Topics

Should we set up a Code of Conduct Committee?

Cameron Shorter
 

Erin has suggested setting up a Code of Conduct committee.

I'm -0 (mildly against) this. My reasons are:

* We have a Code of Conduct (which I think is a good thing, and good enough for the moment).

* It should be the responsibility of all community members to tactfully speak up if the tone of the community starts to get heated or disrespectful, referencing the CoC if needed.

* Allocating a specific person or set of people to be responsible for enforcement results in a reduced responsibility of others in the community.

* I've seen lots of people acting in good faith in CoC Committees get entangled into messy and time consuming conversations and then burn out quickly.

* We are still a very small community, and I don't think we have the capacity to introduce the overhead of another committee yet. (Happy to reconsider later).

* For these reasons I'm not volunteering for a CoC committee, but I will step up as needed.

On 11/2/20 7:15 am, Erin McKean via Groups.Io wrote:
Hi all, sorry for the delay; I've left comments too. :)

Looks great, only one substantive change from me which is proposing a CoC
committee to deal with (hopefully few and far between) CoC violations.

It's better to have one set up in advance of need with clear guidelines on
how to handle disputes, rather than have to scramble in the event.

And on the principle of never suggesting things you aren't willing to do,
I'll take on the initial work of forming/setting up. :) I would love to
have two people join me, I think three is a reasonable size for a project
as new/small as ours.

Let me know if people think I should make this a separate proposal!

Thanks!

Erin

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:37 AM Jo Cook <@archaeogeek> wrote:

As discussed, I've reviewed the proposed governance doc and added a couple
of comments. All fairly minor.

Jo

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter@...>
Date: Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: [thegooddocsproject] Filling out our governance
To: Jo Cook <@archaeogeek>


Great, thanks, would it be okay if you take this thread back on list. (I
know I took it off list, my bad). Erin is planning to review too.
On 30/1/20 4:47 am, Jo Cook wrote:

Hi Cameron,

I've had a quick look and raised a couple of questions, but not many, all
in all I think it's a good document

Jo

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:54 AM Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter@...
wrote:

Hi Jo,
If you could find some time, I'd love it if you could skim over these
proposed processes and do a sanity check to make sure it looks okay.
You've
got much more open source community experience than most others in our
community and are most likely to spot any blunders I've made.
If you think it looks okay, and can say so on list, I'll expect others
will back you and I can put it into practice.
Cheers, Cameron

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 18:57, Cameron Shorter via Groups.Io
<cameron.shorter=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:

As promised a while back, I've finally drafted an expanded set of
processes for the governance of our project, which I'm looking for
feedback on.

I've drawn heavily upon processes from The Apache Foundation - who have
excellent community processes.

Key points:

* I've introduced "Roles", and in particular, the "Committer" role,
which we can assign to someone who is trusted to have access to git, but
is not on the PSC yet.

* I've introduced a private email list (which we'll need to set up).
This is to discuss personal issues (like if we should invite someone to
join the PSC). I've copied this from the Apache best practices.

* I've noted that decisions need to go back to the email list, and
stored in our decision register. (I'm a bit worried about how
sustainable our decision register will be. Is the overhead worth it in
open source? It isn't being used by Apache open source projects.)

* Should we publish our processes to our website (rather than referring
to our git pages)? If so, it would be good to get some help with that.

Suggested
changes:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fu5EWfir8xs9mj9nCa_9l4LItl0wyw75BGhXrKcNJIQ/edit#
--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254 <+61%20419%20142%20254>




--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254 <+61%20419%20142%20254>



--
------------------------
http://about.me/jocook

--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254 <+61%20419%20142%20254>



--
------------------------
http://about.me/jocook



--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

Jared Morgan
 

I'm -0 for establishing a committee for this.

I think we can just speak up if and when a problem arises and cite the CoC
if required.

I've a moderator on forums that I frequent and I find that these
communities tend to know when things are getting out of hand and respond
accordingly. We are nowhere near as big as these communities yet.

I don't think we're large enough to warrant a committee for conduct
violations. But if this is being driven by something that isn't right with
our CoC, let's resolve this now so it serves our needs.


On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, 20:25 Cameron Shorter, <cameron.shorter@...>
wrote:

Erin has suggested setting up a Code of Conduct committee.

I'm -0 (mildly against) this. My reasons are:

* We have a Code of Conduct (which I think is a good thing, and good
enough for the moment).

* It should be the responsibility of all community members to tactfully
speak up if the tone of the community starts to get heated or
disrespectful, referencing the CoC if needed.

* Allocating a specific person or set of people to be responsible for
enforcement results in a reduced responsibility of others in the community.

* I've seen lots of people acting in good faith in CoC Committees get
entangled into messy and time consuming conversations and then burn out
quickly.

* We are still a very small community, and I don't think we have the
capacity to introduce the overhead of another committee yet. (Happy to
reconsider later).

* For these reasons I'm not volunteering for a CoC committee, but I will
step up as needed.

On 11/2/20 7:15 am, Erin McKean via Groups.Io wrote:
Hi all, sorry for the delay; I've left comments too. :)

Looks great, only one substantive change from me which is proposing a CoC
committee to deal with (hopefully few and far between) CoC violations.

It's better to have one set up in advance of need with clear guidelines
on
how to handle disputes, rather than have to scramble in the event.

And on the principle of never suggesting things you aren't willing to do,
I'll take on the initial work of forming/setting up. :) I would love to
have two people join me, I think three is a reasonable size for a project
as new/small as ours.

Let me know if people think I should make this a separate proposal!

Thanks!

Erin

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:37 AM Jo Cook <@archaeogeek> wrote:

As discussed, I've reviewed the proposed governance doc and added a
couple
of comments. All fairly minor.

Jo

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter@...>
Date: Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: [thegooddocsproject] Filling out our governance
To: Jo Cook <@archaeogeek>


Great, thanks, would it be okay if you take this thread back on list. (I
know I took it off list, my bad). Erin is planning to review too.
On 30/1/20 4:47 am, Jo Cook wrote:

Hi Cameron,

I've had a quick look and raised a couple of questions, but not many,
all
in all I think it's a good document

Jo

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:54 AM Cameron Shorter <
cameron.shorter@...
wrote:

Hi Jo,
If you could find some time, I'd love it if you could skim over these
proposed processes and do a sanity check to make sure it looks okay.
You've
got much more open source community experience than most others in our
community and are most likely to spot any blunders I've made.
If you think it looks okay, and can say so on list, I'll expect others
will back you and I can put it into practice.
Cheers, Cameron

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 18:57, Cameron Shorter via Groups.Io
<cameron.shorter=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:

As promised a while back, I've finally drafted an expanded set of
processes for the governance of our project, which I'm looking for
feedback on.

I've drawn heavily upon processes from The Apache Foundation - who
have
excellent community processes.

Key points:

* I've introduced "Roles", and in particular, the "Committer" role,
which we can assign to someone who is trusted to have access to git,
but
is not on the PSC yet.

* I've introduced a private email list (which we'll need to set up).
This is to discuss personal issues (like if we should invite someone
to
join the PSC). I've copied this from the Apache best practices.

* I've noted that decisions need to go back to the email list, and
stored in our decision register. (I'm a bit worried about how
sustainable our decision register will be. Is the overhead worth it in
open source? It isn't being used by Apache open source projects.)

* Should we publish our processes to our website (rather than
referring
to our git pages)? If so, it would be good to get some help with that.

Suggested
changes:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fu5EWfir8xs9mj9nCa_9l4LItl0wyw75BGhXrKcNJIQ/edit#
--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254 <+61%20419%20142%20254>




--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254 <+61%20419%20142%20254>



--
------------------------
http://about.me/jocook

--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254 <+61%20419%20142%20254>



--
------------------------
http://about.me/jocook



--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254




Erin McKean
 

Hi folks, thanks for the input!

I agree that EVERYONE in the community should speak up if they see CoC
violations. That's the sign of a healthy community! (I recommend a hearty
"we don't do that here" as the first response.)

But: in my (and the Google Open Source team's) experience, a CoC committee
does two things:

* it's insurance! If something that can't be handled by a firm "We don't do
that here" does blow up, you don't want to be scrambling to find people who
are trained and willing to deal with it before it drives people away
* it's a STRONG signal that a community takes its CoC seriously, especially
if it is set up before anything major happens

A CoC committee should be low overhead -- it would only be called in if the
PSC agreed that something needed to be handled by the committee. Most of
the time that only happens when there is a CoC complaint about someone on
the committee, which is when you REALLY want a different group that can
handle the discussion. And again, it's better to have this set up before
you need it. :)

I agree that CoC committees can get burnt out easily, which is why I
volunteered to lead it. I've had CoC training and have a lot of resources I
can call on if need be.

If we are really worried about overhead, we can keep it as just an ad-hoc
(but official!) committee for now, but I do highly recommend we keep a
person's name attached (mine is fine) and a separate email setup so that if
people ever do need to escalate, they feel comfortable doing so to a place
that isn't the PSC.

Thanks!

Erin

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:02 AM Jared Morgan <@jaredmorgs>
wrote:

I'm -0 for establishing a committee for this.

I think we can just speak up if and when a problem arises and cite the CoC
if required.

I've a moderator on forums that I frequent and I find that these
communities tend to know when things are getting out of hand and respond
accordingly. We are nowhere near as big as these communities yet.

I don't think we're large enough to warrant a committee for conduct
violations. But if this is being driven by something that isn't right with
our CoC, let's resolve this now so it serves our needs.


On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, 20:25 Cameron Shorter, <cameron.shorter@...>
wrote:

Erin has suggested setting up a Code of Conduct committee.

I'm -0 (mildly against) this. My reasons are:

* We have a Code of Conduct (which I think is a good thing, and good
enough for the moment).

* It should be the responsibility of all community members to tactfully
speak up if the tone of the community starts to get heated or
disrespectful, referencing the CoC if needed.

* Allocating a specific person or set of people to be responsible for
enforcement results in a reduced responsibility of others in the
community.

* I've seen lots of people acting in good faith in CoC Committees get
entangled into messy and time consuming conversations and then burn out
quickly.

* We are still a very small community, and I don't think we have the
capacity to introduce the overhead of another committee yet. (Happy to
reconsider later).

* For these reasons I'm not volunteering for a CoC committee, but I will
step up as needed.

On 11/2/20 7:15 am, Erin McKean via Groups.Io wrote:
Hi all, sorry for the delay; I've left comments too. :)

Looks great, only one substantive change from me which is proposing a
CoC
committee to deal with (hopefully few and far between) CoC violations.

It's better to have one set up in advance of need with clear guidelines
on
how to handle disputes, rather than have to scramble in the event.

And on the principle of never suggesting things you aren't willing to
do,
I'll take on the initial work of forming/setting up. :) I would love to
have two people join me, I think three is a reasonable size for a
project
as new/small as ours.

Let me know if people think I should make this a separate proposal!

Thanks!

Erin

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:37 AM Jo Cook <@archaeogeek> wrote:

As discussed, I've reviewed the proposed governance doc and added a
couple
of comments. All fairly minor.

Jo

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter@...>
Date: Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: [thegooddocsproject] Filling out our governance
To: Jo Cook <@archaeogeek>


Great, thanks, would it be okay if you take this thread back on list.
(I
know I took it off list, my bad). Erin is planning to review too.
On 30/1/20 4:47 am, Jo Cook wrote:

Hi Cameron,

I've had a quick look and raised a couple of questions, but not many,
all
in all I think it's a good document

Jo

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:54 AM Cameron Shorter <
cameron.shorter@...
wrote:

Hi Jo,
If you could find some time, I'd love it if you could skim over these
proposed processes and do a sanity check to make sure it looks okay.
You've
got much more open source community experience than most others in our
community and are most likely to spot any blunders I've made.
If you think it looks okay, and can say so on list, I'll expect others
will back you and I can put it into practice.
Cheers, Cameron

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 18:57, Cameron Shorter via Groups.Io
<cameron.shorter=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:

As promised a while back, I've finally drafted an expanded set of
processes for the governance of our project, which I'm looking for
feedback on.

I've drawn heavily upon processes from The Apache Foundation - who
have
excellent community processes.

Key points:

* I've introduced "Roles", and in particular, the "Committer" role,
which we can assign to someone who is trusted to have access to git,
but
is not on the PSC yet.

* I've introduced a private email list (which we'll need to set up).
This is to discuss personal issues (like if we should invite someone
to
join the PSC). I've copied this from the Apache best practices.

* I've noted that decisions need to go back to the email list, and
stored in our decision register. (I'm a bit worried about how
sustainable our decision register will be. Is the overhead worth it
in
open source? It isn't being used by Apache open source projects.)

* Should we publish our processes to our website (rather than
referring
to our git pages)? If so, it would be good to get some help with
that.

Suggested
changes:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fu5EWfir8xs9mj9nCa_9l4LItl0wyw75BGhXrKcNJIQ/edit#
--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254 <+61%20419%20142%20254>
<+61%20419%20142%20254>




--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254 <+61%20419%20142%20254> <+61%20419%20142%20254>



--
------------------------
http://about.me/jocook

--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254 <+61%20419%20142%20254> <+61%20419%20142%20254>



--
------------------------
http://about.me/jocook



--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254 <+61%20419%20142%20254>




--
Erin McKean | Docs Advocacy Program Manager, Open Source Programs Office |
emckean@... | she/her

Jo Cook
 

Hi All,

I'm in favour of a half-way house approach here, based on experience
dealing with a couple of CoC violations at conferences. In both cases, the
buck stopped with the chair/vice-chairs. As a vice-chair in one case and a
chair in the other, that seemed fine to me.

My thinking is that we need a specific process, rather than separate
committee. I'd start with a dedicated email account for reporting CoC
concerns/violations- which the PSC have visibility of, but then ultimately
the Chair should deal with the problem. If we're worried about CoC
allegations against the chair, then lets have a vice-chair as well. I'd
finish up with a post-mortem, to ensure we've got a report for future use.
Where we store that is a different matter...

We can also evolve, if this doesn't work out.

Regards

Jo

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 2:18 PM Erin McKean via Groups.Io <emckean=
google.com@groups.io> wrote:

Hi folks, thanks for the input!

I agree that EVERYONE in the community should speak up if they see CoC
violations. That's the sign of a healthy community! (I recommend a hearty
"we don't do that here" as the first response.)

But: in my (and the Google Open Source team's) experience, a CoC committee
does two things:

* it's insurance! If something that can't be handled by a firm "We don't do
that here" does blow up, you don't want to be scrambling to find people who
are trained and willing to deal with it before it drives people away
* it's a STRONG signal that a community takes its CoC seriously, especially
if it is set up before anything major happens

A CoC committee should be low overhead -- it would only be called in if the
PSC agreed that something needed to be handled by the committee. Most of
the time that only happens when there is a CoC complaint about someone on
the committee, which is when you REALLY want a different group that can
handle the discussion. And again, it's better to have this set up before
you need it. :)

I agree that CoC committees can get burnt out easily, which is why I
volunteered to lead it. I've had CoC training and have a lot of resources I
can call on if need be.

If we are really worried about overhead, we can keep it as just an ad-hoc
(but official!) committee for now, but I do highly recommend we keep a
person's name attached (mine is fine) and a separate email setup so that if
people ever do need to escalate, they feel comfortable doing so to a place
that isn't the PSC.

Thanks!

Erin

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:02 AM Jared Morgan <@jaredmorgs>
wrote:

I'm -0 for establishing a committee for this.

I think we can just speak up if and when a problem arises and cite the
CoC
if required.

I've a moderator on forums that I frequent and I find that these
communities tend to know when things are getting out of hand and respond
accordingly. We are nowhere near as big as these communities yet.

I don't think we're large enough to warrant a committee for conduct
violations. But if this is being driven by something that isn't right
with
our CoC, let's resolve this now so it serves our needs.


On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, 20:25 Cameron Shorter, <cameron.shorter@...>
wrote:

Erin has suggested setting up a Code of Conduct committee.

I'm -0 (mildly against) this. My reasons are:

* We have a Code of Conduct (which I think is a good thing, and good
enough for the moment).

* It should be the responsibility of all community members to tactfully
speak up if the tone of the community starts to get heated or
disrespectful, referencing the CoC if needed.

* Allocating a specific person or set of people to be responsible for
enforcement results in a reduced responsibility of others in the
community.

* I've seen lots of people acting in good faith in CoC Committees get
entangled into messy and time consuming conversations and then burn out
quickly.

* We are still a very small community, and I don't think we have the
capacity to introduce the overhead of another committee yet. (Happy to
reconsider later).

* For these reasons I'm not volunteering for a CoC committee, but I will
step up as needed.

On 11/2/20 7:15 am, Erin McKean via Groups.Io wrote:
Hi all, sorry for the delay; I've left comments too. :)

Looks great, only one substantive change from me which is proposing a
CoC
committee to deal with (hopefully few and far between) CoC violations.

It's better to have one set up in advance of need with clear
guidelines
on
how to handle disputes, rather than have to scramble in the event.

And on the principle of never suggesting things you aren't willing to
do,
I'll take on the initial work of forming/setting up. :) I would love
to
have two people join me, I think three is a reasonable size for a
project
as new/small as ours.

Let me know if people think I should make this a separate proposal!

Thanks!

Erin

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:37 AM Jo Cook <@archaeogeek> wrote:

As discussed, I've reviewed the proposed governance doc and added a
couple
of comments. All fairly minor.

Jo

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter@...>
Date: Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: [thegooddocsproject] Filling out our governance
To: Jo Cook <@archaeogeek>


Great, thanks, would it be okay if you take this thread back on list.
(I
know I took it off list, my bad). Erin is planning to review too.
On 30/1/20 4:47 am, Jo Cook wrote:

Hi Cameron,

I've had a quick look and raised a couple of questions, but not many,
all
in all I think it's a good document

Jo

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:54 AM Cameron Shorter <
cameron.shorter@...
wrote:

Hi Jo,
If you could find some time, I'd love it if you could skim over
these
proposed processes and do a sanity check to make sure it looks okay.
You've
got much more open source community experience than most others in
our
community and are most likely to spot any blunders I've made.
If you think it looks okay, and can say so on list, I'll expect
others
will back you and I can put it into practice.
Cheers, Cameron

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 18:57, Cameron Shorter via Groups.Io
<cameron.shorter=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:

As promised a while back, I've finally drafted an expanded set of
processes for the governance of our project, which I'm looking for
feedback on.

I've drawn heavily upon processes from The Apache Foundation - who
have
excellent community processes.

Key points:

* I've introduced "Roles", and in particular, the "Committer" role,
which we can assign to someone who is trusted to have access to
git,
but
is not on the PSC yet.

* I've introduced a private email list (which we'll need to set
up).
This is to discuss personal issues (like if we should invite
someone
to
join the PSC). I've copied this from the Apache best practices.

* I've noted that decisions need to go back to the email list, and
stored in our decision register. (I'm a bit worried about how
sustainable our decision register will be. Is the overhead worth it
in
open source? It isn't being used by Apache open source projects.)

* Should we publish our processes to our website (rather than
referring
to our git pages)? If so, it would be good to get some help with
that.

Suggested
changes:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fu5EWfir8xs9mj9nCa_9l4LItl0wyw75BGhXrKcNJIQ/edit#
--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254 <+61%20419%20142%20254>
<+61%20419%20142%20254>




--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254 <+61%20419%20142%20254>
<+61%20419%20142%20254>



--
------------------------
http://about.me/jocook

--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254 <+61%20419%20142%20254> <+61%20419%20142%20254>



--
------------------------
http://about.me/jocook



--
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254 <+61%20419%20142%20254>




--
Erin McKean | Docs Advocacy Program Manager, Open Source Programs Office |
emckean@... | she/her



--
------------------------
http://about.me/jocook