The Fedora Council is considering a new policy to define Community Publishing Platforms. It provides a loose framework of how moderation is handled in cases that involve the Fedora Trademark[1]. The policy as proposed[2] by Justin W. Flory, with edits from the Fedora Council, is found in Fedora-Council/council-docs#67.
For more information on the reasoning and background behind this proposal, see the Fedora Community Blog[4].
Please use this thread for comment. There is a two-week community comment period after which time the Council will begin voting on the proposal.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Community_sites_an... [2] https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/293 [3] https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/council-docs/pull-request/67 [4] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/council-policy-proposal-community-pu...
On 21/09/2020 16:20, Ben Cotton wrote:
The Fedora Council is considering a new policy to define Community Publishing Platforms. It provides a loose framework of how moderation is handled in cases that involve the Fedora Trademark[1]. The policy as proposed[2] by Justin W. Flory, with edits from the Fedora Council, is found in Fedora-Council/council-docs#67.
For more information on the reasoning and background behind this proposal, see the Fedora Community Blog[4].
Please use this thread for comment. There is a two-week community comment period after which time the Council will begin voting on the proposal.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Community_sites_an... [2] https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/293 [3] https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/council-docs/pull-request/67 [4] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/council-policy-proposal-community-pu...
The draft refers to "Adult content". Talking about the leader of an organization having a romantic conflict of interest with the leader of another organization is an ethical issue, not a pornographic one. Nobody ever made reference to private or physical aspects of their relationship.
The issue was misrepresented as a "personal attack" because people don't feel good talking about their conflicts of interest. Once again, other organizations see those conflicts of interest as legitimate concerns, for example, the ACM has this[5] in their Code of Ethics:
"Computing professionals should be forthright about any circumstances that might lead to either real or perceived conflicts of interest or otherwise tend to undermine the independence of their judgment."
The first link[1] above includes the quote "Our intent is for all Fedora community members to have a positive and welcoming experience in all community spaces, official and unofficial."
That appears to be a fantasy. No such organization ever existed, unless it was an organization of one person. Every organization has to deal with some conflict, politics and ethical issues from time to time. The most successful countries, like the United States, often see fierce debate between people in leadership positions. The countries that silence debate often become irrelevant, like North Korea, where the leader "moderated" a potential rival with an anti-aircraft gun.
The ACM's Code of Ethics also states "A computing professional should be transparent and provide full disclosure of all pertinent system capabilities, limitations, and potential problems to the appropriate parties.". When the leader of a voluntary organization has a conflict of interest, anybody else making a full disclosure to volunteers appears to be acting ethically, even if the person with a conflict of interest might not feel that is a "positive and welcoming experience"
Regards,
Daniel
5. https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics 6. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/13/north-korean-defence-minister-...
Hi Daniel,
On 9/21/20 12:31 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
The draft refers to "Adult content". Talking about the leader of an organization having a romantic conflict of interest with the leader of another organization is an ethical issue, not a pornographic one. Nobody ever made reference to private or physical aspects of their relationship.
It appears you found an older draft, probably the screenshot in the ticket. I believe it was Ben Cotton or Till Maas that pointed out the first draft of this policy tried to define too much. The conclusion I remember from the Pagure discussion is that this policy should not try to define what is or is not acceptable behavior. That is within the scope of the Code of Conduct.
Here is the final proposed draft:
https://pagure.io/fork/jflory7/Fedora-Council/council-docs/blob/6c5ce773170e...
P.S. – If you use this Firefox add-on, you can render the AsciiDoc in HTML so it is easier to read: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/asciidoctorjs-live-preview/
The first link[1] above includes the quote "Our intent is for all Fedora community members to have a positive and welcoming experience in all community spaces, official and unofficial."
That appears to be a fantasy. No such organization ever existed, unless it was an organization of one person. Every organization has to deal with some conflict, politics and ethical issues from time to time.
I agree the language in the trademark guidelines might be dated today. It is an old document originally written in 2008 or earlier. In the current global environment, I think it is easier to acknowledge now that conflict is inevitable and we should plan for it.
However, this involves revision to the Trademark Guidelines. It might be valuable to do, but it is out of scope for the Community Publishing Platforms proposal. It requires participation from Red Hat Legal (as far as I can tell). It should be driven in a new ticket.
The ACM's Code of Ethics also states "A computing professional should be transparent and provide full disclosure of all pertinent system capabilities, limitations, and potential problems to the appropriate parties.". When the leader of a voluntary organization has a conflict of interest, anybody else making a full disclosure to volunteers appears to be acting ethically, even if the person with a conflict of interest might not feel that is a "positive and welcoming experience"
The right to full disclosure is still permitted under this policy. A consideration of respectful communication in the act of full disclosure is also protected (via the Code of Conduct, not through the Community Publishing Platforms proposal).
On Monday, 21 September 2020 20:19:04 CEST Justin W. Flory (he/him) wrote:
I agree the language in the trademark guidelines might be dated today. It is an old document originally written in 2008 or earlier. In the current global environment, I think it is easier to acknowledge now that conflict is inevitable and we should plan for it.
Hello,
Random thought about Cocs and/or Trademark guidelines that I have had for the past two years. Disclaimer: Be warned I haven't sleep the last 48 hours, pardon my French, might not be well structured, etc.
1) the perimeter of the CoC/Trademark guidelines should be as restrictive as possible and not encroach the "space of *libre* expression" within Fedora: personal blogs/microblogging are off limit, unless using Fedora trademarks and syndicated to Fedora Planet/Community blogs (I don't use blogs or planet, but I assume a blogger can easily block/choose a post from appearing in the Planet/Community Blogs?) You're not off limit if you are a Fedora representative (ambassadors/members of FPC/Releng/Infra/Council, the boss...) as you should embody Fedora values.
2) the scope of the CoC/Trademark guidelines should be as vague as possible, meaning with a large reach but with no precisely defined "conflict", like currently: "Not all of us will agree all the time, but disagreement is no excuse for poor behavior and poor manners. We might all experience some frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to turn into a personal attack." Personal attack is vague enough to encompass your typical -isms and -bia without being explicit (to be clear here: racism, sexism, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, whorephobia, fatphobia, lennartphobia and other I forgot) while directed at *another Fedora contributor or group of contributors within the Fedora perimeter specified in 1)*.
3) This would exclude:
- political opinions and religious opinions which are ideas, not people, and as such are not covered. I typically expect this distinction to be not understood in Anglo-saxon countries. It may be useful to strongly discourage such discussions to take place within Fedora venues in the Coc.
- any crass speak happening inside the realm of "libre expression spaces" (read here the American 1st amdt as that's were our benefactors and servers are based) defined in 1) meaning you can be a giant dick on your secret microblog or post your lewds on Onlyfans, as long as it doesn't interfere with the work you produce within Fedora, Redhat/Fedora contributors and Fedora Trademarked venues or if you are a Fedora representative (ambassadors/members of FPC/Releng/Infra/Councils...). Of course, if people find out/dox that you are secretly a giant dick or that you posted it on Onlyfans, some contributors will less likely want to work with you, but *that shouldn't be a Coc issue in my opinion*, people are adult enough to decide with whom to associate in good conscience without a court decision. (In that case, any doxing should be ironically reprimanded, as it would be within the realm of a targeted personal attack against the giant dick). Some people will want to continue to work and ignore the drama, others will thrive on drama and refuse to work with that person anymore.
Also about enforcement, Rex Dieter said:
"My suggestion: simply remove the extraneous text "(and future Fedura events)".
Local organizers certainly should have the ability and right to remove participants that violate the rules of their local event. They do not, however, have the ability to decide what happens beyond that (I would argue that is the pervue of the board/council to decide). Given this, it's best to just not mention it, and avoid any potential confusion or misunderstandings."
https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/40#comment-42610
4) The current Coc says: "It’s important to remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one." I do not exactly share this opinion or maybe the wording. The scope should be vague and large as said in 2, but must refer to *actual* and "real" personal attacks, not just an alleged victim "feeling uncomfortable" or "feeling threatened" next to someone. I might feel uncomfortable next to 2 meters giant with biceps as big as my legs packing a CCW, but if this is not an actual real threat as in saying "I gonna eat you for dinner", an implicit rape threat like "You dropped the bar of soap", or breathing loudly 30cm behind your neck or sniffing your hair (etc), there should be no Coc involvement. We should address real acts and not acts where the alleged victim *choose to take* offense.
5) Here facts here are more important than only the subjective feeling of a person or group of persons. Which leads me to next point people are generally against: all facts of a Coc process must be released to the public, not in order to have the opinions of the mob, the Coc council still decides, but to make sure this decision is made without external pressure or conflict of interests. This decision should not be made behind close doors but publicly (anonymous vote of course). Any the alleged culprit must be able to present a defense based on the alleged facts against him or her and must be able to face his or her accusers, in *all* cases. This: https://pagure.io/fedora-diversity/ issue/3 is not what we should strive for in my opinion, this is sham justice, we don't need to know who has voted what but we need to know that all the parties involved (members of the Coc included) has no conflict of interests, the proceedings must not be hidden from public view, and the accused must be able to defend themselves publicly and know their accusers. To be more explicit: no Title IX kangaroo court like in the US, more what an actual court is supposed to be.
6) Any parties can ask for his or her case to be reexamined.
7) Coc *should* not meddle with actual legit crimes (like murdering your wife). Let the courts do their things *as long as they are
8) Coc council should strive for amicable/in good will resolution, not being trigger happy. not corrupt*. I let you judge if you want to include the U.S. as not corrupt.
Anyway, I keep hearing about this Coc draft by Bex but I never seen that actual draft. Now Marie Nordin/riecatnor is on it since last year? There are tons of links in Pagure https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/145 but this is not really structured. https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/105 was more structured but is closed as Duplicate.
Also these by Bex:
"What if we split moderation and ops duties. Under this model, ops does technical work and enacts moderator decisions that require privileges as needed. Moderators would be drawn from ambassadors, diversity and commops. The groups are already charged with helping with friendliness and accessibility. Those groups would need to decide how to determine who is a moderator and for how long.
https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/71#comment-42212
doesn't inspire me confidence for the drafted Coc. Most of our work is with the technical people through PackagingCommitee/Infra/Releng. I'd rather be judged by what is closer to my "peer" like 12 technical people than 12 ambassadors, diversity and comm-ops people that I have never encountered from my past few years within Fedora. Maybe ambassadors/diversity do a great job, but their work is probably targeted on outreach rather than reaching existing contributors. I never heard of them either before being interested in Fedora. That's why I believe it's important that there are technical people in these Coc positions too.
Consider guidelines for how to log problems and Code of Conduct violations. Consider anonymized external reporting."
https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/71#comment-42212
Please open a new private issue in the Fedora Council Pagure Repository. All reports will be kept confidential
https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/109#comment-438127
We should be as transparent as possible, keeping reports confidential is a disservice to the community, and may put a dent in the trust we may have in the Coc council.
That us my thoughts about it. I think our current Coc is a good base to start from.
Best regards,
Robert-André
Hi Robert-André, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
You shared a *lot* of feedback, so I will do my best to reply to your comments about the Community Publishing Platforms specifically. Most of your feedback was about the Code of Conduct, so I tried to avoid those comments in the interest of a focused discussion on the proposed policy.
On 9/23/20 1:01 PM, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
- the perimeter of the CoC/Trademark guidelines should be as restrictive as
possible and not encroach the "space of *libre* expression" within Fedora: personal blogs/microblogging are off limit, unless using Fedora trademarks […]
The Community Publishing Platforms policy proposal, as written, does not encroach on libre expression as you defined it. In this case, the right to free expression is only questioned if you choose to use the Fedora Trademark in your expression.
I assume you mean restrictive as in restrictive to individual people's actions on platforms not owned or controlled by Fedora, and NOT more restrictive as in defining what people can or cannot post or share online.
Besides, if you use any registered mark that you do not own, AND are not legally accountable and responsible for… that isn't exactly "free" expression either as I see it! (Coming from someone who is NOT a trademark lawyer/attorney.)
This would exclude:
- political opinions and religious opinions which are ideas, not people,
and as such are not covered. I typically expect this distinction to be not understood in Anglo-saxon countries. It may be useful to strongly discourage such discussions to take place within Fedora venues in the Coc.
Be careful about discouraging these conversations, or you will be accused of censorship. :-)
I believe it is impossible in a global community to forbid political or religious discussions. These topics inform and impact our personal experiences as a human being, living in any country with both "fair" and "unfair" laws.
However I think it is possible to have such discussions in a respectful, considerate way. I think it is a better use of time and energy to define *how* to have those conversations, instead of "slapping" people on the wrist for mentioning a news headline or recent development by any political or religious leader in the world.
I don't have an answer for how to do that right. Maybe in a future proposal. But for the Community Publishing Platforms proposal, it is out of scope. I appreciate this nuance anyways though.
Of course, if people find out/dox that you are secretly a giant dick orthat you posted it on Onlyfans, some contributors will less likely want to work with you, but *that shouldn't be a Coc issue in my opinion*, people are adult enough to decide with whom to associate in good conscience without a court decision. (In that case, any doxing should be ironically reprimanded, as it would be within the realm of a targeted personal attack against the giant dick). Some people will want to continue to work and ignore the drama, others will thrive on drama and refuse to work with that person anymore.
Doxxing comes at a great risk for the person being doxxed. I am not sure if you have received death threats, had your family contacted by anonymous people threatening harm, or ever been threatened to have your home address / phone number leaked on violent pornography sites. But I have! It is not fun. It can be scary especially if you live in a country with loose restrictions on firearm/weapon ownership and/or the integrity of law enforcement is under question.
I think it is not enough to leave it to people to decide who they work with or not. Usually the answer to "not working with that person anymore" is to stop contributing to anything where you interact with that person, because that person's presence is damaging to the offline safety, protection, and privacy of you and even your family.
This is *definitely* a Code of Conduct issue and not related to the Community Publishing Platforms proposal. But I wanted to add this perspective anyways.
- Any parties can ask for his or her case to be reexamined.
The right to appeal. Yes, this is important!
Anyway, I keep hearing about this Coc draft by Bex but I never seen that actual draft. Now Marie Nordin/riecatnor is on it since last year? There are tons of links in Pagure https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/145 but this is not really structured.
We should be as transparent as possible, keeping reports confidential
is a
disservice to the community, and may put a dent in the trust we may have in the Coc council.
Yes, it has taken a long time and there is still not a public version. Believe me, I would like to see something more public too. :) But the challenge of being an open source project housed under a major U.S.-based corporation is there are legal policies and laws that… just take time to avoid missteps that might put Red Hat Incorporated (or IBM) in a courtroom.
The draft is making rounds through Red Hat Legal because Red Hat is "legally accountable" for Fedora (again, according to me, a non-lawyer and non-Red Hat employee). Wearing my Council hat, I know there is real work happening on this behind the scenes and it matters a lot to Marie and the rest of the Fedora Council too.
I hope I can ask you to extend the benefit of the doubt to this labor, and I look forward to hearing your perspective once a public draft of the Code of Conduct is available.
On Monday, 21 September 2020 16:20:48 CEST Ben Cotton wrote:
The Fedora Council is considering a new policy to define Community Publishing Platforms. It provides a loose framework of how moderation is handled in cases that involve the Fedora Trademark[1]. The policy as proposed[2] by Justin W. Flory, with edits from the Fedora Council, is found in Fedora-Council/council-docs#67.
For more information on the reasoning and background behind this proposal, see the Fedora Community Blog[4].
Please use this thread for comment. There is a two-week community comment period after which time the Council will begin voting on the proposal.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Community_sites_a nd_accounts
[2] https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/293
[3] https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/council-docs/pull-request/67 [4] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/council-policy-proposal-community-p ublishing-platforms/
Wait a minute, because one have #Fedora as a topic on Twitter, he or she is subject to this policy? That doesn't sit well with me, considering the many touchy subjects (religion, politics) that may be started on this platform or Pleroma/Mastodon.
« Community sites and accounts
Fedora defines community sites and accounts as pages related to the Fedora Project, but not officially maintained by Marketing team members or Social Media administrators. Often, these groups are specific to a region or country. These pages are usually run by an individual contributor or a group of contributors. These sites are non-commercial in nature (they are not selling a product).
Examples of these pages include (but are not limited to):
*placing the Fedora Trademarks on a personal web site or blog to support Fedora* *making a page on a social networking web service to support Fedora* linking to Fedora from a wiki to provide information or show support for Fedora
While these online community sites and accounts *are not officially endorsed by the Fedora Project or Red Hat, because they are part of the Fedora Community (and use the Fedora trademarks to identify themselves)*, their site owners, moderators, administrators, and users are required to comply with the Fedora Code of Conduct. Community sites and accounts which are unable to meet this standard of conduct will be required to cease use of the Fedora trademarks, and will be not be promoted/advertised by Fedora. Our intent is for all Fedora community members to have a positive and welcoming experience in all community spaces, official and unofficial. »
Does that only apply to people using the Fedora Logo or anyone that has a link to the Fedora Project and it subsidiaries (Wiki…) or has the name "Fedora" somewhere in their blog/microblog description?
Hi,
Wait a minute, because one have #Fedora as a topic on Twitter, he or she is
subject to this policy? That doesn't sit well with me, considering the many touchy subjects (religion, politics) that may be started on this platform or Pleroma/Mastodon.
No, it doesn't. Your accounts are yours, no matter what you said on it. This applies to the twitter accounts @fedora @fedora_community and in general the accounts listed as community accounts, e.g.: Regional Fedora accounts.
Does that only apply to people using the Fedora Logo or anyone that has a
link to the Fedora Project and it subsidiaries (Wiki…) or has the name "Fedora" somewhere in their blog/microblog description?
This is a great question, IMHO it applies to all the sites that offers communitary support, like telegram accounts, web sites (blogs) and where people can try to get help from community members.
Br,
On 21/09/2020 16:20, Ben Cotton wrote:
Please use this thread for comment. There is a two-week community comment period after which time the Council will begin voting on the proposal.
Given that the proposal refers to the Code of Conduct and there is currently a plan[1] to upgrade from a Code of Conduct to a Code of Ethics, why are you rushing to do this Community Publishing Platforms change in 2 weeks?
Would the Fedora Council simply put this on hold until after the Code of Ethics is final? Then there will be a better opportunity for the community to discuss how the documents work together.
Regards,
Daniel
1. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@lists.fedorapr...
Hi,
The work on the new Code of Conduct has been underway for some time. My predecessor, Bex, began this work 2 years ago[1]. As you can see, it is a long process. Although I do agree that there is some connection between the two documents, the new Code of Conduct does not need to block a policy for Community Publishing Platforms, as we do not know when the new CoC will be in place.
Let's proceed with this and if some small changes need to be made later on, that is something that can be done.
[1] https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/145
Best,
--
Marie Nordin
Fedora Community Action and Impact Coordinator
Red Hat https://www.redhat.com/ • Fedora Project https://getfedora.org/
She/Her/Hers
T: +1.973.800.4967
IRC: riecatnor
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:54 AM Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.pro wrote:
On 21/09/2020 16:20, Ben Cotton wrote:
Please use this thread for comment. There is a two-week community comment period after which time the Council will begin voting on the proposal.
Given that the proposal refers to the Code of Conduct and there is currently a plan[1] to upgrade from a Code of Conduct to a Code of Ethics, why are you rushing to do this Community Publishing Platforms change in 2 weeks?
Would the Fedora Council simply put this on hold until after the Code of Ethics is final? Then there will be a better opportunity for the community to discuss how the documents work together.
Regards,
Daniel
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@lists.fedorapr... _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@lists.fedorapr...
On 22/09/2020 17:01, Marie Nordin wrote:
Hi,
The work on the new Code of Conduct has been underway for some time. My predecessor, Bex, began this work 2 years ago[1]. As you can see, it is a long process. Although I do agree that there is some connection between the two documents, the new Code of Conduct does not need to block a policy for Community Publishing Platforms, as we do not know when the new CoC will be in place.
Let's proceed with this and if some small changes need to be made later on, that is something that can be done.
It may just be coincidence, but FSFE decided to make a policy[2] for communications and things went downhill badly from there.
Fedora is obviously not the same as FSFE: everybody knows Red Hat is behind Fedora. In FSFE, volunteers were told that FSFE is independent.
Given the history of such actions, even if Red Hat had nothing to do with that in other organizations, I feel it would be more respectful towards volunteers to avoid the perception that something is being rushed.
The community could produce alternative ideas that might lead to more innovation. To suggest one alternative: would volunteers like to have an elected media team, similar to the election of the Fedora Council? How many more ideas might come from other volunteers with a consultation beyond this mailing list?
Regards,
Daniel
2. https://fsfellowship.eu/2018/09/10/an-fsfe-fellowship-representatives-dilemm...
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 05:57:03PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
The community could produce alternative ideas that might lead to more innovation. To suggest one alternative: would volunteers like to have an elected media team, similar to the election of the Fedora Council? How many more ideas might come from other volunteers with a consultation beyond this mailing list?
I don't see a particular benefit in having elections for this kind of thing. The people who are involved in Fedora media efforts are there because they've been working on podcasts, videos, art, etc., and I don't see a need to have a select committee.
On 22/09/2020 19:55, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 05:57:03PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
The community could produce alternative ideas that might lead to more innovation. To suggest one alternative: would volunteers like to have an elected media team, similar to the election of the Fedora Council? How many more ideas might come from other volunteers with a consultation beyond this mailing list?
I don't see a particular benefit in having elections for this kind of thing. The people who are involved in Fedora media efforts are there because they've been working on podcasts, videos, art, etc., and I don't see a need to have a select committee.
I don't really want to emphasize anything for or against my own ideas, I simply wanted to suggest there is a whole lot of space for empowering people rather than putting limits on people. I'm sure other people may have ideas that are more relevant.
That is not a criticism of the policy or the existing efforts people are making.
My suggestion to allow time for wider consultation was not an attempt to make it go away, quite the opposite, I feel that it is important to talk about how communications works in any community. Having that discussion too quickly doesn't do it justice.
Regards,
Daniel
On 9/22/20 3:53 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
Given that the proposal refers to the Code of Conduct and there is currently a plan[1] to upgrade from a Code of Conduct to a Code of Ethics, why are you rushing to do this Community Publishing Platforms change in 2 weeks?
Would the Fedora Council simply put this on hold until after the Code of Ethics is final? Then there will be a better opportunity for the community to discuss how the documents work together.
Given that this policy change was first drafted and proposed in April, and since I labored on it in unpaid volunteer hours, this does not feel like "rushing" to me. (I actually wrote this before I joined the Fedora Council this year.) But I admit my bias as author.
I agree with Marie's thinking to move forward with this policy, and if we need to make revisions later, we will. That's what we do in Fedora. Iterative learning. :) The feedback shared so far in the council-discuss thread does not convince me to hold up the process, although there are a few comments in the Pagure Pull Request that ask good questions. I will follow up there some time this week.
On 22/09/2020 23:10, Justin W. Flory (he/him) wrote:
On 9/22/20 3:53 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
Given that the proposal refers to the Code of Conduct and there is currently a plan[1] to upgrade from a Code of Conduct to a Code of Ethics, why are you rushing to do this Community Publishing Platforms change in 2 weeks?
Would the Fedora Council simply put this on hold until after the Code of Ethics is final? Then there will be a better opportunity for the community to discuss how the documents work together.
Given that this policy change was first drafted and proposed in April, and since I labored on it in unpaid volunteer hours, this does not feel like "rushing" to me. (I actually wrote this before I joined the Fedora Council this year.) But I admit my bias as author.
I agree with Marie's thinking to move forward with this policy, and if we need to make revisions later, we will. That's what we do in Fedora. Iterative learning. :) The feedback shared so far in the council-discuss thread does not convince me to hold up the process, although there are a few comments in the Pagure Pull Request that ask good questions. I will follow up there some time this week.
Well, whether I agree with it or not, I want to thank you for providing an opportunity to document my own concerns about Codes of Conduct.
I look forward to reading what other people have to say on it.
council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Ben Cotton -
Daniel Pocock -
Eduard Lucena -
Justin W. Flory -
Justin W. Flory (he/him)
-
Marie Nordin -
Matthew Miller -
Robert-André Mauchin