May 2018 revision #3
Conversation
|
This addresses issue #2 as well in the later commits. |
report-handling-procedure.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| > Thank you again! | ||
|
|
||
| > Regards, > [First Last name] > DSF Code of Conduct Committee |
|
@raymondberg I created a |
|
@emperorcezar changed base branch to development 👍 |
| Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: | ||
|
|
||
| - Continued one-on-one communication after requests to cease | ||
| - Deliberate misgendering, using inappropriate pronouns, or use of “dead” or |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we clarify what "dead" names means? I'm hazy on that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 - adding a reference explaining the term would be very helpful.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I forgot to mention, I use Party Hat to mean "Yay and I did it!" This comment thread is 🚢.
|
Who constitutes the committee? |
| (including fireworks), guns, and large knives such as those used for hunting or | ||
| display, as well as any other item used for the purpose of causing injury or | ||
| harm to others. Anyone seen in possession of one of these items will be asked | ||
| to leave immediately, and will only be allowed to return without the weapon. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you think it would be safe if the person is allowed to return?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that depends on the weapon. This is contrived, but if someone comes to and event pre or post martial arts class, they could easily have a weapon with them. If that makes someone uncomfortable we can ask them to take the weapon out, but I wouldn't have an issue with them coming back.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The key here is to define a no-weapons policy and to provide a mechanism to use that policy to drive action. As Cezar said, there may be cases where it's a more-reasonable misunderstanding, but the policy provides ways to address less-reasonable situations with banning for the event or future events if the committee thinks it should happen.
| All ChiPy attendees are subject to the Code of Conduct. This includes ChiPy | ||
| organizers and volunteers, as well as attendees of the talk events, | ||
| collaborative work environments, receptions / after-party events, or other | ||
| sponsored or unofficial events related to ChiPy events. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we clarify what unofficial Chipy event would mean?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think so, the point of it is to leave space for someone who does something following a ChiPy event or before. E.g. If I say this in slack Hey, if you're going to ChiPy, join me at this place first, we want reserve the right to say folks complaining about conduct at that event could be heard. More specificity removes the blanket application.
code-of-conduct.md
Outdated
| Anyone can report harassment. If someone’s behavior has made you uncomfortable, | ||
| or if you witness the same happening to someone else, you should immediately | ||
| contact ChiPy organizers in-person or on Slack, or send an email to the On-Call | ||
| responser at [email protected]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It probably is a minutiae, but instead of gmail, should we get a python.org email address like we have for organizers and the main mailing list? I can't find the email, but have a vague memory that we reached out to someone in who manages python.org mailing lists/listservs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should have a subcommittee instead of an on-call person
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could get another email address; this is just the one we have right now. As soon as we get one we can replace.
As for the subcommittee, the proposal is that the Subcommittee gets emails forwarded from this account. It's not one person; it's just one email address.
| This Code of Conduct was forked from the example policy from the [PyCon US Code | ||
| of | ||
| Conduct](https://github.com/python/pycon-code-of-conduct/blob/master/code_of_conduct.md), | ||
| which is under a Creative Commons Zero license. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I saw a reference to Django's coc in some communication thread. unless I'm mistaken, that should be added here as well, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The Code of Conduct doesn't use Django's, but the response guide does (and we do cite there). (edit: Actually, I added anyways. :D Good callout)
report-handling-procedure.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Report handling procedure | ||
|
|
||
| This document aims to present the way we handle received reports. This is not a |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: We - could the On-call duty section be moved up before this section? This is the opening sentence and it is not clarified who the we represents. Moving the section would be helpful for the reader.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good call. This also helped me address the attribution problem.
report-handling-procedure.md
Outdated
| month long on-call duty that is rotated between Organizers. On the first | ||
| meeting of each month, we assign one member to be the primary person on duty | ||
| and another member to be a secondary supporter. The schedule is managed via | ||
| [On Call Roster](http://www.chipy.org/pages/conduct-on-call/). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm think there is an open issues to add the CoC to the main menu. In addition to that, to make this more discoverable, should we link this from http://www.chipy.org/contact/ - which is currently on the menu.
To make in-person reporting possible, we should probably announce this at our events.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that's reasonable as another PR. 👍
| will commit to shepherding it. | ||
|
|
||
| **Secondary person on duty** inherits the responsibilities of the primary person | ||
| if they're not available. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the secondary person the point of contact if the coc violation report is about the Primary person on duty?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, I think we should have a committee, just like PyCon. With an appropriate case if there is a conflict with someone on the committee.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The secondary responds when the primary is unavailable. This proposal is for a committee, but you need to establish an ownership for primary response or you'll get a case where multiple folks say I'm too busy to respond right now and you miss the target window.
Also, having the email go to everyone on the committee instead of just the two people who are advertised only exacerbates the problem of having too many people involved in the process with potential conflicts of interest.
The top-level conflict of interest is something we're still talking about, someone outside the org who would facilitate reports if the reporter didn't feel comfortable with the available channels.
|
|
||
| All reports received by us are usually sent to the | ||
| [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) email address | ||
| that is automatically forwarded to the on-call receivers of complaints. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are there any guidelines on how incidents would be reported? If the person reporting coc violation does not feel safe about revealing their identify, is that acceptable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added a paragraph to address this.
|
@emperorcezar To your top level question: When we vote on the CoC, I think we need to establish the composition of the Committee. This guide provides the idea that we'd maintain the roster in a flat-page on the website (because it might change frequently). I'm happy to volunteer up to 50% of the year as primary until folks get comfortable being on the committee; I'm sure there will be others willing to share the load. Whatever the Board wants to do for composition is fine. |
- Typos - Dead name explanation - Privacy section - Attribute Django CoC
|
I added our language to address PR feedback. Ready for another review round! |
|
Recommend closing in favor of #4 |
This is @raymondberg and my first pass. We kept the Report Incident procedure in there, but it might make sense to move to an internal document until we iterate on it a few times.