Meeting on December 12th

Attendees:

• Allan Day
• Nuritzi Sanchez
• Meg Ford
• Marina Zhurakhinskaya
• Ben Berg
• Rosanna Yuen

Agenda:

• Long description of prohibited behaviour
• Statement of encouraged behaviour (if there's time)

Review of previous action items:

• Everyone to fill in new sections that were added to spreadsheet

Notes:

• Allan wants to proceed with the plan he sent to the mailing list
• Ben wants the group to address the agenda items he sent to the mailing list
  • Why it's expected to work, why it will be effective and how will it fit into the big picture? Wants group to work in a way that "prevents confirmation bias".
  • Nuritzi:
    • Makes sense to have the discussion elsewhere since we are far behind on the draft.
  • Marina:
    • Wants to have 10 minutes to address Ben's concerns.
  • Meg and Rosanna want to proceed with the planned agenda
• Chair: Allan rejects the suggested agenda items about the further process and reviewing the current plan and research status.
• Decision: Benjamin's concerns with regard to research and high level issues should be discussed in a separate meeting
• Action: Nuritzi to schedule a meeting
• What are the different approaches to addressing prohibited behavior?
  • Nuritzi:
    • Assume everyone means well, and have basic guidelines
    • Outline of specific prohibited behavior
  • Rosanna:
    • Also saw those two patterns
    • Would not come forward if this is in the CoC
  • Marina:
    • CoC needs to address incidents where people mean well and incidents where there is not a good intention
  • Ben:
    • Giving guidelines on how to handle it if things go badly; try to figure it out in a conversation with the person. We are there to figure it out if it was/was not well intended. The organization/upport person needs to research what the offender did.
  • Allan:
    • Wants to move on, will limit speaking time in the future.
    • Return to question of detail. How much detail do we want?
  • Meg:

    • GNOME 2014/15 and DebConf examples of prohibited behavior

    • Ben:
      • Do we have examples of behavior from GNOME? Important to have an idea of the issues community is favoring.
      • Is the community facing certain issues? Do we need to modify the community members' behavior.
      • Marina:
        • This is not on topic.
      • Rosanna:
        • This is to model our behavior after. we want it to cover things regardless of whether the incident has happened.
• Allan:
  • Do we want a detailed list?
    • Nuritzi:
      • Leave it open so it's not just the list, that the list contains examples.
    • Rosanna:
      • List is easier to parse, but either list or paragraph is fine
    • Ben:
      • Too long a list is hard to keep in mind. For a short list it's important to make sure it's complete
    • Marina:

      • Contributor Covenant CoC contains positive and negative examples. http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code_of_conduct.txt

      • Allan:
        • Would it be good to have examples like the Contributor Covenant CoC?
        • Nuritzi:
          • We should consider using something like this
        • Allan:
          • What wording should we use? Should we use the word harassment
            • Ben:
              • Harassment includes some behavior that falls into a grey area. Some people think that is good, others do not.
            • Marina:

              • DebConf: ... All participants, including event attendees and speakers must not engage in any intimidation, harassment, or abusive or discriminatory behavior.

              • Nuritzi:

                • Proposes including the DebConf list above

              • Marina:
                • Need to consider why each item is on the list
              • Allan:
                • Likes what Marina has suggested
              • Ben:
                • Harassment usually takes several incidents to add up and count as harassment. It can mean different things to different people.
• Nuritzi:
  • What kind of writing style do we want? Should we address reader/attendee directly?
    • Rosanna:
      • Third person is better so we are addressing everyone
    • Nuritzi:
      • Third person is more neutral, supports using 3rd person.
    • Ben:
      • Would like to address the reader directly. Does not want people to point to CoC in the case of incidents to create an accusatory atmosphere. Incidents need to be handled in a way that is neutral towards alleged offenders.
    • Marina:
      • Need to contemplate situations where attendees should not try to resolve conflict themselves
    • Ben:
      • It's fine for people to come forward

Action items:

• Allan: Will put his summary/notes on the planning wiki and will link to it in IRC
• Nuritzi: Will send a framadate so we can set up a meeting to discuss Ben's Agenda items.