I quite like the Phabricator guidelines. Can't those just be replicated to apply to all technical spaces? No more years of debate needed, or new arbcoms, or strange statements of principles, or exhaustive lists of inappropriate behaviour. Adrian Raddatz On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; wrote: of we 11/21/16 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I think it is worth thinking about the problem from a user experience (UX) standpoint as well. Our projects have a complex interplay of social and technical factors. Thinking though the situation end-to-end is worthwhile: say I was just the victim of harassment or witnessed harassment on the projects/phabricator/IRC/etc. How do I report it? Where does the report go? What steps are involved in reviewing the report? If the harassment is genuine, what steps are required to address the situation (revert/block/...)? If the harassment is judged acceptable (maybe it's borderline, maybe just deserves a warning, maybe the report is itself an attempt at harassment), what steps are required to address? Then can other patrollers/reviewers see that action has been taken? And how did I know what the right thing to do was, at each step? Was the process discoverable? This is the core issue from my perspective. Uniform codes of conduct (to the greatest extent possible) ensure that we can do our best to address the end-to-end user experience uniformly as well, and that we have (as far as possible) *one* mechanism to report, *one* mechanism to review, *one* mechanism to address, etc. From a software engineering perspective, this ensures that we don't have any unexpected gaps that can be exploited, that folks' experiences are equally good regardless of what form the harassment takes/protections are equally robust against malicious reporting, and that we exhaust our available resources reinventing the wheel a dozen times. Usually the way this sort of process works out in practice is that someone works on generic "best practices" recommendations and tools, and then individual communities are encouraged to adopt the best practices, possibly with amendments/patches as appropriate for their communities. Then we periodically review the amendments/patches are see if we can roll them into the centralized best practices, etc. This ensures a healthy balance between deduplication of work and individual communities' innovation. I'm not worried about "WMF capture" of the process -- if that happens, the communities are free not to adopt the WMF code of conduct. IMO it's a good sign that the foundation is actively hiring and paying people to work on these problems, since they are common to all the projects. That's the sort of work we are funding the foundation to do. What would be more concerning to me would be fragmented efforts that prevent us from efficiently addressing issues or making progress, or communities failing to recognize harassment as a central concern. So long as the WMF and the communities are both actively working on the issues, cross-pollination will only lead to a stronger end result. --scott On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:15 AM, James Heilman &lt;jmh649(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: common On of you. hasn't Are what mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, -- (http://cscott.net) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>