"governance" at Mozilla

[Mitchell Baker]

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.

Mitchell

[Christie Koehler]

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.

-Ck

[Christie Koehler]

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

[Nicholas Nethercote]

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Christie Koehler
<christi...@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.

Nick

[Asa Dotzler]

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.)

- A

[Majken Connor]

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:
>

> 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.)
>
> - A
>
>

> ______________________________**_________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>
>

[Cédric Corazza]

Hi,

"Director's cut" might be more neutral and less negative?
But maybe this should be discussed in another thread.

Cédric

[Cédric Corazza]

Hi,

"Director's cut" might be more neutral and less negative?
But maybe this should be discussed in another thread.

Cédric

Le 10/03/2012 22:53, Majken Connor a écrit :

[Mitchell Baker]

Hi Lucy

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

[Robert Accettura]

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:

> Hi Lucy
>
> 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:

> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

[glazou]

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…

[da...@illsley.org]

> 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.

David

[Deb Richardson]

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.

~ d

[Michael Lefevre]

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.

Michael

[Deb Richardson]

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Michael Lefevre
<mjl+...@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.

~ deb

[Lukas Blakk]

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+...@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.

Michael

[Robert Accettura]

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

[Majken Connor]

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.

[Robert Accettura]

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.

-R

[glazou]

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.

[Asa Dotzler]

On 3/11/2012 5:22 AM, Deb Richardson wrote:
> 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.

+1

- A

[Asa Dotzler]

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.

- A

[Majken Connor]

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.
>
> - A
>

> ______________________________**_________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>
>

[Stuart Parmenter]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Asa Dotzler" <a...@mozilla.org>
> To: mozilla-g...@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!)

stuart

[Nicholas Nethercote]

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.

Nick

[Ben Bucksch]

On 11.03.2012 18:54, glazou wrote:
> a Code of Conduct will often be met with sometimes very
> circumspect eyes. In particular in the world of Open Source or Free
> Software.

FWIW, that idea also gives me an uneasy feeling, because it's impossible
to codify all conflict situations. For me, it leads to hypocrisy, people
will say "oh, read there, these are the rules, I didn't violate them. It
hurt you? Tough world, deal with it!".

I like the idea of codifying that we should resolving conflicts in a
private, friendly and constructive manner. Each of these 3 are important.

[Gervase Markham]

On 11/03/12 08:13, glazou wrote:
> 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.

Hi Daniel,

I am having trouble parsing this last sentence; can you restate it?

Gerv

[Robert Kaiser]

Deb Richardson schrieb:

> 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.

Actually, I have needed a thicker skin out there in the real world in
most cases than here in this project, and I still feel that way.

Still, I also have not felt unwelcome in the Mozilla community when even
high-ranking Mozillians called my subcommunity and the project I worked
on names and ridiculed us. I even learned that from their point of view
that might be valid statements when from mine it was discriminatory and
hateful.

I've made my share of errors of seeing statements that have not favored
some group I was in as personal attacks on myself instead, when they
never have been intended to be anything near that.

I still believe this is something every human should learn, it's needed
"out there" even a ton more often than in the comparingly immensely
welcoming, friendly and open Mozilla community.

Robert Kaiser

[Robert O'Callahan]

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:22 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 don't know why
> people think that is a good thing because it's not, at all.
>

It's not a good thing, but in my role I definitely need a thick skin. Not
because of anyone at all in the Mozilla community --- but because of the
drive-by abuse I've received in various notorious Bugzilla bugs from
members of the public aggrieved with some decision we've made, and similar
(but less frequently) on some public mailing lists. I don't expect a Code
of Conduct to be able to fix this.

[Sorry if that's a tangent.]

Rob
--
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be children of your Father in heaven. ... If you love those
who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors
doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more
than others?" [Matthew 5:43-47]

[glazou]

On Mar 12, 1:26 pm, Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org> wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> I am having trouble parsing this last sentence; can you restate it?
>
> Gerv

Sure; *legally speaking*, free speech is almost total in Denmark. You
can express in public any opinion, even hate, racism and more. In the
UK, it's not reaching that extent but the scope of free speech is
wider than in continental europe. There are things, for instance
touching private life, that you can say in the UK (although some
recent jurisprudentia tends to slowly change the situation) and you're
not allowed to publish or say in public in southern european countries
without facing immediately a trial.
In the US, free speech is almost total too. It's something that is
often difficult to understand in continental europe where the
situation is more like "your freedom of speech stops where the other's
party's freedom of living quietly starts".
Does that help?

[Gervase Markham]

On 13/03/12 08:19, glazou wrote:
> Sure; *legally speaking*, free speech is almost total in Denmark. You
> can express in public any opinion, even hate, racism and more. In the
> UK, it's not reaching that extent but the scope of free speech is
> wider than in continental europe. There are things, for instance
> touching private life, that you can say in the UK (although some
> recent jurisprudentia tends to slowly change the situation) and you're
> not allowed to publish or say in public in southern european countries
> without facing immediately a trial.
> In the US, free speech is almost total too. It's something that is
> often difficult to understand in continental europe where the
> situation is more like "your freedom of speech stops where the other's
> party's freedom of living quietly starts".
> Does that help?

OK, got it. In much of continental Europe, there is much less US-style
"free speech" than in the US, UK or DK. However, your second point was
that nevertheless, the French tend to spend a lot of time discussing
society, politics, religion and sex and making jokes about it.

Is your point, therefore, that the law in France is more restrictive but
people's "upset-ness" thresholds are higher and so many things which
might technically fall foul of the law never get complained about?

Gerv

[glazou]

On Mar 13, 12:49 pm, Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org> wrote:

> Is your point, therefore, that the law in France is more restrictive but
> people's "upset-ness" thresholds are higher and so many things which
> might technically fall foul of the law never get complained about?

Yes, that's a part of the cultural difference. The law being more
restrictive, and everything that is not formally forbidden being
explicitly allowed, we know quite well our limits and don't stop below
these limits. We make for instance a very big difference between jokes
about sex or gender and harassment. A famous comedian here once said
"one can laugh about everything, just not with everybody" and it
summarizes pretty well the common practice here. And because the
french are arrogant and painful, they're usually not ready to suffer
restrictions on that topic based on another culture's habits.
I'm pretty sure that's something Mozilla HR has already discussed with
the Paris offices for instance. But being global also means accepting
people as they are, not as you wish they were according to your own
and local set of values.

FWIW, mcom.bad-attitude was, not so long ago, really a bad-attitude
newsgroup. Using corporate bandwidth and resources. Not sure I heard
one single complaint in my 3 years of subscription to that group.

</Daniel>

[Colby Russell]

On 03/13/2012 08:13 AM, glazou wrote:
> FWIW, mcom.bad-attitude was, not so long ago, really a bad-attitude
> newsgroup. Using corporate bandwidth and resources. Not sure I heard
> one single complaint in my 3 years of subscription to that group.

Really? Not a single complaint? <http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/rbarip.html>

--
Colby Russell