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

Mon Dec 10 08:12:15 PST 2018

Dear María,

I'm glad to see this progressing now the dust has settled from the past
FOSS4G where the limits of a CoC were so laid bare. As before, let me know
how best to assist in developing the CoC further. I sincerely hope that we
can progress as a community in response to this call.

Best,

Mark

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 03:38, María Arias de Reyna <delawen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20181210/705e007a/attachment.html>