[coreboot] coreboot code of conduct

Marc Jones marcj303 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 22 04:08:38 CET 2015

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

> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20150122/ff4a6abb/attachment.html>

More information about the coreboot mailing list