#40: Enforcing the code of conduct ----------------------------------+--------------------- Reporter: duffy | Owner: Status: new | Priority: normal Component: Legal | Resolution: Keywords: coc, code of conduct | ----------------------------------+--------------------- Comment (by decause): > Replying to [comment:1 hguemar]: > > I raise to the attention of the council that the solution suggested in > the original post would be either difficult to implement or plain illegal > in many european countries. > > Blacklist are often subjected to strict regulations, and we don't want > to enter this field. > > > > If someone has an unacceptable behaviour, it should be either raised to > the local authorities or the council depending of the gravity. > > > > => should be > > "Attendees who are in violation of this violation of this policy may be > asked to leave and reported to the council or local authorities" > > And the council does what? If you want to leave it undefined in the code > of conduct I can see the utility in that, however I do think there should > be a plan/SOP as Langdon has suggested. If this is following the discussion we had at the FLOCK Council Update double-session, then another issue at hand is that we do not have an "official institutional memory" for CoC violations. It has been mentioned that the Community Working Group is often where these situations are resolved, and if this is the case, then keeping a record that includes reports to the CWG, conference organizers, and Council will help inform future actions and support decisions. The private council trac may be an alright place to start collecting these until/if/when we establish an official channel? > > We as a group also have methods at our disposal that do not amount to > blacklisting. For example, we can choose not to provide travel funding to > individuals that have egregious enough offenses or are repeat offenders. > I certainly am not comfortable financially assisting people that violate > the code of conduct. It sends completely the wrong message in my opinion. Agreed. Once we have a list of violations, we can check against it when making support decisions (whack-a-mole re-registration issues notwithstanding.) > > So if the council wishes to change the code of conduct as Haïkel has > suggested (odd copy/paste error aside), we should make sure we have some > understanding of what the council will actually do in that event. I think the reporting/review SOP should be super public and transparent, and the remedial actions allow for case-by-case solutions. A list of historical and potential sanctions (rejection of registration/speaker proposals at conferences, banning in IRC, denial of travel/financial aid, revocation of group membership/status) would establish options without dictating remedy. That is kind of how it's done in other contexts (e.g. "violators could face up to $X fine and Y time period in sanction.") I can appreciate the earlier comment in this thread about not wanting to make hollow threats, but I reckon a list of sanctions itself is a deterrent against some types of anti-social behavior. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/40#comment:5> council <https://fedorahosted.org/council> Fedora Council Public Tickets _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community.
