This meeting was held as a BoF session at GUADEC.
Attending
Notes
- Core Members: Expected to join all meetings and responsible for pushing the project forward.
- Support Members: Interested in participating and have specific ideas for how they will be involved.
- Timeline: board votes on the final proposal by March 15, 2017
- Work with GUADEC 2017 team and have a version we feel comfrotable with by the opening of CfP of GUADEC 2017 (CfP opens March 31st)
- Final version complete by opening of bids for GUADEC 2018
- CfP for GUADEC 2016 opened March 31; Call for bids for GUADEC 2017 opened April 7
- Mission: Ensure that our communinty is welcoming and safe place for people from underrepresented and marginalized groups by creating a code of conduct to .
- Goals:
- Create a standard code of conduct and enforcement policy for events
- Create a code of conduct and enforcement policy for the community as a whole
- Publicize the code of conduct
- Continue to have a working group that works on enforcement for the community code of conduct and supports event organizers in enforcement of the event code of conduct
- Benjamin:
- I still disagree with first doing an events policy. The only argument in favour of doing this that I heard was that "it is less work". Which is a really bad argument in general. Reasons to first do something community wide: Untrue. Events require a special enforcement policy. Also, we talked about including a photo policy as part of the events policy. - Nuritzi You have an argument when talking to organisers It makes sense to have rules for the whole community; having rules only for events is simply incomplete +1 There should absolutely be a better CoC for the community at large, however, i think that it's fine to have a separate event CoC that has an enforcement policy for events. - Nuritzi A CoC should work generically for the community; if it is only "good enough" for short events then this is a reason to believe it is insufficient See point directly above - Nuritzi It feels a bit to me like this is mostly seen as a publicity stunt to be able to claim how great work you are doing for marginalized groups. But doing actual work like going out, funding programs that are in marginalized areas (physically!), lobbying for better government support in case that schools in certain areas are not funded properly (yes, I consider social welfare an important piece in the puzzle), etc. should be much more efficient in the long run.From what I understand, our Foundation is not a lyobbying party and we do not directly involve the Foundation in politics. Perhaps you're uneasy with the term "marginalized groups" or else you think the mission should be expanded? I don't think we've nailed down specific language for the mission of the CoC yet and you're very welcome to suggest edits. - Nuritzi I also strongly disagree with the stated mission! Ben, can you propose an alternative phrasing of the mission? It's not helpful just to disagree if you don't have an alternative. - Nuritzi This isn't about protecting marginalized groups. Obviously this is a goal, and one should include this in the discussion. However, the primary goal is to protect everyone from people who behave badly or are simply poisonous for the whole community. And by the way, the whole CoC discussion is becoming poisonous sometimes (when an member of the organizing team considers to stop supporting GUADEC because it is using up too much time, then I consider this to be poisonous)! My point in case is that GNOME is actually a very exclusionary community! To flurish GNOME primarily needs a lot of highly skilled and dedicated people; anyone who does not fit into the schema will have a really hard time to ever get a hold in the community. This is not fixable, as being inclusive to anyone who doesn't learn the required skills and dedication may even erode the overall quality of the project. Note that this doesn't mean we want to exclude people. People should get a chance to learn the required skills, and there can also be space for less skilled people to be part of a wider user community. But I think it is important to understand that GNOME cannot simply be "inclusive" to "marginalized groups"; what we need are programs to enable people from "marginalized groups" (as for all other groups) to learn the required skills and become functional community members. I'm not sure what you're definition of "marginalized groups" here is. It sounds like you're defining marginlized groups as "unskilled contributors". Can you please clarify? - Nuritzi
As a note, Ben, I assume you don't mean to, but the way that you state your opinions comes off as being very aggressive and oppositional. I'm sure there's a way to get your point across without sounding so inciting. I think you have some really good points for us to consider and, in general, people tend to listen to others when they don't feel like they're being attacked :-P I'm happy to discuss this further in person, but just remember that we are part of a team working towards a common goal and your opinion is just as valid as other people's, so don't think that it's you agains the world.
You're helping to shape the outcome of this, and we're trying to make this a democratic and transparent process so that the community at large gets a say too and it's not just the small committee. Keep your feedback coming, but please be mindful of how you express it. It's a difficult process and, again, we're all in it together! - Nuritzi
- I still disagree with first doing an events policy. The only argument in favour of doing this that I heard was that "it is less work". Which is a really bad argument in general. Reasons to first do something community wide: Untrue. Events require a special enforcement policy. Also, we talked about including a photo policy as part of the events policy. - Nuritzi You have an argument when talking to organisers It makes sense to have rules for the whole community; having rules only for events is simply incomplete +1 There should absolutely be a better CoC for the community at large, however, i think that it's fine to have a separate event CoC that has an enforcement policy for events. - Nuritzi A CoC should work generically for the community; if it is only "good enough" for short events then this is a reason to believe it is insufficient See point directly above - Nuritzi It feels a bit to me like this is mostly seen as a publicity stunt to be able to claim how great work you are doing for marginalized groups. But doing actual work like going out, funding programs that are in marginalized areas (physically!), lobbying for better government support in case that schools in certain areas are not funded properly (yes, I consider social welfare an important piece in the puzzle), etc. should be much more efficient in the long run.From what I understand, our Foundation is not a lyobbying party and we do not directly involve the Foundation in politics. Perhaps you're uneasy with the term "marginalized groups" or else you think the mission should be expanded? I don't think we've nailed down specific language for the mission of the CoC yet and you're very welcome to suggest edits. - Nuritzi I also strongly disagree with the stated mission! Ben, can you propose an alternative phrasing of the mission? It's not helpful just to disagree if you don't have an alternative. - Nuritzi This isn't about protecting marginalized groups. Obviously this is a goal, and one should include this in the discussion. However, the primary goal is to protect everyone from people who behave badly or are simply poisonous for the whole community. And by the way, the whole CoC discussion is becoming poisonous sometimes (when an member of the organizing team considers to stop supporting GUADEC because it is using up too much time, then I consider this to be poisonous)! My point in case is that GNOME is actually a very exclusionary community! To flurish GNOME primarily needs a lot of highly skilled and dedicated people; anyone who does not fit into the schema will have a really hard time to ever get a hold in the community. This is not fixable, as being inclusive to anyone who doesn't learn the required skills and dedication may even erode the overall quality of the project. Note that this doesn't mean we want to exclude people. People should get a chance to learn the required skills, and there can also be space for less skilled people to be part of a wider user community. But I think it is important to understand that GNOME cannot simply be "inclusive" to "marginalized groups"; what we need are programs to enable people from "marginalized groups" (as for all other groups) to learn the required skills and become functional community members. I'm not sure what you're definition of "marginalized groups" here is. It sounds like you're defining marginlized groups as "unskilled contributors". Can you please clarify? - Nuritzi
Some resources listed at GUADEC/2016/BOFs/Diversity#Resources
- Three components of the Code of Conduct:
- What the GNOME Foundation stands for and believes in
- What violates the CoC
- Enforcement
- TIMELINE: Process for Proposing a New Code of Conduct
- Present the issue, process proposal, and solicit initial input from the Board - August 16th
- Presenting the issue and soliciting initial input (hopes and thoughts) from the community (send an email to the Foundation List). Invite people to become core and support members. - September 6th
- Research code of conduct resources and other codes of conduct by other groups, understand legal implications - by September 30
- Draft a standard event code of conduct and share with the community for feedback - by October 28
- Revise the standard event code and summarize feedback from the community, share with the Board - by November 15
- Feedback from Board - by December 12
- Revision of draft presented to the board - by January 16
- Voted on by the Board - (hard deadline by March 15th)
- Note: Always provide both public and private forums for feedback.
- Stakeholders
- Board members (deciders)
- Code of Conduct Working group (doers)
- GNOME Foundation members (consulted)
- Additional affected parties: current and potential GNOME contributors who are not Foundation members, event attendees.
- Note: Referendum can be forced by 10% of the membership
- Logistics of the Working Group
- public IRC channel #diversity
- Working Group is open to any Foundation member to join in either core or support member capacity
- private code of conduct mailing list (e.g. coc-working-group-list AT gnome.org)
- private to be able to discuss previous incidents and concerns from people who want to keep them private
- Core and Support members have bi-weekly calls to discuss resources and customize code of conduct for GNOME based on research and community feedback
- Establish a private wiki and add the etherpad links there
- information shared with the working group can be shared anonymously with the board and the community unless otherwise specified (e.g. not to be shared, or as ok to be shared with personal identification by all affected parties)
- people are welcome to e-mail any subset of core group members personally with feedback to be shared anonymously with the rest of the working group
- if there is no rough consensus, proposed changes to the working draft of the CoC will be voted on by working group members (core and support) in meetings with majority of people attending the meeting deciding the vote
- Logistics for later
- eventually might need a private enforcement mailing list
- Example of how Marina framed her e-mail to foundation-list for the board candidates in the 2015 election:
Many free software organizations have adopted codes of conduct for their events [1] and some for their communities [2]. Detailed codes of conduct with specific enforcement guidelines signal to newcomers that the community has high standards of behavior. They give participants who observe or are subject to inappropriate behavior something to point to that shows that such behavior is outside of what is expected and guidelines on how to proceed in getting it addressed. [1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Adoption [2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Community_anti-harassment/Adoption
Actions Taken
- Determined bi-weekly meeting schedule
- Drafted an e-mail to the Board
- Drafted an e-mail to the Foundation List
Future Action Steps
- Read 2015 GUADEC code of conduct
- Read 2016 GUADEC code of conduct
- Read and share resources
- @Marina to propose the first draft to the working group and solicit edits
- Prepare state of diversity in GNOME, free software, tech industry in general as part of research
Copies of emails sent to the Board and Foundation Lists
EMAIL TO THE BOARD Subject: Code of Conduct Proposal To: board@gnome.org
Dear Board,
I am writing on behalf of the Diversity Working Group to propose a process for adopting a standard event Code of Conduct for the GNOME Foundation.
Why is this important? Having a code of conduct is an essential part of holding conferences, and is often a sponsorship requirement. It is also important for GNOME's health and longevity as it will ensure that the project is welcoming and inclusive for both current and prospective GNOME members. Each year, organizing groups must draft their own Code of Conduct for their event and there has often been disagreement that surrounded the adoption of a Code of Conduct for an event. Having a standard event Code of Conduct will take off work from the event organizers and uncertaintly for the community members for what to expect at the event.
We want to make sure there is a consistent standard for the GNOME community across the globe.
Our proposal. We have assembled a Code of Conduct Working Group to gather consensus among community members and propose a standard event Code of Conduct. The details for our proposal process are below. Once the standard Code of Conduct is approved, this team will also provide ongoing support to event organizers with its enforcement.
What we need from you. We have defined a process that we would like you to look over. Please send us any initial feedback, especially around involvement of the Board in this initiative and how you think the Foundation members should be involved. We request that you take this up at the next Board meeting and let us know your feedback by August 26th, or let us know if you need more time.
This is the first phase of a larger inititative to make sure that GNOME feels even safer and more welcoming for everyone. In the future we hope to update the Code of Conduct for the community as a whole. Thank you for your help making this happen.
Sincerely, Nuritzi on behalf of the Diversity Working Group
Proposal Details
Deadline: final vote by the board by March 15th in order to propose it to the GUADEC 2017 organizers before CfP opens and in order to make it a reqirement for the GUADEC 2018 bids
Process: Input from Board: Present the issue, process proposal, and solicit initial input from the Board Input from Foundation members: Present the issue and soliciting initial input (incidents, resources, specific, considerations) from the community (send an email to the Foundation List). Invite people to become core and support members Research: We will research code of conduct resources and other codes of conduct by other groups, understand legal implications First draft and Foundation input: Draft a standard event code of conduct and share with the community for feedback. Revise draft: Revise the standard event code and summarize feedback from the community, share with the Board Input from Board: Feedback from Board Revise draft Vote by the Board
Initial Members of the Working Group
Core: Expected to join all meetings and responsible for pushing the project forward.
- Allan Marina Meg Nuritzi Rosanna
Support: Interested in participating and have specific ideas for how they will be involved.
- Benjamin Cosimo Federico
Logistics of the Working Group Public IRC channel: #diversity Working Group Membership: Working Group is open to any Foundation member to join in either core or support member capacity Private code of conduct mailing list (e.g. coc-working-group-list@gnome.org) Private to be able to discuss previous incidents and concerns from people who want to keep them private Frequency of meetings: Core and Support members have bi-weekly calls to discuss resources and customize code of conduct for GNOME based on research and community feedback Private wiki: The working group will establish a private wiki and add the etherpad links there Feedback from community: Information shared with the working group can be shared anonymously with the board and the community unless otherwise specified (e.g. not to be shared, or as ok to be shared publicly) People are welcome to e-mail any subset of core group members personally with feedback to be shared anonymously with the rest of the working group Working Group decision-making: If there is no rough consensus, proposed changes to the working draft of the CoC will be voted on by working group members (core and support) in meetings with majority of people attending the meeting deciding the vote
EMAIL TO FOUNDATION MEMBERS Subject: Code of Conduct Adoption Process To: foundation-list@gnome.org
Dear Foundation Members,
GNOME has never had a standard code of conduct for events. This has historically placed a burden on GUADEC organizers in particular, as they have had to draft and take responsibility for a code of conduct every year.
This GUADEC, a group of us formed a working group to try and resolve this, by drawing up a standard code of conduct for GNOME events. This effort has been endorsed by the Foundation Board of Directors. I'm writing to see if anyone else is interested in joining this working group and to give Foundation members information about how they can participate in the process.
We will be meeting regularly (every other week) to push this project forward so that we prepare it in time for the 2017 GUADEC committee to consider, and in time to make it available during the 2018 GUADEC bid process. The Code of Conduct for events will be a phase one project for the working group, and we plan to work on the Code of Conduct for the GNOME community as a phase two project.
The committee will be doing the legwork of researching and proposing the Code of Conduct, but Foundation members will have opportunities to give feedback, and ultimately the Board will vote on the proposal. Below, you can find more information on the proposal process itself. We've tried to make it an analytical process since it can otherwise be an emotionally charged subject. If you are interested in the group's progress, but don't want to commit to joining the group, you can stay updated on our progress by following the meeting minutes and other materials posted at https://wiki.gnome.org/Diversity/CoCWorkingGroup/
At this time, we encourage you to email coc-working-group-list@gnome.org, or any of the committee members privately, with any of the following you'd like us to consider:
- Code of Conduct resources - Details of incidents you have observed or been involved in, and which are relevant - Other specific feedback regarding codes of conduct
coc-working-group-list@gnome.org is a private mailing list for members of the code of conduct working. Alternatively, you can share your feedback with any working group member(s) privately, and they will provide an anonymized summary to the working group. You can provide further instructions to them on how you want your feedback to be shared. Information shared with the working group might be shared anonymously with the Board and the community unless otherwise specified (e.g. as not to be shared, or as ok to be shared with personal identification by all affected parties).
You can also email us if you'd just like to learn more, or talk to us on IRC at #diversity.
Thank you in advance!
Sincerely, Nuritzi
Code of Conduct for Events
Overview
Why is this important? Having a code of conduct is an essential part of holding conferences, and is often a sponsorship requirement. It is also important for GNOME's health and longevity as it will ensure that the project is welcoming and inclusive for both current and prospective GNOME members. While GNOME is generally a friendly and welcoming place (yay!), there has been a small number of incidents over the years where a Code of Conduct has, or should have, helped the community.
Each year, organizing groups had to draft their own Code of Conduct for their event and there has often been disagreement that surrounded the adoption of a Code of Conduct for an event. Having a standard event Code of Conduct will remove work from the event organizers and uncertaintly for the community members for what to expect at the event. It will also make it easier to support event organizers, through standard processes and the establishment of a dedicated support team for Code of Conduct issues.
We want to make sure there is a consistent standard for the GNOME community across the globe. As such, the Code of Conduct will need to highlight areas that will change across geographic locations. We also recognize that we need to better define what a "GNOME event" is and when organizers will be expected to use the standard Code of Conduct.
Our Plan We have assembled a Code of Conduct Working Group to gather feedback among community members and propose a standard event Code of Conduct. The details for our proposal process are below. Once the standard Code of Conduct is approved, this team will also provide ongoing support to event organizers with its enforcement.
The Board has already approved us moving forward with this plan, so now, we are reaching out to Foundation members as part of the second step of the process.
Plan Details
Deadline: final vote by the Board by March 15th in order to propose it to the GUADEC 2017 organizers before CfP opens and in order to make it a reqirement for the GUADEC 2018 bids
Process: 1. Input from Board: Present the issue, process proposal, and solicit initial input from the Board 2. Input from Foundation members: Present the issue and solicit initial input (incidents, resources, specific considerations) from the community (send an email to the Foundation List). Invite people to become core and support members 3. Research: We will research code of conduct resources and Codes of Conduct by other groups, understand legal implications 4. First draft and Foundation input: Draft a standard event Code of Conduct and share with the community for feedback 5. Revise draft: Revise the standard event Code of Conduct and summarize feedback from the community, share with the Board 6. Input from Board: Feedback from the Board 7. Revise draft 8. Vote by the Board
Initial Members of the Working Group
Core: Expected to join all meetings and responsible for pushing the project forward. Regular meetings happen every other week on Mondays at 16:00 UTC (next meeting on September 26th).
- Allan Day Meg Ford Nuritzi Sanchez Rosanna Yuen Marina Zhurakhinskaya
Support: Interested in participating and have specific ideas for how they will be involved.
- Benjamin Berg Cosimo Cecchi Federico Mena Quintero