Mozilla is going to explore developing a Code of Conduct for our
community and contributors, using the Ubuntu project Code of Conduct
and supporting documents as an initial template. We're looking to
create something aspirational rather than proscriptive, and the Ubuntu
documents provide a tried and proven starting point.
The next step, I believe, is to look at those documents and see what
we need to do to adapt them to work for the Mozilla project. For
this, I need your help.
As we cannot use the Ubuntu Code of Conduct verbatim [1], I have taken
the liberty of merging the three primary documents into a single wiki
page and have modified the text slightly so it talks about Mozilla
rather than Ubuntu.
You can see the changes I have made to the original text here:
http://mzl.la/GEAtl0
==========
Next Steps
==========
Step I: If you want to help, please closely and carefully read through
the draft and consider the following questions:
1) Is there anything that should be added? Is there anything we need
to add for the document to apply to all of the situations, people and
groups we want our Code of Conduct to address?
2) Is there anything that should be removed? Are there things in the
document that simply to not apply to Mozilla or that we do not want
our Code of Conduct to address?
3) Is there anything significant that should be changed? At this
point, please do not include grammar issues, nits, typos,
wordsmithing, etc. -- we can deal with any needed rewrites and tweaks
once we have all the raw content sorted out.
4) Is there anything should change in the document to make it more
"Mozilla" and more in keeping with our project's unique history,
community, and DNA?
Step II: Please post your thoughts about the draft as a public reply
to this thread. If you are not comfortable posting your thoughts
publicly, you can send them to me privately at this email address, and
I'll incorporate them into the summary I will put together later.
=========
A Request
=========
Please stay on topic -- strong disagreement is fine, but I would like
everyone to keep this discussion constructive, respectful, and civil.
This thread is about the development and content of a Code of Conduct
for the Mozilla community -- any side discussions should be taken off
thread.
===========
What's Next
===========
I am going to blog and tweet about this thread shortly so more of our
community is aware that this process is happening and how to take
part. If there are people you feel should be aware of and/or involved
in this process, please point them here.
In a week or so I will post a summary of the discussion that has taken
place and propose a new set of next steps at that stage. I'm hoping
we can have an agreed-upon draft ready for wider review by mid-April.
Thanks!
~ deb
Note: If you have issues with the process I have outlined here, or if
you believe we should be doing something differently, please let me
(or Mitchell) know either here or privately.
[1] I'm still not 100% sure whether we can use the Ubuntu text at all
since it doesn't appear to be released under an open source license.
We're trying to see if we can sort that out.
This is a great start and love the direction of the code of conduct.
Here's some feedback/questions that I had after reading through it:
* What are the consequences of not adhering to the code of
conduct? ...or better yet, if someone is not adhering to it, how can a
Mozillian report that behavior and to whom?
* With codes of conduct, it helps to relate this back into the
principles and values of our community's purpose. Namely, how do these
behaviors help promote openness, innovation and opportunity on the
web. I may know where you're going with this and like the direction,
but I'm biased from having been in the community long enough to know
better. Active community members who volunteer on a casual basis or
new/potential community members may not completely understand the
"why's" of what's being implied from the content there.
* I'd suggest spinning off on a couple of these sections (specifically
in "disagreements") with a course of action for Mozillians. It helps
increase the likelihood that folks will adhere to this code of conduct
when there's a way to enforce it.
If you'd like help on any of these, feel free to ask! More than happy
to help.
-- Aakash
On Mar 22, 6:05 am, Deb Richardson <d...@dria.org> wrote:
> Mozilla is going to explore developing a Code of Conduct for our
> community and contributors, using the Ubuntu project Code of Conduct
> and supporting documents as an initial template. We're looking to
> create something aspirational rather than proscriptive, and the Ubuntu
> documents provide a tried and proven starting point.
> The next step, I believe, is to look at those documents and see what
> we need to do to adapt them to work for the Mozilla project. For
> this, I need your help.
> As we cannot use the Ubuntu Code of Conduct verbatim [1], I have taken
> the liberty of merging the three primary documents into a single wiki
> page and have modified the text slightly so it talks about Mozilla
> rather than Ubuntu.
> You can see the changes I have made to the original text here:
> http://mzl.la/GEAtl0
> ==========
> Next Steps
> ==========
> Step I: If you want to help, please closely and carefully read through
> the draft and consider the following questions:
> 1) Is there anything that should be added? Is there anything we need
> to add for the document to apply to all of the situations, people and
> groups we want our Code of Conduct to address?
> 2) Is there anything that should be removed? Are there things in the
> document that simply to not apply to Mozilla or that we do not want
> our Code of Conduct to address?
> 3) Is there anything significant that should be changed? At this
> point, please do not include grammar issues, nits, typos,
> wordsmithing, etc. -- we can deal with any needed rewrites and tweaks
> once we have all the raw content sorted out.
> 4) Is there anything should change in the document to make it more
> "Mozilla" and more in keeping with our project's unique history,
> community, and DNA?
> Step II: Please post your thoughts about the draft as a public reply
> to this thread. If you are not comfortable posting your thoughts
> publicly, you can send them to me privately at this email address, and
> I'll incorporate them into the summary I will put together later.
> =========
> A Request
> =========
> Please stay on topic -- strong disagreement is fine, but I would like
> everyone to keep this discussion constructive, respectful, and civil.
> This thread is about the development and content of a Code of Conduct
> for the Mozilla community -- any side discussions should be taken off
> thread.
> ===========
> What's Next
> ===========
> I am going to blog and tweet about this thread shortly so more of our
> community is aware that this process is happening and how to take
> part. If there are people you feel should be aware of and/or involved
> in this process, please point them here.
> In a week or so I will post a summary of the discussion that has taken
> place and propose a new set of next steps at that stage. I'm hoping
> we can have an agreed-upon draft ready for wider review by mid-April.
> Thanks!
> ~ deb
> Note: If you have issues with the process I have outlined here, or if
> you believe we should be doing something differently, please let me
> (or Mitchell) know either here or privately.
> [1] I'm still not 100% sure whether we can use the Ubuntu text at all
> since it doesn't appear to be released under an open source license.
> We're trying to see if we can sort that out.
> 1) Is there anything that should be added? Is there anything we need
> to add for the document to apply to all of the situations, people and
> groups we want our Code of Conduct to address?
The section on Mailing lists and web forums - it may be wise to include: "Mozilla project syndicated/aggregated/published blog posts" in there. What you write on your blog may be your business, but the project does syndicate and re-publish blog posts that you send to any of our numerous planets so it seems as fitting as web forums/newsgroups as a category to mention here.
> 2) Is there anything that should be removed? Are there things in the
> document that simply to not apply to Mozilla or that we do not want
> our Code of Conduct to address?
Phenotype? I have never seen this one before and wonder what exactly is trying to be achieved by including that in the list of 'diverse' groups we are 'honouring'. On that note, the term 'honouring' is not what I'd be looking to see there. I don't know if that's the correct word or sentiment for trying to ensure that we are striving to ensure people in those groups face as little discrimination as we can control when they are within the space of the Mozilla project. What about something like: " Mozilla endeavors to foster a just and inclusive culture that embraces the diversity of the people involved and interacting with the project, with zero tolerance for discrimination based on age, etc....."?
Thank you very much for your hard work on this and I hope our discussion are fruitful and we get something in place soon.
> Phenotype? I have never seen this one before and wonder what exactly is trying
> to be achieved by including that in the list of 'diverse' groups we are
> 'honouring'.
Different habits of behaviour/mannerisms/...? Perhaps 'character' would work here; although after a long day at work I'm not sure it means the same in English as does its close Dutch friend 'karakter'.
As an example, communication habits (quick/slow responder, long/curt emails, lots of office banter / dead serious, ...). I don't think that's covered under just 'culture' or any of the other items.
It's interesting though, as I thought phenotype was well-known as the corresponding thing to genotype (somewhat like genes/memes). I think I first read about it as a teenager, either in some of my biology classes or when reading Dennett. Perhaps a cultural difference/disagreement?
> On 22/03/2012 16:52 PM, Lukas Blakk wrote:
>> Phenotype? I have never seen this one before and wonder what exactly >> is trying
>> to be achieved by including that in the list of 'diverse' groups we are
>> 'honouring'.
> Different habits of behaviour/mannerisms/...? Perhaps 'character' > would work here; although after a long day at work I'm not sure it > means the same in English as does its close Dutch friend 'karakter'.
> As an example, communication habits (quick/slow responder, long/curt > emails, lots of office banter / dead serious, ...). I don't think > that's covered under just 'culture' or any of the other items.
> It's interesting though, as I thought phenotype was well-known as the > corresponding thing to genotype (somewhat like genes/memes). I think I > first read about it as a teenager, either in some of my biology > classes or when reading Dennett. Perhaps a cultural > difference/disagreement?
On Thursday, March 22, 2012 6:35:59 PM UTC+5:30, Deb Richardson wrote:
> Good morning,
> Mozilla is going to explore developing a Code of Conduct for our
> community and contributors, using the Ubuntu project Code of Conduct
> and supporting documents as an initial template. We're looking to
> create something aspirational rather than proscriptive, and the Ubuntu
> documents provide a tried and proven starting point.
> The next step, I believe, is to look at those documents and see what
> we need to do to adapt them to work for the Mozilla project. For
> this, I need your help.
> As we cannot use the Ubuntu Code of Conduct verbatim [1], I have taken
> the liberty of merging the three primary documents into a single wiki
> page and have modified the text slightly so it talks about Mozilla
> rather than Ubuntu.
> You can see the changes I have made to the original text here:
> http://mzl.la/GEAtl0
> ==========
> Next Steps
> ==========
> Step I: If you want to help, please closely and carefully read through
> the draft and consider the following questions:
> 1) Is there anything that should be added? Is there anything we need
> to add for the document to apply to all of the situations, people and
> groups we want our Code of Conduct to address?
> 2) Is there anything that should be removed? Are there things in the
> document that simply to not apply to Mozilla or that we do not want
> our Code of Conduct to address?
> 3) Is there anything significant that should be changed? At this
> point, please do not include grammar issues, nits, typos,
> wordsmithing, etc. -- we can deal with any needed rewrites and tweaks
> once we have all the raw content sorted out.
> 4) Is there anything should change in the document to make it more
> "Mozilla" and more in keeping with our project's unique history,
> community, and DNA?
> Step II: Please post your thoughts about the draft as a public reply
> to this thread. If you are not comfortable posting your thoughts
> publicly, you can send them to me privately at this email address, and
> I'll incorporate them into the summary I will put together later.
> =========
> A Request
> =========
> Please stay on topic -- strong disagreement is fine, but I would like
> everyone to keep this discussion constructive, respectful, and civil.
> This thread is about the development and content of a Code of Conduct
> for the Mozilla community -- any side discussions should be taken off
> thread.
> ===========
> What's Next
> ===========
> I am going to blog and tweet about this thread shortly so more of our
> community is aware that this process is happening and how to take
> part. If there are people you feel should be aware of and/or involved
> in this process, please point them here.
> In a week or so I will post a summary of the discussion that has taken
> place and propose a new set of next steps at that stage. I'm hoping
> we can have an agreed-upon draft ready for wider review by mid-April.
> Thanks!
> ~ deb
> Note: If you have issues with the process I have outlined here, or if
> you believe we should be doing something differently, please let me
> (or Mitchell) know either here or privately.
> [1] I'm still not 100% sure whether we can use the Ubuntu text at all
> since it doesn't appear to be released under an open source license.
> We're trying to see if we can sort that out.
Hi!
I talked to Daniel Holbach from the Community Council about the license for the CoC and he pointed me to https://launchpad.net/ubuntu-codeofconduct. The license there is "Other/Open Source (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0)". If we need further clarification, I'm happy to ask the Ubuntu Community Council
On Thursday, March 22, 2012 6:35:59 PM UTC+5:30, Deb Richardson wrote:
> Good morning,
> Mozilla is going to explore developing a Code of Conduct for our
> community and contributors, using the Ubuntu project Code of Conduct
> and supporting documents as an initial template. We're looking to
> create something aspirational rather than proscriptive, and the Ubuntu
> documents provide a tried and proven starting point.
> The next step, I believe, is to look at those documents and see what
> we need to do to adapt them to work for the Mozilla project. For
> this, I need your help.
> As we cannot use the Ubuntu Code of Conduct verbatim [1], I have taken
> the liberty of merging the three primary documents into a single wiki
> page and have modified the text slightly so it talks about Mozilla
> rather than Ubuntu.
> You can see the changes I have made to the original text here:
> http://mzl.la/GEAtl0
> ==========
> Next Steps
> ==========
> Step I: If you want to help, please closely and carefully read through
> the draft and consider the following questions:
> 1) Is there anything that should be added? Is there anything we need
> to add for the document to apply to all of the situations, people and
> groups we want our Code of Conduct to address?
> 2) Is there anything that should be removed? Are there things in the
> document that simply to not apply to Mozilla or that we do not want
> our Code of Conduct to address?
> 3) Is there anything significant that should be changed? At this
> point, please do not include grammar issues, nits, typos,
> wordsmithing, etc. -- we can deal with any needed rewrites and tweaks
> once we have all the raw content sorted out.
> 4) Is there anything should change in the document to make it more
> "Mozilla" and more in keeping with our project's unique history,
> community, and DNA?
> Step II: Please post your thoughts about the draft as a public reply
> to this thread. If you are not comfortable posting your thoughts
> publicly, you can send them to me privately at this email address, and
> I'll incorporate them into the summary I will put together later.
> =========
> A Request
> =========
> Please stay on topic -- strong disagreement is fine, but I would like
> everyone to keep this discussion constructive, respectful, and civil.
> This thread is about the development and content of a Code of Conduct
> for the Mozilla community -- any side discussions should be taken off
> thread.
> ===========
> What's Next
> ===========
> I am going to blog and tweet about this thread shortly so more of our
> community is aware that this process is happening and how to take
> part. If there are people you feel should be aware of and/or involved
> in this process, please point them here.
> In a week or so I will post a summary of the discussion that has taken
> place and propose a new set of next steps at that stage. I'm hoping
> we can have an agreed-upon draft ready for wider review by mid-April.
> Thanks!
> ~ deb
> Note: If you have issues with the process I have outlined here, or if
> you believe we should be doing something differently, please let me
> (or Mitchell) know either here or privately.
> [1] I'm still not 100% sure whether we can use the Ubuntu text at all
> since it doesn't appear to be released under an open source license.
> We're trying to see if we can sort that out.
Hi!
I talked to Daniel Holbach from the Community Council about the license for the CoC and he pointed me to https://launchpad.net/ubuntu-codeofconduct. The license there is "Other/Open Source (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0)". If we need further clarification, I'm happy to ask the Ubuntu Community Council
> On 3/22/12 11:52 AM, Lukas Blakk wrote:
>> Phenotype? I have never seen this one before
> For me, that particular reference evoked ideas like hair color, > height, weight. So pretty distinct from neurotype and everything else > in the list...
> -Boris
Ok so 'phenotype' is a way of basically saying 'anything about a person's physical appearance'? Wfm.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Robert Kaiser <ka...@kairo.at> wrote:
> I found a nit while reading this:
> "Instead, leaders balance hard work on their own -- leadership by example --
> with delegation to others and hard work on their own."
> That's a bit repetitive, "hard work on their own" doesn't have to be
> balanced twice, I think. ;-)
Heh, yah. I do think there are bits that possibly need to be
wordsmithed a bit (aka: rewritten for clarity, not content), but that
will be a second stage once we're all agreed on the core content.
On Mar 22, 10:04 am, Lukas Blakk <lsbl...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Ok so 'phenotype' is a way of basically saying 'anything about a
> person's physical appearance'? Wfm.
If that's the case, then I think "physical appearance" is a lot
clearer. It wouldn't be a bad idea to call out "size" specifically
since sizeism is a particularly common form of oppression based on
physical appearance, and when that's not called out specifically, many
people assume that fatphobia is the exception to the general rule
about commenting on someone's appearance negatively.
I think it would be nicer to be less specific. I think if the larger term
covers it then that should do it. I hope the code (haven't read the whole
thing) has other sections about being mature and respectful in general so
that we don't need to list every little thing. I hope anyone that justifies
being mean with "it's not on the code" doesn't get away with it. I don't
think the people who would be interpreting this would let them get away
with it. I think the harder issue will be whether someone is being mean or
expressing concern for someone's health, which IMO is the only possible
acceptable situation in which to bring up someone's weight.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Tim Chevalier <catamorph...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mar 22, 10:04 am, Lukas Blakk <lsbl...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> > Ok so 'phenotype' is a way of basically saying 'anything about a
> > person's physical appearance'? Wfm.
> If that's the case, then I think "physical appearance" is a lot
> clearer. It wouldn't be a bad idea to call out "size" specifically
> since sizeism is a particularly common form of oppression based on
> physical appearance, and when that's not called out specifically, many
> people assume that fatphobia is the exception to the general rule
> about commenting on someone's appearance negatively.
On Mar 22, 12:21 pm, Majken Connor <maj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it would be nicer to be less specific. I think if the larger term
> covers it then that should do it. I hope the code (haven't read the whole
> thing) has other sections about being mature and respectful in general so
> that we don't need to list every little thing. I hope anyone that justifies
> being mean with "it's not on the code" doesn't get away with it. I don't
> think the people who would be interpreting this would let them get away
> with it. I think the harder issue will be whether someone is being mean or
> expressing concern for someone's health, which IMO is the only possible
> acceptable situation in which to bring up someone's weight.
I disagree, and I think this response shows exactly why. We need to be
specific because without specificity, it's a given that it's OK to
bully fat people by phrasing it as concern about our health, and
[picking some examples that *are* in the document] it's OK to tell
women to "make me a sandwich" because sexism is funny, it's OK to de-
gender trans people, and so on. We inherit those assumptions from the
underlying culture we're in, and to create a culture that opposes
those oppressions, we need to be explicit. (As an aside, I hope that
no one thinks it's ever appropriate to make unsolicited comments about
a co-worker's health, especially when committing the fallacy of
assuming someone's appearance tells you something about their health
-- unless it's someone that you know well and trust, and the Code of
Conduct is intended to address interactions between people who *don't*
trust each other.)
Personally, I hope that the code of conduct is not about being mean or
being nice, as we all learn in kindergarten that it's bad to be mean
to people and good to be nice. I hope that none of us need a formal
document to tell us that. I hope that it's about power imbalances and
holding people who abuse their power accountable. That process *does*
require a formal document since most if not all of us have grown up in
a culture that legitimizes and normalizes the abuse of power. Intent
has no place in such a framework, as the language of intent is the
language of privileging abusers' explanations of why they abuse,
rather than the experience of people who are abused. What matters is
taking responsibility for one's actions and being accountable for
their consequences.
On Thursday 2012-03-22 18:05 -0700, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Lukas Blakk <lsbl...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> > Ok so 'phenotype' is a way of basically saying 'anything about a person's
> > physical appearance'? Wfm.
> In that case, if it's changed from "phenotype" to "physical
> appearance" that might avoid some future head-scratching :)
I think "physical appearance" and "phenotype" are somewhat
different. For example, I would consider a person's choice of
clothing (or choice of whether to wear clothing at all) is part of
their physical appearance but not part of their phenotype, whereas I
would think many disabilities (e.g., deafness) are part of phenotype
but aren't part of physical appearance.
I'm worried we're going to far.
I make unsolicited remarks about co-workers' health all the time. When someone I work with has a cough and a low, scratchy voice, I often ask if s/he is all right. If it's someone I think is working on things that are related to me or my work, I sometimes suggest I can wait a day or two.
Is this really wrong?
Also, I view the Code of Conduct as something much more positive and optimistic than a document between people who don't trust each other. It's a document for people of wildly different cultures and belief systems and ways of interacting to set out our aspirations, and the interaction style we're trying to build.
It's a tool to help people, and a tool for people who feel some behavior goes beyond behavior they don't like to something that should be a community matter.
> On Mar 22, 12:21 pm, Majken Connor<maj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think it would be nicer to be less specific. I think if the larger term
>> covers it then that should do it. I hope the code (haven't read the whole
>> thing) has other sections about being mature and respectful in general so
>> that we don't need to list every little thing. I hope anyone that justifies
>> being mean with "it's not on the code" doesn't get away with it. I don't
>> think the people who would be interpreting this would let them get away
>> with it. I think the harder issue will be whether someone is being mean or
>> expressing concern for someone's health, which IMO is the only possible
>> acceptable situation in which to bring up someone's weight.
> I disagree, and I think this response shows exactly why. We need to be
> specific because without specificity, it's a given that it's OK to
> bully fat people by phrasing it as concern about our health, and
> [picking some examples that *are* in the document] it's OK to tell
> women to "make me a sandwich" because sexism is funny, it's OK to de-
> gender trans people, and so on. We inherit those assumptions from the
> underlying culture we're in, and to create a culture that opposes
> those oppressions, we need to be explicit. (As an aside, I hope that
> no one thinks it's ever appropriate to make unsolicited comments about
> a co-worker's health, especially when committing the fallacy of
> assuming someone's appearance tells you something about their health
> -- unless it's someone that you know well and trust, and the Code of
> Conduct is intended to address interactions between people who *don't*
> trust each other.)
> Personally, I hope that the code of conduct is not about being mean or
> being nice, as we all learn in kindergarten that it's bad to be mean
> to people and good to be nice. I hope that none of us need a formal
> document to tell us that. I hope that it's about power imbalances and
> holding people who abuse their power accountable. That process *does*
> require a formal document since most if not all of us have grown up in
> a culture that legitimizes and normalizes the abuse of power. Intent
> has no place in such a framework, as the language of intent is the
> language of privileging abusers' explanations of why they abuse,
> rather than the experience of people who are abused. What matters is
> taking responsibility for one's actions and being accountable for
> their consequences.
I don't know a few of those terms, mostly the -type ones. Can we make sure that the ones we use have descriptions on wikipedia that help to understand them in context? If there are not, I'd suggest to not use them.
> I'm worried we're going to far.
> I make unsolicited remarks about co-workers' health all the time. When
> someone I work with has a cough and a low, scratchy voice, I often ask
> if s/he is all right. If it's someone I think is working on things that
> are related to me or my work, I sometimes suggest I can wait a day or two.
> Is this really wrong?
> Also, I view the Code of Conduct as something much more positive and
> optimistic than a document between people who don't trust each other.
> It's a document for people of wildly different cultures and belief
> systems and ways of interacting to set out our aspirations, and the
> interaction style we're trying to build.
> It's a tool to help people, and a tool for people who feel some behavior
> goes beyond behavior they don't like to something that should be a
> community matter.
> Mitchell
> On 3/22/12 1:04 PM, Tim Chevalier wrote:
>> On Mar 22, 12:21 pm, Majken Connor<maj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think it would be nicer to be less specific. I think if the larger
>>> term
>>> covers it then that should do it. I hope the code (haven't read the
>>> whole
>>> thing) has other sections about being mature and respectful in
>>> general so
>>> that we don't need to list every little thing. I hope anyone that
>>> justifies
>>> being mean with "it's not on the code" doesn't get away with it. I don't
>>> think the people who would be interpreting this would let them get away
>>> with it. I think the harder issue will be whether someone is being
>>> mean or
>>> expressing concern for someone's health, which IMO is the only possible
>>> acceptable situation in which to bring up someone's weight.
>> I disagree, and I think this response shows exactly why. We need to be
>> specific because without specificity, it's a given that it's OK to
>> bully fat people by phrasing it as concern about our health, and
>> [picking some examples that *are* in the document] it's OK to tell
>> women to "make me a sandwich" because sexism is funny, it's OK to de-
>> gender trans people, and so on. We inherit those assumptions from the
>> underlying culture we're in, and to create a culture that opposes
>> those oppressions, we need to be explicit. (As an aside, I hope that
>> no one thinks it's ever appropriate to make unsolicited comments about
>> a co-worker's health, especially when committing the fallacy of
>> assuming someone's appearance tells you something about their health
>> -- unless it's someone that you know well and trust, and the Code of
>> Conduct is intended to address interactions between people who *don't*
>> trust each other.)
>> Personally, I hope that the code of conduct is not about being mean or
>> being nice, as we all learn in kindergarten that it's bad to be mean
>> to people and good to be nice. I hope that none of us need a formal
>> document to tell us that. I hope that it's about power imbalances and
>> holding people who abuse their power accountable. That process *does*
>> require a formal document since most if not all of us have grown up in
>> a culture that legitimizes and normalizes the abuse of power. Intent
>> has no place in such a framework, as the language of intent is the
>> language of privileging abusers' explanations of why they abuse,
>> rather than the experience of people who are abused. What matters is
>> taking responsibility for one's actions and being accountable for
>> their consequences.
>> What about something like: " Mozilla endeavors to foster a just and
>> inclusive culture that embraces the diversity of the people involved and
>> interacting with the project, with zero tolerance for discrimination
>> based on age, etc....."?
Broadly, I prefer to stick with a goal of and belief in the value of a
diverse community and use that goal/belief to engage with people and
situations where that is being harmed. Defining discrimination is clearly
difficult. Recognising and getting rough consensus on behaviour which is
harmful to building a diverse community seems like it would be easier.
To clarify any confusion, from a biological perspective, genotype refers to the genetic potential of an organism. For example, each individual has a genetic code (or multiple, in the case of chimeric individuals, or a variety other genetic variations; an understanding of human genetics being 46 chromosomes common to all of the cells in our bodies is deeply flawed), and this supplies a set of genetic potentials, for example, the height, weight, bone density, facial structure, propensity towards diseases (e.g. oncogenes that leave an individual predisposed to certain cancers), etc.
The phenotype of an individual is the expression of that genotype as a result of the environment the organism lives in. While phenotype is frequently thought of as the genetic expression as a result of environmental considerations such as nutrition, ecological factors such as elevation, etc, more modern considerations include other factors such as interaction with other organisms (intra- or inter-species).
Ultimately the phenotype of a human being folds in the social interactions as part of those environmental interactions. If you are looking for a way to say you want to include anyone, regardless of their differences, selecting to ban exclusion on phenotype is probably the most inclusive you can get because it covers every potential aspect of "being" that a person can be regardless of whether they got there through personal choice, social pressure, or a biological imperative.
> On Thursday 2012-03-22 18:05 -0700, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Lukas Blakk <lsbl...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>> Ok so 'phenotype' is a way of basically saying 'anything about a person's
>>> physical appearance'? Wfm.
>> In that case, if it's changed from "phenotype" to "physical
>> appearance" that might avoid some future head-scratching :)
> I think "physical appearance" and "phenotype" are somewhat
> different. For example, I would consider a person's choice of
> clothing (or choice of whether to wear clothing at all) is part of
> their physical appearance but not part of their phenotype, whereas I
> would think many disabilities (e.g., deafness) are part of phenotype
> but aren't part of physical appearance.
>> 1) Is there anything that should be added? Is there anything we need
>> to add for the document to apply to all of the situations, people and
>> groups we want our Code of Conduct to address?
> The section on Mailing lists and web forums - it may be wise to include:
> "Mozilla project syndicated/aggregated/published blog posts" in there.
> What you write on your blog may be your business, but the project does
> syndicate and re-publish blog posts that you send to any of our numerous
> planets so it seems as fitting as web forums/newsgroups as a category to
> mention here.
But personal blog posts aren't posted "to" planet. They're posted to a personal blog. How about including that section above, but specify "Mozilla *hosted* " blogs?
After Deb made the suggestion of using the Ubuntu CoC as a starting point on thinking about this, I contacted a friend who works for Canonical to ask some questions about it. He put me in touch with a couple people who work on the CoC and the "council" they have set up to help resolve disputes.
Deb and I are continuing some questioning of these folks about what has worked and what hasn't, but I did want to point out that they pointed us to a v2 draft which is in the works. This draft tries to address some concerns people have had with the first version.
One thing mentioned is that they wanted to make it smaller, and easier to read - and you might notice that.
By the way, the most encouraging thing said so far was this:
"In lots of conversations I've had at conferences and elsewhere people
mentioned to me that it was the CoC and what it stood for which made
Ubuntu attractive for them, so if you should decide to adopt it I expect
it to have great and positive impact on your community."
I'd like to think that this will be true for a Mozilla Code as well :)
Looking through this, it'd be good to have the folks that are working on
the Events Gathering Plan look and amend where possible for any sort of
pieces that are missing when Mozillians are meeting each other in off-line
areas. Cc'ing them to this convo.
Also, I'm probably getting ahead of myself, but we may want to link to this
in our standard footer once its done.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:31 AM, David Mason <d...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> After Deb made the suggestion of using the Ubuntu CoC as a starting point
> on thinking about this, I contacted a friend who works for Canonical to ask
> some questions about it. He put me in touch with a couple people who work
> on the CoC and the "council" they have set up to help resolve disputes.
> Deb and I are continuing some questioning of these folks about what has
> worked and what hasn't, but I did want to point out that they pointed us to
> a v2 draft which is in the works. This draft tries to address some concerns
> people have had with the first version.
> One thing mentioned is that they wanted to make it smaller, and easier to
> read - and you might notice that.
> By the way, the most encouraging thing said so far was this:
> "In lots of conversations I've had at conferences and elsewhere people
> mentioned to me that it was the CoC and what it stood for which made
> Ubuntu attractive for them, so if you should decide to adopt it I expect
> it to have great and positive impact on your community."
> I'd like to think that this will be true for a Mozilla Code as well :)
> and the Code of
> Conduct is intended to address interactions between people who *don't*
> trust each other.)
I'm not at all sure that's right, or a good distinction to make. There have been a number of people who I have had outright yelling matches with about Mozilla issues, both in front of others and on public conference calls. (As an extreme case, I was once told by a colleague "I hope you die in a fire" during a meeting. Then we went for dinner and drinks afterwards and laughed about it.) But that type of behaviour isn't actually great for anyone else, and certainly doesn't make it attractive for others to get involved or contribute to the conversation. It also doesn't set a good example for others to follow ("you mean being a sarcastic jerk isn't normal at Mozilla?"), and that is something that I've been working on being much more intentional about in general.
I hope that the Code of Conduct helps all of us interact in healthier and more welcoming ways, at least in contexts where that behaviour is visible to/affects others, but hopefully in all cases.
> Personally, I hope that the code of conduct is not about being mean or
> being nice, as we all learn in kindergarten that it's bad to be mean
> to people and good to be nice. I hope that none of us need a formal
> document to tell us that. I hope that it's about power imbalances and
> holding people who abuse their power accountable. That process *does*
> require a formal document since most if not all of us have grown up in
> a culture that legitimizes and normalizes the abuse of power.
Frankly, I would be greatly disappointed in any outcome that focuses on some definition of power, and attempts to prescribe who can be abusers and who can be victims. If someone's actions cause hurt or offence, that behaviour should be addressed and curtailed, regardless of intent, trappings of power, or any other factor.
> Intent
> has no place in such a framework, as the language of intent is the
> language of privileging abusers' explanations of why they abuse,
> rather than the experience of people who are abused.
Intent, or lack thereof, absolutely does not matter on the level of "should this problem be addressed?" or "should the offender take action to resolve the problem?" If there is an issue, a resolution must be found.
That said, I believe intent (and context, and many other factors) are all factors that should be considered in finding a resolution. Someone who intentionally and repeatedly hurts others is an individual we would need to deal with differently from someone who inadvertently causes offence, and sincerely wants to do better. It doesn't _excuse_ the behaviour, but it factors into reaching the right outcome.
> What matters is
> taking responsibility for one's actions and being accountable for
> their consequences.
I agree wholeheartedly with this specific sentence. As someone who rarely, if ever, intends to cause offence, but has done so on too many occasions, I have worked very hard to separate intent from consequences, and to focus on addressing consequences in good faith, while on both sides of issues. That's a hard thing for me personally (and many people I've known), but it's absolutely the right thing to do.
> The section on Mailing lists and web forums - it may be wise to include:
> "Mozilla project syndicated/aggregated/published blog posts" in there.
> What you write on your blog may be your business, but the project does
> syndicate and re-publish blog posts that you send to any of our numerous
> planets so it seems as fitting as web forums/newsgroups as a category to
> mention here.
I think that currently the Planet module owners are responsible for
Planet content policy, and that if this responsibility is to be taken
away from them, it should be done explicitly, with discussions of the
pros and cons of that particular move, rather than via an update to a
Code of Conduct document.
> Phenotype? I have never seen this one before and wonder what exactly is
> trying to be achieved by including that in the list of 'diverse' groups
> we are 'honouring'.
I think we have to be careful about specifying a class as wide as
phenotype; people could easily claim that their personal irritating
mannerisms and trolling are part of their phenotype! :-)
> On that note, the term 'honouring' is not what I'd
> be looking to see there. I don't know if that's the correct word or
> sentiment for trying to ensure that we are striving to ensure people in
> those groups face as little discrimination as we can control when they
> are within the space of the Mozilla project. What about something like:
> " Mozilla endeavors to foster a just and inclusive culture that embraces
> the diversity of the people involved and interacting with the project,
> with zero tolerance for discrimination based on age, etc....."?
I also have issues with "honour"; see my reply to dria. I would be very
interested to know if you think your formulation avoids the problem I
raise with "honour" or not.
> Step I: If you want to help, please closely and carefully read through
> the draft and consider the following questions:
I rather like the Ubuntu Code of Conduct and would be happy to see it
adopted pretty much unchanged, although perhaps tweaked for clarity in
some places. The Diversity Statement part has at least one problem; see
below.
> 1) Is there anything that should be added? Is there anything we need
> to add for the document to apply to all of the situations, people and
> groups we want our Code of Conduct to address?
I think that the details, make-up and processes surrounding the proposed
Mozilla Community Council are at least as important as the actual
content of the Code of Conduct, and that it would be premature to
approve a code without knowing how that part of the system will work. Do
you plan to make a proposal about this?
Given that you (entirely correctly, as a starting point) basically just
search-and-replaced Ubuntu to Mozilla, thereby 'creating' a Mozilla
Community Council :-), is the very idea of a Community Council up for
debate? Are you interested in alternative governance proposals to take
on the role currently envisaged for the Council?
> 2) Is there anything that should be removed? Are there things in the
> document that simply to not apply to Mozilla or that we do not want
> our Code of Conduct to address?
> 3) Is there anything significant that should be changed? At this
> point, please do not include grammar issues, nits, typos,
> wordsmithing, etc. -- we can deal with any needed rewrites and tweaks
> once we have all the raw content sorted out.
I may have more comments when I've thought about it more, but here is
one for now.
The code says:
"we explicitly honour diversity in ... religion, ...".
Who is "we", and what does it mean to "honour"?
If we is "everyone in the Mozilla project" and "honour" means "be glad
about the fact of" or "celebrate", then I think many Mozillians,
including me, would not want to accede to this. Let me explain why.
I picked religion as an example in the quote above, although the below
analysis applies to more categories on the list than just that one.
While I am happy to make welcome, work with, respect the person of, and
be friends and colleagues with people of other religions, it is wrong to
say that I am glad about the fact of religious diversity. I, and other
Mozilla Christians, think everyone in the world should turn to Jesus and
become a Christian, and are sad that this isn't yet the case.
There are others in the Mozilla community who think all religion is
stupid and foolish (and they are entitled to their view, and to express
it). They also, I suspect, are not glad about the fact of religious
diversity. They think the world would be a much better place if everyone
threw off religion entirely, and are sad that it hasn't happened yet.
There are, of course, people who are pluralists and think a diversity of
religions is a marvellous thing. "Whatever works for you, dude." That's
also a view some people hold. But we should not enshrine it as the view
required by everyone in order to participate in Mozilla.
(Note that the above _is_ on topic: the question is not about the
validity or otherwise of particular religions, but about what people are
signing up to when they have to "honour diversity" in religion. Let's
not get distracted as to the pros and cons of each view; if we can at
least agree that different people in Mozilla do hold the different views
named above, then my point is made.)
Suggestion: how about "as a community, we explicitly welcome people of
diverse ... religion, ... etc."? Or perhaps other people can think of
different introductory words which don't hit the problem noted above.
