Lukas mentioned the scope / meaning of governance and so I thought it would be helpful to describe what "governance" means at Mozilla.
==
Governance at Mozilla is used to mean topics relating to how we organize and run the Mozilla project; and what it means to have an identified decision-maker. This system is very well established for code and has been formally extended to some other activities in the mozilla world. The core is a "module." We have Code Modules and Activities Modules: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules. Modules have owners and peers, with responsibilities as described in the document "Mozilla Modules and Module Owners": http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/module-ownership.html
We have a module called "Governance." I'm the owner of this module. The Governance module has a variety of sub-modules, following the module developed by the Firefox team under Mike Conner's leadership. The sub-modules have particular responsibilities, owners and peers, but all are subject to the authority of owner of the main module, in the case Governance. One of these sub-modules is the Module Ownership Module. This module provides oversight of module owners and development of the module ownership system. Planet Mozilla is also a module. A project wide Code of Conduct is also a likely candidate for module status.
A bit of history: The governance module codifies a working principle we've had since the very early days of Mozilla -- that when the Mozilla project needs a decision-maker for things that can't be resolved via other means we have one. That's Brendan for technical matters and me for non-technical matters. You can see that language in the last paragraph of the (very old) Mozilla Roles document (http://www.mozilla.org/about/roles.html), although I do not like the "benevolent dictator" reference, which I believe I asked to have removed but still seems to be there. The language in the actual governance module notes that ultimate authority for project decisions rests here. It does not mention Brendan or I by name. I'm not sure if that is good or not.
So in the Mozilla sense, the management of Planet Mozilla -- just like the management of every other module -- is a "governance" topic. Here's a summary of what this means for dealing with conflict (from http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/module-ownership.html)
Escalation and Review
The owner and peers of the Module Ownership module will get involved if controversy develops and cannot be resolved otherwise. A module owner may ask for a public statement of agreement with a particular action. Sometimes other contributors suggest ways in which a module owner might improve. Sometimes there is ongoing controversy. We prefer that the community resolve these issues when possible, but acknowledge that this can't happen all the time. We try to avoid making absolute decisions like "this must happen" but will do so if required.
As noted, the Module Ownership Module in turn is a subset of the Governance Module, and so as a last resort this will come to Brendan and me. Because this is a non-technical topic, if Brendan and I were to disagree this would end up in my court.
Right now there is a suggestion that we have a cooling off period before doing anything. There's also a suggestion that a project wide code of conduct might alleviate the need to focus on Planet. I'll continue to talk with the module owner and peers. So it's not yet clear if we'll end us with an escalation path, or what that would look like if we do. I'm continuing to follow the discussion closely and working through potential scenarios.
On Friday, March 9, 2012 11:04:44 PM UTC-8, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> Right now there is a suggestion that we have a cooling off period before > doing anything. There's also a suggestion that a project wide code of
I recommend very strongly against a cooling off period. There is a group of people who is having to determine *right now* if they have a future at Mozilla. This is not an issue leadership can afford to punt on.
On Friday, March 9, 2012 11:04:44 PM UTC-8, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> Right now there is a suggestion that we have a cooling off period before > doing anything. There's also a suggestion that a project wide code of
I recommend very strongly against a cooling off period. There is a group of people who is having to determine *right now* if they have a future at Mozilla. This is not an issue leadership can afford to punt on.
<christiekoeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2012 11:04:44 PM UTC-8, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>> Right now there is a suggestion that we have a cooling off period before
>> doing anything. There's also a suggestion that a project wide code of
> I recommend very strongly against a cooling off period. There is a group of people who is having to determine *right now* if they have a future at Mozilla. This is not an issue leadership can afford to punt on.
The only mention of a cooling-off period I recall was from Dolske, and
that was with respect to the "other" changes to Planet -- e.g. about
it's format, whether non-Mozilla-related posts should be allowed, etc.
I don't recall anyone saying we should have a cooling-off period with
respect to the Code of Conduct issue.
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Christie Koehler
> <christiekoeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, March 9, 2012 11:04:44 PM UTC-8, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>>> Right now there is a suggestion that we have a cooling off period before
>>> doing anything. There's also a suggestion that a project wide code of
>> I recommend very strongly against a cooling off period. There is a group of people who is having to determine *right now* if they have a future at Mozilla. This is not an issue leadership can afford to punt on.
> The only mention of a cooling-off period I recall was from Dolske, and
> that was with respect to the "other" changes to Planet -- e.g. about
> it's format, whether non-Mozilla-related posts should be allowed, etc.
> I don't recall anyone saying we should have a cooling-off period with
> respect to the Code of Conduct issue.
Stuart also mentioned it. I'll mention it now (implied mention). The Planet team obviously agrees that what we're talking about now is a much larger issue than just Planet policy and that we should not bring the hammer down on Planet without actually separating out the issues and concerns. So there are 6 people who favor a cooling-off period. (Not that we're genuinely pretending that we have a majority vote on each of these questions.)
thanks for starting this thread. It's great to learn more about how things
like this work.
I'm curious what wording would you use instead of "benevolent dictator" I
agree that the dictator part brings up negative impressions, but taking the
dictator part neutrally it is a good description.
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Asa Dotzler <a...@mozilla.org> wrote:
> On 3/10/2012 1:11 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Christie Koehler
>> <christiekoeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 9, 2012 11:04:44 PM UTC-8, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>>>> Right now there is a suggestion that we have a cooling off period before
>>>> doing anything. There's also a suggestion that a project wide code of
>>> I recommend very strongly against a cooling off period. There is a group
>>> of people who is having to determine *right now* if they have a future at
>>> Mozilla. This is not an issue leadership can afford to punt on.
>> The only mention of a cooling-off period I recall was from Dolske, and
>> that was with respect to the "other" changes to Planet -- e.g. about
>> it's format, whether non-Mozilla-related posts should be allowed, etc.
>> I don't recall anyone saying we should have a cooling-off period with
>> respect to the Code of Conduct issue.
> Stuart also mentioned it. I'll mention it now (implied mention). The
> Planet team obviously agrees that what we're talking about now is a much
> larger issue than just Planet policy and that we should not bring the
> hammer down on Planet without actually separating out the issues and
> concerns. So there are 6 people who favor a cooling-off period. (Not that
> we're genuinely pretending that we have a majority vote on each of these
> questions.)
> thanks for starting this thread. It's great to learn more about how things
> like this work.
> I'm curious what wording would you use instead of "benevolent dictator" I
> agree that the dictator part brings up negative impressions, but taking the
> dictator part neutrally it is a good description.
> -Lucy
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Asa Dotzler<a...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>> On 3/10/2012 1:11 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Christie Koehler
>>> <christiekoeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 9, 2012 11:04:44 PM UTC-8, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>>>>> Right now there is a suggestion that we have a cooling off period before
>>>>> doing anything. There's also a suggestion that a project wide code of
>>>> I recommend very strongly against a cooling off period. There is a group
>>>> of people who is having to determine *right now* if they have a future at
>>>> Mozilla. This is not an issue leadership can afford to punt on.
>>> The only mention of a cooling-off period I recall was from Dolske, and
>>> that was with respect to the "other" changes to Planet -- e.g. about
>>> it's format, whether non-Mozilla-related posts should be allowed, etc.
>>> I don't recall anyone saying we should have a cooling-off period with
>>> respect to the Code of Conduct issue.
>> Stuart also mentioned it. I'll mention it now (implied mention). The
>> Planet team obviously agrees that what we're talking about now is a much
>> larger issue than just Planet policy and that we should not bring the
>> hammer down on Planet without actually separating out the issues and
>> concerns. So there are 6 people who favor a cooling-off period. (Not that
>> we're genuinely pretending that we have a majority vote on each of these
>> questions.)
> thanks for starting this thread. It's great to learn more about how things
> like this work.
> I'm curious what wording would you use instead of "benevolent dictator" I
> agree that the dictator part brings up negative impressions, but taking the
> dictator part neutrally it is a good description.
> -Lucy
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Asa Dotzler<a...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>> On 3/10/2012 1:11 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Christie Koehler
>>> <christiekoeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 9, 2012 11:04:44 PM UTC-8, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>>>>> Right now there is a suggestion that we have a cooling off period before
>>>>> doing anything. There's also a suggestion that a project wide code of
>>>> I recommend very strongly against a cooling off period. There is a group
>>>> of people who is having to determine *right now* if they have a future at
>>>> Mozilla. This is not an issue leadership can afford to punt on.
>>> The only mention of a cooling-off period I recall was from Dolske, and
>>> that was with respect to the "other" changes to Planet -- e.g. about
>>> it's format, whether non-Mozilla-related posts should be allowed, etc.
>>> I don't recall anyone saying we should have a cooling-off period with
>>> respect to the Code of Conduct issue.
>> Stuart also mentioned it. I'll mention it now (implied mention). The
>> Planet team obviously agrees that what we're talking about now is a much
>> larger issue than just Planet policy and that we should not bring the
>> hammer down on Planet without actually separating out the issues and
>> concerns. So there are 6 people who favor a cooling-off period. (Not that
>> we're genuinely pretending that we have a majority vote on each of these
>> questions.)
I think I'd say "ultimate decision - maker." It doesn't have the cachet of benevelent dictator, but I think it's closer to reality. A dictator does whatever he or she wants, with luck it's "benevenlent." In our case we need to be leaders, in our world people can choose whether or not to participate.
> thanks for starting this thread. It's great to learn more about how things
> like this work.
> I'm curious what wording would you use instead of "benevolent dictator" I
> agree that the dictator part brings up negative impressions, but taking the
> dictator part neutrally it is a good description.
> -Lucy
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Asa Dotzler<a...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>> On 3/10/2012 1:11 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Christie Koehler
>>> <christiekoeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 9, 2012 11:04:44 PM UTC-8, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>>>>> Right now there is a suggestion that we have a cooling off period before
>>>>> doing anything. There's also a suggestion that a project wide code of
>>>> I recommend very strongly against a cooling off period. There is a group
>>>> of people who is having to determine *right now* if they have a future at
>>>> Mozilla. This is not an issue leadership can afford to punt on.
>>> The only mention of a cooling-off period I recall was from Dolske, and
>>> that was with respect to the "other" changes to Planet -- e.g. about
>>> it's format, whether non-Mozilla-related posts should be allowed, etc.
>>> I don't recall anyone saying we should have a cooling-off period with
>>> respect to the Code of Conduct issue.
>> Stuart also mentioned it. I'll mention it now (implied mention). The
>> Planet team obviously agrees that what we're talking about now is a much
>> larger issue than just Planet policy and that we should not bring the
>> hammer down on Planet without actually separating out the issues and
>> concerns. So there are 6 people who favor a cooling-off period. (Not that
>> we're genuinely pretending that we have a majority vote on each of these
>> questions.)
Assuming the definition of benevolent as:
Well meaning and kindly.
(of an organization) Serving a charitable rather than a profit-making purpose.
I'd be inclined to say swap the word "dictator" for "decision maker" and leave it at that. It seems like trading down otherwise.
-R
On Mar 10, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> I think I'd say "ultimate decision - maker." It doesn't have the cachet of benevelent dictator, but I think it's closer to reality. A dictator does whatever he or she wants, with luck it's "benevenlent." In our case we need to be leaders, in our world people can choose whether or not to participate.
> mitchell
> On 3/10/12 1:53 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
>> Mitchell,
>> thanks for starting this thread. It's great to learn more about how things
>> like this work.
>> I'm curious what wording would you use instead of "benevolent dictator" I
>> agree that the dictator part brings up negative impressions, but taking the
>> dictator part neutrally it is a good description.
>> -Lucy
>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Asa Dotzler<a...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>>> On 3/10/2012 1:11 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Christie Koehler
>>>> <christiekoeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, March 9, 2012 11:04:44 PM UTC-8, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>>>>>> Right now there is a suggestion that we have a cooling off period before
>>>>>> doing anything. There's also a suggestion that a project wide code of
>>>>> I recommend very strongly against a cooling off period. There is a group
>>>>> of people who is having to determine *right now* if they have a future at
>>>>> Mozilla. This is not an issue leadership can afford to punt on.
>>>> The only mention of a cooling-off period I recall was from Dolske, and
>>>> that was with respect to the "other" changes to Planet -- e.g. about
>>>> it's format, whether non-Mozilla-related posts should be allowed, etc.
>>>> I don't recall anyone saying we should have a cooling-off period with
>>>> respect to the Code of Conduct issue.
>>> Stuart also mentioned it. I'll mention it now (implied mention). The
>>> Planet team obviously agrees that what we're talking about now is a much
>>> larger issue than just Planet policy and that we should not bring the
>>> hammer down on Planet without actually separating out the issues and
>>> concerns. So there are 6 people who favor a cooling-off period. (Not that
>>> we're genuinely pretending that we have a majority vote on each of these
>>> questions.)
Mitchell, I would like to copy here words (slightly modified for
better comprehension outside of their original context) I posted
elsewhere:
1. freedom of speech is very different between US and Europe. I repeat
(not for yourself, you do know that, but for others) : VERY. US
freedom of speech can be VERY offending to europeans, our freedom of
speech can be VERY strange to Americans. For us here (exception are UK
and DK), freedom of speech must stop at the globally accepted as
unacceptable. And its not a consensus ; its the law.
2. discussing society, politics or religion, even with heat, is normal
here in France. Making jokes about society, politics and religion too,
even jokes about sex. And its not strictly a males thing to joke
about sex, women do that too, more often that they officially accept
to say they do. Here at least. Discussing peoples age, origin is
normal here. Should I introduce an ugly #NSFM (Not Safe For Mozilla)
tag on my blog articles ? Sorry, no.
I think a Code of Conduct is the wrong direction. Mozilla is not only
about openness, its also about allowing people to own their digital
lives, in the wide diversity of the environments they live in. In
other terms, avoiding others do it for them. Here, a Code of Conduct
would imply that the whole world can own its digital life, the whole
world but Mozillians who are too dumb or unethical because of cultural
differences to post freely their thoughts (within the limits of
legality). If even employees of Mozilla cannot make the difference
between a CORPORATION and a COMMUNITY, thats depressing In a
community, there are people you disagree with, sometimes very very
very strongly. That's life, and thats not a reason to call the police
to have them thrown away.
Im still with Asas original idea here: planet should remain as it
is, unfiltered. And I agree that people should solve issues as adults
in private first before shouting.
I dont think a Code of Conduct is needed, and if implemented I think
its just not enforceable. Let me rephrase that: enforcing a Code of
Conduct will probably be more harmful to the Community than a lack of
Code of Conduct. You posted an article perfectly legal in (your
country) that offended a few (another country)s citizens and dont
want to remove it, so we will unsyndicate your blog from pmo. Wow.
Who said Community ? I dont even want to imagine whos going to
take such a decision
glazou <daniel.glaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mitchell, I would like to copy here words (slightly modified for
> better comprehension outside of their original context) I posted
> elsewhere:
> 1. freedom of speech is very different between US and Europe. I repeat
> (not for yourself, you do know that, but for others) : VERY. US
> freedom of speech can be VERY offending to europeans, our freedom of
> speech can be VERY strange to Americans. For us here (exception are UK
> and DK), freedom of speech must stop at the globally accepted as
> unacceptable. And it s not a consensus ; it s the law.
> 2. discussing society, politics or religion, even with heat, is normal
> here in France. Making jokes about society, politics and religion too,
> even jokes about sex. And it s not strictly a male s thing to joke
> about sex, women do that too, more often that they officially accept
> to say they do. Here at least. Discussing people s age, origin is
> normal here. Should I introduce an ugly #NSFM (Not Safe For Mozilla)
> tag on my blog articles ? Sorry, no.
> I think a Code of Conduct is the wrong direction. Mozilla is not only
> about openness, it s also about allowing people to own their digital
> lives, in the wide diversity of the environments they live in. In
> other terms, avoiding others do it for them. Here, a Code of Conduct
> would imply that the whole world can own its digital life, the whole
> world but Mozillians who are too dumb or unethical because of cultural
> differences to post freely their thoughts (within the limits of
> legality). If even employees of Mozilla cannot make the difference
> between a CORPORATION and a COMMUNITY, that s depressing& In a
> community, there are people you disagree with, sometimes very very
> very strongly. That's life, and that s not a reason to call the police
> to have them thrown away.
> I m still with Asa s original idea here: planet should remain as it
> is, unfiltered. And I agree that people should solve issues as adults
> in private first before shouting.
> I don t think a Code of Conduct is needed, and if implemented I think
> it s just not enforceable. Let me rephrase that: enforcing a Code of
> Conduct will probably be more harmful to the Community than a lack of
> Code of Conduct. You posted an article perfectly legal in (your
> country) that offended a few (another country) s citizens and don t
> want to remove it, so we will unsyndicate your blog from pmo . Wow.
> Who said Community ? I don t even want to imagine who s going to
> take such a decision&
Stepping back a second, what do you think of the various codes of conduct
that have been mentioned in the various threads?
My general view is that they're reasonable, and that it's probably good to
develop a consensus Mozilla version. That said, I'm not sure any of the
existing ones would have prevented this particular situation, nor do I
expect a consensus version that would to emerge.
There are too many edge cases where people disagree/have different cultural
expectations to come up with a set of black and white rules which prevent
these things from happening. Even in the strictly corporate world, you have
people make minor mistakes and people who on occasion over-react. That's
dealt with through discussion and mediation.
What i believe a code of conduct could provide is confidence that the
community takes these issues seriously, understand that it's complex, and
will provide a credible course of action for those who feel they've been
mistreated/maligned.
Given that it's sometime hard to tell where the boundaries are, it's possible to consider some kind of safety word system which let someone
indicate that you've crossed a line of theirs. That would be a request to
pause and back off, and either to apologise, or to find someone to mediate.
I'm sure others have better ideas..
There is a reality that if we, as a community, have people working on our
behalf, which is broadly still how I like to think of it, we have to
provide an environment which complies with various laws, and is conducive
to hiring and retaining good people. Hopefully that can be done without
walling employees off from the personal and non-Mozilla only side of the
community.
I am actually astonished that there is disagreement about the
usefulness and importance of a Code of Conduct for our community.
We absolutely should be working to protect vulnerable people and
groups within our community. We absolutely should be working to
create and cultivate a better and more welcoming culture within our
project. These are things we should have been doing more actively for
years. I cannot believe that this is in question.
The Mozilla project has long had the unwritten attitude that a thick
skin is required to survive in this community. I don't know why
people think that is a good thing because it's not, at all.
Expecting everyone participating in our community to develop a thick
skin is precisely the wrong answer, and it has done extensive damage
to our community over the past decade. I cringe to think of the
incredibly thoughtful and talented people we have lost as contributors
because of this attitude. It is wrong, and it must stop.
We have been talking about developing a set of community standards for
years, and it is very much time we followed through on that. It is
important, it is the right thing to do, and it is absolutely what is
best for both the project and the community.
> I am actually astonished that there is disagreement about the
> usefulness and importance of a Code of Conduct for our community.
[...]
It seems to me that the objections are mostly based on assumptions or questions about how something like this would be enforced in practice. Given the inability to, for example, even keep spam out of the newsgroups, I can't imagine how proactive filtering of all Mozilla communication would be feasible.
So I guess the question is whether a code that can't be actively enforced is useful - it's been pointed out that other examples of conduct codes would not have prevented the incident that led to this current discussion, nor previous similar controversies.
If an unenforceable/unenforced code is a good thing for some people, and not actively harmful to others, then on balance it seems like one should be created.
<mjl+n...@michaellefevre.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that the objections are mostly based on assumptions or
> questions about how something like this would be enforced in practice. Given
> the inability to, for example, even keep spam out of the newsgroups, I can't
> imagine how proactive filtering of all Mozilla communication would be
> feasible.
A code of conduct will give us a concrete artifact we can point at
when people are acting inappropriately to let them know that what
they're doing is not acceptable and should stop. We are a community
of reasonable and intelligent people who are capable of self-policing
these situations, and in cases where this is not enough to get someone
to stop behaving inappropriately we can figure out ways to escalate.
This is hardly an unsolveable problem.
Having a code of conduct, that artifact we can point at to let people
know that what they're doing is unacceptable, is incredibly important
and valuable. Without it -- without some guidelines about what is or
isn't considered acceptable within the community -- we have a
situation in which people feel they have no recourse when they feel
like someone's behaviour is hurtful or inappropriate. The options
right now are to suck it up and grow a thick skin or leave. This is
incredibly destructive to our community and has to stop.
How about if we replace the idea of enforcement with accountability? Using the term 'enforce' suggests pressure from outside where I imagine that many code of conduct reminder scenarios may be resolved by reminding Mozillians that we are all accountable to a certain standard (one that hopefully allows folks to not have such a think skin deb+ +). I see much of the responsibility for adhering to a code being on the people, where having something that hurt someone pointed out to you results at first in a) belief b) respect & empathy and then c) being accountable for your actions. The goal of the code is not to find some magic bullet that will stop us from accidentally pushing each other's buttons but certainly to give guidance and pause for people to go a little deeper in their consideration of the entirety of the project and its people. While this may seem to lower 'productivity' initially because 'anything goes' sure does seem fast, a code gives a base to build on that is much more solid and will help us develop good inter-cultural relationships in the long term.
Cheers, Lukas -Sent from a mobile device, please excuse any typos.
Michael Lefevre <mjl+n...@michaellefevre.com> wrote:
On 11/03/2012 12:22, Deb Richardson wrote:
> I am actually astonished that there is disagreement about the
> usefulness and importance of a Code of Conduct for our community.
[...]
It seems to me that the objections are mostly based on assumptions or questions about how something like this would be enforced in practice. Given the inability to, for example, even keep spam out of the newsgroups, I can't imagine how proactive filtering of all Mozilla communication would be feasible.
So I guess the question is whether a code that can't be actively enforced is useful - it's been pointed out that other examples of conduct codes would not have prevented the incident that led to this current discussion, nor previous similar controversies.
If an unenforceable/unenforced code is a good thing for some people, and not actively harmful to others, then on balance it seems like one should be created.
I think that does make a difference in the sense that it encourages people to resolve things among themselves (if someone offended you, don't just go to others, tell the person you offended them and see what happens there first). It also encourages the person who made the offense to also be the remedy. That IMHO is a good thing all around. Accountability is a good concept.
However it still leaves the question of how to decide when someone becomes "inconsiderate" or "offensive". As Daniel Glazman notes, there's a lot of cultural differences. Ignoring this doesn't help. What explicitly is the line?
A code of conduct that doesn't clearly define what crosses the line is unfair, especially to those in the cultural minority. It's akin to a new law that says "no speeding" but doesn't say what the speed limit is. Everyone will go slightly faster than the others, until someone is arbitrarily stopped by a cop. That sounds great, unless your the person caught because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's not fair to that person(s). It also encourages people to gang up on what they don't want to hear if they can find some others. It makes minority view points unfavorable and clearly unwanted. We still need a way to prevent that.
> How about if we replace the idea of enforcement with accountability? Using the term 'enforce' suggests pressure from outside where I imagine that many code of conduct reminder scenarios may be resolved by reminding Mozillians that we are all accountable to a certain standard (one that hopefully allows folks to not have such a think skin deb+ +). I see much of the responsibility for adhering to a code being on the people, where having something that hurt someone pointed out to you results at first in a) belief b) respect & empathy and then c) being accountable for your actions. The goal of the code is not to find some magic bullet that will stop us from accidentally pushing each other's buttons but certainly to give guidance and pause for people to go a little deeper in their consideration of the entirety of the project and its people. While this may seem to lower 'productivity' initially because 'anything goes' sure does seem fast, a code gives a base to build on that is muc
> h more solid and will help us develop good inter-cultural relationships in the long term.
> Cheers, > Lukas > -Sent from a mobile device, please excuse any typos.
> Michael Lefevre <mjl+n...@michaellefevre.com> wrote:
> On 11/03/2012 12:22, Deb Richardson wrote:
>> I am actually astonished that there is disagreement about the
>> usefulness and importance of a Code of Conduct for our community.
> [...]
> It seems to me that the objections are mostly based on assumptions or > questions about how something like this would be enforced in practice. > Given the inability to, for example, even keep spam out of the > newsgroups, I can't imagine how proactive filtering of all Mozilla > communication would be feasible.
> So I guess the question is whether a code that can't be actively > enforced is useful - it's been pointed out that other examples of > conduct codes would not have prevented the incident that led to this > current discussion, nor previous similar controversies.
> If an unenforceable/unenforced code is a good thing for some people, and > not actively harmful to others, then on balance it seems like one should > be created.
That's a bad analogy for this situation or that's what would be happening
on planet and we wouldn't just be pointing to one example but many. I am
very much aware of the risks of a policy like this because I have some very
different thoughts on some issues of feminism. Even with someone I mostly
agree with there is some issue that comes up that really really bothers one
person. There is no way to avoid making people feel bad, we do have to have
a system that accepts this. There has to be some room for choosing content
based on the audience, and not banning things altogether.
I think as adults, the guideline on whether to push a controversial topic
is whether it helps move things forward. For example, Lukas and I disagree
on the term "guys." So I don't use it on Womoz (well I hope I don't, I try
to use "all" instead. It doesn't move things forward for me to insist on
using the word, and it doesn't move things forward for her to insist I
never use the word anywhere. Discussing the word did move things forward
though, I learned not to use it in situations like Womoz.
Likewise criticizing someone's work can make them feel bad, but it could be
necessary. Though how you criticize it will affect the chances of the
discussion moving everyone forward, or whether it will make the person
defensive. Though in some cases, the person might be sensitive no matter
what. For example when SUMO got its theme in 2008 there were some issues
that the design team workng on the project wasn't very receptive to
addressing. In this case the discussion was important even though it caused
conflict.
If nothing else the code could be Mozilla's philosophy on conflict, it
doesn't have to codify rules. But I definitely understand the difficulty
here.
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Robert Accettura <rob...@accettura.com>wrote:
> I think that does make a difference in the sense that it encourages people
> to resolve things among themselves (if someone offended you, don't just go
> to others, tell the person you offended them and see what happens there
> first). It also encourages the person who made the offense to also be the
> remedy. That IMHO is a good thing all around. Accountability is a good
> concept.
> However it still leaves the question of how to decide when someone becomes
> "inconsiderate" or "offensive". As Daniel Glazman notes, there's a lot of
> cultural differences. Ignoring this doesn't help. What explicitly is the
> line?
> A code of conduct that doesn't clearly define what crosses the line is
> unfair, especially to those in the cultural minority. It's akin to a new
> law that says "no speeding" but doesn't say what the speed limit is.
> Everyone will go slightly faster than the others, until someone is
> arbitrarily stopped by a cop. That sounds great, unless your the person
> caught because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's not
> fair to that person(s). It also encourages people to gang up on what they
> don't want to hear if they can find some others. It makes minority view
> points unfavorable and clearly unwanted. We still need a way to prevent
> that.
> -R
> On Mar 11, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Lukas Blakk wrote:
> > How about if we replace the idea of enforcement with accountability?
> Using the term 'enforce' suggests pressure from outside where I imagine
> that many code of conduct reminder scenarios may be resolved by reminding
> Mozillians that we are all accountable to a certain standard (one that
> hopefully allows folks to not have such a think skin deb+ +). I see much of
> the responsibility for adhering to a code being on the people, where having
> something that hurt someone pointed out to you results at first in a)
> belief b) respect & empathy and then c) being accountable for your
> actions. The goal of the code is not to find some magic bullet that will
> stop us from accidentally pushing each other's buttons but certainly to
> give guidance and pause for people to go a little deeper in their
> consideration of the entirety of the project and its people. While this may
> seem to lower 'productivity' initially because 'anything goes' sure does
> seem fast, a code gives a base to build on that is m
> uc
> > h more solid and will help us develop good inter-cultural relationships
> in the long term.
> > Cheers,
> > Lukas
> > -Sent from a mobile device, please excuse any typos.
> > Michael Lefevre <mjl+n...@michaellefevre.com> wrote:
> > On 11/03/2012 12:22, Deb Richardson wrote:
> >> I am actually astonished that there is disagreement about the
> >> usefulness and importance of a Code of Conduct for our community.
> > [...]
> > It seems to me that the objections are mostly based on assumptions or
> > questions about how something like this would be enforced in practice.
> > Given the inability to, for example, even keep spam out of the
> > newsgroups, I can't imagine how proactive filtering of all Mozilla
> > communication would be feasible.
> > So I guess the question is whether a code that can't be actively
> > enforced is useful - it's been pointed out that other examples of
> > conduct codes would not have prevented the incident that led to this
> > current discussion, nor previous similar controversies.
> > If an unenforceable/unenforced code is a good thing for some people, and
> > not actively harmful to others, then on balance it seems like one should
> > be created.
My only criticism of your example is that it's a 1:1 conflict (you and Lukas) and based on a previous discussion of some sort (I'm assuming based on what you wrote). It's among a smaller subset where most people know each other to some degree, and it's related to the common topic (feminism via Womoz). I think those conflicts very rarely escalate because of this context. Like you suggest, you found a way to move forward (and a sincere kudos on that).
I think it's a different ecosystem when talking about things like planet or a mailing list. Do either of us (or both of us) even know who gets this exchange in their inbox? Or what their feelings on any given topic may be? It's harder at this level. I don't mean to suggest Womoz doesn't have various opinions (your example proves it does), but it's not at the scale of the entire community.
There's also a difference between criticizing someone's work and their beliefs. Everyone in open source works in the open. Someone criticizing what you do is the way of life. It's academic. It's not personal, though occasionally it may feel as such, and we should be sensitive about how we approach it to avoid that. Even this debate here (I don't think) is personal.
Unless there is a policy pushing towards "agree to disagree", it will likely get petty and we'll be encouraging people to silo into groups of likemindedness to retain any sense of control. When people feel the need to form a group (like Womoz), it's the result of a problem and the need to solve it (gender bias in the case of Womoz). We shouldn't create an ecosystem where people feel the need to group in order to have a voice, or to protect their voice. My fear is that people may find it necessary to do so in order to stand up against other groups. It tends to be disruptive. See the Republican party in US politics for a classic example of this.
Agreed a "philosophy on conflict" is a /fantastic/ approach. I'd like to see a push in that direction (and I'd love to actually call it a "philosophy on conflict"), but there's also a need for "agree to disagree". No community will ever agree on everything. It would be terribly monotonous and unproductive if it did. Academic debates do have merit, including this one. But at some point, people do need to agree to coexist even if they don't see eye to eye on an issue. That doesn't mean one side accepting the other sides position or even feeling it's a justified belief. It just means understanding there is a difference of opinion and respecting it their right to it.
> That's a bad analogy for this situation or that's what would be happening on planet and we wouldn't just be pointing to one example but many. I am very much aware of the risks of a policy like this because I have some very different thoughts on some issues of feminism. Even with someone I mostly agree with there is some issue that comes up that really really bothers one person. There is no way to avoid making people feel bad, we do have to have a system that accepts this. There has to be some room for choosing content based on the audience, and not banning things altogether.
> I think as adults, the guideline on whether to push a controversial topic is whether it helps move things forward. For example, Lukas and I disagree on the term "guys." So I don't use it on Womoz (well I hope I don't, I try to use "all" instead. It doesn't move things forward for me to insist on using the word, and it doesn't move things forward for her to insist I never use the word anywhere. Discussing the word did move things forward though, I learned not to use it in situations like Womoz.
> Likewise criticizing someone's work can make them feel bad, but it could be necessary. Though how you criticize it will affect the chances of the discussion moving everyone forward, or whether it will make the person defensive. Though in some cases, the person might be sensitive no matter what. For example when SUMO got its theme in 2008 there were some issues that the design team workng on the project wasn't very receptive to addressing. In this case the discussion was important even though it caused conflict.
> If nothing else the code could be Mozilla's philosophy on conflict, it doesn't have to codify rules. But I definitely understand the difficulty here.
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Robert Accettura <rob...@accettura.com> wrote:
> I think that does make a difference in the sense that it encourages people to resolve things among themselves (if someone offended you, don't just go to others, tell the person you offended them and see what happens there first). It also encourages the person who made the offense to also be the remedy. That IMHO is a good thing all around. Accountability is a good concept.
> However it still leaves the question of how to decide when someone becomes "inconsiderate" or "offensive". As Daniel Glazman notes, there's a lot of cultural differences. Ignoring this doesn't help. What explicitly is the line?
> A code of conduct that doesn't clearly define what crosses the line is unfair, especially to those in the cultural minority. It's akin to a new law that says "no speeding" but doesn't say what the speed limit is. Everyone will go slightly faster than the others, until someone is arbitrarily stopped by a cop. That sounds great, unless your the person caught because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's not fair to that person(s). It also encourages people to gang up on what they don't want to hear if they can find some others. It makes minority view points unfavorable and clearly unwanted. We still need a way to prevent that.
> -R
> On Mar 11, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Lukas Blakk wrote:
> > How about if we replace the idea of enforcement with accountability? Using the term 'enforce' suggests pressure from outside where I imagine that many code of conduct reminder scenarios may be resolved by reminding Mozillians that we are all accountable to a certain standard (one that hopefully allows folks to not have such a think skin deb+ +). I see much of the responsibility for adhering to a code being on the people, where having something that hurt someone pointed out to you results at first in a) belief b) respect & empathy and then c) being accountable for your actions. The goal of the code is not to find some magic bullet that will stop us from accidentally pushing each other's buttons but certainly to give guidance and pause for people to go a little deeper in their consideration of the entirety of the project and its people. While this may seem to lower 'productivity' initially because 'anything goes' sure does seem fast, a code gives a base to build on that is m
> uc
> > h more solid and will help us develop good inter-cultural relationships in the long term.
> > Cheers,
> > Lukas
> > -Sent from a mobile device, please excuse any typos.
> > Michael Lefevre <mjl+n...@michaellefevre.com> wrote:
> > On 11/03/2012 12:22, Deb Richardson wrote:
> >> I am actually astonished that there is disagreement about the
> >> usefulness and importance of a Code of Conduct for our community.
> > [...]
> > It seems to me that the objections are mostly based on assumptions or
> > questions about how something like this would be enforced in practice.
> > Given the inability to, for example, even keep spam out of the
> > newsgroups, I can't imagine how proactive filtering of all Mozilla
> > communication would be feasible.
> > So I guess the question is whether a code that can't be actively
> > enforced is useful - it's been pointed out that other examples of
> > conduct codes would not have prevented the incident that led to this
> > current discussion, nor previous similar controversies.
> > If an unenforceable/unenforced code is a good thing for some people, and
> > not actively harmful to others, then on balance it seems like one should
> > be created.
On Mar 11, 1:22 pm, Deb Richardson <d...@dria.org> wrote:
> The Mozilla project has long had the unwritten attitude that a thick
> skin is required to survive in this community.
I could write that I disagree with it but let's say I don't understand
this sentence **at all**.
I have been an active member of the Mozilla community for twelve years
now. And I have been in the past part of other important tech
communities, I'm still an active member of a few important other tech
communities. Mozilla has been the easiest, the coolest, the most
trustable community of all the tech communities I have approached. If
you arrive with will to learn and help, you'll be so welcomed that
you'll potentially become a pillar of the community at really fast
pace, even if you started with a very basic tech level that would put
you aside in other communities.
About a CoC: again, this is not a monocultural world. In continental
Europe, a Code of Conduct will often be met with sometimes very
circumspect eyes. In particular in the world of Open Source or Free
Software. You can ignore it if you wish, it will not change the fact
it's not the local way of doing things.
> The Mozilla project has long had the unwritten attitude that a thick
> skin is required to survive in this community. I don't know why
> people think that is a good thing because it's not, at all.
> Agreed a "philosophy on conflict" is a /fantastic/ approach. I'd
> like to see a push in that direction (and I'd love to actually call
> it a "philosophy on conflict")
> -R
> On Mar 11, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
>> If nothing else the code could be Mozilla's philosophy on conflict,
>> it doesn't have to codify rules. But I definitely understand the
>> difficulty here.
I think this is a powerful idea. Thank you, Lucy, for suggesting it.
Developing a system for how to deal with conflict seems to me to be considerably more useful than proscribing topics which might cause conflict.
That being said, I don't think that developing a "philosophy of conflict" necessarily precludes having a document that outlines how we are expected to treat each other.
yes, I think that's the goal here, rather than defining topics try and
define how to handle situations. I do see how a code of conduct can be
precise about things like "consider how your words will make people feel"
and "assume lack of malice" without having to get into the topics where
violations might arise. It can also cover being responsive and welcoming to
new faces.
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Asa Dotzler <a...@mozilla.org> wrote:
> On 3/11/2012 10:40 AM, Robert Accettura wrote:
>> Agreed a "philosophy on conflict" is a /fantastic/ approach. I'd
>> like to see a push in that direction (and I'd love to actually call
>> it a "philosophy on conflict")
> -R
> On Mar 11, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
>>> If nothing else the code could be Mozilla's philosophy on conflict,
>>> it doesn't have to codify rules. But I definitely understand the
>>> difficulty here.
> I think this is a powerful idea. Thank you, Lucy, for suggesting it.
> Developing a system for how to deal with conflict seems to me to be
> considerably more useful than proscribing topics which might cause conflict.
> That being said, I don't think that developing a "philosophy of conflict"
> necessarily precludes having a document that outlines how we are expected
> to treat each other.
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Asa Dotzler" <a...@mozilla.org>
> To: mozilla-governa...@lists.mozilla.org
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:11:25 PM
> Subject: Re: "governance" at Mozilla
> I think this is a powerful idea. Thank you, Lucy, for suggesting it.
> Developing a system for how to deal with conflict seems to me to be
> considerably more useful than proscribing topics which might cause
> conflict.
> That being said, I don't think that developing a "philosophy of
> conflict" necessarily precludes having a document that outlines how
> we are expected to treat each other.
In the words of the great Bill & Ted: "Be excellent to each other" (and party on dudes!)
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Robert Accettura <rob...@accettura.com> wrote:
> I think that does make a difference in the sense that it encourages people to resolve things among themselves (if someone offended you, don't just go to others, tell the person you offended them and see what happens there first). It also encourages the person who made the offense to also be the remedy. That IMHO is a good thing all around. Accountability is a good concept.
> However it still leaves the question of how to decide when someone becomes "inconsiderate" or "offensive". As Daniel Glazman notes, there's a lot of cultural differences. Ignoring this doesn't help. What explicitly is the line?
> A code of conduct that doesn't clearly define what crosses the line is unfair, especially to those in the cultural minority. It's akin to a new law that says "no speeding" but doesn't say what the speed limit is. Everyone will go slightly faster than the others, until someone is arbitrarily stopped by a cop. That sounds great, unless your the person caught because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's not fair to that person(s).
It would be great if we could come up with a code of conduct that was
totally objective, much like a speeding limit is objective. (In
practice, speeding limits are enforced quite subjectively, but let's
not get distracted by that.) But that won't happen. Systems of rules
and laws are riddled with subjectivity. To return to your driving
analogy, there isn't an objective definition of "reckless driving" but
that's commonly classed as illegal behaviour. "Proof beyond
reasonable doubt" in a criminal case is another good example of a
subjective concept. The prevalence of subjectivity is why judges
aren't going to be replaced by machines any time soon. It's also why
precedent is so important in legal situations.
Now, obviously a code of conduct should have a reasonable level of
detail. Stuart mentioned Bill and Ted's "be excellent to each other";
that's an admirable principle but obviously not enough detail. David
Baron also warned that trying to specify a code of conduct in too much
detail can cause more problems than it solves, which is a fair point.
Care is needed. The good news is that others have pointed out
numerous examples of existing codes of conduct for online communities
that can serve as guidelines.
As for putting the code of conduct into practice, here's how I imagine
it working.
- If person A thinks that person B has violated the code of conduct,
they tell them. If person B takes some action that satisfies person A
(takes a blog post down), the issue is resolved.
Otherwise...
- Person A would appeal to the next level of authority. Mitchell
mentioned the idea of a Code of Conduct module, which is an idea I
like. Presumably the owner(s) (and peers?) of that module would
constitute that level of authority, and they'd decide if person B has
violated the code of conduct and what action should be taken. If
person A or person B is unhappy with this decision...
- They'd appeal to the next level of authority, which is Mitchell.
And Mitchell would have the final say.
I'm not saying it would have to work this way, but that seems like a
reasonable possibility.
I agree that trying to resolve the problem at the lowest level,
without appealing to a higher authority, is definitely a good idea,
and the code of conduct could explicitly encourage that.
