[OSGeo-Discuss] Code of Conduct Implementation Plan Was: Code of Conduct in Real Case
eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
Wed Jun 24 10:03:24 PDT 2015
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Bart van den Eijnden <bartvde at osgis.nl> wrote:
>> Hey Jeff,
>> if you truly feel this way, please put forward a motion on the next board meeting. This needs to be decided by the board as a whole I guess.
>> Personally I’m not in favour of destroying all that good work, but I also understand the need to move forward. Where are those discussions happening right now?
>> Best regards,
> At State of the Map US in New York there was a BoF on CoC next steps
> and implementation. Some of the results of that are on the wiki and
> continuing there. The direction may be to form an OSGeo Code of
> Conduct Committee which would also have an email list. It is still
> being sorted out.
The joys of email threads... see what Kristin already more clearly
> I agree with Bart, that all this work should not be discarded but
> supported and refined into something that works. Arbitrary deadlines
> may or may not be helpful for that process and I took Jeff's comment
> as at least half joke or at least not a real deadline. In the worst
> case, I see the appropriate action to be to add a note to the CoC that
> it is aspirational as there is no process to report or respond to
> reports and that help is needed to develop that. I don't see
> repealing or replacing the CoC as an appropriate action.
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Jeff McKenna
> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
>> Hi Kate,
>> I came up with a 1st September deadline in my head because I don't want the
>> FOSS4G event to come along without some sort of way to handle reports. We
>> can ignore the deadline, but I wanted to let everyone know that a process is
>> really needed, besides text on a webpage. You and I and others were part
>> of these offline implementation plan discussions, which were great, but I
>> think it stalled when selecting the name of the committee.
> FOSS4G 2015 was bid without a CoC and was not part of the contract
> when signed. Independently of the Conference Committee and Board, the
> 2015 LOC adopted a CoC, http://2015.foss4g.org/about/codeofconduct/
> complete with contact information.
> Sanghee, while OSGeo sorts out the details of CoC reporting and
> implementation, you and the LOC have a conference to run. The LOC
> adopted a CoC and that is great. I suggest that the LOC stick with
> that and make plans to implement it. The LOC could select 3-5 people
> who are representative of the LOC and probable attendees to respond to
> CoC reports. Ideally those people are reasonable and have some skills
> or experience dealing with difficult situations and work well with
> people. This group of people should decide on how to implement the
> CoC (practicing on a list of hypothetical issues can be very helpful
> thought exercise) and inform the rest of the LOC and train volunteers
> where to direct issues. This group of people could seek additional
> resources through either OSGeo or other venues.
> In the case of your slides, obviously you should not be involved in
> deciding any action (if you are in the group that will implement the
> CoC) and you and Charlie appear to have settled things between
> yourselves, although in a public manner.
>> Maybe what is best is if we move those private discussions to here, on this
>> I do notice now that Camille has been recently adding to the initial wiki
>> page for the possible committee:
> Bart, this is currently probably the best place to continue.
>> As noted in offline discussions, we can always create a new wiki page if we
>> need to rename the committee.
>> On 2015-06-24 11:21 AM, Kate Chapman wrote:
>>> Hi Jeff,
>>> I thought this comment deserved its own discussion. While I agree that
>>> not having an implementation plan for the Code of Conduct is not
>>> acceptable I view it as just as unacceptable to switch to a diversity
>>> statement. When I registered for FOSS4G last week it was with the
>>> understanding that OSGEO has adopted a Code of Conduct. If this is
>>> simply switched to a diversity statement I will not be attending FOSS4G.
>>> I am not the only women I know that would feel the same way.
> Kate, thanks for bringing this issue out. I mostly took Jeff's
> statements as hyperbole intended to move the process forward and
> ignored it. But yes, it is serious, the solution to the problem of
> reports is not to remove the ability to make reports but to build the
> capacity to respond to reports.
>>> I do not attend conferences without a Code of Conduct and some companies
>>> do not sponsor conferences without a Code of Conduct.
>>> I will assist in the implementation, but I am not leading it. I am
>>> willing to volunteer as a contact to assist people at FOSS4G if the
>>> implementation plan includes the need for a contact person (which I
>>> suspect it would).
> You've already made great contributions to the work that has been
> completed. Thanks for that and your willingness to help further. The
> 2015 LOC and others would be wise to take you up on your offer.
> Best regards, Eli
>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Jeff McKenna
>>> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>>
>>> I thank Sanghee for bringing this to the community. I want to point
>>> that having just a "Code of Conduct", words, on a website is not
>>> there needs to be a whole structure of how to handle this. In bold
>>> letters I want to state publicly: there is currently no implementation
>>> plan for the OSGeo Code of Conduct. This is not acceptable. A few
>>> volunteers have been discussing offline how to setup an implementation
>>> plan, as well as possibly even a new OSGeo committee for this, great,
>>> but, it is still in discussion stage. Without some sort of plan,
>>> community members are already contacting me directly with reports, and
>>> have no formal way to handle these reports. (Sanghee was nice enough
>>> help me solve this together publicly, but, this obviously cannot apply
>>> to all reports)
>>> I suggest, propose, that if there is no implementation plan for the
>>> of Conduct by the 1st of September, that the Code of Conduct is
>>> from all visible OSGeo pages, and is replaced with a simple Diversity
>>> I am sorry for being direct here, but, as you can see, this needs to
>>> move forward, or not at all.
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the Discuss