> > the unclear CoCC action > Why do you feel that you need clarity on the CoCC's actions? or perhaps a better way to ask would be: What do you gain from getting more clarity?
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 6:58 PM Isarra Yos <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/08/18 14:31, David Barratt wrote: > >> yet this is clearly precisely what is needed to avoid incidents like > this > >> in the future. > >> > > Based on what has been provided in this thread, I do *not* see this as an > > incident that needs to be avoided in the future. > > To clarify, the incident I was referring to was the unclear CoCC action > taken and subsequent confusion and disagreement, including this email > thread. > > We absolutely do not need this all to happen again in another six months > with yet another incident which cannot be explained. > > -I > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:23 AM Isarra Yos <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> It's sounds nice, but no. It is not a feature. One of the arguments I > >> was given when the CoC was initially pushed through was that of course > >> it wasn't perfect as was, that it would be amended and fixed based on > >> the real incidents it came into contact with. I maintain that it is > >> impossible to do this - to amend, fix, and generally refine a document > >> based on the real cases - when the details of the real cases and even > >> the stats about what they are in general remain unavailable, and yet > >> this is clearly precisely what is needed to avoid incidents like this in > >> the future. > >> > >> There has been considerable disagreement as to where we should be > >> drawing the line between the public cases, the generalised, and the > >> private, but this too is something we need to figure out out a community > >> and clearly draw, and the only way to do so is with clear information on > >> what is possible, common, and feasible. > >> > >> -I > >> > >> On 09/08/18 22:39, David Barratt wrote: > >>> I'm not sure I completely understand the problem. What is being called > a > >>> "lack of transparency" is the opposite of "privacy by design." What is > >>> being called a bug, is perhaps a feature. The irony of this, ought not > be > >>> missed. > >>> > >>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 6:33 PM Isarra Yos <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> An interesting comparison, democracy. Community consensus and > >>>> transparency were what brought our shared project to the great heights > >>>> we now see, and yet the CoC and especially its enforcement are rooted > in > >>>> none of this. If this trainwreck that we are currently experiencing on > >>>> this list is truly our best shot at an open, welcoming, and supportive > >>>> environment when it flies in the face of everything that brought us > here > >>>> in the first place, then all of that was a lie. > >>>> > >>>> I'm pretty sure that's just wrong, though. Keeping everything behind > >>>> closed doors is the opposite of open. Community members having the CoC > >>>> used against them as a club and being afraid of retribution for > seeking > >>>> help is the opposite of a welcoming and supportive environment. I > would > >>>> put forth that the CoC, or more accurately, this heavy-handed > >>>> implementation of it, has been an abject failure that requires us all > to > >>>> step back and try to look at all of this more objectively. To move > >>>> forward, we must address the issues with the CoC and its enforcement, > >>>> but to do so as a community, to come to any meaningful and informed > >>>> consensuses as such, will not be possible so long as nobody outside > the > >>>> committee has any access to the stats, as no logging of actions taken > is > >>>> available publicly, as the cases themselves remain largely invisible > >>>> even when they do not pertain to sensitive situations or materials. > >>>> > >>>> Because if we do not base this in open process, consensus, and > >>>> transparency, then all platitudes aside, it's just not going to be > >>>> very... good. It's not going to address our needs, and we're not going > >>>> to be able to refine it as things come up. Not doing this /isn't > >>>> working/, and we need it work. > >>>> > >>>> -I > >>>> > >>>> On 09/08/18 20:48, Victoria Coleman wrote: > >>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>> > >>>>> I’ve been following this discussion from afar (literally from a > remote > >>>> mountainous part of Greece [1]) so please excuse the reflection. I saw > >> this > >>>> today: > >> > https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/ > >>>> < > >> > https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/ > >>>>> This is us. This is our shared project. What an incredible privilege > it > >>>> is to have the opportunity to be part of something utopian, yet real, > >> that > >>>> is seen by the world as the last bastion of shared reality. This is no > >>>> accident, no fluke. It’s because of us. This incredible community of > >> ours. > >>>> We are all different and yet we all, staff and volunteers alike, > strive > >> to > >>>> bring the best of ourselves to this monumental project of ours. > >> Sometimes > >>>> we get it wrong. We get emotional, we say the wrong thing, we get > >>>> frustrated with each other. But we are all in this together. And we > >> hold > >>>> ourselves to a higher standard. I hope we can also forgive each other > >> when > >>>> we fall down and offer a helping hand instead of a harsh, hurtful > word. > >> The > >>>> CoC , like democracy, is not perfect but it’s our best shot at an > open, > >>>> welcoming and supportive environment in our technical spaces. Let’s > >>>> continue refining it and let’s get back to work. > >>>>> Warmly, > >>>>> > >>>>> Victoria > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelion < > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelion> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Aug 9, 2018, at 7:24 PM, Stas Malyshev <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Hi! > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> to me that this could easily be used as a shaming and blaming list. > >> If > >>>> the > >>>>>>> block is over and the person wants to change their behavior, it > might > >>>> be > >>>>>>> hard for them to start with a clean sheet if we keep a backlog > public > >>>> of > >>>>>>> everyone. I'd see it not only as a privacy issue for the people > >>>> reporting, > >>>>>>> but also the reported. > >>>>>> You have a good point here. Maybe it should not be permanent, but > >> should > >>>>>> expire after the ban is lifted. I can see how that could be better > >>>>>> (though nothing that was ever public is completely forgotten, but > >> still > >>>>>> not carrying it around in our spaces might be good). So I'd say > public > >>>>>> record while the ban is active is a must, but after that expunging > the > >>>>>> record is fine. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Stas Malyshev > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Wikitech-l mailing list > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Wikitech-l mailing list > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Wikitech-l mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wikitech-l mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikitech-l mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
