or playing by people under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians. Contains material that young viewers may find confusing or upsetting. The content is mild in impact.
    • Violence should be mild and infrequent, and should be presented in "a stylised or theatrical fashion, or in an historical context".
    • Themes should have a "mild sense of menace or threat" and be "discreet"
    • Frightening or Intense Scenes should be "mildly frightening" and have "low intensity"
    • Crude Humor should be "mild" or "low level"
    • Sex, nudity and drug use should be mild, infrequent, "discreetly implied" and "justified by context".
    • Coarse language should be mild and infrequent, and be justified by context.


On 16/10/2015 6:38 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:

One thing I've been pondering since seeing the first few questions about
CoC being discussed is how to "classify" what is considered a CoC
breach. I'm yet to see any hard guidelines as to what is/is not
acceptable. (And this sucks up large amounts of bandwidth on email lists).

You did good research on this for FOSS4G CoC so it'd be great if you could get the ball rolling here!
Ok, I'll start looking into it.

Looking around for what we can borrow as a standard reference, I wonder
whether we can borrow from film classifications:

I'm familiar with the Australian classifications (being an Australian
myself), which are well defined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#Film_and_video_game_classifications

-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000" value="+61290095000" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099" value="+61290095099" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5099

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

Re: Classification framework

Rob Emanuele

Chiming in just to say, +1 on those two suggested next steps.

I'm not sure if anyone would take issue with using Google forms as opposed to an open source reporting system run on OSGeo infrastructure (given the recent discussions on OSGeo-Discuss about code hosting), but I think that the ease of use for Google forms would make it a great choice.

The article on enforcement is very thorough, and I think it provides a good method to approach enforcement in a reasoned and de-escalating way. The line "Generally conference staff are not equipped for evidence gathering: we suggest not going around and "interviewing" others involved." The enforcers are not detectives or the police, and it makes sense that the sole focus of any actions would be "the safety of your community members from harassment".

-Rob

Thanks, Cameron.

We are not looking to make any changes to the CoC at this point. Our job is to:

  1. put together process around how members can submit reports of CoC violations
  2. create specific guidance for LOCs, moderators and the board about how to deal with those reports and reporters.

We put together a list of places to start here - http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeofConduct_Documents#Resources

I suggest we:

  1. use this form as a starting point for Task #1 - https://www.drupal.org/governance/community-working-group/incident-report (not sure if its ok to use Google Forms, that's what drupal.org uses)
  2. start an Enforcement page (useful info here http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Responding_to_reports )

What do you think? Is anyone else out there? if so, please chime in!

Camille

On Oct 16, 2015 6:57 PM, "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,
I've drafted a suggested amendment to our CoC to help us answer the question of what is/is not in scope of a CoC breach.

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Code_Of_Conduct#Classification_Context

Classification Context

This additional section proposed for version 2.0:

As guidance, content should align with a film classification of: 12+ or PG or similar. There are many country classifications. To remove ambiguity, we refer to the Australian PG Classification:

  • Parental Guidance (PG) – Not recommended for viewing or playing by people under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians. Contains material that young viewers may find confusing or upsetting. The content is mild in impact.
    • Violence should be mild and infrequent, and should be presented in "a stylised or theatrical fashion, or in an historical context".
    • Themes should have a "mild sense of menace or threat" and be "discreet"
    • Frightening or Intense Scenes should be "mildly frightening" and have "low intensity"
    • Crude Humor should be "mild" or "low level"
    • Sex, nudity and drug use should be mild, infrequent, "discreetly implied" and "justified by context".
    • Coarse language should be mild and infrequent, and be justified by context.


On 16/10/2015 6:38 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:

One thing I've been pondering since seeing the first few questions about
CoC being discussed is how to "classify" what is considered a CoC
breach. I'm yet to see any hard guidelines as to what is/is not
acceptable. (And this sucks up large amounts of bandwidth on email lists).

You did good research on this for FOSS4G CoC so it'd be great if you could get the ball rolling here!
Ok, I'll start looking into it.

Looking around for what we can borrow as a standard reference, I wonder
whether we can borrow from film classifications:

I'm familiar with the Australian classifications (being an Australian
myself), which are well defined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#Film_and_video_game_classifications

-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000" value="+61290095000" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099" value="+61290095099" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5099

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


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

Re: Classification framework

Camille Acey-3
Thanks, Rob!

If you know of any other resources or have any recent/relevant forum or OSGeo experience that would inform these two tasks that'd be great!

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Rob Emanuele <[hidden email]> wrote:

Chiming in just to say, +1 on those two suggested next steps.

I'm not sure if anyone would take issue with using Google forms as opposed to an open source reporting system run on OSGeo infrastructure (given the recent discussions on OSGeo-Discuss about code hosting), but I think that the ease of use for Google forms would make it a great choice.

The article on enforcement is very thorough, and I think it provides a good method to approach enforcement in a reasoned and de-escalating way. The line "Generally conference staff are not equipped for evidence gathering: we suggest not going around and "interviewing" others involved." The enforcers are not detectives or the police, and it makes sense that the sole focus of any actions would be "the safety of your community members from harassment".

-Rob

Thanks, Cameron.

We are not looking to make any changes to the CoC at this point. Our job is to:

  1. put together process around how members can submit reports of CoC violations
  2. create specific guidance for LOCs, moderators and the board about how to deal with those reports and reporters.

We put together a list of places to start here - http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeofConduct_Documents#Resources

I suggest we:

  1. use this form as a starting point for Task #1 - https://www.drupal.org/governance/community-working-group/incident-report (not sure if its ok to use Google Forms, that's what drupal.org uses)
  2. start an Enforcement page (useful info here http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Responding_to_reports )

What do you think? Is anyone else out there? if so, please chime in!

Camille

On Oct 16, 2015 6:57 PM, "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,
I've drafted a suggested amendment to our CoC to help us answer the question of what is/is not in scope of a CoC breach.

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Code_Of_Conduct#Classification_Context

Classification Context

This additional section proposed for version 2.0:

As guidance, content should align with a film classification of: 12+ or PG or similar. There are many country classifications. To remove ambiguity, we refer to the Australian PG Classification:

  • Parental Guidance (PG) – Not recommended for viewing or playing by people under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians. Contains material that young viewers may find confusing or upsetting. The content is mild in impact.
    • Violence should be mild and infrequent, and should be presented in "a stylised or theatrical fashion, or in an historical context".
    • Themes should have a "mild sense of menace or threat" and be "discreet"
    • Frightening or Intense Scenes should be "mildly frightening" and have "low intensity"
    • Crude Humor should be "mild" or "low level"
    • Sex, nudity and drug use should be mild, infrequent, "discreetly implied" and "justified by context".
    • Coarse language should be mild and infrequent, and be justified by context.


On 16/10/2015 6:38 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:

One thing I've been pondering since seeing the first few questions about
CoC being discussed is how to "classify" what is considered a CoC
breach. I'm yet to see any hard guidelines as to what is/is not
acceptable. (And this sucks up large amounts of bandwidth on email lists).

You did good research on this for FOSS4G CoC so it'd be great if you could get the ball rolling here!
Ok, I'll start looking into it.

Looking around for what we can borrow as a standard reference, I wonder
whether we can borrow from film classifications:

I'm familiar with the Australian classifications (being an Australian
myself), which are well defined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#Film_and_video_game_classifications

-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000" value="+61290095000" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099" value="+61290095099" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5099

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



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

Re: Classification framework

Cameron Shorter
Hi Camille,
+1 from me for your suggestions too.

I'm interested to know who is subscribed to this list? It feels a bit silly writing to a list that doesn't have anyone listening on the other end. If you are watching I suggest speaking up and introducing yourself.
Has there been discussions on a private list that I'm unaware of?

Camille, if you are a list admin, would you mind letting us know how many people are subscribed to the list.

Warm regards, Cameron

On 21/10/2015 1:34 pm, Camille Acey wrote:
Thanks, Rob!

If you know of any other resources or have any recent/relevant forum or OSGeo experience that would inform these two tasks that'd be great!

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Rob Emanuele <[hidden email]> wrote:

Chiming in just to say, +1 on those two suggested next steps.

I'm not sure if anyone would take issue with using Google forms as opposed to an open source reporting system run on OSGeo infrastructure (given the recent discussions on OSGeo-Discuss about code hosting), but I think that the ease of use for Google forms would make it a great choice.

The article on enforcement is very thorough, and I think it provides a good method to approach enforcement in a reasoned and de-escalating way. The line "Generally conference staff are not equipped for evidence gathering: we suggest not going around and "interviewing" others involved." The enforcers are not detectives or the police, and it makes sense that the sole focus of any actions would be "the safety of your community members from harassment".

-Rob

Thanks, Cameron.

We are not looking to make any changes to the CoC at this point. Our job is to:

  1. put together process around how members can submit reports of CoC violations
  2. create specific guidance for LOCs, moderators and the board about how to deal with those reports and reporters.

We put together a list of places to start here - http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeofConduct_Documents#Resources

I suggest we:

  1. use this form as a starting point for Task #1 - https://www.drupal.org/governance/community-working-group/incident-report (not sure if its ok to use Google Forms, that's what drupal.org uses)
  2. start an Enforcement page (useful info here http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Responding_to_reports )

What do you think? Is anyone else out there? if so, please chime in!

Camille

On Oct 16, 2015 6:57 PM, "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,
I've drafted a suggested amendment to our CoC to help us answer the question of what is/is not in scope of a CoC breach.

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Code_Of_Conduct#Classification_Context

Classification Context

This additional section proposed for version 2.0:

As guidance, content should align with a film classification of: 12+ or PG or similar. There are many country classifications. To remove ambiguity, we refer to the Australian PG Classification:

  • Parental Guidance (PG) – Not recommended for viewing or playing by people under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians. Contains material that young viewers may find confusing or upsetting. The content is mild in impact.
    • Violence should be mild and infrequent, and should be presented in "a stylised or theatrical fashion, or in an historical context".
    • Themes should have a "mild sense of menace or threat" and be "discreet"
    • Frightening or Intense Scenes should be "mildly frightening" and have "low intensity"
    • Crude Humor should be "mild" or "low level"
    • Sex, nudity and drug use should be mild, infrequent, "discreetly implied" and "justified by context".
    • Coarse language should be mild and infrequent, and be justified by context.


On 16/10/2015 6:38 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:

One thing I've been pondering since seeing the first few questions about
CoC being discussed is how to "classify" what is considered a CoC
breach. I'm yet to see any hard guidelines as to what is/is not
acceptable. (And this sucks up large amounts of bandwidth on email lists).

You did good research on this for FOSS4G CoC so it'd be great if you could get the ball rolling here!
Ok, I'll start looking into it.

Looking around for what we can borrow as a standard reference, I wonder
whether we can borrow from film classifications:

I'm familiar with the Australian classifications (being an Australian
myself), which are well defined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#Film_and_video_game_classifications

-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000" value="+61290095000" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099" value="+61290095099" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5099

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



-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099

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

Re: Classification framework

Arnulf Christl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Currently 12 members total, minus the Nabble bot.

Cheers,
Arnulf

On 21.10.2015 12:41, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Hi Camille,
> +1 from me for your suggestions too.
>
> I'm interested to know who is subscribed to this list? It feels a bit
> silly writing to a list that doesn't have anyone listening on the othe
r
> end. If you are watching I suggest speaking up and introducing yoursel
f.

> Has there been discussions on a private list that I'm unaware of?
>
> Camille, if you are a list admin, would you mind letting us know how
> many people are subscribed to the list.
>
> Warm regards, Cameron
>
> On 21/10/2015 1:34 pm, Camille Acey wrote:
>> Thanks, Rob!
>>
>> If you know of any other resources or have any recent/relevant forum
>> or OSGeo experience that would inform these two tasks that'd be great
!
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Rob Emanuele <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Chiming in just to say, +1 on those two suggested next steps.
>>
>>     I'm not sure if anyone would take issue with using Google forms a
s

>>     opposed to an open source reporting system run on OSGeo
>>     infrastructure (given the recent discussions on OSGeo-Discuss
>>     about code hosting), but I think that the ease of use for Google
>>     forms would make it a great choice.
>>
>>     The article on enforcement is very thorough, and I think it
>>     provides a good method to approach enforcement in a reasoned and
>>     de-escalating way. The line "Generally conference staff are not
>>     equipped for evidence gathering: we suggest not going around and
>>     "interviewing" others involved." The enforcers are not detectives
>>     or the police, and it makes sense that the sole focus of any
>>     actions would be "*the safety of your community members from
>>     harassment*".
>>
>>     -Rob
>>
>>     Thanks, Cameron.
>>
>>     We are not looking to make any changes to the CoC at this point.
>>     Our job is to:
>>
>>      1. put together process around how members can submit reports of
>>         CoC violations
>>      2. create specific guidance for LOCs, moderators and the board
>>         about how to deal with those reports and reporters.
>>
>>     We put together a list of places to start here -
>>     http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeofConduct_Documents#Resources
>>
>>     I suggest we:
>>
>>      1. use this form as a starting point for Task #1 -
>>         https://www.drupal.org/governance/community-working-group/inc
ident-report
>>         (not sure if its ok to use Google Forms, that's what
>>         drupal.org <http://drupal.org> uses)
>>      2. start an Enforcement page (useful info here
>>         <http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassmen
t/Responding_to_reports>http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_an
ti-harassment/Responding_to_reports
>>         )
>>
>>     What do you think? Is anyone else out there? if so, please chime
in!
>>
>>     Camille
>>
>>     On Oct 16, 2015 6:57 PM, "Cameron Shorter"
>>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wr
ote:
>>
>>         Hi all,
>>         I've drafted a suggested amendment to our CoC to help us
>>         answer the question of what is/is not in scope of a CoC breac
h.
>>
>>         http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Code_Of_Conduct#Classification_Con
text

>>
>>
>>               Classification Context
>>
>>         This additional section proposed for version 2.0:
>>
>>         As guidance, content should align with a film classification
>>         of: 12+ or PG or similar. There are many country
>>         classifications
>>         <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_content_rating_syst
ems>.
>>         To remove ambiguity, we refer to the Australian PG
>>         Classification
>>         <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Boar
d#Film_and_video_game_classifications>:
>>
>>           * /*Parental Guidance (PG)*/ – Not recommended for viewing
>>             or playing by people under 15 without guidance from
>>             parents or guardians. Contains material that young viewer
s

>>             may find confusing or upsetting. The content is mild in
>>             impact.
>>               o *Violence* should be mild and infrequent, and should
>>                 be presented in "a stylised or theatrical fashion, or
>>                 in an historical context".
>>               o *Themes* should have a "mild sense of menace or
>>                 threat" and be "discreet"
>>               o *Frightening or Intense Scenes* should be "mildly
>>                 frightening" and have "low intensity"
>>               o *Crude Humor* should be "mild" or "low level"
>>               o *Sex, nudity and drug use* should be mild, infrequent
,

>>                 "discreetly implied" and "justified by context".
>>               o *Coarse language* should be mild and infrequent, and
>>                 be justified by context.
>>
>>
>>
>>         On 16/10/2015 6:38 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             One thing I've been pondering since seeing the first fe
w

>>>>             questions about
>>>>             CoC being discussed is how to "classify" what is
>>>>             considered a CoC
>>>>             breach. I'm yet to see any hard guidelines as to what
>>>>             is/is not
>>>>             acceptable. (And this sucks up large amounts of
>>>>             bandwidth on email lists).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         You did good research on this for FOSS4G CoC so it'd be
>>>>         great if you could get the ball rolling here!
>>>         Ok, I'll start looking into it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             Looking around for what we can borrow as a standard
>>>>             reference, I wonder
>>>>             whether we can borrow from film classifications:
>>>>
>>>>             I'm familiar with the Australian classifications (being
>>>>             an Australian
>>>>             myself), which are well defined:
>>>>             https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification
_Board#Film_and_video_game_classifications

>>>>
>>
>>         --
>>         Cameron Shorter,
>>         Software and Data Solutions Manager
>>         LISAsoft
>>         Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
>>         26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>>
>>         P +61 2 9009 5000 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>,  W www.lisas
oft.com <http://www.lisasoft.com>,  F +61 2 9009 5099 <tel:%2B61%202%209
009%205099>

>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     COC-discuss mailing list
>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss
>>
>>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter,
> Software and Data Solutions Manager
> LISAsoft
> Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
> 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>
> P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> COC-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss
>


- --
Exploring Space, Time and Mind
http://arnulf.us
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYnc1IACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b0N3wCfS0f7PzEeeBn40pm0gR9cZUeh
bP0An1i5ZYec8tn4nj2uaYTx8d0Mrcvu
=OICC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
COC-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Classification framework

Rob Emanuele
In reply to this post by Camille Acey-3
Camille, I'm not sure how much I have to add...I do have anecdotal experience with dealing with an inappropriate tweet of a slide that was to presented at the FOSS4G NA 2015 conference, while I was program chair there. If you think that would be useful to describe, I could write my experience up with that and post it to the mailing list when I have some time. Otherwise, I appreciate the efforts of the CoC committee and am willing to help if I can make myself useful! 

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Camille Acey <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks, Rob!

If you know of any other resources or have any recent/relevant forum or OSGeo experience that would inform these two tasks that'd be great!

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Rob Emanuele <[hidden email]> wrote:

Chiming in just to say, +1 on those two suggested next steps.

I'm not sure if anyone would take issue with using Google forms as opposed to an open source reporting system run on OSGeo infrastructure (given the recent discussions on OSGeo-Discuss about code hosting), but I think that the ease of use for Google forms would make it a great choice.

The article on enforcement is very thorough, and I think it provides a good method to approach enforcement in a reasoned and de-escalating way. The line "Generally conference staff are not equipped for evidence gathering: we suggest not going around and "interviewing" others involved." The enforcers are not detectives or the police, and it makes sense that the sole focus of any actions would be "the safety of your community members from harassment".

-Rob

Thanks, Cameron.

We are not looking to make any changes to the CoC at this point. Our job is to:

  1. put together process around how members can submit reports of CoC violations
  2. create specific guidance for LOCs, moderators and the board about how to deal with those reports and reporters.

We put together a list of places to start here - http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeofConduct_Documents#Resources

I suggest we:

  1. use this form as a starting point for Task #1 - https://www.drupal.org/governance/community-working-group/incident-report (not sure if its ok to use Google Forms, that's what drupal.org uses)
  2. start an Enforcement page (useful info here http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Responding_to_reports )

What do you think? Is anyone else out there? if so, please chime in!

Camille

On Oct 16, 2015 6:57 PM, "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,
I've drafted a suggested amendment to our CoC to help us answer the question of what is/is not in scope of a CoC breach.

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Code_Of_Conduct#Classification_Context

Classification Context

This additional section proposed for version 2.0:

As guidance, content should align with a film classification of: 12+ or PG or similar. There are many country classifications. To remove ambiguity, we refer to the Australian PG Classification:

  • Parental Guidance (PG) – Not recommended for viewing or playing by people under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians. Contains material that young viewers may find confusing or upsetting. The content is mild in impact.
    • Violence should be mild and infrequent, and should be presented in "a stylised or theatrical fashion, or in an historical context".
    • Themes should have a "mild sense of menace or threat" and be "discreet"
    • Frightening or Intense Scenes should be "mildly frightening" and have "low intensity"
    • Crude Humor should be "mild" or "low level"
    • Sex, nudity and drug use should be mild, infrequent, "discreetly implied" and "justified by context".
    • Coarse language should be mild and infrequent, and be justified by context.


On 16/10/2015 6:38 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:

One thing I've been pondering since seeing the first few questions about
CoC being discussed is how to "classify" what is considered a CoC
breach. I'm yet to see any hard guidelines as to what is/is not
acceptable. (And this sucks up large amounts of bandwidth on email lists).

You did good research on this for FOSS4G CoC so it'd be great if you could get the ball rolling here!
Ok, I'll start looking into it.

Looking around for what we can borrow as a standard reference, I wonder
whether we can borrow from film classifications:

I'm familiar with the Australian classifications (being an Australian
myself), which are well defined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#Film_and_video_game_classifications

-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000" value="+61290095000" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099" value="+61290095099" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5099

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




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

Re: Classification framework

jmckenna
Administrator
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
Hi Cameron,

I follow this closely, and in fact I have already used the CodeOfConduct
committee once for an issue recently (discussed with Camille and Kristin
privately).  I find the committee a great help to the foundation.
Having a team focused on diversity in the foundation is a great thing.

-jeff



On 2015-10-21 7:41 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

> Hi Camille,
> +1 from me for your suggestions too.
>
> I'm interested to know who is subscribed to this list? It feels a bit
> silly writing to a list that doesn't have anyone listening on the other
> end. If you are watching I suggest speaking up and introducing yourself.
> Has there been discussions on a private list that I'm unaware of?
>
> Camille, if you are a list admin, would you mind letting us know how
> many people are subscribed to the list.
>
> Warm regards, Cameron
>
> On 21/10/2015 1:34 pm, Camille Acey wrote:
>> Thanks, Rob!
>>
>> If you know of any other resources or have any recent/relevant forum
>> or OSGeo experience that would inform these two tasks that'd be great!
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Rob Emanuele <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Chiming in just to say, +1 on those two suggested next steps.
>>
>>     I'm not sure if anyone would take issue with using Google forms as
>>     opposed to an open source reporting system run on OSGeo
>>     infrastructure (given the recent discussions on OSGeo-Discuss
>>     about code hosting), but I think that the ease of use for Google
>>     forms would make it a great choice.
>>
>>     The article on enforcement is very thorough, and I think it
>>     provides a good method to approach enforcement in a reasoned and
>>     de-escalating way. The line "Generally conference staff are not
>>     equipped for evidence gathering: we suggest not going around and
>>     "interviewing" others involved." The enforcers are not detectives
>>     or the police, and it makes sense that the sole focus of any
>>     actions would be "*the safety of your community members from
>>     harassment*".
>>
>>     -Rob
>>
>>     Thanks, Cameron.
>>
>>     We are not looking to make any changes to the CoC at this point.
>>     Our job is to:
>>
>>      1. put together process around how members can submit reports of
>>         CoC violations
>>      2. create specific guidance for LOCs, moderators and the board
>>         about how to deal with those reports and reporters.
>>
>>     We put together a list of places to start here -
>>     http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeofConduct_Documents#Resources
>>
>>     I suggest we:
>>
>>      1. use this form as a starting point for Task #1 -
>>         https://www.drupal.org/governance/community-working-group/incident-report
>>         (not sure if its ok to use Google Forms, that's what
>>         drupal.org <http://drupal.org> uses)
>>      2. start an Enforcement page (useful info here
>>         <http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Responding_to_reports>http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Responding_to_reports
>>         )
>>
>>     What do you think? Is anyone else out there? if so, please chime in!
>>
>>     Camille
>>
>>     On Oct 16, 2015 6:57 PM, "Cameron Shorter"
>>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi all,
>>         I've drafted a suggested amendment to our CoC to help us
>>         answer the question of what is/is not in scope of a CoC breach.
>>
>>         http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Code_Of_Conduct#Classification_Context
>>
>>
>>               Classification Context
>>
>>         This additional section proposed for version 2.0:
>>
>>         As guidance, content should align with a film classification
>>         of: 12+ or PG or similar. There are manycountry
>>         classifications
>>         <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_content_rating_systems>.
>>         To remove ambiguity, we refer to theAustralian PG
>>         Classification
>>         <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#Film_and_video_game_classifications>:
>>
>>           * /*Parental Guidance (PG)*/– Not recommended for viewing or
>>             playing by people under 15 without guidance from parents
>>             or guardians. Contains material that young viewers may
>>             find confusing or upsetting. The content is mild in impact.
>>               o *Violence*should be mild and infrequent, and should be
>>                 presented in "a stylised or theatrical fashion, or in
>>                 an historical context".
>>               o *Themes*should have a "mild sense of menace or threat"
>>                 and be "discreet"
>>               o *Frightening or Intense Scenes*should be "mildly
>>                 frightening" and have "low intensity"
>>               o *Crude Humor*should be "mild" or "low level"
>>               o *Sex, nudity and drug use*should be mild, infrequent,
>>                 "discreetly implied" and "justified by context".
>>               o *Coarse language*should be mild and infrequent, and be
>>                 justified by context.
>>
>>
>>
>>         On 16/10/2015 6:38 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             One thing I've been pondering since seeing the first few
>>>>             questions about
>>>>             CoC being discussed is how to "classify" what is
>>>>             considered a CoC
>>>>             breach. I'm yet to see any hard guidelines as to what
>>>>             is/is not
>>>>             acceptable. (And this sucks up large amounts of
>>>>             bandwidth on email lists).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         You did good research on this for FOSS4G CoC so it'd be
>>>>         great if you could get the ball rolling here!
>>>         Ok, I'll start looking into it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             Looking around for what we can borrow as a standard
>>>>             reference, I wonder
>>>>             whether we can borrow from film classifications:
>>>>
>>>>             I'm familiar with the Australian classifications (being
>>>>             an Australian
>>>>             myself), which are well defined:
>>>>             https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#Film_and_video_game_classifications
>>>>
>>
>>         --
>>         Cameron Shorter,
>>         Software and Data Solutions Manager
>>         LISAsoft
>>         Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
>>         26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>>
>>         P+61 2 9009 5000 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>,  Wwww.lisasoft.com <http://www.lisasoft.com>,  F+61 2 9009 5099 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099>
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
COC-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Classification framework

Sanghee Shin
In reply to this post by Cameron Shorter
Hello Cameron, 

I’m also here as a lurker. 

regards, 

신상희
---
Shin, Sanghee
Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
http://www.gaia3d.com 

2015. 10. 21., 오전 11:41, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> 작성:

Hi Camille,
+1 from me for your suggestions too.

I'm interested to know who is subscribed to this list? It feels a bit silly writing to a list that doesn't have anyone listening on the other end. If you are watching I suggest speaking up and introducing yourself.
Has there been discussions on a private list that I'm unaware of?

Camille, if you are a list admin, would you mind letting us know how many people are subscribed to the list.

Warm regards, Cameron

On 21/10/2015 1:34 pm, Camille Acey wrote:
Thanks, Rob!

If you know of any other resources or have any recent/relevant forum or OSGeo experience that would inform these two tasks that'd be great!

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Rob Emanuele <[hidden email]> wrote:

Chiming in just to say, +1 on those two suggested next steps.

I'm not sure if anyone would take issue with using Google forms as opposed to an open source reporting system run on OSGeo infrastructure (given the recent discussions on OSGeo-Discuss about code hosting), but I think that the ease of use for Google forms would make it a great choice.

The article on enforcement is very thorough, and I think it provides a good method to approach enforcement in a reasoned and de-escalating way. The line "Generally conference staff are not equipped for evidence gathering: we suggest not going around and "interviewing" others involved." The enforcers are not detectives or the police, and it makes sense that the sole focus of any actions would be "the safety of your community members from harassment".

-Rob

Thanks, Cameron.

We are not looking to make any changes to the CoC at this point. Our job is to:

  1. put together process around how members can submit reports of CoC violations
  2. create specific guidance for LOCs, moderators and the board about how to deal with those reports and reporters.

We put together a list of places to start here - http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeofConduct_Documents#Resources

I suggest we:

  1. use this form as a starting point for Task #1 - https://www.drupal.org/governance/community-working-group/incident-report (not sure if its ok to use Google Forms, that's what drupal.org uses)
  2. start an Enforcement page (useful info here http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Responding_to_reports )

What do you think? Is anyone else out there? if so, please chime in!

Camille

On Oct 16, 2015 6:57 PM, "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,
I've drafted a suggested amendment to our CoC to help us answer the question of what is/is not in scope of a CoC breach.

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Code_Of_Conduct#Classification_Context

Classification Context

This additional section proposed for version 2.0:
As guidance, content should align with a film classification of: 12+ or PG or similar. There are many country classifications. To remove ambiguity, we refer to the Australian PG Classification:
  • Parental Guidance (PG) – Not recommended for viewing or playing by people under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians. Contains material that young viewers may find confusing or upsetting. The content is mild in impact.
    • Violence should be mild and infrequent, and should be presented in "a stylised or theatrical fashion, or in an historical context".
    • Themes should have a "mild sense of menace or threat" and be "discreet"
    • Frightening or Intense Scenes should be "mildly frightening" and have "low intensity"
    • Crude Humor should be "mild" or "low level"
    • Sex, nudity and drug use should be mild, infrequent, "discreetly implied" and "justified by context".
    • Coarse language should be mild and infrequent, and be justified by context.


On 16/10/2015 6:38 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:

One thing I've been pondering since seeing the first few questions about
CoC being discussed is how to "classify" what is considered a CoC
breach. I'm yet to see any hard guidelines as to what is/is not
acceptable. (And this sucks up large amounts of bandwidth on email lists).

You did good research on this for FOSS4G CoC so it'd be great if you could get the ball rolling here!
Ok, I'll start looking into it.

Looking around for what we can borrow as a standard reference, I wonder
whether we can borrow from film classifications:

I'm familiar with the Australian classifications (being an Australian
myself), which are well defined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#Film_and_video_game_classifications

-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000" value="+61290095000" target="_blank" class="">+61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099" value="+61290095099" target="_blank" class="">+61 2 9009 5099

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



-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099
_______________________________________________
COC-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss


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

Re: Classification framework

Camille Acey-3
Here's the list of everyone on this list:
  1. Seven (aka Arnulf Christl)
  2. Rob Emanuele
  3. Camille E .Acey
  4. Kristin Bott
  5. Cameron Shorter
  6. Sanghee Shin
  7. Jeff McKenna
  8. Jáchym Čepický
  9. David Bitner
  10. Daniel Nüst
  11. Dan "Ducky" Little
  12. Nicolas Bozon
  13. [hidden email]

There have been no discussions on the private list. The private list is reserved for addressing actual violations and we still need a few more volunteers to join (Cameron I know you expressed interest but we wanted to announce it a few times to make sure we heard back from everyone who was interested. We'll get back to you soon).


On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Sanghee Shin <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello Cameron, 

I’m also here as a lurker. 

regards, 

신상희
---
Shin, Sanghee
Gaia3D, Inc. - The GeoSpatial Company
http://www.gaia3d.com 

2015. 10. 21., 오전 11:41, Cameron Shorter <[hidden email]> 작성:

Hi Camille,
+1 from me for your suggestions too.

I'm interested to know who is subscribed to this list? It feels a bit silly writing to a list that doesn't have anyone listening on the other end. If you are watching I suggest speaking up and introducing yourself.
Has there been discussions on a private list that I'm unaware of?

Camille, if you are a list admin, would you mind letting us know how many people are subscribed to the list.

Warm regards, Cameron

On 21/10/2015 1:34 pm, Camille Acey wrote:
Thanks, Rob!

If you know of any other resources or have any recent/relevant forum or OSGeo experience that would inform these two tasks that'd be great!

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Rob Emanuele <[hidden email]> wrote:

Chiming in just to say, +1 on those two suggested next steps.

I'm not sure if anyone would take issue with using Google forms as opposed to an open source reporting system run on OSGeo infrastructure (given the recent discussions on OSGeo-Discuss about code hosting), but I think that the ease of use for Google forms would make it a great choice.

The article on enforcement is very thorough, and I think it provides a good method to approach enforcement in a reasoned and de-escalating way. The line "Generally conference staff are not equipped for evidence gathering: we suggest not going around and "interviewing" others involved." The enforcers are not detectives or the police, and it makes sense that the sole focus of any actions would be "the safety of your community members from harassment".

-Rob

Thanks, Cameron.

We are not looking to make any changes to the CoC at this point. Our job is to:

  1. put together process around how members can submit reports of CoC violations
  2. create specific guidance for LOCs, moderators and the board about how to deal with those reports and reporters.

We put together a list of places to start here - http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeofConduct_Documents#Resources

I suggest we:

  1. use this form as a starting point for Task #1 - https://www.drupal.org/governance/community-working-group/incident-report (not sure if its ok to use Google Forms, that's what drupal.org uses)
  2. start an Enforcement page (useful info here http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Responding_to_reports )

What do you think? Is anyone else out there? if so, please chime in!

Camille

On Oct 16, 2015 6:57 PM, "Cameron Shorter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,
I've drafted a suggested amendment to our CoC to help us answer the question of what is/is not in scope of a CoC breach.

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Code_Of_Conduct#Classification_Context

Classification Context

This additional section proposed for version 2.0:
As guidance, content should align with a film classification of: 12+ or PG or similar. There are many country classifications. To remove ambiguity, we refer to the Australian PG Classification:
  • Parental Guidance (PG) – Not recommended for viewing or playing by people under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians. Contains material that young viewers may find confusing or upsetting. The content is mild in impact.
    • Violence should be mild and infrequent, and should be presented in "a stylised or theatrical fashion, or in an historical context".
    • Themes should have a "mild sense of menace or threat" and be "discreet"
    • Frightening or Intense Scenes should be "mildly frightening" and have "low intensity"
    • Crude Humor should be "mild" or "low level"
    • Sex, nudity and drug use should be mild, infrequent, "discreetly implied" and "justified by context".
    • Coarse language should be mild and infrequent, and be justified by context.


On 16/10/2015 6:38 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:

One thing I've been pondering since seeing the first few questions about
CoC being discussed is how to "classify" what is considered a CoC
breach. I'm yet to see any hard guidelines as to what is/is not
acceptable. (And this sucks up large amounts of bandwidth on email lists).

You did good research on this for FOSS4G CoC so it'd be great if you could get the ball rolling here!
Ok, I'll start looking into it.

Looking around for what we can borrow as a standard reference, I wonder
whether we can borrow from film classifications:

I'm familiar with the Australian classifications (being an Australian
myself), which are well defined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#Film_and_video_game_classifications

-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000" value="+61290095000" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099" value="+61290095099" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5099

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



-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000" value="+61290095000" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F <a href="tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099" value="+61290095099" target="_blank">+61 2 9009 5099
_______________________________________________
COC-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss



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