#86: Consider anti-harrassment policy for FUDCon ------------------------------------+--------------------------------------- Reporter: pfrields | Owner: pfrields Type: Task | Status: reopened Priority: normal | Milestone: Component: FUDCon Blacksburg 2012 | Resolution: Keywords: | ------------------------------------+--------------------------------------- Comment (by bochecha):
Replying to [comment:7 adamwill]:
I'd like to re-open this, and propose a modification: why don't we have
a *Fedora* anti-harassment policy? There is no need to restrict it to conferences, or a conference. Fedora is an inherently community-based project, and I don't see any problem with asserting a requirement that people refrain from harassment in all involvement with the Fedora community. That way, events (starting with the next FUDCon) and Fedora sub-projects can simply 'include' the project-wide anti-harassment policy.
I'd go even further in the direction of your modification and suggest that we shouldn't restrict it to harrassment at all.
I would have thought that harrassment was covered by the existing policy of being excellent to each other? At least it seems to me that harrassing someone is nothing but an example (although a pretty bad one) of a behavior that is not excellent.
Perhaps we'd need a policy that says something like: {{{ **Be excellent to each other.**
That's it, really. But if you need it, here are a few examples of what we do not consider to be excellent behavior: - harrassment, by electronic means or in real life (e.g at conferences) - discrimination of any kind - ...
Again, those are examples and should not be considered an exhaustive list of stuff you're not allowed to do. The exhaustive definition is contained in the first sentance of this policy. }}}
I agree with Adam that we need to have a more explicit policy for events and more generally for all community interactions, but I'd rather have a very broad definition like the one we seem to have used implicitly for a while.
I would hope that cases of harrassment would generally be relatively easy to agree on as being an example of a "not excellent behavior" and so they would be objected by the whole community, without the need for any official enforcement (as a strict policy would require).
But maybe I'm just too optimistic and most people would need the threat of that enforcement before they behave properly...