[COC-discuss] Classification framework
Cameron Shorter
cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Wed Oct 21 03:41:07 PDT 2015
Hi Camille,
+1 from me for your suggestions too.
I'm interested to know who is subscribed to this list? It feels a bit
silly writing to a list that doesn't have anyone listening on the other
end. If you are watching I suggest speaking up and introducing yourself.
Has there been discussions on a private list that I'm unaware of?
Camille, if you are a list admin, would you mind letting us know how
many people are subscribed to the list.
Warm regards, Cameron
On 21/10/2015 1:34 pm, Camille Acey wrote:
> Thanks, Rob!
>
> If you know of any other resources or have any recent/relevant forum
> or OSGeo experience that would inform these two tasks that'd be great!
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Rob Emanuele <rdemanuele at gmail.com
> <mailto:rdemanuele at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Chiming in just to say, +1 on those two suggested next steps.
>
> I'm not sure if anyone would take issue with using Google forms as
> opposed to an open source reporting system run on OSGeo
> infrastructure (given the recent discussions on OSGeo-Discuss
> about code hosting), but I think that the ease of use for Google
> forms would make it a great choice.
>
> The article on enforcement is very thorough, and I think it
> provides a good method to approach enforcement in a reasoned and
> de-escalating way. The line "Generally conference staff are not
> equipped for evidence gathering: we suggest not going around and
> "interviewing" others involved." The enforcers are not detectives
> or the police, and it makes sense that the sole focus of any
> actions would be "*the safety of your community members from
> harassment*".
>
> -Rob
>
> 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 <http://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 <mailto: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 manycountry
> classifications
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_content_rating_systems>.
> To remove ambiguity, we refer to theAustralian 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.
> o *Violence*should be mild and infrequent, and should be
> presented in "a stylised or theatrical fashion, or in
> an historical context".
> o *Themes*should have a "mild sense of menace or threat"
> and be "discreet"
> o *Frightening or Intense Scenes*should be "mildly
> frightening" and have "low intensity"
> o *Crude Humor*should be "mild" or "low level"
> o *Sex, nudity and drug use*should be mild, infrequent,
> "discreetly implied" and "justified by context".
> o *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 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>, Wwww.lisasoft.com <http://www.lisasoft.com>, F+61 2 9009 5099 <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> COC-discuss mailing list
> COC-discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:COC-discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/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/20151021/82a3da18/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the COC-discuss
mailing list