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.
I have written a blog post about why we have a 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.
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.
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
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Patrick Georgi -
Peter Stuge