First, thanks to Deb for doing a ton of work to make this possible.
I propose we adopt a very basic Code of Conduct. The goal is to make it clear we expect to treat each other well, and that there are some aspects of how we treat each other that is relevant to an identity as a Mozillian. I like the explanatory material in the Ubuntu document, but I understand that the length makes it seem like a big document full of rules.
For our purposes, I propose:
1. we use the headings as our basic doc. We have links to the explanatory text that Deb has pulled together. That means that the core CoC looks something like:
Be considerate.
Be respectful.
Be collaborative.
Consult others when disagreements occur
Ask for help
[Threats of violence, even as a joke, are not acceptable.]
I'm inclined to call this out explicitly.
[I'd delete Step down considerately for now, maybe put it in
the leadership code]
Empower others. [I've just added this, I think it's a key
aspect of Mozilla, will have some discussion on it]
2. We replace the diversity section in its entirety with something like what I've written below.
3. We add a clear mechanism for what someone can do when s/he feels s/he feels there a serious enough problem to work on.
4. There's one big question in the inclusion section -- it's in subsection (b) below ("such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces.") I think it's the right thing, but we should discuss. It reflects my view that (a) limiting content has many problems, that Mozilla is about people being people a; and that (b) we are about inclusion and empowerment. Also that it's narrow enough to be workable across any definition of mozilla spaces.
5. We may also, separately, address whether our big communications channels like planet.mozilla.org should default to "mozilla-related" default or to a "whole-person" default. I think I'm still of the former opinion, I recognize the planet peers are of the latter.
Mozilla Inclusiveness Statement
Mozilla is an inclusive organization. Everyone who is moves
the Mozilla mission forward is welcome, regardless of
personal characteristics.
Mozilla-based activities are inclusive. We work to create
opportunity for all in our activities, regardless of
personal characteristics.
As Mozillians we share the Mozilla mission, but not necessarily
other social, economic, political or religious views.
We acknowledge that some Mozillians may also participate in or
support exclusion based on personal characteristics in
other aspects of their lives. When this occurs:
(a) any such belief must not be carried into Mozilla activities.
(b) such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces.
(c) those Mozillians offended by such beliefs should also draw the same line: exclusionary actions outside of Mozilla should be left outside of Mozilla.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Mitchell Baker <mitch...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> First, thanks to Deb for doing a ton of work to make this possible.
> I propose we adopt a very basic Code of Conduct. The goal is to make it
> clear we expect to treat each other well, and that there are some aspects
> of how we treat each other that is relevant to an identity as a Mozillian.
> I like the explanatory material in the Ubuntu document, but I understand
> that the length makes it seem like a big document full of rules.
> For our purposes, I propose:
> 1. we use the headings as our basic doc. We have links to the
> explanatory text that Deb has pulled together. That means that the core
> CoC looks something like:
> Be considerate.
> Be respectful.
> Be collaborative.
> Consult others when disagreements occur
> Ask for help
> [Threats of violence, even as a joke, are not acceptable.]
> I'm inclined to call this out explicitly.
> [I'd delete Step down considerately for now, maybe put it in
> the leadership code]
> Empower others. [I've just added this, I think it's a key
> aspect of Mozilla, will have some discussion on it]
> 2. We replace the diversity section in its entirety with something like
> what I've written below.
> 3. We add a clear mechanism for what someone can do when s/he feels s/he
> feels there a serious enough problem to work on.
> 4. There's one big question in the inclusion section -- it's in
> subsection (b) below ("such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities should not
> be expressed in Mozilla spaces.") I think it's the right thing, but we
> should discuss. It reflects my view that (a) limiting content has many
> problems, that Mozilla is about people being people a; and that (b) we are
> about inclusion and empowerment. Also that it's narrow enough to be
> workable across any definition of mozilla spaces.
> 5. We may also, separately, address whether our big communications
> channels like planet.mozilla.org should default to "mozilla-related"
> default or to a "whole-person" default. I think I'm still of the former
> opinion, I recognize the planet peers are of the latter.
> Mozilla Inclusiveness Statement
> Mozilla is an inclusive organization. Everyone who is moves
> the Mozilla mission forward is welcome, regardless of
> personal characteristics.
> Mozilla-based activities are inclusive. We work to create
> opportunity for all in our activities, regardless of
> personal characteristics.
> As Mozillians we share the Mozilla mission, but not necessarily
> other social, economic, political or religious views.
> We acknowledge that some Mozillians may also participate in or
> support exclusion based on personal characteristics in
> other aspects of their lives. When this occurs:
> (a) any such belief must not be carried into Mozilla
> activities.
> (b) such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities should not be
> expressed in Mozilla spaces.
> (c) those Mozillians offended by such beliefs should also
> draw the same line: exclusionary actions outside of Mozilla should be left
> outside of Mozilla.
I like this proposal. More specifically, I think the inclusiveness represents very well the line between inside/outside Mozilla activities and the kinds of activities we desire to remain outside our community.
I also like how the inclusiveness statement focuses on the positive side rather than listing a long and necessarily incomplete list of personal characteristics being able to possibly offend people.
Do you have an idea what the "clear mechanism" mentioned in number 3 could look like? I think that's the key issue still missing from this proposal ("what if a conflict occurs that I am unable to resolve directly with the person in question?").
> First, thanks to Deb for doing a ton of work to make this possible.
> I propose we adopt a very basic Code of Conduct. The goal is to make it
> clear we expect to treat each other well, and that there are some
> aspects of how we treat each other that is relevant to an identity as a
> Mozillian. I like the explanatory material in the Ubuntu document, but I
> understand that the length makes it seem like a big document full of rules.
> For our purposes, I propose:
> 1. we use the headings as our basic doc. We have links to the
> explanatory text that Deb has pulled together. That means that the core
> CoC looks something like:
> Be considerate.
> Be respectful.
> Be collaborative.
> Consult others when disagreements occur
> Ask for help
> [Threats of violence, even as a joke, are not acceptable.]
> I'm inclined to call this out explicitly.
> [I'd delete Step down considerately for now, maybe put it in
> the leadership code]
> Empower others. [I've just added this, I think it's a key
> aspect of Mozilla, will have some discussion on it]
> 2. We replace the diversity section in its entirety with something like
> what I've written below.
> 3. We add a clear mechanism for what someone can do when s/he feels s/he
> feels there a serious enough problem to work on.
> 4. There's one big question in the inclusion section -- it's in
> subsection (b) below ("such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities should
> not be expressed in Mozilla spaces.") I think it's the right thing, but
> we should discuss. It reflects my view that (a) limiting content has
> many problems, that Mozilla is about people being people a; and that (b)
> we are about inclusion and empowerment. Also that it's narrow enough to
> be workable across any definition of mozilla spaces.
> 5. We may also, separately, address whether our big communications
> channels like planet.mozilla.org should default to "mozilla-related"
> default or to a "whole-person" default. I think I'm still of the former
> opinion, I recognize the planet peers are of the latter.
> Mozilla Inclusiveness Statement
> Mozilla is an inclusive organization. Everyone who is moves
> the Mozilla mission forward is welcome, regardless of
> personal characteristics.
> Mozilla-based activities are inclusive. We work to create
> opportunity for all in our activities, regardless of
> personal characteristics.
> As Mozillians we share the Mozilla mission, but not necessarily
> other social, economic, political or religious views.
> We acknowledge that some Mozillians may also participate in or
> support exclusion based on personal characteristics in
> other aspects of their lives. When this occurs:
> (a) any such belief must not be carried into Mozilla activities.
> (b) such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities should not be expressed in
> Mozilla spaces.
> (c) those Mozillians offended by such beliefs should also draw the same
> line: exclusionary actions outside of Mozilla should be left outside of
> Mozilla.
> Do you have an idea what the "clear mechanism" mentioned in number 3 could look like? I think that's the key issue still missing from this proposal ("what if a conflict occurs that I am unable to resolve directly with the person in question?").
This is my only question. It's probably clear that sorting out conflict resolution is my biggest concern.
The rest is something that I believe is spot-on in both the aims and expression. Thank you Mitchell!
>> Do you have an idea what the "clear mechanism" mentioned in number 3 could look like? I think that's the key issue still missing from this proposal ("what if a conflict occurs that I am unable to resolve directly with the person in question?").
> This is my only question. It's probably clear that sorting out conflict resolution is my biggest concern.
> The rest is something that I believe is spot-on in both the aims and expression. Thank you Mitchell!
> -- Mike
Will work on this shortly. will be away from my computer for a couple of hours though.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Mitchell Baker <mitch...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> [Threats of violence, even as a joke, are not acceptable.]
> I'm inclined to call this out explicitly.
A couple of months ago I joked on IRC on #developers, "if anyone complains
about our code not working on non-2s-complement architectures*, I will
throw them off a bridge". That will be forbidden?
[* An implausible scenario]
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]
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Robert O'Callahan <rob...@ocallahan.org>wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Mitchell Baker <mitch...@mozilla.com>wrote:
>> [Threats of violence, even as a joke, are not acceptable.]
>> I'm inclined to call this out explicitly.
> A couple of months ago I joked on IRC on #developers, "if anyone complains
> about our code not working on non-2s-complement architectures*, I will
> throw them off a bridge". That will be forbidden?
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]
My silence on these threads has not been because I don't care, but because I want to make sure I'm helpful when I speak. Now that we have a proposal, though, I wanted to add my read on it all, in case it is helpful, or echoes your own.
I think Daniel's point about a community of trust is deeply true, and names an incredibly special thing about Mozilla. We start from trust more than any group I know. I think (without putting words into anyone's mouth) that pride in that community of trust informs a lot of the people who resist the idea of a CoC. They don't want freedom to hurt people; they want to believe that we don't need a Code to keep us from doing so. They want us to be better than that.
Quite apart from any one blog post, though (and also quite apart from employment, I'd argue), it's clear that many people in the community have an appetite for some shared statement of values. Not as dictat, but as affirmation. The manifesto is an affirming document. It talks about what we stand for. The gap in the manifesto is that it names our shared values about the web, not our shared values about each other. Dispute resolution aside, I think many of the people supporting a CoC are really supporting an affirmation of the ways we want to treat each other. That we don't already have one, and immediately recognize it as a great idea, is a little sad for them. And they want us to be better than that.
We're closer than we think. We're typically excellent to each other. When there are lapses, I've seen many of you call that out and pull the person aside. In Daniel's language, this is trust and self-regulation. In CoC language, this is problematic conduct and dispute resolution. And the vast majority of the time, it's entirely moot because we are typically excellent to each other. I'm very proud of that. I think we all are.
I trust you all, and I support Mitchell's proposal below. A lot of this conversation has gone down threads of edge-case what-if that will only happen if we stop trusting each other. If that happens, there isn't language you can put into a wiki doc that will fix it. An expression of shared expectations about how we treat other humans in Mozilla, that starts from trust, is a thing I can feel really good about, and is how I read what Mitchell's proposing.
> First, thanks to Deb for doing a ton of work to make this possible.
> I propose we adopt a very basic Code of Conduct. The goal is to make it clear we expect to treat each other well, and that there are some aspects of how we treat each other that is relevant to an identity as a Mozillian. I like the explanatory material in the Ubuntu document, but I understand that the length makes it seem like a big document full of rules.
> For our purposes, I propose:
> 1. we use the headings as our basic doc. We have links to the explanatory text that Deb has pulled together. That means that the core CoC looks something like:
> Be considerate.
> Be respectful.
> Be collaborative.
> Consult others when disagreements occur
> Ask for help
> [Threats of violence, even as a joke, are not acceptable.]
> I'm inclined to call this out explicitly.
> [I'd delete Step down considerately for now, maybe put it in
> the leadership code]
> Empower others. [I've just added this, I think it's a key
> aspect of Mozilla, will have some discussion on it]
> 2. We replace the diversity section in its entirety with something like what I've written below.
> 3. We add a clear mechanism for what someone can do when s/he feels s/he feels there a serious enough problem to work on.
> 4. There's one big question in the inclusion section -- it's in subsection (b) below ("such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces.") I think it's the right thing, but we should discuss. It reflects my view that (a) limiting content has many problems, that Mozilla is about people being people a; and that (b) we are about inclusion and empowerment. Also that it's narrow enough to be workable across any definition of mozilla spaces.
> 5. We may also, separately, address whether our big communications channels like planet.mozilla.org should default to "mozilla-related" default or to a "whole-person" default. I think I'm still of the former opinion, I recognize the planet peers are of the latter.
> Mozilla Inclusiveness Statement
> Mozilla is an inclusive organization. Everyone who is moves
> the Mozilla mission forward is welcome, regardless of
> personal characteristics.
> Mozilla-based activities are inclusive. We work to create
> opportunity for all in our activities, regardless of
> personal characteristics.
> As Mozillians we share the Mozilla mission, but not necessarily
> other social, economic, political or religious views.
> We acknowledge that some Mozillians may also participate in or
> support exclusion based on personal characteristics in
> other aspects of their lives. When this occurs:
> (a) any such belief must not be carried into Mozilla activities.
> (b) such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces.
> (c) those Mozillians offended by such beliefs should also draw the same line: exclusionary actions outside of Mozilla should be left outside of Mozilla.
Mitchell, if I understand a bit better the scope of your proposal, I
still don't see precisely how you plan to "apply" it to the Community.
What will happen exactly? Will for instance Mozilla release that
document saying these are values the Community "should" adhere too, or
will all members of the Community have to "sign" such a document
online or, or, or... ?
About your item 4, you said "Also that it's narrow enough to be
workable across any definition of mozilla spaces" so please let me
express two concerns.
First, planet.mozilla.org is not entirely a Mozilla space... It's the
aggregate of articles published elsewhere, often in entirely personal
spaces, hosted outside of Mozilla, managed outside of Mozilla. So to
deal with pmo, the CoC has to leave the field of Mozilla and reach
personal websites of Mozillians OR restrict pmo to mozilla-related
stuff. I think the former will be unacceptable to the vast majority,
and the latter seems counter-productive and meaningless to me; as I
said elsewhere, it will annoy the good guys without blocking the bad
ones...
Second, irc.mozilla.org and the mailing-lists or google groups won't
work well with this item 4 because access is immediate. If it's
possible to make Google Groups' subscription based on accepting a
Licence/CoC/whatever, it's not going to be feasible for IRC.
Furthermore, the whole concept of IRC and its success as a mean of
communication inside Mozilla and outside it with third-party
developers or even users is based on its total openness and "a
posteriori" online management by IRC ops, not on a CoC. For what it's
worth, I would like to note that IRC has been the main communication
channel of all Mozilla developers for fifteen years, managed only by
the IRC Ops. No CoC. And it works fine, has always worked fine, even
when trolls appear.
I also have a respectful suggestion : don't call that document a "Code
of Conduct". It really sounds like an enforceable document distributed
to new hires by a HR department...
> Mozilla is an inclusive organization. Everyone who is moves
> the Mozilla mission forward is welcome, regardless of
> personal characteristics.
> Mozilla-based activities are inclusive. We work to create
> opportunity for all in our activities, regardless of
> personal characteristics.
> As Mozillians we share the Mozilla mission, but not necessarily
> other social, economic, political or religious views.
I like it all up to here, but I think the remainder needs some heavy word
smithing. One thing that jumps out is that we go from 'views' to 'beliefs',
and I think it should be consistent one way or the other.
My attempt would be...
Some Mozillians also participate in cultures and other communities which
support and enact exclusion based on personal characteristics. These views
and actions are not consistent with building an inclusive community focused
on the mission, and so:
(a) any such views and actions must not be carried into
Mozilla activities.
(b) such views and actions about non-Mozilla activities should not be
expressed in Mozilla spaces.
(c) those Mozillians offended by such views should also draw the same
line: exclusionary actions outside of Mozilla should be left outside of
Mozilla.
> We acknowledge that some Mozillians may also participate in or
> support exclusion based on personal characteristics in
> other aspects of their lives. When this occurs:
> (a) any such belief must not be carried into Mozilla activities.
> (b) such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces.
> (c) those Mozillians offended by such beliefs should also draw the same
> line: exclusionary actions outside of Mozilla should be left outside of Mozilla.
> First, thanks to Deb for doing a ton of work to make this possible.
Indeed. And you too, this is a very hard discussion to participate in. I
have had to repeatedly withdraw in order to retain civility. Thanks for
your efforts here, and for remaining engaged.
> (a) any such belief must not be carried into Mozilla activities.
> (b) such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities should not be
> expressed in Mozilla spaces.
I agree with these points. Particularly that "mozilla spaces"
(organization owned, operated and/or authorized) is a coherent and
useful boundary along which to attempt regulating behavior. It's helpful
to note this explicitly, as you propose, to clarify the absence of any
attempt to regulate what people do in their own time or spaces.
> (c) those Mozillians offended by such beliefs should also draw
> the same line: exclusionary actions outside of Mozilla should be left
> outside of Mozilla.
I'm disappointed by this point, as well as the less-specific terms
"exclusionary", "offended" and "characteristics". I think these terms
suggest an equivalence of power, harm and morality between actions
congruent with social oppression and defense against them. I think this
is wrong, that we should articulate the difference in this code, and
that the more-specific terms in the ubuntu document and earlier variants
under discussion here are more clear about that.
I hope I've phrased this objection constructively; I'm hoping to
influence the outcome of this process, but not shut it down.
> First, thanks to Deb for doing a ton of work to make this possible.
> I propose we adopt a very basic Code of Conduct. The goal is to make
> it clear we expect to treat each other well, and that there are some
> aspects of how we treat each other that is relevant to an identity as
> a Mozillian. I like the explanatory material in the Ubuntu document,
> but I understand that the length makes it seem like a big document
> full of rules.
> For our purposes, I propose:
> 1. we use the headings as our basic doc. We have links to the
> explanatory text that Deb has pulled together. That means that the
> core CoC looks something like:
> Be considerate.
> Be respectful.
> Be collaborative.
> Consult others when disagreements occur
Consult who? In the case of the Planet incident "consulting" the module
owners garnered criticism from many sides and, if anything, made the
situation worse.
> Ask for help
Again I must ask - from who? There are people who just started with
Mozilla activities and people who've been around for 13+ years - and so
much in between. Depending on who you ask, what kind of 'help' will you
get? Is coming to the governance list a form of 'help'? It doesn't feel
like it at all.
> [Threats of violence, even as a joke, are not acceptable.]
> I'm inclined to call this out explicitly.
> [I'd delete Step down considerately for now, maybe put it in
> the leadership code]
> Empower others. [I've just added this, I think it's a key
> aspect of Mozilla, will have some discussion on it]
> 2. We replace the diversity section in its entirety with something
> like what I've written below.
Without a diversity statement and the intentions having one projects it
seems to me that we are completely whitewashing the significant issue
that brought this all to the fore. There are underrepresented groups at
Mozilla who will continue to be silenced if there is not a clear message
of intolerance for discriminatory behaviours when in the Mozilla Space
(be that real or virtual).
> 3. We add a clear mechanism for what someone can do when s/he feels
> s/he feels there a serious enough problem to work on.
This is the part that never seems to get even to a draft state - what is
the plan here? The closest we have right now is "Mitchell will make the
call from on high" and I'm not sure that's scalable or even the desired
role Mitchell is looking to fill. I look forward to some tangible items
on the table for this mechanism so we can get a sense of what exactly we
are willing to commit to with regards to process.
> 4. There's one big question in the inclusion section -- it's in
> subsection (b) below ("such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities
> should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces.") I think it's the right
> thing, but we should discuss. It reflects my view that (a) limiting
> content has many problems, that Mozilla is about people being people
> a; and that (b) we are about inclusion and empowerment. Also that
> it's narrow enough to be workable across any definition of mozilla
> spaces.
> 5. We may also, separately, address whether our big communications
> channels like planet.mozilla.org should default to "mozilla-related"
> default or to a "whole-person" default. I think I'm still of the
> former opinion, I recognize the planet peers are of the latter.
> Mozilla Inclusiveness Statement
> Mozilla is an inclusive organization. Everyone who is moves
> the Mozilla mission forward is welcome, regardless of
> personal characteristics.
> Mozilla-based activities are inclusive. We work to create
> opportunity for all in our activities, regardless of
> personal characteristics.
> As Mozillians we share the Mozilla mission, but not necessarily
> other social, economic, political or religious views.
> We acknowledge that some Mozillians may also participate in or
> support exclusion based on personal characteristics in
> other aspects of their lives. When this occurs:
> (a) any such belief must not be carried into Mozilla activities.
> (b) such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities should not be
> expressed in Mozilla spaces.
> (c) those Mozillians offended by such beliefs should also draw
> the same line: exclusionary actions outside of Mozilla should be left
> outside of Mozilla.
So this puts things in an inclusion vs. exclusion light instead of
acknowledging discrimination or power abuse by privileged classes of
people within the organization. As distasteful as it may be to a few,
the lack of mention leave the 'welcome' part seeming a bit hollow to me.
Welcome, but not supported.
Still, I'm with Johnathan - we do have a general level of trust in
Mozilla that is quite special to me. What's come out of the discussion
of CoC is an incredible amount of fear from a few that CoC means some
irreparable damage to free speech will occur. What very few people seem
to get behind is that this is a small piece of a bigger step towards
open-ness, diversity, inclusivity and just generally increasing our
awesomeness in underrepresented groups if we manage to do this right. The web of trust we have with each other could actually grow, if we're
willing to stand up for such things.
Who is being silenced? I said the same thing to sid0 about his examples. If
someone is being silenced we don't need a CoC to deal with it, we already
feel it's not ok.
I believe Deb and Mitchell have both mentioned that we'd make a CoC first,
and then figure out the escalation path, with conductors as the opening
suggestion.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Lukas Blakk <lsbl...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> I'm having a hard time with this proposal, comments inline.
> On 4/4/12 11:49 AM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> > First, thanks to Deb for doing a ton of work to make this possible.
> > I propose we adopt a very basic Code of Conduct. The goal is to make
> > it clear we expect to treat each other well, and that there are some
> > aspects of how we treat each other that is relevant to an identity as
> > a Mozillian. I like the explanatory material in the Ubuntu document,
> > but I understand that the length makes it seem like a big document
> > full of rules.
> > For our purposes, I propose:
> > 1. we use the headings as our basic doc. We have links to the
> > explanatory text that Deb has pulled together. That means that the
> > core CoC looks something like:
> > Be considerate.
> > Be respectful.
> > Be collaborative.
> > Consult others when disagreements occur
> Consult who? In the case of the Planet incident "consulting" the module
> owners garnered criticism from many sides and, if anything, made the
> situation worse.
> > Ask for help
> Again I must ask - from who? There are people who just started with
> Mozilla activities and people who've been around for 13+ years - and so
> much in between. Depending on who you ask, what kind of 'help' will you
> get? Is coming to the governance list a form of 'help'? It doesn't feel
> like it at all.
> > [Threats of violence, even as a joke, are not acceptable.]
> > I'm inclined to call this out explicitly.
> > [I'd delete Step down considerately for now, maybe put it in
> > the leadership code]
> > Empower others. [I've just added this, I think it's a key
> > aspect of Mozilla, will have some discussion on it]
> > 2. We replace the diversity section in its entirety with something
> > like what I've written below.
> Without a diversity statement and the intentions having one projects it
> seems to me that we are completely whitewashing the significant issue
> that brought this all to the fore. There are underrepresented groups at
> Mozilla who will continue to be silenced if there is not a clear message
> of intolerance for discriminatory behaviours when in the Mozilla Space
> (be that real or virtual).
> > 3. We add a clear mechanism for what someone can do when s/he feels
> > s/he feels there a serious enough problem to work on.
> This is the part that never seems to get even to a draft state - what is
> the plan here? The closest we have right now is "Mitchell will make the
> call from on high" and I'm not sure that's scalable or even the desired
> role Mitchell is looking to fill. I look forward to some tangible items
> on the table for this mechanism so we can get a sense of what exactly we
> are willing to commit to with regards to process.
> > 4. There's one big question in the inclusion section -- it's in
> > subsection (b) below ("such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities
> > should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces.") I think it's the right
> > thing, but we should discuss. It reflects my view that (a) limiting
> > content has many problems, that Mozilla is about people being people
> > a; and that (b) we are about inclusion and empowerment. Also that
> > it's narrow enough to be workable across any definition of mozilla
> > spaces.
> > 5. We may also, separately, address whether our big communications
> > channels like planet.mozilla.org should default to "mozilla-related"
> > default or to a "whole-person" default. I think I'm still of the
> > former opinion, I recognize the planet peers are of the latter.
> > Mozilla Inclusiveness Statement
> > Mozilla is an inclusive organization. Everyone who is moves
> > the Mozilla mission forward is welcome, regardless of
> > personal characteristics.
> > Mozilla-based activities are inclusive. We work to create
> > opportunity for all in our activities, regardless of
> > personal characteristics.
> > As Mozillians we share the Mozilla mission, but not necessarily
> > other social, economic, political or religious views.
> > We acknowledge that some Mozillians may also participate in or
> > support exclusion based on personal characteristics in
> > other aspects of their lives. When this occurs:
> > (a) any such belief must not be carried into Mozilla activities.
> > (b) such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities should not be
> > expressed in Mozilla spaces.
> > (c) those Mozillians offended by such beliefs should also draw
> > the same line: exclusionary actions outside of Mozilla should be left
> > outside of Mozilla.
> So this puts things in an inclusion vs. exclusion light instead of
> acknowledging discrimination or power abuse by privileged classes of
> people within the organization. As distasteful as it may be to a few,
> the lack of mention leave the 'welcome' part seeming a bit hollow to me.
> Welcome, but not supported.
> Still, I'm with Johnathan - we do have a general level of trust in
> Mozilla that is quite special to me. What's come out of the discussion
> of CoC is an incredible amount of fear from a few that CoC means some
> irreparable damage to free speech will occur. What very few people seem
> to get behind is that this is a small piece of a bigger step towards
> open-ness, diversity, inclusivity and just generally increasing our
> awesomeness in underrepresented groups if we manage to do this right.
> The web of trust we have with each other could actually grow, if we're
> willing to stand up for such things.
Darn, I didn't word that right. That was a genuine question, not
rhetorical. If someone is being silenced or made fun of, it should be
brought up. For sid0's examples it was enough to bring them up on IRC, one
of the offending quotes was taken down. I'm not sure if you're talking only
about gerv's post, or if there were other issues brought up here that
you're referring to that would help us see where there are holes in the
code.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Majken Connor <maj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who is being silenced? I said the same thing to sid0 about his examples.
> If someone is being silenced we don't need a CoC to deal with it, we
> already feel it's not ok.
> I believe Deb and Mitchell have both mentioned that we'd make a CoC first,
> and then figure out the escalation path, with conductors as the opening
> suggestion.
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Lukas Blakk <lsbl...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> I'm having a hard time with this proposal, comments inline.
>> On 4/4/12 11:49 AM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>> > First, thanks to Deb for doing a ton of work to make this possible.
>> > I propose we adopt a very basic Code of Conduct. The goal is to make
>> > it clear we expect to treat each other well, and that there are some
>> > aspects of how we treat each other that is relevant to an identity as
>> > a Mozillian. I like the explanatory material in the Ubuntu document,
>> > but I understand that the length makes it seem like a big document
>> > full of rules.
>> > For our purposes, I propose:
>> > 1. we use the headings as our basic doc. We have links to the
>> > explanatory text that Deb has pulled together. That means that the
>> > core CoC looks something like:
>> > Be considerate.
>> > Be respectful.
>> > Be collaborative.
>> > Consult others when disagreements occur
>> Consult who? In the case of the Planet incident "consulting" the module
>> owners garnered criticism from many sides and, if anything, made the
>> situation worse.
>> > Ask for help
>> Again I must ask - from who? There are people who just started with
>> Mozilla activities and people who've been around for 13+ years - and so
>> much in between. Depending on who you ask, what kind of 'help' will you
>> get? Is coming to the governance list a form of 'help'? It doesn't feel
>> like it at all.
>> > [Threats of violence, even as a joke, are not acceptable.]
>> > I'm inclined to call this out explicitly.
>> > [I'd delete Step down considerately for now, maybe put it in
>> > the leadership code]
>> > Empower others. [I've just added this, I think it's a key
>> > aspect of Mozilla, will have some discussion on it]
>> > 2. We replace the diversity section in its entirety with something
>> > like what I've written below.
>> Without a diversity statement and the intentions having one projects it
>> seems to me that we are completely whitewashing the significant issue
>> that brought this all to the fore. There are underrepresented groups at
>> Mozilla who will continue to be silenced if there is not a clear message
>> of intolerance for discriminatory behaviours when in the Mozilla Space
>> (be that real or virtual).
>> > 3. We add a clear mechanism for what someone can do when s/he feels
>> > s/he feels there a serious enough problem to work on.
>> This is the part that never seems to get even to a draft state - what is
>> the plan here? The closest we have right now is "Mitchell will make the
>> call from on high" and I'm not sure that's scalable or even the desired
>> role Mitchell is looking to fill. I look forward to some tangible items
>> on the table for this mechanism so we can get a sense of what exactly we
>> are willing to commit to with regards to process.
>> > 4. There's one big question in the inclusion section -- it's in
>> > subsection (b) below ("such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities
>> > should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces.") I think it's the right
>> > thing, but we should discuss. It reflects my view that (a) limiting
>> > content has many problems, that Mozilla is about people being people
>> > a; and that (b) we are about inclusion and empowerment. Also that
>> > it's narrow enough to be workable across any definition of mozilla
>> > spaces.
>> > 5. We may also, separately, address whether our big communications
>> > channels like planet.mozilla.org should default to "mozilla-related"
>> > default or to a "whole-person" default. I think I'm still of the
>> > former opinion, I recognize the planet peers are of the latter.
>> > Mozilla Inclusiveness Statement
>> > Mozilla is an inclusive organization. Everyone who is moves
>> > the Mozilla mission forward is welcome, regardless of
>> > personal characteristics.
>> > Mozilla-based activities are inclusive. We work to create
>> > opportunity for all in our activities, regardless of
>> > personal characteristics.
>> > As Mozillians we share the Mozilla mission, but not necessarily
>> > other social, economic, political or religious views.
>> > We acknowledge that some Mozillians may also participate in or
>> > support exclusion based on personal characteristics in
>> > other aspects of their lives. When this occurs:
>> > (a) any such belief must not be carried into Mozilla activities.
>> > (b) such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities should not be
>> > expressed in Mozilla spaces.
>> > (c) those Mozillians offended by such beliefs should also draw
>> > the same line: exclusionary actions outside of Mozilla should be left
>> > outside of Mozilla.
>> So this puts things in an inclusion vs. exclusion light instead of
>> acknowledging discrimination or power abuse by privileged classes of
>> people within the organization. As distasteful as it may be to a few,
>> the lack of mention leave the 'welcome' part seeming a bit hollow to me.
>> Welcome, but not supported.
>> Still, I'm with Johnathan - we do have a general level of trust in
>> Mozilla that is quite special to me. What's come out of the discussion
>> of CoC is an incredible amount of fear from a few that CoC means some
>> irreparable damage to free speech will occur. What very few people seem
>> to get behind is that this is a small piece of a bigger step towards
>> open-ness, diversity, inclusivity and just generally increasing our
>> awesomeness in underrepresented groups if we manage to do this right.
>> The web of trust we have with each other could actually grow, if we're
>> willing to stand up for such things.
> I'm having a hard time with this proposal, comments inline.
> On 4/4/12 11:49 AM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>> First, thanks to Deb for doing a ton of work to make this possible.
>> I propose we adopt a very basic Code of Conduct. The goal is to make
>> it clear we expect to treat each other well, and that there are some
>> aspects of how we treat each other that is relevant to an identity as
>> a Mozillian. I like the explanatory material in the Ubuntu document,
>> but I understand that the length makes it seem like a big document
>> full of rules.
>> For our purposes, I propose:
>> 1. we use the headings as our basic doc. We have links to the
>> explanatory text that Deb has pulled together. That means that the
>> core CoC looks something like:
>> Be considerate.
>> Be respectful.
>> Be collaborative.
>> Consult others when disagreements occur
> Consult who? In the case of the Planet incident "consulting" the module
> owners garnered criticism from many sides and, if anything, made the
> situation worse.
>> Ask for help
> Again I must ask - from who? There are people who just started with
> Mozilla activities and people who've been around for 13+ years - and so
> much in between. Depending on who you ask, what kind of 'help' will you
> get? Is coming to the governance list a form of 'help'? It doesn't feel
> like it at all.
I personally have run into various situations where I crossed the boundary of other mozillians feeling good.
I have learned to consult with others and ask for help. First, I go to people that I trust to comment in my best interest. And they'll tell me what fragments of my thinking are interesting, and where I'm a lunatic. They'll challenge my thinking, they'll point out alternative ways of communicating the good points. And hopefully, they'd make me be a better mozillian.
>> [Threats of violence, even as a joke, are not acceptable.]
>> I'm inclined to call this out explicitly.
>> [I'd delete Step down considerately for now, maybe put it in
>> the leadership code]
>> Empower others. [I've just added this, I think it's a key
>> aspect of Mozilla, will have some discussion on it]
>> 2. We replace the diversity section in its entirety with something
>> like what I've written below.
> Without a diversity statement and the intentions having one projects it
> seems to me that we are completely whitewashing the significant issue
> that brought this all to the fore. There are underrepresented groups at
> Mozilla who will continue to be silenced if there is not a clear message
> of intolerance for discriminatory behaviours when in the Mozilla Space
> (be that real or virtual).
"underrepresented groups" and "silenced". Wow. And a call for intolerance.
If you'd put yourself into the position of someone not sharing your pov, do you think you've chosen the language to influence people in your favor?
>> 3. We add a clear mechanism for what someone can do when s/he feels
>> s/he feels there a serious enough problem to work on.
> This is the part that never seems to get even to a draft state - what is
> the plan here? The closest we have right now is "Mitchell will make the
> call from on high" and I'm not sure that's scalable or even the desired
> role Mitchell is looking to fill. I look forward to some tangible items
> on the table for this mechanism so we can get a sense of what exactly we
> are willing to commit to with regards to process.
>> 4. There's one big question in the inclusion section -- it's in
>> subsection (b) below ("such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities
>> should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces.") I think it's the right
>> thing, but we should discuss. It reflects my view that (a) limiting
>> content has many problems, that Mozilla is about people being people
>> a; and that (b) we are about inclusion and empowerment. Also that
>> it's narrow enough to be workable across any definition of mozilla
>> spaces.
>> 5. We may also, separately, address whether our big communications
>> channels like planet.mozilla.org should default to "mozilla-related"
>> default or to a "whole-person" default. I think I'm still of the
>> former opinion, I recognize the planet peers are of the latter.
>> Mozilla Inclusiveness Statement
>> Mozilla is an inclusive organization. Everyone who is moves
>> the Mozilla mission forward is welcome, regardless of
>> personal characteristics.
>> Mozilla-based activities are inclusive. We work to create
>> opportunity for all in our activities, regardless of
>> personal characteristics.
>> As Mozillians we share the Mozilla mission, but not necessarily
>> other social, economic, political or religious views.
>> We acknowledge that some Mozillians may also participate in or
>> support exclusion based on personal characteristics in
>> other aspects of their lives. When this occurs:
>> (a) any such belief must not be carried into Mozilla activities.
>> (b) such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities should not be
>> expressed in Mozilla spaces.
>> (c) those Mozillians offended by such beliefs should also draw
>> the same line: exclusionary actions outside of Mozilla should be left
>> outside of Mozilla.
> So this puts things in an inclusion vs. exclusion light instead of
> acknowledging discrimination or power abuse by privileged classes of
> people within the organization. As distasteful as it may be to a few,
> the lack of mention leave the 'welcome' part seeming a bit hollow to me.
> Welcome, but not supported.
> Still, I'm with Johnathan - we do have a general level of trust in
> Mozilla that is quite special to me. What's come out of the discussion
> of CoC is an incredible amount of fear from a few that CoC means some
> irreparable damage to free speech will occur. What very few people seem
> to get behind is that this is a small piece of a bigger step towards
> open-ness, diversity, inclusivity and just generally increasing our
> awesomeness in underrepresented groups if we manage to do this right.
> The web of trust we have with each other could actually grow, if we're
> willing to stand up for such things.
>> Without a diversity statement and the intentions having one projects it
>> seems to me that we are completely whitewashing the significant issue
>> that brought this all to the fore. There are underrepresented groups at
>> Mozilla who will continue to be silenced if there is not a clear message
>> of intolerance for discriminatory behaviours when in the Mozilla Space
>> (be that real or virtual).
> "underrepresented groups" and "silenced". Wow. And a call for
> intolerance.
> If you'd put yourself into the position of someone not sharing your
> pov, do you think you've chosen the language to influence people in
> your favor?
> Axel
> If I put myself in the position of _not_ being from an underrepresented
> group? I'm not sure what that would look like because this isn't about
> a thought experiment, it's my actual life and how this discussion is
> affecting my work and the mental space I get into the past few weeks
> that this discussion has been going on. That's not a POV - that's an
> effect of this space and the voices that are being heard all around my
> while a continued plea for help is being ignored.
> Mitchell, if I understand a bit better the scope of your proposal, I
> still don't see precisely how you plan to "apply" it to the Community.
> What will happen exactly? Will for instance Mozilla release that
> document saying these are values the Community "should" adhere too, or
> will all members of the Community have to "sign" such a document
> online or, or, or... ?
Daniel: the proposal says content that "support[s] exclusion based on personal characteristics" does not belong in Mozilla spaces. It says nothing about signing up for any values. It *explicitly* acknowledges that people have different beliefs.
As for applying it, that's a little bit related to the mechanisms re what to do when people feel there's a problem. I envision that's a community escalation process, like any other at Mozilla. that's the next discussion now that I've got a proposal posted.
> About your item 4, you said "Also that it's narrow enough to be
> workable across any definition of mozilla spaces" so please let me
> express two concerns.
> First, planet.mozilla.org is not entirely a Mozilla space... It's the
> aggregate of articles published elsewhere, often in entirely personal
> spaces, hosted outside of Mozilla, managed outside of Mozilla. So to
> deal with pmo, the CoC has to leave the field of Mozilla and reach
> personal websites of Mozillians OR restrict pmo to mozilla-related
> stuff. I think the former will be unacceptable to the vast majority,
> and the latter seems counter-productive and meaningless to me; as I
> said elsewhere, it will annoy the good guys without blocking the bad
> ones...
First, you're extending what I said (no content supporting exclusion" to "non-mozilla stuff."
To the larger point, yes -- If we decide exclusionary materials doesn't belong at Mozilla then someone who post such content will need to not syndicate to mozilla, or not syndicate that post to mozilla or do something else.
Maybe you're making the assumption that every personal website is a mozilla site?
> Second, irc.mozilla.org and the mailing-lists or google groups won't
> work well with this item 4 because access is immediate. If it's
> possible to make Google Groups' subscription based on accepting a
> Licence/CoC/whatever, it's not going to be feasible for IRC.
> Furthermore, the whole concept of IRC and its success as a mean of
> communication inside Mozilla and outside it with third-party
> developers or even users is based on its total openness and "a
> posteriori" online management by IRC ops, not on a CoC. For what it's
> worth, I would like to note that IRC has been the main communication
> channel of all Mozilla developers for fifteen years, managed only by
> the IRC Ops. No CoC. And it works fine, has always worked fine, even
> when trolls appear.
The C of C is an aspriational document that describes how we want to work with each other. I guess you're assuming people will sign up to it. Think about the Manifesto, as Jonathan brought up. We don't require people to sign up to it before they join a mailing list. We use it to determine if we're on course, etc.
> I also have a respectful suggestion : don't call that document a "Code
> of Conduct". It really sounds like an enforceable document distributed
> to new hires by a HR department...
Maybe this is the key issue -- it does seem to bring up this connection to it. I think open source projects have them though.
>> I also have a respectful suggestion : don't call that document a "Code
>> of Conduct". It really sounds like an enforceable document distributed
>> to new hires by a HR department...
> Maybe this is the key issue -- it does seem to bring up this > connection to it. I think open source projects have them though.
Informally I've used the phrase "social contract" (with an implicit references to my compatriot Rousseau's definition of the term) to refer to what I think we're talking about.
>>> I also have a respectful suggestion : don't call that document a "Code
>>> of Conduct". It really sounds like an enforceable document distributed
>>> to new hires by a HR department...
>> Maybe this is the key issue -- it does seem to bring up this
>> connection to it. I think open source projects have them though.
> Informally I've used the phrase "social contract" (with an implicit
> references to my compatriot Rousseau's definition of the term) to
> refer to what I think we're talking about.
I think this is just shifting the issue elsewhere: I expect the same person who thinks "code of conduct" sounds too strict and intimidating to object similarly to the word "contract" (misinterpreting the term as a legal document that needs to be signed).
> I personally have run into various situations where I crossed the > boundary of other mozillians feeling good.
> I have learned to consult with others and ask for help. First, I go to > people that I trust to comment in my best interest. And they'll tell > me what fragments of my thinking are interesting, and where I'm a > lunatic. They'll challenge my thinking, they'll point out alternative > ways of communicating the good points. And hopefully, they'd make me > be a better mozillian.
Jumping on here -- we haven't been visible enough about it, but I wanted to just say that the Conductors group was formed with exactly that purpose -- it's 200% fine for people to do what Pike just mentioned through their existing networks, but if people are feeling unsure, or don't know who to reach out for just that kind of feedback, we're there to help.
> I think this is just shifting the issue elsewhere: I expect the same
> person who thinks "code of conduct" sounds too strict and intimidating
> to object similarly to the word "contract" (misinterpreting the term as
> a legal document that needs to be signed).
The current Code of Conduct proposal is based directly on the Ubuntu Code of Conduct. Ubuntu Members are required to sign the code of conduct, and all contributors are "recommended" to sign it:
I haven't seen any proposals to do the same at Mozilla. It might not even be possible for Mozilla, because our community did not grow around such a code from its early days as Ubuntu's did. But, given the model we are starting from, we shouldn't be surprised if people have the impression that all community members will be required to agree to the code.
(P.S. If anyone participating in this discussion has not participated in the Ubuntu community and seen its Code of Conduct in action, I'd encourage you to make an effort to learn about their experiences. While Mozilla won't follow the exact same path, it's still much more useful to learn from prior examples than to simply guess what will happen in a community with a code of conduct.)
> First, thanks to Deb for doing a ton of work to make this possible.
> I propose we adopt a very basic Code of Conduct. The goal is to make it clear we expect to treat each other well, and that
> there are some aspects of how we treat each other that is relevant to an identity as a Mozillian. I like the explanatory
> material in the Ubuntu document, but I understand that the length makes it seem like a big document full of rules.
> For our purposes, I propose:
> 1. we use the headings as our basic doc. We have links to the explanatory text that Deb has pulled together. That means that
> the core CoC looks something like:
> Be considerate.
> Be respectful.
I agree with these. (Note: they seem flip sides of the same coin.)
> Be collaborative.
Lucy mentioned "Be open". Neither of these is about how to treat people, but a core
part of how we work. I think they should either both be there, or both not be there.
> Consult others when disagreements occur
> Ask for help
These two seem like the same thing, at least wrt how to treat people, so I'd combine
them somehow. (If we're going to include how we work, then Ask for help splits partly
into "Consult others when disagreements occur" and partly into "Be collaborative.")
> [Threats of violence, even as a joke, are not acceptable.]
> I'm inclined to call this out explicitly.
I suggest
No violence or ill-will towards any person.
> [I'd delete Step down considerately for now, maybe put it in
> the leadership code]
Agreed.
> Empower others. [I've just added this, I think it's a key
> aspect of Mozilla, will have some discussion on it]
I really like this.
Overall, I like having very simple, self-evident statements. I don't want to have a
long legal document for this. I won't read it; it doesn't interest me to read it.
If we're having a code of conduct, I'd like it to be, like the Manifesto, an affirmation
of widely-held values; and I'd like it to be, like the Bugzilla Etiquette document, a
set of guidelines we can refer people to when they're out of line, not a legal document
we agree to in order to participate.
> 5. We may also, separately, address whether our big communications channels like planet.mozilla.org should default to
> "mozilla-related" default or to a "whole-person" default. I think I'm still of the former opinion, I recognize the planet
> peers are of the latter.
I think we should have both options. It's not just about people being offended;
it's also about people's bandwidth and improving their ability to keep up with
and read things they're interested in. There are solid use cases for both types
of news feed, and splitting them is likely to make both more useful: readers
looking for a Mozilla-related news feed can find one that's noise-free, and
posters will likely feel more comfortable opening up their entire blog feed to
a newsfeed explicitly intended to encompass personal entries, making the open
feed more open.
I don't have an opinion on the other points yet.
For reference, if I was writing a Code of Conduct, it'd be:
1. Be respectful of all persons.
2. No violence or ill-will towards any person.
3. Do not post off-topic things to a topic'd forum.
4. Unless otherwise specified, trim quotes and interleave your replies.
On Apr 4, 11:00 pm, Lukas Blakk <lsbl...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Without a diversity statement and the intentions having one projects it
> seems to me that we are completely whitewashing the significant issue
> that brought this all to the fore. There are underrepresented groups at
> Mozilla who will continue to be silenced if there is not a clear message
> of intolerance for discriminatory behaviours when in the Mozilla Space
> (be that real or virtual).
Underrepresented as? As Mozillians?!?!? I've been involved with
Netscape and then Mozilla for the last 13 years and based on what I
saw and lived, still see and live, I really doubt it can happen! Could
be hilarious to read your words if if was not also just tragic... And
ridiculous.
Silenced?!? You've got to be kidding, right? You've been shouting for
weeks now and this CoC discussion is in response to that.
Discriminatory behaviours? You're still there despite of what Mitchell
wrote above and despite the fact a large part of the Community doesn't
see any discriminatory behaviour in Gerv's original post?
These two first excerpts of your prose are way beyond the limits of
what's acceptable. The third one starts looking more like a bad
leitmotiv.
Lukas, I start thinking you don't have a problem with the Mozilla
community but a problem with any organization reaching a decision
point, even balanced, logical and consensual, that does not match your
expectations as soon as it touches some topic. Even when it's in reply
to your own request. You also have a problem with opinions and points
of views that are perfectly legal and expressed without words of hate
or violence but not matching your point of view. You are using on
purpose vocabulary that triggers escalation and that is hard to
discuss because of the sensitive aspect of the issue itself. I do
consider that as offensive behaviour, disrespectful of the fact the
issue should have been discussed first between adults.
FWIW, another person, Mozilla employee, with precisely the same
opinion as you, did silence _me_ on twitter. Only because I expressed
an opinion different, a different point of view, I was told "don't
contact me ever again". That was in public. _This_ is offensive,
discriminatory and intolerant behaviour.
I start thinking, and I have the gut feeling I'm not the only one,
that intolerance is more visible on one side than on the other one...
Let's hang on here. There's a lot of pain and hurt and anger in this discussion. It's starting to leak out in all sorts of places. There's plenty of intolerance, let's cut it off now.
Daniel, your tone here is difficult, and characterizations of hilarious and kidding etc are nasty. I too was surprised by the comment about being silenced, but I take that as something to try to understand, not to belittle.
Issues of race and gender and exclusion and being a minority or feeling under-represented in some way are deep, complicated social issues. It takes a lot of work to internalize how someone in a different setting feels uncomfortable, or threatened or marginalized. It many cases it takes an act of faith -- "I don't get it, but I understand it's deeply disturbing to you, so I'll take a step in your direction."
I think we're all looking at this setting now. Those who want to say "there's no issue, we should continue as before" are probably going to see statements about inclusion and how we want to treat each other. Those who want the Mozilla community to settle on a particular definition of marriage aren't going to see that either.
All of us will see a clear commitment to inclusion in Mozilla activities.
> On Apr 4, 11:00 pm, Lukas Blakk<lsbl...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> Without a diversity statement and the intentions having one projects it
>> seems to me that we are completely whitewashing the significant issue
>> that brought this all to the fore. There are underrepresented groups at
>> Mozilla who will continue to be silenced if there is not a clear message
>> of intolerance for discriminatory behaviours when in the Mozilla Space
>> (be that real or virtual).
> Underrepresented as? As Mozillians?!?!? I've been involved with
> Netscape and then Mozilla for the last 13 years and based on what I
> saw and lived, still see and live, I really doubt it can happen! Could
> be hilarious to read your words if if was not also just tragic... And
> ridiculous.
> Silenced?!? You've got to be kidding, right? You've been shouting for
> weeks now and this CoC discussion is in response to that.
> Discriminatory behaviours? You're still there despite of what Mitchell
> wrote above and despite the fact a large part of the Community doesn't
> see any discriminatory behaviour in Gerv's original post?
> These two first excerpts of your prose are way beyond the limits of
> what's acceptable. The third one starts looking more like a bad
> leitmotiv.
> Lukas, I start thinking you don't have a problem with the Mozilla
> community but a problem with any organization reaching a decision
> point, even balanced, logical and consensual, that does not match your
> expectations as soon as it touches some topic. Even when it's in reply
> to your own request. You also have a problem with opinions and points
> of views that are perfectly legal and expressed without words of hate
> or violence but not matching your point of view. You are using on
> purpose vocabulary that triggers escalation and that is hard to
> discuss because of the sensitive aspect of the issue itself. I do
> consider that as offensive behaviour, disrespectful of the fact the
> issue should have been discussed first between adults.
> FWIW, another person, Mozilla employee, with precisely the same
> opinion as you, did silence _me_ on twitter. Only because I expressed
> an opinion different, a different point of view, I was told "don't
> contact me ever again". That was in public. _This_ is offensive,
> discriminatory and intolerant behaviour.
> I start thinking, and I have the gut feeling I'm not the only one,
> that intolerance is more visible on one side than on the other one...
I want to address the idea of "whitewash." However, the word has a lot of emotional content, and there's been plenty of emotion already today. So I'm going to wait at least until tomorrow to do so.
> I'm having a hard time with this proposal, comments inline.
> On 4/4/12 11:49 AM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>> First, thanks to Deb for doing a ton of work to make this possible.
>> I propose we adopt a very basic Code of Conduct. The goal is to make
>> it clear we expect to treat each other well, and that there are some
>> aspects of how we treat each other that is relevant to an identity as
>> a Mozillian. I like the explanatory material in the Ubuntu document,
>> but I understand that the length makes it seem like a big document
>> full of rules.
>> For our purposes, I propose:
>> 1. we use the headings as our basic doc. We have links to the
>> explanatory text that Deb has pulled together. That means that the
>> core CoC looks something like:
>> Be considerate.
>> Be respectful.
>> Be collaborative.
>> Consult others when disagreements occur
> Consult who? In the case of the Planet incident "consulting" the module
> owners garnered criticism from many sides and, if anything, made the
> situation worse.
>> Ask for help
> Again I must ask - from who? There are people who just started with
> Mozilla activities and people who've been around for 13+ years - and so
> much in between. Depending on who you ask, what kind of 'help' will you
> get? Is coming to the governance list a form of 'help'? It doesn't feel
> like it at all.
>> [Threats of violence, even as a joke, are not acceptable.]
>> I'm inclined to call this out explicitly.
>> [I'd delete Step down considerately for now, maybe put it in
>> the leadership code]
>> Empower others. [I've just added this, I think it's a key
>> aspect of Mozilla, will have some discussion on it]
>> 2. We replace the diversity section in its entirety with something
>> like what I've written below.
> Without a diversity statement and the intentions having one projects it
> seems to me that we are completely whitewashing the significant issue
> that brought this all to the fore. There are underrepresented groups at
> Mozilla who will continue to be silenced if there is not a clear message
> of intolerance for discriminatory behaviours when in the Mozilla Space
> (be that real or virtual).
>> 3. We add a clear mechanism for what someone can do when s/he feels
>> s/he feels there a serious enough problem to work on.
> This is the part that never seems to get even to a draft state - what is
> the plan here? The closest we have right now is "Mitchell will make the
> call from on high" and I'm not sure that's scalable or even the desired
> role Mitchell is looking to fill. I look forward to some tangible items
> on the table for this mechanism so we can get a sense of what exactly we
> are willing to commit to with regards to process.
>> 4. There's one big question in the inclusion section -- it's in
>> subsection (b) below ("such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities
>> should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces.") I think it's the right
>> thing, but we should discuss. It reflects my view that (a) limiting
>> content has many problems, that Mozilla is about people being people
>> a; and that (b) we are about inclusion and empowerment. Also that
>> it's narrow enough to be workable across any definition of mozilla
>> spaces.
>> 5. We may also, separately, address whether our big communications
>> channels like planet.mozilla.org should default to "mozilla-related"
>> default or to a "whole-person" default. I think I'm still of the
>> former opinion, I recognize the planet peers are of the latter.
>> Mozilla Inclusiveness Statement
>> Mozilla is an inclusive organization. Everyone who is moves
>> the Mozilla mission forward is welcome, regardless of
>> personal characteristics.
>> Mozilla-based activities are inclusive. We work to create
>> opportunity for all in our activities, regardless of
>> personal characteristics.
>> As Mozillians we share the Mozilla mission, but not necessarily
>> other social, economic, political or religious views.
>> We acknowledge that some Mozillians may also participate in or
>> support exclusion based on personal characteristics in
>> other aspects of their lives. When this occurs:
>> (a) any such belief must not be carried into Mozilla activities.
>> (b) such beliefs about non-Mozilla activities should not be
>> expressed in Mozilla spaces.
>> (c) those Mozillians offended by such beliefs should also draw
>> the same line: exclusionary actions outside of Mozilla should be left
>> outside of Mozilla.
> So this puts things in an inclusion vs. exclusion light instead of
> acknowledging discrimination or power abuse by privileged classes of
> people within the organization. As distasteful as it may be to a few,
> the lack of mention leave the 'welcome' part seeming a bit hollow to me.
> Welcome, but not supported.
> Still, I'm with Johnathan - we do have a general level of trust in
> Mozilla that is quite special to me. What's come out of the discussion
> of CoC is an incredible amount of fear from a few that CoC means some
> irreparable damage to free speech will occur. What very few people seem
> to get behind is that this is a small piece of a bigger step towards
> open-ness, diversity, inclusivity and just generally increasing our
> awesomeness in underrepresented groups if we manage to do this right.
> The web of trust we have with each other could actually grow, if we're
> willing to stand up for such things.
