Hi Michael, all, [pulling the three mails together]
Michael Meeks wrote: > It is deeply disappointing to me that in a community committed to > transparency - the first time I see or have input into this text is when it > is published as law. This despite having done the work as half of the CoC > committee for the last many years, and having helped to tweak and introduce > the previous compromise policy. How did we fail that hard ? > Apologies for this obviously rushed roll-out of a new CoC. As Paolo said, there was a first round of discussions during the conference (board/MC/staff), and the plan was to then publish a draft, and properly discuss it in the community. The reason for the very short-notice decision (which the board took unanimously on Thursday morning), was that the old, minimal CoC was a blocker for Outreachy participation. Cor Nouws wrote: > Not mentioned in the announcement, is that due to the short notice, some > topics hadn't been fully discussed in the board etc.. So we'll further pick > that up, together with the Committee. Giving opportunities to improve on > short notice too, I expect. > Confirmed. Paolo Vecchi wrote: > Contributions from the whole community are desired and welcome and as you > are a native English speaker please do suggest further improvements. > Confirmed, and stressing the point that your involvement with the process, and being part of the current CoC committee, makes your input particularly relevant. Michael Meeks wrote: > When we last did a CoC change we had wide discussion and input > from many perspectives. We had a talk with feedback from the Rome > conference (we had a perfect opportunity to do the same only days > ago in Milan - was that deliberately missed?). When this appeared on > the board agenda I asked about it privately to Sophie and the > directors, and got nothing. > I'm sorry for that. It's not how we should have done it. I was personally totally swamped pre-conference (and others might, too - not a good reason, but perhaps an explanation). > This is a particularly wasted opportunity - because a new CoC (with > which I have no problem in principle[1]) can give a useful point to reset > our discourse as a community and to draw a line under some of the past > unhelpful behavior. An opportunity for a fresh start from a new place that > improves some of our interactions. Basing that on the trust re-built > in-person at the conference is a great idea in principle. > It would be great if we could still move towards those goals; your and others' input therefore greatly appreciated. I'm with you there, that a CoC update was due, and agree it's an opportunity (also to iterate TDF's underlying community rules more towards shared norms of other FLOSS foundations). In particular, getting line-by-line feedback, where you think we're needlessly deviating from standards, would be great. > At a bare minimum I would expect each individual behind this, > -particularly- if they are on the new CoC committee, to at least -try- to > repair the situation by re-assuring the community that (despite apparently > excluding people & views during the process of creating and pushing this > initiative through) - that when actually enforcing the CoC they will > respectfully listen to all views and act in an inclusive and balanced way. > The current committee is meant to be temporary. My personal expectation wrt CoC work is indeed, to affect behaviour of everyone in a positive way, rather than excluding people or opinions. With that view, it would be great to see the group expanded, perhaps even by people with relevant experience, but entirely outside our community (which should help with neutrality and balance, I guess). Cheers, Thorsten -- Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
