Hi everyone,
The Document Foundation has updated its Code of Conduct, the set of guidelines that explains to our contributors and users what behaviours and interactions we value:
https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/code-of-conduct/
On 06/10/2022 12:39:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The Document Foundation has updated its Code of Conduct, the set of
> guidelines that explains to our contributors and users what behaviours
> and interactions we value:
>
> https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/code-of-conduct/
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 ?
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.
Previously we had a carefully balanced pair of people: Bubli (later Sophie) and myself chosen to give confidence to any reporter and/or person reported against that they might have someone that can empathize with their perspective - so we could (ideally) achieve a quiet resolution, reconciliation and quickly restore peace, reducing escalations. That had minor tweaks over time.
In contrast - it seems that this policy has been written in secret has a large volume of novel text and lots of quirks - eg. being based on an obsolete version of the Contributor Covenant for no obvious reason (the newer 2.1 is unsurprisingly better).
I've not, as yet, had a chance to fully read the text, but the process so far needlessly burns my trust in the balance of the result. As the only coder on this new CoC committee (and having been unilaterally volunteered by others to enforce something I've not had a chance to read) - I'm seriously considering my position.
Unfortunately it is not the first time that this approach has been used which I can characterize as:
* a small group plans & drafts in secret
* it decides not to include known interested or affected
people around the topic
* public / wider discussion and input is avoided
* it suddenly dumps a big chunk of new rules on the community
* no time is allowed for input
* there is a rush to vote against an imposed deadline
This has been used before to give really poor results and to significantly re-shape the community. There appears to be no reason for things to be done in this way. It is a really unfortunate way to work that damages trust.
It also appears to conceive of those with different views as being fundamentally the problem - to be excluded - rather than a resource to collaborate with to make something widely acceptable to everyone for the good of TDF.
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.
However - bouncing this through, in this way, without notice or discussion looks extremely rude. It is not how a community I'm happy to be part of should behave. It is far from inclusive.
Perhaps when I have more calm & space - I'll try to work out if there is any genuine willingness to engage with improving the text. From a quick skim some details look quite problematic.
In general there is substantial scope for mis-use (or even just the damaging appearance of it) around CoC enforcement and we need to build confidence that we will get this right.
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.
Regards,
Michael.
[1] - the latest Contributor Covenant is rather less problematic than in the past
Hi Michael,
I'm quite surprised by your comments.
I understand that you talked to many people at LibOCon in Milan and that you might have forgotten about the nice long conversation we had in relation to the many improvements that we are implementing in TDF.
You surely played an important role in the CoC Team and I've been told that, over the years, you did certainly influence the structure of previous CoC Policy.
I understand you are upset for not having been part of this great achievement, the result of a team effort which included members of the board, the MC and the team.
I'm sure also other ex-directors would have been eager and proud of being part of this team effort but we managed to meet only a week ago to finally agree on the text which, since then, received only minor corrections suggested by the team and the board.
Everyone in the room was very happy about what we collectively achieved to do and I'm sure the community appreciate our efforts.
This is just the beginning, the new CoC Team will work to iron out some errors we found (sorry we are not all native English speakers) and to progressively improve other areas of the Policy.
Contributions from the whole community are desired and welcome and as you are a native English speaker please do suggest further improvements.
Ciao
Paolo
Hi Michael,
The process around the new CoC has been, for various reasons, under some pressure.
I apologize for the moments that I could have asked about your involvement - or the lacking of - in this process, as member of the Committee.
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.
Then:
has a large volume of novel text and lots of quirks - eg. being based on an obsolete version of the Contributor Covenant for no obvious reason (the newer 2.1 is unsurprisingly better).
That information is new to me. I'll check that. (*)
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.
I always find it interesting to hear people talking about unhelpful behavior: it makes me wonder what happened (finding out might take some work..) and - indeed - what to learn on how to possibly improve etc.
From a quick skim some details look quite problematic.
Happy to learn your thoughts there.
In general there is substantial scope for mis-use (or even just the damaging appearance of it) around CoC enforcement ..
Similar here.
Thanks,
Cor
*) https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/1/code_of_conduct/
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