[COC-discuss] Classification framework
Jeff McKenna
jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
Wed Oct 21 05:32:11 PDT 2015
Hi Cameron,
I follow this closely, and in fact I have already used the CodeOfConduct
committee once for an issue recently (discussed with Camille and Kristin
privately). I find the committee a great help to the foundation.
Having a team focused on diversity in the foundation is a great thing.
-jeff
On 2015-10-21 7:41 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> 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>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>
>>
>>
More information about the COC-discuss
mailing list