[COC-discuss] Classification framework

[Camille Acey]

Thanks, Cameron.

We are not looking to make any changes to the CoC at this point. Our job is
to:


   1. put together process around how members can submit reports of CoC
   violations
   2. create specific guidance for LOCs, moderators and the board about how
   to deal with those reports and reporters.

We put together a list of places to start here -
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/CodeofConduct_Documents#Resources

I suggest we:

   1. use this form as a starting point for Task #1 -
   https://www.drupal.org/governance/community-working-group/incident-report
   (not sure if its ok to use Google Forms, that's what drupal.org uses)
   2. start an Enforcement page (useful info here
   http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Responding_to_reports
   )

What do you think? Is anyone else out there? if so, please chime in!

Camille
On Oct 16, 2015 6:57 PM, "Cameron Shorter" <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
> I've drafted a suggested amendment to our CoC to help us answer the
> question of what is/is not in scope of a CoC breach.
>
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Code_Of_Conduct#Classification_Context
>
> Classification Context
>
> This additional section proposed for version 2.0:
>
> As guidance, content should align with a film classification of: 12+ or PG
> or similar. There are many country classifications
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_content_rating_systems>. To
> remove ambiguity, we refer to the Australian PG Classification
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#Film_and_video_game_classifications>
> :
>
>    - *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.
>
>
>
> On 16/10/2015 6:38 am, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>
>
>> 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
>>
>
> --
> 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/20151020/e9364861/attachment.html>