[COC-discuss] CoC Committee - the state of things (Cameron Shorter)

[Cameron Shorter]

Hi Camille,

On 15/10/2015 7:22 am, Camille Acey wrote:
> Sorry for the delay in response, Cameron. I was using digest mode and 
> as a result, I lost track of this email.
Thanks for getting back.  I was surprised not to get a response and 
thought it was uncharacteristic of you. Lost email would explain it.
>
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 3:00 PM, <coc-discuss-request at lists.osgeo.org 
> <mailto:coc-discuss-request at lists.osgeo.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Camille,
>     Probably first step would be listing CoC Committee members, probably
>     here: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct_Committee
>
>
> This is something that is just determined by who signs up for the 
> mailing list. I can grab the list from there, but I imagine membership 
> will change fairly regularly.

Based on http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct_Committee , there is 
intended to be a core voting committee. I know that you put out a call 
for volunteers for that committee. Did you get a good response for 
volunteers? Have you selected the core voting committee? If so, I 
suggest it worth while publishing who they are.

With regards to publishing members of the mailing list, I suggest 
following the practices of other OSGeo committees and invite people to 
add themselves, probably here:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct_Committee#Membership

Some people might want to remain anonymous, which should be ok. There 
are a number of good reasons for wanting to be anonymous - such as it 
conflicting with current employment.
>
>
>
>     One thing I've been pondering since seeing the first few questions
>     about
>     CoC being discussed is how to "classify" what is considered a CoC
>     breach. I'm yet to see any hard guidelines as to what is/is not
>     acceptable. (And this sucks up large amounts of bandwidth on email
>     lists).
>
>
> You did good research on this for FOSS4G CoC so it'd be great if you 
> could get the ball rolling here!
Ok, I'll start looking into it.
>
>
>     Looking around for what we can borrow as a standard reference, I
>     wonder
>     whether we can borrow from film classifications:
>
>     I'm familiar with the Australian classifications (being an Australian
>     myself), which are well defined:
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#Film_and_video_game_classifications
>
>     For a conference, we could suggest a classification at a level or
>     G or PG:
>     /Parental Guidance (PG) ? Not recommended for viewing or playing by
>     people under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians. Contains
>     material that young viewers may find confusing or upsetting. The
>     content
>     is mild in impact.//
>     //Violence should be mild and infrequent, and should be presented
>     in "a
>     stylised or theatrical fashion, or in an historical context".//
>     //Themes should have a "mild sense of menace or threat" and be
>     "discreet"//
>     //Frightening or Intense Scenes should be "mildly frightening" and
>     have
>     "low intensity"//
>     //Crude Humor should be "mild" or "low level"//
>     //Sex, nudity and drug use should be mild, infrequent, "discreetly
>     implied" and "justified by context".//
>     //Coarse language should be mild and infrequent, and be justified by
>     context./
>
>
> This *might* work.
>
> Camille
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> COC-discuss mailing list
> COC-discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss

-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/coc-discuss/attachments/20151016/5088e3c1/attachment.html>