Ubuntu Code of Conduct: omissions and suggestions

[Simon Quigley]

Elizabeth K. Joseph <lyz at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Alberto Salvia Novella
> <es20490446e at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The truth is been a victim of harassment is a choice.
>
> I don't want to side-track this important discussion, but this kind of
> comment makes me very unsafe and I think it's important to call it
> out. I'm shocked that you think it's something that's OK to say in our
> community.
>
> There are people in our community over the years who have been
> threatened and harassed. Their perspective or how they dealt with it
> does not change the fact that they were victims.
>
> When I was bombarded by the sharing of my home address and phone
> number on IRC for 2 weeks, and subsequently received non-stop phone
> calls from various phone numbers as a result of my work in Ubuntu
> Women, I did not "choose" to be a victim. It was scary and I was
> honestly afraid for my safety. These people weren't part of our
> community, but I share this very extreme example to illustrate that it
> absolutely does happen. Less extreme versions between people who are
> members of our community happen with more regularity.

We need to distinguish a line here. I am not expressing a warrant for
any kind of harassment, and I believe that what you described is
absolutely unacceptable for anybody to have to face. But I think what
Alberto is describing is more of a trivial harassment, where they
*don't* have your address and phone number, it might just be over IRC
or email (*one* medium of communication). In that case, an /ignore
works well (because you can simply ignore them and move on with your
life), and I back up his point. From reading his email, I did *not*
see a malevolent intent. But anything above that is quite frankly
unacceptable and terrifying for anyone to have to face. So I agree
that anti-harassment should be explicitly pointed out as prohibited in
the Code of Conduct, but if it's just a troll that says something
trivial, I think it's easy to shake off. We walk a fine line. :)

I also think it makes sense to update the Code of Conduct to make sure
it adheres to the standards set by the Community Council today. I
haven't seen anything *specific*, but it doesn't hurt to take a look
and re-evaluate and re-justify all of the points again, to ensure
clarity and precision.

Michael Hall <mhall119 at ubuntu.com> wrote:

*snip*

> First, you are correct that anybody who participates in the Ubuntu
> community is expected to follow the Code of Conduct, and the
> consequences of not doing so are the same whether or not you've signed
> it. Signing it is simply a way of telling the rest of the community that
> you agree to act according to it, and can then be granted permissions
> and resources that require that additional level of trust in your behavior.
>
> Using GPG to sign it has mostly worked for Ubuntu in the past, but I
> recognize that the makeup of our community is changing and it may not be
> the best way of going about it anymore. The process could easily be
> changed to a simple web form backed by an Ubuntu One login. The only
> exception to that would be Launchpad, which uses the GPG signing process
> to grant access to features like PPAs, and which would require more work
> to change simply because it's been built in there for so long.

Let's bring this back up. Anybody open to it? Anybody have anything
against it? I think the Ubuntu One login idea could be offered as an
alternative to the GPG signing process for a lot of people.

Stephen M. Webb <stephen.webb at canonical.com> wrote:
> This is the wrong question.  I would argue the second question is not even appropriate under the Code of Conduct.

Borderline, if a CC member needs to act, please do so, but please see
my point above.

> The Code of Conduct exists because Ubuntu is not just for those with unchecked privileges.  Acceptable and unacceptable
> conduct must be explicit and clear, and the processes and procedures for addressing violation need to be explicit and clear.

I agree 100%. Clarity and explicitness should be critical right now.

> This is something that should probably be addressed publicly at the next UOS after a new draft of the CoC has been
> prepared by the Communiy Council.

I agree, but this email thread is also a good place for this as well.
Let's talk about this, should we have a UOS session?

Mark Shuttleworth <mark at ubuntu.com> wrote:

*snip*

> I'd like to keep the administrative processes out of the CoC itself (it
> can refer to them by URL) so things like who handles what when and
> contact addresses etc should be wiki / web pages. Similarly, I don't
> think 'common but unacceptable behaviour' belongs inside the code, but
> it could be referred to, allowing that portion to evolve more naturally.
> In principle, organising that information in a single place is very helpful.

+1

-- 
Simon Quigley
tsimonq2 at ubuntu.com
tsimonq2 on Freenode