Ubuntu Code of Conduct: omissions and suggestions

Fri Apr 8 05:33:50 UTC 2016

I might also throw in Christie Koehler with Authentic Engine she does
consultancy around topics like this and was pivotal in making Mozilla's
Community Participation Guidelines and has been a proponent of
projects and conferences having solid CoC's and Anti-Harassment Policies.

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Elizabeth K. Joseph <lyz at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt at canonical.com>
> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hi folks
> >
> > When Ubuntu’s Code of Conduct
> > <http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/conduct> was published in
> > 2005, it was groundbreaking. Few other open-source projects had one.
> > It was far from perfect, but it had real benefits — most of all in
> > establishing expectations, and rarely also in providing the authority
> > to remove counterproductive project members.
> >
> > The Code had a minor update in 2009,
> > <https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/updating-the-ubuntu-code-of-conduct>
> > and a major revision in 2012. Since then, tens of thousands of other
> > open-source projects have discussed and adopted their own codes of
> > conduct. So it’s no surprise that the state of the art has advanced.
> >
> > By today’s standards, Ubuntu’s code of conduct falls short in four
> > notable areas, as identified on the Geek Feminism wiki:
> > <http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct_evaluations>
>
> This has been on my mind a lot since Sarah Sharp's keynote at SCALE14x
> (where we had the UbuCon Summit). It's a great talk, video here:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCvK_7FagGE&t=31m5s
>
> During part of it she suggests that you shouldn't write your own CoC
> and enforcement policy and that the following orgs and people can help
> with this:
>
> Safety First PDX: http://safetyfirstpdx.org/
> Ashe Dryden: http://www.ashedryden.com/
> Frame Shift Consulting: http://frameshiftconsulting.com/
>
> I know we've "been fine" always writing our own (indeed, ours was the
> first in an open source project AFAIK), but I think it's worth
> considering if we want some help from experts :)
>
> > 1.  No descriptions of common but unacceptable behavior. This means,
> >     for example, that the Ubuntu IRC Council has had to provide their
> >     own descriptions, even of things that don’t apply just to IRC.
> >     <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/Guidelines>
>
> This may be an interesting one to dig into, but I'm not sure how I
> feel about it. I worry that giving examples can provide a framework
> that people feel they can wiggle out of. But again, I'm not one of the
> experts, so there may be a great deal of value here.
>
> > 2.  No reporting instructions with contact information. This is perhaps
> >     the most glaring omission (and what motivated me to write today).
>
> This is a good point. I was very vocal[0] back when we had in person
> UDS that various types of contact information was made available on
> the anti-harassment page for the event, but I never followed through
> in our written document online. I think adding a section about
> contacting the CC would be great.
>
> > 3.  No information about enforcement. Version 1.0 said “the Ubuntu
> >     Community Council will arbitrate in any dispute”, with 1.1 adding
> >     “Ubuntu governance bodies”, but 2.0 removed both of these.
> >     <https://launchpad.net/codeofconduct> Matthew Garrett made a start
> >     on defining the enforcement process in 2007, but it didn’t go
> >     anywhere. <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CodeOfConductDisputeResolution>
> >     The current process may be precise and well-known to the Community
> >     team, but defining it in the Code itself would be much more
> >     reassuring to potential reporters.
>
> Good point, this should be addressed.
>
> > 4.  No clear demarcation between an anti-harassment policy and more
> >     general community guidelines. And more pertinently, no clear
> >     anti-harassment policy at all.
>
> We should definitely work on this. It's easy to explicitly condemn
> harassment as C de-Avillez suggests, but we may need to explore
> whether we need to go beyond this (define it, have a separate policy).
>
> > I would add a fifth issue:
> >
> > 5.  Needless bureaucracy of “signing” the Code
>
> This has been something we've been concerned about for years. I
> believe the main holdup was that it's all done in Launchpad and
> Launchpad has been feature frozen for years, essentially bounding us
> to use what we had with GPG signatures, and having few other options.
>
> My hope is that we can finally find a solution so we can move past
> this, perhaps even moving the process off of Launchpad if that
> continues to be a blocker.
>
> [0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/uds-project/+bug/907673
>
> --
> Elizabeth Krumbach Joseph || Lyz || pleia2
>
> --
> Ubuntu-community-team mailing list
> Ubuntu-community-team at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-community-team
>

-- 
*Benjamin Kerensa*
*http://benjaminkerensa.com <http://benjaminkerensa.com>*
*"I am what I am because of who we all are" - Ubuntu*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/attachments/20160407/6c4fcdac/attachment.html>