On Mon Jan 19 2015 at 7:52:45 PM Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net> wrote:

Hi Marc,

On 19.01.2015 01:49, Marc Jones wrote:
> On Sat Jan 17 2015 at 8:12:20 PM Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> thanks for writing this up.
>>
>> On 16.01.2015 19:15, Marc Jones wrote:
>>> A coreboot code of conduct has been posted on the wiki.
>>> - http://www.coreboot.org/Code_of_Conduct
>>>
>>> I have written a blog post about why we have a code of conduct.
>>> - http://blogs.coreboot.org/blog/2015/01/16/coreboot-code-of-conduct/
>>>
>>> Feel free to give feedback on the policy and how else we can contribute
>>> to a welcoming and collaborative environment.
>> Given that the Code of Conduct has been announced publicly in a blog
>> post, the feedback is probably expected to be public as well. Apologies
>> if that is not the case.
>>
>> The current wording suggests that anyone can be expelled from the
>> community permanently without warning for either perceived harrassment
>> or for strongly enforcing the code of conduct. This is probably not the
>> intention.
> Open discussion is acceptable.

Adding that sentence to the CoC would be helpful.

>> Furthermore, the second paragraph of "Unacceptable Behaviour" is either
>> redundant or woefully incomplete. If you really think the word
>> "harassing" from the first paragraph needs to be defined, you should
>> define the other words from the first paragraph "intimidating",
>> "abusive", "discriminatory", "derogatory" and "demeaning" as well. I
>> suggest deleting that second paragraph.
> I'll disagree. Harassment is the most common problem in online communities

Real citation needed, not just some sentiment. For example, quite a few
feminist blogs point to intimidating and derogatory speech/actions as
the primary hurdles against female participation in online communities.

This was based on discussions at the GSOC summit as I mentioned in my blog post. Several community leaders and more experience policy makers lead the discussion.

> and warrants the paragraph about those unacceptable behaviors.

If harassment is the most common problem, that definitely warrants
listing harassment first (which is not the case in the current CoC).

> Defining
> every other term would not make this policy any more robust.

Is the term "harassment" so unclear it warrants explanation? I thought
there was universal agreement that harassment is bad, but having to
define harassment implies that there is no such universal agreement (you
can't agree on something undefined).
I argue that creating our own homegrown definition of harassment (or
copying someone else's homegrown definition) makes this policy less
robust because this current homegrown definition is woefully incomplete.

Your point has been noted and we will examine how a change would improve the policy. Thanks for your contribution. I admit that this is not an area we are experts in, but we tried to choose a reference policy that was recognized a good a positive representation of our community. Please forward any expert recommendation or examples from other communities that improves the coreboot community policy, interactions, increase diversity within this community.

>> Please define "community organizers". Did you mean "arbitration team"?
>> Or is it the community members present at an event?
> It isn't not meant to be specific to an arbitration team. These members may
> not be present in all cases and organizers of events and online communities
> should uphold the good standards of the community.

Thanks for clarifying. The CoC would benefit from adding this clarification.

>> How can we deploy this against people not part of our community? If
>> they're not part of the community in the first place, it is by
>> definition impossible to exclude them from our community and the Code of
>> Conduct in its current form does not apply. If, on the other hand, we
>> define everyone on the mailing list, everyone on IRC and everyone
>> visiting our booths at various conferences and trade shows as being part
>> of our community, we're going to overshoot the mark. I don't want to be
>> guilty by association just because some troll on IRC joins all channels,
>> spews some random offensive crap and disappears.
> It applies to everyone that participates in coreboot communication, online,
> at an event or in a conference booth. People that are not up to this
> standard of behavior are not welcome in our community and they should be
> asked to leave. If a troll joins and spams the channel, clearly ask them to
> leave. If they don't leave report them to a channel or IRCOP. If there is a
> question of the policy or of a behavior, please contact an organizer or
> someone from the arbitration team.

Great, thanks for the explanation and guideline!

Regards,
Carl-Daniel