Meeting on January 9th

Attendees

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

Agenda:

• Review plan summary from last meeting

• CoCs to add to the research spreadsheet?

• Review outstanding action items
• CoC planning topics:

  • Statement of cultural sensitivity previous discussion points

  • Statement on what could happen if you violate the code of conduct
  • Who should deal with reports

Review of previous action items:

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

Notes:

Review plan summary from last meeting

• Review of https://wiki.gnome.org/Diversity/CoCWorkingGroup/Private/CoCPlan

CoCs to add to the research spreadsheet?

• Spreadsheet - Is the list of CoCs complete enough?

  • Action: @Nuritzi Add Allison's CoC and Khan Academy @All review spreadsheet and add CoCs if needed.

Review outstanding action items

• Nuritzi: Is tehre a list of outstanding items to come back to?
  • Action: Allan to add this to the wiki

Statement on cultural sensitivity

• Allan: we have discussed this previously, see https://wiki.gnome.org/Diversity/CoCWorkingGroup/Private/CoCPlan#Statement_on_cultural_sensitivity_.5Bneeds_agreement.5D Do we need to deal with this now, or shoudl we discuss this later?

  • Ben and Nuritzi think we should discuss this now.
  • Marina: review this section in the spreadsheet
  • Nuritzi: 1) keep in mind that people have different ways of seeing the world. 2) other way of handling it is to mention not discriminating based on culture
    • Ben: not discriminating is different from cultural sensitivity

    • Nuritzi: GUADEC 2016 & 2011 examples, Libregraphics meeting.

      • Libregraphics says enforcement has to be compatible with local laws
      • Nuritzi: womens group meeting at GUADEC and photos might/might not be compatible with local laws
      • Marina: cultural backgrounds don't exempt people from things that the CoC prohibits
      • Ben: Likes the GUADEC 2016 example.
      • Allan: could be mentioned as part of general encouraged behavior. Think about diversity and communicate accordingly.

      • Marina: DebConf example: "ensure we're creating an environment of trust and respect where all who come to participate feel comfortable and included"

• Agreement that having the cultural sensitivity statement is fine, should be a positive statement, etc.

Statement on what could happen if you violate the code of conduct

• The group hasn't prepared this section in the spreadsheet yet.

Who should deal with reports

• Ben: most CoCs name a few people. Sometimes this is just the organization, feels it is better to have individuals listed so an individual can be contacted.

• Marina: generally the options are identifying specific people including the organizers of the event. we should do incident response training for organizers. there should be a CoC support group who can help whenever they are present at an event.
  • Who should get the info about incidents?
    • Ben: thinks discussing who should get info is out of scope.
• There are two types of people: 1) the members of the orgaization, and there are 2) the local organizers. should the foundation board have access to the reports of incidents?
  • Ben: not giving data to the GNOME foundation during GUADEC was a legal issue
    • Marina: is it useful to document reports generically (not using private data) so we have historical data about incidents?
• Some issues to consider around enforcement:
  • Who are the people responding on the ground? Who is allowed to take enforcement actions (legally, different venues, …)? [specific to large events like GUADEC]
  • how do we handle information and privacy? Should the Foundation have access to those reports and incidents? Do we need a permanent file, or should it be deleted
  • is enforcement (and privacy) dependent on local laws?
  • How does enforcement scale down to small events (hackfests vs conferences)
  • What information is anonymously made public or shared with the Foundation directors and organizers of future events? Are any people identified as having caused problems at prior events to the organizers of new events, and if so, what information about the incidents is shared?