[COC-discuss] Classification framework

Wed Oct 21 04:30:29 PDT 2015

Camille, I'm not sure how much I have to add...I do have anecdotal
experience with dealing with an inappropriate tweet of a slide that was to
presented at the FOSS4G NA 2015 conference, while I was program chair
there. If you think that would be useful to describe, I could write my
experience up with that and post it to the mailing list when I have some
time. Otherwise, I appreciate the efforts of the CoC committee and am
willing to help if I can make myself useful!

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Camille Acey <joyousnew at gmail.com> 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>
> 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 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
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> COC-discuss mailing list
>> COC-discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/coc-discuss
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/coc-discuss/attachments/20151021/f17e8451/attachment.html>