Why do you feel that you need clarity on the CoCC's actions? or perhaps a
better way to ask would be: What do you gain from getting more clarity?
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 6:58 PM Isarra Yos <zhorishna(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/08/18 14:31, David Barratt wrote:
> yet this is clearly precisely what is needed
to avoid incidents like
this
in the
future.
Based on what has been provided in this thread, I do *not* see this as an
incident that needs to be avoided in the future.
To clarify, the incident I was referring to was the unclear CoCC action
taken and subsequent confusion and disagreement, including this email
thread.
We absolutely do not need this all to happen again in another six months
with yet another incident which cannot be explained.
-I
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:23 AM Isarra Yos
<zhorishna(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> It's sounds nice, but no. It is not a feature. One of the arguments I
> was given when the CoC was initially pushed through was that of course
> it wasn't perfect as was, that it would be amended and fixed based on
> the real incidents it came into contact with. I maintain that it is
> impossible to do this - to amend, fix, and generally refine a document
> based on the real cases - when the details of the real cases and even
> the stats about what they are in general remain unavailable, and yet
> this is clearly precisely what is needed to avoid incidents like this in
> the future.
>
> There has been considerable disagreement as to where we should be
> drawing the line between the public cases, the generalised, and the
> private, but this too is something we need to figure out out a community
> and clearly draw, and the only way to do so is with clear information on
> what is possible, common, and feasible.
>
> -I
>
> On 09/08/18 22:39, David Barratt wrote:
>> I'm not sure I completely understand the problem. What is being called
a
>> "lack of transparency" is the
opposite of "privacy by design." What is
>> being called a bug, is perhaps a feature. The irony of this, ought not
be
>> missed.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 6:33 PM Isarra Yos <zhorishna(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> An interesting comparison, democracy. Community consensus and
>>> transparency were what brought our shared project to the great heights
>>> we now see, and yet the CoC and especially its enforcement are rooted
in
>>> none of this. If this trainwreck that
we are currently experiencing on
>>> this list is truly our best shot at an open, welcoming, and supportive
>>> environment when it flies in the face of everything that brought us
here
>>> in the first place, then all of that
was a lie.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure that's just wrong, though. Keeping everything behind
>>> closed doors is the opposite of open. Community members having the CoC
>>> used against them as a club and being afraid of retribution for
seeking
>>> help is the opposite of a welcoming
and supportive environment. I
would
>>> put forth that the CoC, or more
accurately, this heavy-handed
>>> implementation of it, has been an abject failure that requires us all
to
>>> step back and try to look at all of
this more objectively. To move
>>> forward, we must address the issues with the CoC and its enforcement,
>>> but to do so as a community, to come to any meaningful and informed
>>> consensuses as such, will not be possible so long as nobody outside
the
>>> committee has any access to the
stats, as no logging of actions taken
is
>>> available publicly, as the cases
themselves remain largely invisible
>>> even when they do not pertain to sensitive situations or materials.
>>>
>>> Because if we do not base this in open process, consensus, and
>>> transparency, then all platitudes aside, it's just not going to be
>>> very... good. It's not going to address our needs, and we're not
going
>>> to be able to refine it as things come up. Not doing this /isn't
>>> working/, and we need it work.
>>>
>>> -I
>>>
>>> On 09/08/18 20:48, Victoria Coleman wrote:
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I’ve been following this discussion from afar (literally from a
remote
>>> mountainous part of Greece [1]) so
please excuse the reflection. I saw
> this
>>> today:
>
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/
>>> <
>
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/jeongpedia/566897/
>>>> This is us. This is our shared
project. What an incredible privilege
it
>>> is to have the opportunity to be part
of something utopian, yet real,
> that
>>> is seen by the world as the last bastion of shared reality. This is no
>>> accident, no fluke. It’s because of us. This incredible community of
> ours.
>>> We are all different and yet we all, staff and volunteers alike,
strive
> to
>>> bring the best of ourselves to this monumental project of ours.
> Sometimes
>>> we get it wrong. We get emotional, we say the wrong thing, we get
>>> frustrated with each other. But we are all in this together. And we
> hold
>>> ourselves to a higher standard. I hope we can also forgive each other
> when
>>> we fall down and offer a helping hand instead of a harsh, hurtful
word.
> The
>>> CoC , like democracy, is not perfect but it’s our best shot at an
open,
>>> welcoming and supportive environment
in our technical spaces. Let’s
>>> continue refining it and let’s get back to work.
>>>> Warmly,
>>>>
>>>> Victoria
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelion <
>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelion>
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 9, 2018, at 7:24 PM, Stas Malyshev
<smalyshev(a)wikimedia.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>>> to me that this could easily be used as a shaming and blaming
list.
> If
>>> the
>>>>>> block is over and the person wants to change their behavior, it
might
>>> be
>>>>>> hard for them to start with a clean sheet if we keep a backlog
public
>>> of
>>>>>> everyone. I'd see it not only as a privacy issue for the
people
>>> reporting,
>>>>>> but also the reported.
>>>>> You have a good point here. Maybe it should not be permanent, but
> should
>>>>> expire after the ban is lifted. I can see how that could be better
>>>>> (though nothing that was ever public is completely forgotten, but
> still
>>>>> not carrying it around in our spaces might be good). So I'd say
public
>>>>> record while the ban is
active is a must, but after that expunging
the
>>> record is fine.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stas Malyshev
>>> smalyshev(a)wikimedia.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>>> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l