#40: Enforcing the code of conduct
Reporter: duffy | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: Legal | Resolution:
Keywords: coc, code of conduct |
Comment (by decause):
Replying to [comment:1 hguemar]:
> I raise to the attention of the council that the solution suggested
the original post would be either difficult to implement or plain
in many european countries.
> Blacklist are often subjected to strict regulations, and we don't
to enter this field.
> If someone has an unacceptable behaviour, it should be either raised
the local authorities or the council depending of the gravity.
> => should be
> "Attendees who are in violation of this violation of this policy may
asked to leave and reported to the council or local
And the council does what? If you want to leave it undefined in the
of conduct I can see the utility in that, however I do think there
be a plan/SOP as Langdon has suggested.
If this is following the discussion we had at the FLOCK Council Update
double-session, then another issue at hand is that we do not have an
"official institutional memory" for CoC violations. It has been mentioned
that the Community Working Group is often where these situations are
resolved, and if this is the case, then keeping a record that includes
reports to the CWG, conference organizers, and Council will help inform
future actions and support decisions.
The private council trac may be an alright place to start collecting these
until/if/when we establish an official channel?
We as a group also have methods at our disposal that do not amount to
blacklisting. For example, we can choose not to provide travel funding
individuals that have egregious enough offenses or are repeat
I certainly am not comfortable financially assisting people that
the code of conduct. It sends completely the wrong message in my
Once we have a list of violations, we can check against it when making
support decisions (whack-a-mole re-registration issues notwithstanding.)
So if the council wishes to change the code of conduct as Haïkel has
suggested (odd copy/paste error aside), we should make sure we have
understanding of what the council will actually do in that event.
I think the reporting/review SOP should be super public and transparent,
and the remedial actions allow for case-by-case solutions. A list of
historical and potential sanctions (rejection of registration/speaker
proposals at conferences, banning in IRC, denial of travel/financial aid,
revocation of group membership/status) would establish options without
dictating remedy. That is kind of how it's done in other contexts (e.g.
"violators could face up to $X fine and Y time period in sanction.")
I can appreciate the earlier comment in this thread about not wanting to
make hollow threats, but I reckon a list of sanctions itself is a
deterrent against some types of anti-social behavior.
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/40#comment:5>
Fedora Council Public Tickets