[COC-discuss] [OSGeo-Discuss] Changes (and proposed changes) regarding the Code of Conduct

Mon Dec 10 00:37:32 PST 2018

Thank you Ben!

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:09 AM Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben at transient.nz> wrote:

> María,
>
> thank you for taking the lead on this important issue. While in my view,
> the majority of OSGeo participants act with consideration and in good
> faith, a single malicious act is one too many. We get the behaviour we
> tolerate, and a strong code of conduct helps us prevent behaviour that
> we do not want. In addition to a code of conduct, we also need a
> complaint procedure to enforce it.
>
> Did we ever hear back from any other foundations about how they handle
> code of conduct enforcement?
>
> Note that I am not at this time available for any OSGeo roles, but I
> have subscribed to the coc-discuss list.
>
> Here are some of my opinions. In them, I will use words like "must"
> solely because I think that these words should be used in the OSGeo
> procedure, but please remember that these are just my opinions and I do
> not claim to be right or an authority on these matters. I am also not a
> lawyer. Whenever I refer to complaints, I mean CoC complaints not
> general complaints:
>
> - Everyone who is expected to handle a complaint must first be trained
> in the complaint procedure and the OSGeo code of conduct, have access to
> psychological and legal support, and be covered by OSGeo legal liability
> insurance. The latter likely includes all OSGeo officers.
>
> - Natural justice must apply to the complaint procedure. At some point,
> the respondent will receive the complaint, including the identity of the
> complainant and alleged witnesses. This must be disclosed to the
> complainant before they submit their complaint. We cannot act on
> anonymous complaints nor consider hearsay.
>
> - Code of Conduct enforcement is a civil matter and the standard of
> proof is balance of probability.
>
> - Do we ask complainants what redress they seek? This could range from a
> private or public apology from the respondent, private or public censure
> of the respondent by the conduct committee, or expulsion from OSGeo.
>
> - Complaints must be handled in confidence, except where the complainant
> makes them public. Breaches of confidence must be considered a CoC
> violation. Nothing in the procedure precludes the respondent from
> responding in public to a public complaint, nor shall either party be
> considered to have breached confidence if they seek redress through a
> legal authority or the courts.
>
> - María, you have already stated the need to have identified complaint
> handlers so that a complainant knows who will receive their complaint,
> and I agree. I think that, on receipt of a formal complaint, any
> complaint handler or other OSGeo member must forward the complaint to
> all complaint handlers who are not a party to the complaint (where
> parties include witnesses). Even with a web site form, expect half of
> complaints, especially the most serious ones, to be delivered to trusted
> individuals. The list of complaint handlers and the policy on who will
> receive a complaint must be prominent on the complaint submission form
> and information pages.
>
> - So, who is going to bell the cat? Consider outsourcing complaint
> handling to an independent external investigation, mediation, and/or
> arbitration service would remove any appearance of conflict of interest
> or bias, reduce harm to OSGeo complaint handlers, and protect OSGeo from
> legal liability.
>
> - We need a better term for complaint handler. "Conduct officer"? This
> would clarify their role and reduce inappropriate submission of general
> complaints. We need more than one. Conduct officers in their role of
> enforcing the code of conduct are acting on behalf of OSGeo and not as
> individuals.
>
> - Any complaint that may constitute a criminal offence must in the first
> instance be reported to authorities with jurisdiction unless the
> complainant is unwilling to do so. Local legal advice will likely be
> required. This may cover online activities: for example, the New Zealand
> Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015
> <
> http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/DLM5711810.html>
>
> <
> https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-help/consumer-laws/online-safety-laws-and-rules/>
>
> prohibits online bullying and harassment and has resulted in successful
> prosecutions by NZ Police. Criminal complaints will take priority over
> but not supersede OSGeo CoC investigations, which can run concurrently;
> our procedure will need rules on how to handle this situation and
> protect the rights of both the complainant and the respondent. We should
> never ever think that we can handle internally something that should in
> the first instance be a police matter.
>
> Thanks again, María. In my view, CoC enforcement is the dirtiest job in
> the open source community, and I commend you for your efforts.
>
> Happy Human Rights Day! Celebrating the 70th anniversary of the adoption
> of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 1948:
> <https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/>
>
> Kind regards,
> Ben.
>
> On 10/12/2018 01:49, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
> > Dear OSGeo community,
> >
> > As you may already know, I have been working for the last months in
> > improving our community procedures[1] to make it a safer space. Recent
> > events in the community have shown that we have a lot of work ahead.
> >
> > We all, as OSGeo, must remove the recent bullying and campaigning
> mentality
> > that is unfortunately gradually become a part of our culture. Disclosing
> > private data or hinting threats is not helpful and can only make our
> > community less comfortable for everyone. We will work on improving
> actions
> > on harmful behavior.
> >
> > This has been a slow task, but there are some actions taking place:
> >
> > CoC committee members have become inactive. I volunteered to pick up the
> > task and lead a new CoC committee. Right now I am the only CoC member,
> but
> > I am looking for more volunteers. If only, to make sure that if I am
> > involved in any CoC incident, someone else can take care of it properly
> as
> > mediator.
> >
> > I want to change also the way incidents and violations of the CoC are
> > reported. I noticed there are reports being done on person and on private
> > email, but never through the official channels (which right now is a
> > mailing list).To improve this, I will ask the SAC to replace the mailing
> > list with an alias and a form on the website. Also, there will be a
> public
> > list of who receives those emails so people reporting incidents will
> have a
> > clear understanding of who is receiving the information and decide to
> > contact privately only a subset of the team. Replacing the mailing list
> by
> > an alias that sends the data directly to the inbox of the CoC team is
> > important, as sometimes incidents are not reported just because the
> person
> > reporting is scared to leave a trace of the report or is not sure who
> will
> > be reading the report.
> >
> > Another action I am going to propose is a change on the CoC itself. Our
> > community has grown a lot both in diversity and in numbers, and we need a
> > strict code of conduct that makes sure marginalized or harrased people is
> > always covered by it. We can't rely anymore on just common sense and good
> > faith.
> >
> > Once the new board is settled, I am going to propose to change the
> current
> > CoC for another like the Contributor Covenant[2]. As it is a CoC shared
> by
> > many communities, this has the advantage of receiving the upgrades and
> > experience from other communities. As you can see, it fixes some of the
> > bugs from our CoC, like the assuming good intent and good faith[3] part
> > that made the current CoC useless on most cases. I will propose to add
> some
> > foreword to adapt to specifities for our community, but in my opinion,
> the
> > latest version of the Contributor Covenant is easy to read, simple, and
> > cover most of what we need. My hope is that this new CoC can be adapted
> to
> > all OSGeo Projects and Events that don't already have a CoC, so we have
> > full OSGeo universe covered by default.
> >
> > I hope this actions will prove useful in the medium term and we don't
> have
> > to see more members leaving the community. We should remember to be
> > empathic and kind. We are all seeking the same goals and we should
> > encourage cooperation, not hinder each other. I know that developer
> > communities are very used to these bad behaviours, but I'm confident we
> can
> > grow better.
> >
> > Have a nice day!
> > María.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2018-August/011640.html
> > [2] https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
> > [3]
> >
> https://thebias.com/2017/09/26/how-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-inclusion/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
>
> --
> Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben at transient.nz>
> Director
> Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
> New Zealand
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/coc-discuss/attachments/20181210/7a816fdb/attachment-0001.html>