Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Proposal re Code of Conduct, take 3
212 views
Skip to first unread message
Mitchell Baker
May 8, 2012, 2:14:42 PM5/8/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
As I worked on this I came to feel that treating inclusiveness and
general interaction style the same doesn't make sense. The latter is a
very squishy topic, where expressing frustration and disagreement can
blend / merge / be confused with direct, honest respectful but difficult
conversations. So I separated the two topics, as you'll see below.
This also makes it easier to have people with different training as the
escalation path. It also made it easier to add a few things to the
general interaction section.
I'd like to delete the "be considerate" piece is duplicitive of "be
respectful" and "be collaborative." i've put it in italics below. If
you think it adds a lot to the other sections please let me know.
I'd also prefer to change the title -- I've learned that "Code" has a
coercive feel in some locales that I'd like to avoid. The second piece
of this policy in particular -- how to interact with each other is
something we'll be working out for a long time, so I'd like to reflect
that as well. I don't have a great suggestion now, but didn't want to
wait longer to post this.
Mitchell
+++++
Code of Conduct
The Mozilla Code of Conduct describes the type of community we are
building. It works in conjunction with
-- the Anti-Harassment/Discrimination Policy which sets out protections
and obligations of employees, and is crafted with specific
jurisdictional legal definitions and requirements in mind.
-- Mozilla groups for escalation and dispute resolution.
This Code of Conduct covers our behaviour as members of the Mozilla
Community, in work-related forums, mailing lists, wikis, web sites, IRC
channels, bugs, events, public meetings or person to person work-related
correspondence.
This Code of Conduct has two parts -- an Inclusion and Diversity
Statement, and a general statement about how we hope to treat each
others. Each is an important part of the community we're building.
I. Inclusion and Diversity Statement
The Mozilla Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone.
It doesn't matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you:
we welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they
interact constructively with our community, including, but not limited
to age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race,
sexual orientation and religious views.
Mozilla-based activities should be inclusive and should support such
diversity.
Some Mozillians may identify with activities or organizations that do
not support the same inclusion and diversity standards as Mozilla.
When this is the case:
(a) support for exclusionary practices must not be carried into
Mozilla activities.
(b) support for exclusionary practices in non-Mozilla
activities should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces.
(c) when if (a) and (b) are met, other Mozillians should treat
this as a private matter, not a Mozilla issue.
II. Raising Issues Related to the Inclusion and Diversity Policy
If you believe you're experiencing practices which don't meet the
Inclusion and Diversity policy please contact Deborah Cohen
"deb_in...@mozilla.com". Deb is trained in a range of diversity
issues. She leads the human resources function for Mozilla employees,
as well as growth and development programs for a range of Mozilla
contributors. Deb can evaluate whether or not there are legal aspects
the Mozilla organizations should address. She can also initiate a
Mozilla community process. Both pieces are important. Deb is our
expert for for dealing with the interaction of people and legal
obligations. She is not the single point for community process, but she
has the contacts and the commitment of me and other Mozilla leaders to
address community process.
In addition, Deb Cohen will also implement an optional training program
for those who are interested in learning how human resources and
diversity specialists respond to questions and issues. As people
complete this training we will (with their approval) create a list with
their names. These people can then serve as an informal channel for
getting started in raising an issue. Going to Deb directly is always a
possibility. The additional people are to provide a way to get one's
ideas out, see how it feels to raise them, see what kinds of questions
or conversations might result, before going to Deb or Mitchell.
Intentional efforts to exclude people from Mozilla activities are not
acceptable and will be dealt with appropriately. It's hard to imagine
how one might unintentionally do this, but if this happens we will
figure out how to make it not happen again. I suspect there will be
some questions about when and if something moves from a private to a
public matter, which we'll have to sort out.
III. Interaction Style
Be considerate. Our work will be used by other people, and we in
turn will depend on the work of others. Any decision we take will affect
users and colleagues, and we should take those consequences into account
when making decisions.
Be respectful. Everyone can make a valuable contribution to
Mozilla. We may not always agree, but disagreement is no excuse for poor
manners. We will all experience some frustration now and then, but we
don't allow that frustration to turn into a personal attack. A community
where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one.
Be collaborative. Mozilla is a complex whole made of many parts,
it is the sum of many dreams. Collaboration between teams that each have
their own goal and vision is essential; for the whole to be more than
the sum of its parts, each part must make an effort to understand the
whole. Collaboration reduces redundancy and improves the quality of our
work. Internally and externally, we celebrate good collaboration.
Wherever possible, we work closely with upstream projects and others in
the free software community to coordinate our efforts. We prefer to
work transparently and involve interested parties as early as possible.
Try to understand different perspectives. Our goal should not be
to "win" every disagreement or argument. A more productive goal is to
be open to ideas that make our own ideas better. "Winning" is when
different perspectives make our work richer and stronger.
Do not threaten violence.
Empower others.
Strive for excellence. Our products must be great and our
communities must be healthy and vigorous. Being respectful does not
mean papering over disagreements or accepting less than we can do.
Don't expect to agree with every decision.
IV. Raising Issues Related Interaction Style
Inevitably conflicts will arise. Sometimes we'll differ about style,
about what's respectful. Sometimes attempts at humor will backfire.
One approach could be to try to make Mozilla as strictly business-like
and sterile in an attempt to avoid all issues. This doesn't fit with
Mozilla. If we become sterile we'll have lost part of our essence. A
community is a set of relationships and encompasses more than the
interactions strictly required to ship software.
We are also likely to have some discussions about if an when criticism
is respectful and when it's not. We *must* be able to speak directly
when we disagree and when we think we need to improve. We cannot
sugar-coat hard truths. Doing so respectfully is hard, doing so when
other don't seem to be listening is harder, and hearing such comments
when one is the recipient can be even harder still. We need to be
honest and direct, as well as respectful. That takes work.
Here are some ways to handle conflicts.
Direct Conversation. If you are comfortable having a direct talk with
the other person, this is a good way to start.
Conversation with Other Trusted Mozillians. If you're not comfortable
having a direct conversation, identify one or more people you trust. It
will be helpful to identify whether the conflict is because someone is
flaming, or behaving in a troll like manner or just won't listen? Has
the person been expressing some frustration and is now escalating into
an increasingly strident tone?
Engaging the Conductors Group. The Conductors group was formed to deal
with difficult communications; and with helping people learn how to
communicate in a more productive way. The conductors are a good place
to ask for advice in how to raise a topic directly, and what sorts of
other interventions may be possible and appropriate. You can contact
the group, or any member of it. If you don't know anyone in the group
ask people you trust for a recommendation to someone in the group. Or
you can talk to the module owner Stormy Peters. Stormy is the module
owner because she has a lot of experience but also because of her
discretion. If you don't know any of the conductors then ask people you
do know and trust for a recommendation, or start with Stormy. If you
know a lot of the conductors but have reasons that make you
uncomfortable with anyone in the Conductors group, then you have an
issue for the Module Ownership peers. Once again you can contact the
group or any particular member of it.
general interaction style the same doesn't make sense. The latter is a
very squishy topic, where expressing frustration and disagreement can
blend / merge / be confused with direct, honest respectful but difficult
conversations. So I separated the two topics, as you'll see below.
This also makes it easier to have people with different training as the
escalation path. It also made it easier to add a few things to the
general interaction section.
I'd like to delete the "be considerate" piece is duplicitive of "be
respectful" and "be collaborative." i've put it in italics below. If
you think it adds a lot to the other sections please let me know.
I'd also prefer to change the title -- I've learned that "Code" has a
coercive feel in some locales that I'd like to avoid. The second piece
of this policy in particular -- how to interact with each other is
something we'll be working out for a long time, so I'd like to reflect
that as well. I don't have a great suggestion now, but didn't want to
wait longer to post this.
Mitchell
+++++
Code of Conduct
The Mozilla Code of Conduct describes the type of community we are
building. It works in conjunction with
-- the Anti-Harassment/Discrimination Policy which sets out protections
and obligations of employees, and is crafted with specific
jurisdictional legal definitions and requirements in mind.
-- Mozilla groups for escalation and dispute resolution.
This Code of Conduct covers our behaviour as members of the Mozilla
Community, in work-related forums, mailing lists, wikis, web sites, IRC
channels, bugs, events, public meetings or person to person work-related
correspondence.
This Code of Conduct has two parts -- an Inclusion and Diversity
Statement, and a general statement about how we hope to treat each
others. Each is an important part of the community we're building.
I. Inclusion and Diversity Statement
The Mozilla Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone.
It doesn't matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you:
we welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they
interact constructively with our community, including, but not limited
to age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race,
sexual orientation and religious views.
Mozilla-based activities should be inclusive and should support such
diversity.
Some Mozillians may identify with activities or organizations that do
not support the same inclusion and diversity standards as Mozilla.
When this is the case:
(a) support for exclusionary practices must not be carried into
Mozilla activities.
(b) support for exclusionary practices in non-Mozilla
activities should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces.
(c) when if (a) and (b) are met, other Mozillians should treat
this as a private matter, not a Mozilla issue.
II. Raising Issues Related to the Inclusion and Diversity Policy
If you believe you're experiencing practices which don't meet the
Inclusion and Diversity policy please contact Deborah Cohen
"deb_in...@mozilla.com". Deb is trained in a range of diversity
issues. She leads the human resources function for Mozilla employees,
as well as growth and development programs for a range of Mozilla
contributors. Deb can evaluate whether or not there are legal aspects
the Mozilla organizations should address. She can also initiate a
Mozilla community process. Both pieces are important. Deb is our
expert for for dealing with the interaction of people and legal
obligations. She is not the single point for community process, but she
has the contacts and the commitment of me and other Mozilla leaders to
address community process.
In addition, Deb Cohen will also implement an optional training program
for those who are interested in learning how human resources and
diversity specialists respond to questions and issues. As people
complete this training we will (with their approval) create a list with
their names. These people can then serve as an informal channel for
getting started in raising an issue. Going to Deb directly is always a
possibility. The additional people are to provide a way to get one's
ideas out, see how it feels to raise them, see what kinds of questions
or conversations might result, before going to Deb or Mitchell.
Intentional efforts to exclude people from Mozilla activities are not
acceptable and will be dealt with appropriately. It's hard to imagine
how one might unintentionally do this, but if this happens we will
figure out how to make it not happen again. I suspect there will be
some questions about when and if something moves from a private to a
public matter, which we'll have to sort out.
III. Interaction Style
Be considerate. Our work will be used by other people, and we in
turn will depend on the work of others. Any decision we take will affect
users and colleagues, and we should take those consequences into account
when making decisions.
Be respectful. Everyone can make a valuable contribution to
Mozilla. We may not always agree, but disagreement is no excuse for poor
manners. We will all experience some frustration now and then, but we
don't allow that frustration to turn into a personal attack. A community
where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one.
Be collaborative. Mozilla is a complex whole made of many parts,
it is the sum of many dreams. Collaboration between teams that each have
their own goal and vision is essential; for the whole to be more than
the sum of its parts, each part must make an effort to understand the
whole. Collaboration reduces redundancy and improves the quality of our
work. Internally and externally, we celebrate good collaboration.
Wherever possible, we work closely with upstream projects and others in
the free software community to coordinate our efforts. We prefer to
work transparently and involve interested parties as early as possible.
Try to understand different perspectives. Our goal should not be
to "win" every disagreement or argument. A more productive goal is to
be open to ideas that make our own ideas better. "Winning" is when
different perspectives make our work richer and stronger.
Do not threaten violence.
Empower others.
Strive for excellence. Our products must be great and our
communities must be healthy and vigorous. Being respectful does not
mean papering over disagreements or accepting less than we can do.
Don't expect to agree with every decision.
IV. Raising Issues Related Interaction Style
Inevitably conflicts will arise. Sometimes we'll differ about style,
about what's respectful. Sometimes attempts at humor will backfire.
One approach could be to try to make Mozilla as strictly business-like
and sterile in an attempt to avoid all issues. This doesn't fit with
Mozilla. If we become sterile we'll have lost part of our essence. A
community is a set of relationships and encompasses more than the
interactions strictly required to ship software.
We are also likely to have some discussions about if an when criticism
is respectful and when it's not. We *must* be able to speak directly
when we disagree and when we think we need to improve. We cannot
sugar-coat hard truths. Doing so respectfully is hard, doing so when
other don't seem to be listening is harder, and hearing such comments
when one is the recipient can be even harder still. We need to be
honest and direct, as well as respectful. That takes work.
Here are some ways to handle conflicts.
Direct Conversation. If you are comfortable having a direct talk with
the other person, this is a good way to start.
Conversation with Other Trusted Mozillians. If you're not comfortable
having a direct conversation, identify one or more people you trust. It
will be helpful to identify whether the conflict is because someone is
flaming, or behaving in a troll like manner or just won't listen? Has
the person been expressing some frustration and is now escalating into
an increasingly strident tone?
Engaging the Conductors Group. The Conductors group was formed to deal
with difficult communications; and with helping people learn how to
communicate in a more productive way. The conductors are a good place
to ask for advice in how to raise a topic directly, and what sorts of
other interventions may be possible and appropriate. You can contact
the group, or any member of it. If you don't know anyone in the group
ask people you trust for a recommendation to someone in the group. Or
you can talk to the module owner Stormy Peters. Stormy is the module
owner because she has a lot of experience but also because of her
discretion. If you don't know any of the conductors then ask people you
do know and trust for a recommendation, or start with Stormy. If you
know a lot of the conductors but have reasons that make you
uncomfortable with anyone in the Conductors group, then you have an
issue for the Module Ownership peers. Once again you can contact the
group or any particular member of it.
Daniel Glazman
May 8, 2012, 4:59:40 PM5/8/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
I have so much to say I don't really know where to start. Let me pick
three things for now, I will post later after at least 2 or 3 re-reads
of your text.
1. You said "A community where people feel uncomfortable (...) is not
a productive one". This is one big concern and a concern about the CoC
itself: most people I have talked to during the last month in the
european community are mildly or largely uncomfortable with the very
existence of a CoC. Only a small minority expressed support for a CoC.
That's a cultural difference and the subject of my second item just
below.
2. I think your section III misses something about cultural
differences and knowledge of english, and even possibly american
english, as Rik said a while ago. Let me give you a concrete example:
during a W3C meeting in a Bay Area, someone in our group was super-
funny being at the same time very productive. Cool person, clever,
participating and joking all the time for the greatest pleasure of
all. I then said, erroneously translating word per word from french
"quel clown !". In french, with the tone I used, it had no negative
meaning at all, it really meant "what a funny person generating a good
mood in this group". I immediately noticed there was a problem about
the word "clown" when the Briton and the American I was speaking to
reacted badly. The same thing can happen in email, in a blog ; face-to-
face, it's easy to apologize immediately for the misunderstanding,
explain, cool thing down. Online, and given the time zones in our
community, that's much much harder. I still remember the reaction of
Hyatt when I said on my blog Firefox in the early days was a
"disruptive innovation". And it was not a bad translation on my side,
I was of course quoting the notion detailed in the Innovator's
Dilemma. He took it very negatively and he was not the only one, and I
had to explain that notion. That's where a CoC reaches its limits and
why I still think a CoC will not really help. That's where words like
"will be dealt with appropriately" make some "uncomfortable", see item
1 above. Oh, and you're right about the coercive nature of word
"Code", I already said it a while ago.
What scares me here is a potential shift from self-control to self-
censorship as a side effect of a CoC. It seems to me that
productivity, vision and innovation usually come from the "black
sheeps", not from the "conformist", and it's really hard to get the
good sides from the black sheeps without having to deal from time to
time with the bad sides.
3. I would like to add a comment about second paragraph of section IV:
I heard too often that a negative comment - call it criticism - is
useless if no solution to the issue exposed is proposed. In this
community. I disagree with that, and quite strongly. If we "strive for
excellence" as you wrote, identifying something as "bad" is as
important as making a counter-proposal. I agree that making such a
comment impolitely is not welcomed but making politely a negative
comment is always, in my opinion, constructive ; it is the first step
that can allow, that should probably allow some people to think "hey,
that was not supposed to trigger negative comments, did we miss
something here?". In that sense, negative comments _are_ useful, must
be addressed, probably requires more detailed explanations or a
revamp, and I read too often the contrary. And that's where we go back
to item 2 because in some cultures, that's perfectly acceptable and
normal business while in others, that's badly perceived. Who's right,
who's wrong? Everyone, in my opinion, a community being based on
common goals and compromises, in the sense of Voltaire's famous words.
Daniel
three things for now, I will post later after at least 2 or 3 re-reads
of your text.
1. You said "A community where people feel uncomfortable (...) is not
a productive one". This is one big concern and a concern about the CoC
itself: most people I have talked to during the last month in the
european community are mildly or largely uncomfortable with the very
existence of a CoC. Only a small minority expressed support for a CoC.
That's a cultural difference and the subject of my second item just
below.
2. I think your section III misses something about cultural
differences and knowledge of english, and even possibly american
english, as Rik said a while ago. Let me give you a concrete example:
during a W3C meeting in a Bay Area, someone in our group was super-
funny being at the same time very productive. Cool person, clever,
participating and joking all the time for the greatest pleasure of
all. I then said, erroneously translating word per word from french
"quel clown !". In french, with the tone I used, it had no negative
meaning at all, it really meant "what a funny person generating a good
mood in this group". I immediately noticed there was a problem about
the word "clown" when the Briton and the American I was speaking to
reacted badly. The same thing can happen in email, in a blog ; face-to-
face, it's easy to apologize immediately for the misunderstanding,
explain, cool thing down. Online, and given the time zones in our
community, that's much much harder. I still remember the reaction of
Hyatt when I said on my blog Firefox in the early days was a
"disruptive innovation". And it was not a bad translation on my side,
I was of course quoting the notion detailed in the Innovator's
Dilemma. He took it very negatively and he was not the only one, and I
had to explain that notion. That's where a CoC reaches its limits and
why I still think a CoC will not really help. That's where words like
"will be dealt with appropriately" make some "uncomfortable", see item
1 above. Oh, and you're right about the coercive nature of word
"Code", I already said it a while ago.
What scares me here is a potential shift from self-control to self-
censorship as a side effect of a CoC. It seems to me that
productivity, vision and innovation usually come from the "black
sheeps", not from the "conformist", and it's really hard to get the
good sides from the black sheeps without having to deal from time to
time with the bad sides.
3. I would like to add a comment about second paragraph of section IV:
I heard too often that a negative comment - call it criticism - is
useless if no solution to the issue exposed is proposed. In this
community. I disagree with that, and quite strongly. If we "strive for
excellence" as you wrote, identifying something as "bad" is as
important as making a counter-proposal. I agree that making such a
comment impolitely is not welcomed but making politely a negative
comment is always, in my opinion, constructive ; it is the first step
that can allow, that should probably allow some people to think "hey,
that was not supposed to trigger negative comments, did we miss
something here?". In that sense, negative comments _are_ useful, must
be addressed, probably requires more detailed explanations or a
revamp, and I read too often the contrary. And that's where we go back
to item 2 because in some cultures, that's perfectly acceptable and
normal business while in others, that's badly perceived. Who's right,
who's wrong? Everyone, in my opinion, a community being based on
common goals and compromises, in the sense of Voltaire's famous words.
Daniel
Henri Sivonen
May 10, 2012, 5:16:47 AM5/10/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Mitchell Baker <mitc...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> I'd also prefer to change the title -- I've learned that "Code" has a
> coercive feel in some locales that I'd like to avoid.
I think this would be a good idea even though I don't have a concrete
> I'd also prefer to change the title -- I've learned that "Code" has a
> coercive feel in some locales that I'd like to avoid.
better title to suggest.
> work-related
Participating in Mozilla activities might not be considered "work" by
everyone in the community. It might, for example, be a hobby. I
think phrasing it as "work-related" is contradictory to Mozilla's
aspirations to portray itself as a community larger than the people
who work for the Foundation or one of its (sub-?)subsidiaries.
I suggest using "Mozilla-related" instead.
--
Henri Sivonen
hsiv...@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mitchell Baker
May 10, 2012, 12:46:30 PM5/10/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
OK, thanks!
mitchell
mitchell
Majken Connor
May 10, 2012, 1:04:47 PM5/10/12
to Mitchell Baker, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On a technical note someone mentioned to me that maybe the email in the doc
should be something more general that gets handed off if roles change,
rather than having to update the doc. Also they were wondering why it was
.com instead of .org, I'm not sure what the policy is for using which, when.
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Mitchell Baker <mitc...@mozilla.com>wrote:
> OK, thanks!
>
> mitchell
>
>
> On 5/10/12 2:16 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>
>
should be something more general that gets handed off if roles change,
rather than having to update the doc. Also they were wondering why it was
.com instead of .org, I'm not sure what the policy is for using which, when.
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Mitchell Baker <mitc...@mozilla.com>wrote:
> OK, thanks!
>
> mitchell
>
>
> On 5/10/12 2:16 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>
>
Mitchell Baker
May 10, 2012, 1:20:37 PM5/10/12
to Majken Connor, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
this makes sense, i should have thought of them.
mitchell
mitchell
On 5/10/12 10:04 AM, Majken Connor wrote:
On a technical note someone mentioned to me that maybe the email in the doc should be something more general that gets handed off if roles change, rather than having to update the doc. Also they were wondering why it was .com instead of .org, I'm not sure what the policy is for using which, when.
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Mitchell Baker <mitc...@mozilla.com> wrote:
OK, thanks!
mitchell
On 5/10/12 2:16 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
gover...@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
Janet Swisher
May 10, 2012, 2:48:32 PM5/10/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On May 8, 1:14 pm, Mitchell Baker <mitch...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> I'd also prefer to change the title -- I've learned that "Code" has a
> coercive feel in some locales that I'd like to avoid. The second piece
> of this policy in particular -- how to interact with each other is
> something we'll be working out for a long time, so I'd like to reflect
> that as well. I don't have a great suggestion now, but didn't want to
> wait longer to post this.
How about "Conduct Guidelines"? (That is, not "rules" or "codes".)
> I'd also prefer to change the title -- I've learned that "Code" has a
> coercive feel in some locales that I'd like to avoid. The second piece
> of this policy in particular -- how to interact with each other is
> something we'll be working out for a long time, so I'd like to reflect
> that as well. I don't have a great suggestion now, but didn't want to
> wait longer to post this.
Even that sounds a bit stuffy, but I don't have a better alternative
to "conduct".
--Janet
David Rajchenbach-Teller
May 10, 2012, 2:50:57 PM5/10/12
to Janet Swisher, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 5/10/12 8:48 PM, Janet Swisher wrote:
> On May 8, 1:14 pm, Mitchell Baker <mitch...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> On May 8, 1:14 pm, Mitchell Baker <mitch...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd also prefer to change the title -- I've learned that "Code" has a
>> coercive feel in some locales that I'd like to avoid. The second piece
>> of this policy in particular -- how to interact with each other is
>> something we'll be working out for a long time, so I'd like to reflect
>> that as well. I don't have a great suggestion now, but didn't want to
>> wait longer to post this.
>
>> coercive feel in some locales that I'd like to avoid. The second piece
>> of this policy in particular -- how to interact with each other is
>> something we'll be working out for a long time, so I'd like to reflect
>> that as well. I don't have a great suggestion now, but didn't want to
>> wait longer to post this.
>
> How about "Conduct Guidelines"? (That is, not "rules" or "codes".)
> Even that sounds a bit stuffy, but I don't have a better alternative
> to "conduct".
What about "Etiquette"?
> Even that sounds a bit stuffy, but I don't have a better alternative
> to "conduct".
Cheers,
David
--
David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
Performance Team, Mozilla
Lukas Blakk
May 10, 2012, 11:38:02 PM5/10/12
to David Rajchenbach-Teller, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org, Janet Swisher
How about Community Participation Guidelines?
On May 10, 2012, at 11:50 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller <dte...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 5/10/12 8:48 PM, Janet Swisher wrote:
>> On May 8, 1:14 pm, Mitchell Baker <mitch...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>
On May 10, 2012, at 11:50 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller <dte...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 5/10/12 8:48 PM, Janet Swisher wrote:
>> On May 8, 1:14 pm, Mitchell Baker <mitch...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd also prefer to change the title -- I've learned that "Code" has a
>>> coercive feel in some locales that I'd like to avoid. The second piece
>>> of this policy in particular -- how to interact with each other is
>>> something we'll be working out for a long time, so I'd like to reflect
>>> that as well. I don't have a great suggestion now, but didn't want to
>>> wait longer to post this.
>>
>>> coercive feel in some locales that I'd like to avoid. The second piece
>>> of this policy in particular -- how to interact with each other is
>>> something we'll be working out for a long time, so I'd like to reflect
>>> that as well. I don't have a great suggestion now, but didn't want to
>>> wait longer to post this.
>>
>> How about "Conduct Guidelines"? (That is, not "rules" or "codes".)
>> Even that sounds a bit stuffy, but I don't have a better alternative
>> to "conduct".
>
> What about "Etiquette"?
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> --
> David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
> Performance Team, Mozilla
>
>> Even that sounds a bit stuffy, but I don't have a better alternative
>> to "conduct".
>
> What about "Etiquette"?
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> --
> David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD
> Performance Team, Mozilla
>
Mitchell Baker
May 11, 2012, 1:11:35 AM5/11/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
This sounds great to me
ml
ml
Jb Piacentino
May 11, 2012, 6:28:51 AM5/11/12
to gover...@lists.mozilla.org
May I suggest 'Community Participation Etiquette' ?
- I love the idea of 'Participation', because this really is about how
we can create the environment for efficient and pleasant participation
- 'Etiquette' brings this idea of respect, politeness & respect of
others and does not convey the 'enforcement' feeling that community
members felt bad about.
'Community Etiquette' might work just as good as well !
Jb
On 11/05/2012 07:11, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> This sounds great to me
>
> ml
>
> On 5/10/12 8:38 PM, Lukas Blakk wrote:
- I love the idea of 'Participation', because this really is about how
we can create the environment for efficient and pleasant participation
- 'Etiquette' brings this idea of respect, politeness & respect of
others and does not convey the 'enforcement' feeling that community
members felt bad about.
'Community Etiquette' might work just as good as well !
Jb
On 11/05/2012 07:11, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> This sounds great to me
>
> ml
>
> On 5/10/12 8:38 PM, Lukas Blakk wrote:
David Bruant
May 11, 2012, 6:31:22 AM5/11/12
to Jb Piacentino, gover...@lists.mozilla.org
Le 11/05/2012 12:28, Jb Piacentino a écrit :
> May I suggest 'Community Participation Etiquette' ?
> - I love the idea of 'Participation', because this really is about how
> we can create the environment for efficient and pleasant participation
> - 'Etiquette' brings this idea of respect, politeness & respect of
> others and does not convey the 'enforcement' feeling that community
> members felt bad about.
- It resonates with "ethic" which I think is at the core of the idea
> May I suggest 'Community Participation Etiquette' ?
> - I love the idea of 'Participation', because this really is about how
> we can create the environment for efficient and pleasant participation
> - 'Etiquette' brings this idea of respect, politeness & respect of
> others and does not convey the 'enforcement' feeling that community
> members felt bad about.
+1 on "Community Participation Etiquette"
David
> 'Community Etiquette' might work just as good as well !
>
> Jb
>
> On 11/05/2012 07:11, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>> This sounds great to me
>>
>> ml
>>
>> On 5/10/12 8:38 PM, Lukas Blakk wrote:
>
> Jb
>
> On 11/05/2012 07:11, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>> This sounds great to me
>>
>> ml
>>
>> On 5/10/12 8:38 PM, Lukas Blakk wrote:
Gervase Markham
May 11, 2012, 11:56:11 AM5/11/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 08/05/12 19:14, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> This Code of Conduct covers our behaviour as members of the Mozilla
> Community, in work-related forums, mailing lists, wikis, web sites, IRC
> channels, bugs, events, public meetings or person to person work-related
> correspondence.
I second the suggestion of "Mozilla-related".
> This Code of Conduct covers our behaviour as members of the Mozilla
> Community, in work-related forums, mailing lists, wikis, web sites, IRC
> channels, bugs, events, public meetings or person to person work-related
> correspondence.
> I. Inclusion and Diversity Statement
>
> The Mozilla Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone.
> It doesn't matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you:
> we welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they
> interact constructively with our community, including, but not limited
> to age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race,
> sexual orientation and religious views.
excellent, but the addition of the list of particular types of diversity
has produced a sentence which isn't quite English. Removing the
sub-clauses, you get:
"We welcome contributions from everyone ... including ... age, culture,
ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation
and religious views."
That doesn't quite make sense. Proposed fix:
and religious views."
We welcome contributions from everyone, as long as they interact
constructively with our community. This includes, but is not limited to,
people of varied age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity,
language, race, sexual orientation and religious views.
> contributors. Deb can evaluate whether or not there are legal aspects
> the Mozilla organizations should address. She can also initiate a
> Mozilla community process.
Are there plans to define that process at all?
> the Mozilla organizations should address. She can also initiate a
> Mozilla community process.
> In addition, Deb Cohen will also implement an optional training program
> for those who are interested in learning how human resources and
> diversity specialists respond to questions and issues. As people
> complete this training we will (with their approval) create a list with
> their names. These people can then serve as an informal channel for
> getting started in raising an issue. Going to Deb directly is always a
> possibility. The additional people are to provide a way to get one's
> ideas out, see how it feels to raise them, see what kinds of questions
> or conversations might result, before going to Deb or Mitchell.
announcement of this initiative, or should we have a reference to the
list of names in the policy itself, and announce the initiative to
populate the list separately?
> Intentional efforts to exclude people from Mozilla activities are not
> acceptable and will be dealt with appropriately. It's hard to imagine
> how one might unintentionally do this, but if this happens we will
> figure out how to make it not happen again. I suspect there will be
> some questions about when and if something moves from a private to a
> public matter, which we'll have to sort out.
> Be considerate. Our work will be used by other people, and we in
> turn will depend on the work of others. Any decision we take will affect
> users and colleagues, and we should take those consequences into account
> when making decisions.
Gerv
Asa Dotzler
May 11, 2012, 12:55:08 PM5/11/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 5/8/2012 11:14 AM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> we welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they
> interact constructively with our community, including, but not limited
> to age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race,
> sexual orientation and religious views.
Not including disability seems like a pretty major oversight. We have an
> we welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they
> interact constructively with our community, including, but not limited
> to age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race,
> sexual orientation and religious views.
entire module and system in place to make sure that our products are
accessible to people with disabilities. How can we not include people
with disabilities in this list?
- A
Asa Dotzler
May 11, 2012, 10:46:14 PM5/11/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On 5/11/2012 11:13 AM, Lukas Blakk wrote:
> should put it in there as 'ability' not 'disability'.
>
I think it's actually supposed to be "disability".
Ability isn't a more affirmative version of disability. The two mean
different things. When we speak about "abilities" it's far too easy to
assume we mean talents and skills which is completely off the mark.
From what my visually impaired and physically disabled friends and
colleagues have told me over the years, it's actually kind of insulting
or at least condescending to use terms like "differently abled".
Unless experts in the area step in and say otherwise, I don't think we
need to confuse our intent by using unfamiliar and confusing terms that
we hope are somehow more affirmative or positive or whatever.
- A
> On 5/11/12 9:55 AM, Asa Dotzler wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 11:14 AM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>>
>> On 5/8/2012 11:14 AM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
>>
>>> we welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they
>>> interact constructively with our community, including, but not limited
>>> to age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race,
>>> sexual orientation and religious views.
>>
>>> interact constructively with our community, including, but not limited
>>> to age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race,
>>> sexual orientation and religious views.
>>
>> Not including disability seems like a pretty major oversight. We have
>> an entire module and system in place to make sure that our products
>> are accessible to people with disabilities. How can we not include
>> people with disabilities in this list?
> Good catch, and in the spirit of affirmation (and not 'othering') we
>> an entire module and system in place to make sure that our products
>> are accessible to people with disabilities. How can we not include
>> people with disabilities in this list?
> should put it in there as 'ability' not 'disability'.
>
I think it's actually supposed to be "disability".
Ability isn't a more affirmative version of disability. The two mean
different things. When we speak about "abilities" it's far too easy to
assume we mean talents and skills which is completely off the mark.
From what my visually impaired and physically disabled friends and
colleagues have told me over the years, it's actually kind of insulting
or at least condescending to use terms like "differently abled".
Unless experts in the area step in and say otherwise, I don't think we
need to confuse our intent by using unfamiliar and confusing terms that
we hope are somehow more affirmative or positive or whatever.
- A
Asa Dotzler
May 11, 2012, 10:51:11 PM5/11/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
of residence or origin. We're a global organization an we accept people
regardless of the political and geographic boundaries they happen to
occupy. That you can participate regardless of where you live is
fundamental to how we operate as a community and should absolutely be
included in any kind of inclusiveness statement. This is one of the most
basic tenants of our model of participation in Mozilla.
- A
Robert Accettura
May 11, 2012, 11:06:49 PM5/11/12
to Asa Dotzler, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On May 11, 2012, at 10:51 PM, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> On 5/11/2012 9:55 AM, Asa Dotzler wrote:
> It occurs to me that we're leaving off another critical group, country of residence or origin. We're a global organization an we accept people regardless of the political and geographic boundaries they happen to occupy. That you can participate regardless of where you live is fundamental to how we operate as a community and should absolutely be included in any kind of inclusiveness statement. This is one of the most basic tenants of our model of participation in Mozilla.
>
That could cause some confusion as MoCo does have limits to where it can hire (vs contract) due to various constraints (legal, tax etc.)*. Is that difference viewed as discriminatory?
>
It would also need to note that some participation may not be legal... not sure what the deal with exporting encryption is these days, I know the policies were weakened in recent years if encryption isn't a primary purpose (how does that apply to browsers?). Would an Iranian or North Korean programmer be able to participate in NSS work? Would a hg (er cvs for NSS still?) check out be cool (worth noting nothing AFAIK stops them today or ever)?
* See other thread.
Asa Dotzler
May 12, 2012, 12:10:16 AM5/12/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
welcomed into the community" and "participation" so perhaps that's
something we can not worry about.
- A
Majken Connor
May 12, 2012, 12:56:44 AM5/12/12
to Asa Dotzler, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
All the examples I can think of where someone would be discriminated
against because of their country would actually be because of culture or
ethnicity, so I think that covers it, but it'd be good to have examples if
it doesn't.
Also I just noticed the grammar there is wrong. Looks like something got
trimmed too hard?
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Asa Dotzler <a...@mozilla.org> wrote:
> On 5/11/2012 8:06 PM, Robert Accettura wrote:
>
>>
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>
>
against because of their country would actually be because of culture or
ethnicity, so I think that covers it, but it'd be good to have examples if
it doesn't.
Also I just noticed the grammar there is wrong. Looks like something got
trimmed too hard?
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Asa Dotzler <a...@mozilla.org> wrote:
> On 5/11/2012 8:06 PM, Robert Accettura wrote:
>
>>
> True. But I don't think "being hired" is tightly coupled with "being
> welcomed into the community" and "participation" so perhaps that's
> something we can not worry about.
>
>
> - A
> ______________________________**_________________
> welcomed into the community" and "participation" so perhaps that's
> something we can not worry about.
>
>
> - A
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>
>
bene...@google.com
Jun 12, 2012, 8:42:40 PM6/12/12
to mozilla.g...@googlegroups.com, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
I follow this group very infrequently, so apologies for bumping the thread and if this has been discussed already. I was wondering, what are the intended guidelines in these cases and does the proposed text match?
For the following situations, assume that Person A supported Proposition 8 in California (banning gay marriage, roughly speaking) and Person B did not. They are both part of the Mozilla community.
---
Situation 1: In a Mozilla-related IRC room, B sends out the message "Don't forget to vote against Proposition 8 tomorrow!" Is this acceptable?
Situation 2: A attended a pro-Prop 8 rally over the weekend. In the course of a casual conversation at a Mozilla event, B asks A what he did over the weekend. Is it acceptable for A to say that he attended this rally?
For the following situations, assume that Person A supported Proposition 8 in California (banning gay marriage, roughly speaking) and Person B did not. They are both part of the Mozilla community.
---
Situation 1: In a Mozilla-related IRC room, B sends out the message "Don't forget to vote against Proposition 8 tomorrow!" Is this acceptable?
Situation 2: A attended a pro-Prop 8 rally over the weekend. In the course of a casual conversation at a Mozilla event, B asks A what he did over the weekend. Is it acceptable for A to say that he attended this rally?
Lukas Blakk
Jul 3, 2012, 5:36:30 PM7/3/12
to Mitchell Baker, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Hi Mitchell,
Where is this initiative at right now? How long until we see a finalized version formally announced along with the expectation that all facets of the Mozilla project will now work with it as part of their social fabric?
Cheers,
Lukas
*-*-*-*-*
Release Manager, Mozillian
mozillians.org/lsblakk
On May 10, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> this makes sense, i should have thought of them.
>
> mitchell
>
>
> On 5/10/12 10:04 AM, Majken Connor wrote:
>>
>> On a technical note someone mentioned to me that maybe the email in the doc should be something more general that gets handed off if roles change, rather than having to update the doc. Also they were wondering why it was .com instead of .org, I'm not sure what the policy is for using which, when.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
Where is this initiative at right now? How long until we see a finalized version formally announced along with the expectation that all facets of the Mozilla project will now work with it as part of their social fabric?
Cheers,
Lukas
*-*-*-*-*
Release Manager, Mozillian
mozillians.org/lsblakk
On May 10, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Mitchell Baker wrote:
> this makes sense, i should have thought of them.
>
> mitchell
>
>
> On 5/10/12 10:04 AM, Majken Connor wrote:
>>
>> On a technical note someone mentioned to me that maybe the email in the doc should be something more general that gets handed off if roles change, rather than having to update the doc. Also they were wondering why it was .com instead of .org, I'm not sure what the policy is for using which, when.
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Mitchell Baker <mitc...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> OK, thanks!
>>
>> mitchell
>>
>>
>> On 5/10/12 2:16 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> OK, thanks!
>>
>> mitchell
>>
>>
>> On 5/10/12 2:16 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> governance mailing list
>> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
Mitchell Baker
Jul 3, 2012, 9:44:05 PM7/3/12
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
Lukas
good question, I should have gotten the plan written and socialized long
ago.
Short answer is that
(a)we should be operating today as described in the policy; and
(b) I want the various Mozilla communities internationally face to face
before the policy gets to 1.0. Mny people may not read .governance who
we will expect to live within the policy. Christie has points this out
as well. Finalizing a policy that affects all our communities without
using the face to fact opportunities to talk to the leaders of those
communities seems a poor path to me.
We discussed the Code of Conduct at MozCamp LatAm so that the leaders of
the Latin American communities have a deeper understanding. I want to
do this at the 2 upcoming MozCamps. Face to face is so much better.
I'll get all this added to the policy page in the next week or so.
mitchell
good question, I should have gotten the plan written and socialized long
ago.
Short answer is that
(a)we should be operating today as described in the policy; and
(b) I want the various Mozilla communities internationally face to face
before the policy gets to 1.0. Mny people may not read .governance who
we will expect to live within the policy. Christie has points this out
as well. Finalizing a policy that affects all our communities without
using the face to fact opportunities to talk to the leaders of those
communities seems a poor path to me.
We discussed the Code of Conduct at MozCamp LatAm so that the leaders of
the Latin American communities have a deeper understanding. I want to
do this at the 2 upcoming MozCamps. Face to face is so much better.
I'll get all this added to the policy page in the next week or so.
mitchell
0 new messages