Hi again, Incidentally, we will be adopting a code of conduct for participants in the SDN/NFV DevRoom and encourage other DevRoom organisers to do the same, even if the event does not yet have one. Thanks, Dave. On 10/29/2015 06:28 PM, Dave Neary wrote:

Hi,

On 10/29/2015 06:03 PM, Tom Marble wrote:

...

FOSDEM Organizers:

FOSDEM is a fantastic conference and the only thing I can think of that would make it better is publishing a Code of Conduct:

http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2015/02/01/the-fosdem-conundrum/

https://twitter.com/fosdem/status/561885201383821312

Will the FOSDEM 2016 edition have a CoC?

I support the adoption of a code of conduct for FOSDEM.

Thanks, Dave.

-- Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338

2015-10-30 0:59 GMT+01:00 Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>:

FWIW, I oppose the notion of a code of conduct specific to FOSDEM or any conference. There already exists a code of conduct that applies everywhere, every day and at any time and not just during conferences: it's called "the law". A code of conduct at FOSDEM implies that it's okay to harass & stalk outside of the conference. It's not. Period.

Well, saying "we need more cheeks" is not exactly breaking the law, it's just very unrespectful. The line is subtle, but it's not always crossed, however it causes a situation of stress that has been raised to our attention and never been addressed. I have contrasting feelings here, btw, I do agree that it's either a legal problem or not, and I don't think we need more Laws. There are some Countries that have special Laws like aggravating a murder if it's against a woman, I don't think this make sense, a murder is a murder, it is already the most ferocious of crimes, how can that be aggravated by analysing the social extraction, sex or sexual orientation of the victim? The line is again similarly subtle, one thing is is to make "jokes" about gay or women in general (rude and unrespectful again, and unwanted), and another target a specific person (harassment). On the other end, what's the point of FOSDEM? Yes, we are educators, and it's not about hardware and software, we claim we are building Communities, so why shouldn't we build better ones in the first place? Btw, this is not about women and gay, this is a very general problem, see for example what happened with Lennart Poettering [1]. Respecting the Law is not optional, but teaching a Community the values that the Law tries to follow, is a social task. So I give a +1 to the idea of a Code of Conduct, even if I know it is only a minority of people who are the trouble makers, I want to be sure they understand they are not welcomed. Cheers, Mario [1] https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13rdjryqyn1xlt3522sxpugoz3gujbhh04 -- pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF Java Champion - Blog: http://neugens.wordpress.com - Twitter: @neugens Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/ OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/ Please, support open standards: http://endsoftpatents.org/

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Jens Finkhäuser <jens@unwesen.de> wrote:

Therefore, the code must be just explicit enough for FOSDEM staff to be comfortable having someone else try to enforce it...

All makes sense until you say "enforce." How would you do that? -Pieter

+1 I believe the point of convening an event like FOSDEM is to promote and grow the free software movement. That means being slightly more collectively welcoming than is minimally required by law, which is what a Code of Conduct helps us do. On Oct 31, 2015 1:36 AM, "Jens Finkhäuser" <jens@unwesen.eu> wrote:

Mostly the way society should deal with these things: start a dialogue about why behaviour was unacceptable, and assist the victim in filing charges if they want to.

Maybe the problem word is "enforce"; but helping out is rarely as difficult as people make it seem. It does require the community's agreement, however, otherwise the volunteer has a whole new set of problems.

When it comes to sufficiently bad behaviour, as people have pointed out, the police will have to be called. This might happen not just if laws are broken, but also of university regulations are violated. But to get to this point you need people in charge of executing this kind of process, which is where the "staff to enforce stuff" come in. Leaving it up to the victims is not sufficient.

On 30 Oct 2015 6:25 p.m., Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com> wrote:

...

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Jens Finkhäuser <jens@unwesen.de>

wrote:

...

...

Therefore, the code must be just explicit enough for FOSDEM staff to be comfortable having someone else try to enforce it...

All makes sense until you say "enforce." How would you do that?

-Pieter

!DSPAM:1,5633a85330778104412067!

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com> writes:

Hi,

On 10/29/2015 06:03 PM, Tom Marble wrote:

...

FOSDEM Organizers:

FOSDEM is a fantastic conference and the only thing I can think of that would make it better is publishing a Code of Conduct:

http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2015/02/01/the-fosdem-conundrum/

https://twitter.com/fosdem/status/561885201383821312

Will the FOSDEM 2016 edition have a CoC?

I support the adoption of a code of conduct for FOSDEM.

I do too. FWIW, the one we've been using at LibrePlanet for the last few years, modeled on policies used at several other conferences, has worked well for us: <https://www.libreplanet.org/2016/safe-space-policy/>. It's been well-received by attendees and has given us a clear, consistent way to address some real issues. We haven't seen any of the fears that people sometimes express about such policies materialize. Just my two cents and a data point. :) -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: 61A0963B | http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at <http://my.fsf.org/join>.

On 30/10/15 09:44, Sanel Zukan wrote:

Tom Marble <tmarble@info9.net> writes:

...

FOSDEM Organizers:

FOSDEM is a fantastic conference and the only thing I can think of that would make it better is publishing a Code of Conduct:

http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2015/02/01/the-fosdem-conundrum/

https://twitter.com/fosdem/status/561885201383821312

Will the FOSDEM 2016 edition have a CoC? -1

I think this should be done per room/project basis if admin prefers so I can choose whether to participate in that room or not. Your links are jokes (open statement and a joke) and if you have issues with them, I believe you are not familiar with cultural differences or not understainding writer intentions.

Some cultures has really open joke format just as some cultures are using cursing words openly, so should I be offended if someone mention 'f*ck' because his/her projector is not working or because he tried to visually explain his problem?

FOSDEM is open conference and if CoC (good name btw) is going to be enforced, what to expect in a years after that? Dress code or shaved faces, because someone finds that offending?

The "E" in FOSDEM is for Europe, so it is probably not reasonable to suggest FOSDEM needs to find a way to make behavior from every region of the world compatible, just attempting to suggest what it is for the standards that residents of European countries expect is enough. It is all very well to give examples of where a code of conduct "worked" or was "used" for something. It is not hard to find just as many examples (both conferences and workplaces) where people have violated such codes (and possibly even the law) and the people responsible have covered it up or talked their way around it because it wasn't convenient to enforce the code or the law. So the real question is, if there is a code of conduct, who is going to enforce it and how? I'm not arguing for or against the code itself, I would just like to see people talk about (a) what is the problem they are trying to fix, (b) what they will actually do about it (and what are alternatives) and (c) how FOSDEM will be better as a consequence. However, even if nobody is able to enforce a code or there is not enough consensus to have one, it would be useful to give a statement about the principles that we value and agree on. That is all it is, a statement of a principles, not some new law that somebody is going to try to enforce. Such statements help to remind people and give them a point of reference and simply repeating such things often enough (like advertisements for fast food) can have an effect in the long term. There are other ways to approach these issues too, such as recognizing people who do positive things to make FOSDEM and our industry more pleasant to participate in. Regards, Daniel

Imifos, I've got to agree with your contributions here. But to add to all this: http://adainitiative.org/continue-our-work/conference-policies/ links to http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-harassment_policy_resources which is IMHO a must-read for everyone discussing here. It covers all the arguments I've seen here, plus is a good guide for what's needed - and also what isn't. (FYI, thoughtcrime detection drones with tasers aren't required, though some reactions here read like that's what people are afraid of.) "Be excellent to each other!" Jens On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:28:35AM +0100, Imifos wrote:

...

even if nobody is able to enforce a code

We need indeed to have a dedicated team of a few educated, open-minded and "experienced-in-negotiation" people that are present, easy "findable" and having the "power" to intervene - or just show presence. Then we need a clear communication to the attendees.

...

there is not enough consensus to have one

There is absolutely no need for consensus. The only thing that is needed is a word of power from the FOSDEM core team, followed by someone the core team trusts that handles this aspect.

Easy peasy :-)

Cheers

/tc

On 30 October 2015 at 10:19, Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> wrote:

...

On 30/10/15 09:44, Sanel Zukan wrote:

...

Tom Marble <tmarble@info9.net> writes:

...

FOSDEM Organizers:

FOSDEM is a fantastic conference and the only thing I can think of that would make it better is publishing a Code of Conduct:

http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2015/02/01/the-fosdem-conundrum/

https://twitter.com/fosdem/status/561885201383821312

Will the FOSDEM 2016 edition have a CoC? -1

I think this should be done per room/project basis if admin prefers so I can choose whether to participate in that room or not. Your links are jokes (open statement and a joke) and if you have issues with them, I believe you are not familiar with cultural differences or not understainding writer intentions.

Some cultures has really open joke format just as some cultures are using cursing words openly, so should I be offended if someone mention 'f*ck' because his/her projector is not working or because he tried to visually explain his problem?

FOSDEM is open conference and if CoC (good name btw) is going to be enforced, what to expect in a years after that? Dress code or shaved faces, because someone finds that offending?

The "E" in FOSDEM is for Europe, so it is probably not reasonable to suggest FOSDEM needs to find a way to make behavior from every region of the world compatible, just attempting to suggest what it is for the standards that residents of European countries expect is enough.

It is all very well to give examples of where a code of conduct "worked" or was "used" for something. It is not hard to find just as many examples (both conferences and workplaces) where people have violated such codes (and possibly even the law) and the people responsible have covered it up or talked their way around it because it wasn't convenient to enforce the code or the law.

So the real question is, if there is a code of conduct, who is going to enforce it and how?

I'm not arguing for or against the code itself, I would just like to see people talk about (a) what is the problem they are trying to fix, (b) what they will actually do about it (and what are alternatives) and (c) how FOSDEM will be better as a consequence.

However, even if nobody is able to enforce a code or there is not enough consensus to have one, it would be useful to give a statement about the principles that we value and agree on. That is all it is, a statement of a principles, not some new law that somebody is going to try to enforce. Such statements help to remind people and give them a point of reference and simply repeating such things often enough (like advertisements for fast food) can have an effect in the long term.

There are other ways to approach these issues too, such as recognizing people who do positive things to make FOSDEM and our industry more pleasant to participate in.

Regards,

Daniel

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

!DSPAM:1,56333af330771377015532!

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

!DSPAM:1,56333af330771377015532!

-- 1.21 Jiggabytes of memory ought to be enough for anybody.

Unfortunately, I have been forbidden above to cite history as example, but maybe the disaster of the German Pirate Party is recent enough and tells you something on "how free free can be" :-) On 30 October 2015 at 12:54, Achim 'ahzf' Friedland <mailinglists@ahzf.de> wrote:

Am 30/10/15 um 10:28 schrieb Imifos:

...

There is absolutely no need for consensus. The only thing that is needed is a word of power from the FOSDEM core team, followed by someone the core team trusts that handles this aspect.

Ithink at this point _you_ did not understand the free and open nature of FOSDEM ;)

Best... Achim

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:11:46AM +0100, Imifos wrote:

On 29 October 2015 at 23:03, Tom Marble wrote:

...

FOSDEM Organizers:

And this writing addresses each member of the FOSDEM community.

...

FOSDEM is a fantastic conference and the only thing I can think of that would make it better is publishing a Code of Conduct:

http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2015/02/01/the-fosdem-conundrum/

https://twitter.com/fosdem/status/561885201383821312

Will the FOSDEM 2016 edition have a CoC?

Actually, there is more???

We need as well "something" to enforce the CoC, that can handle incidents and that is simply available in case of problems or questions.

As sometimes-volunteer, I think that this should not be the core organisation team (too small, too busy, too stressed) and not the "classic" volunteers since they are just people helping without any knowledge and power to decide.

There is this blog post. Disclaimer: please read with educational acuteness of thought. I post this not to blame, but to give impulses.

http://skade.me/blog/2015/fosdem-2015.html

Which contains 'not something I wish to make public.' I stopped reading after 'has yet to own up to a long list of failures.'

Personally, I would be ready to help with this CoC and "on place task force".

Good luck with that. As in: It is plain stupid to create a _special_ expection handler. The way to go: Each transmitted "stop, enough!" being recieved as "STOP, it is enough" So whenever is there is a "stop, enough!", it is up to all of us to make it a "STOP, it is enough". Do NOT wait for _special persons_, be the "special person". Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Imifos <imifos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

So whenever is there is a "stop, enough!", it is up to all of us to make it a "STOP, it is enough".

Yes, that worked out well in the last 2000 years of human history :)

Next follow-up will be about WW2 and Hitler. Thread terminated. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds

+1 An additional task for the "The No Asshole Rule"-Blue Team :) On 30 October 2015 at 10:40, Ken Fallon <ken.fallon@gmail.com> wrote:

What I find interesting with these debates is that there is rarely if ever a mention of disabled people[1]. "Including children, over a billion people (or about 15% of the world’s population) were estimated to be living with disability"[1]. These people are been passively discriminated against by the projects we are involved with. You can find a list of open issues here[2], and still more remain unreported.

So whatever you decide to do, can I ask everyone attending FOSDEM to commit to adding the following to their project DNA: - We will make our project accessible by default. - We will give accessibility bugs the same priority as security bugs.

[1] WHO "World report on disability" http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/en/

[2] Orca Screen Reader https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/Orca

Ken. _______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

The article referenced in the first post specifically mentions the number of "cacucsian dudes" and females. It makes no mention of people with disabilities. Here is what I observed in FOSDEM last year. I only saw one blind person, and I only saw two people there in wheel chairs. Ken. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> wrote:

On 30 October 2015 10:40:43 CET, Ken Fallon <ken.fallon@gmail.com> wrote:

...

What I find interesting with these debates is that there is rarely if ever a mention of disabled people[1].

Possibly because disabled access to FOSDEM belongs on another thread and the general issue for software belongs on the mailing lists of the projects concerned.

-- http://danielpocock.com

Hello Ken, hello list,

2015-10-30 11:40 GMT+02:00 Ken Fallon <ken.fallon@gmail.com>:
> What I find interesting with these debates is that there is rarely if
> ever a mention of disabled people[1].[...]
>
> So whatever you decide to do, can I ask everyone attending FOSDEM to[...]
Staff member here. Regarding accessibility, here are some of the
measures we took:
* solved some small wheelchair accessibilities inherent to the premises
* clearly added accessibility information to the FOSDEM brochure and website
* tried to use dedicated signage for wheelchair users, settled on
personal assistance by staff for wheelchair users
* reserve space for people with hearing needs in the front of the main auditoria
* clearly label a staff member (me) to deal with accessibility related
requests before, during and after the event
* consult with an accessibility specialist on possible minor
improvements on the campus
* accessibility developer room (2011), plus plenty of space for
accessibility elsewhere in the program (like in the open design
developer room this year)

Kind regards,

Mark
--
Mark Van den Borre
https://fosdem.org staff

On Friday 30 Oct 2015 11:25:42 Christophe Vandeplas wrote:

In the end from what I learned, (but then again I'm not organiser anymore), the best thing will probably be to print the whole Belgian legislation into the FOSDEM Brochure. Fortunately we can exclude the European one, as all EU laws need to be transcribed into local law as I understood.

This Code is definitely more complete than an ad-hoc Code of Conduct written by geeks that are far away from the reality and don't have the experience.

Yes. I did notice that when I was a resident of Bouillon and Brussels. -- Richard Sheffield UK

I don't agree. I've seen several reasoned arguments *against* the Code of Conduct. The supporters, however, haven't stated at all clearly exactly why it's supposed to be a Good Idea or what problems (with examples) they are trying to fix. Neither have any of them supplied a draft content Code of Conduct or explained how it is to be enforced (remembering organisers are volunteers) but simply said "something must be done by someone other than me". I could support a something simple like " Be excellent to each other", "Treat others how you would wish to be treated yourself" or "don't be an asshole" but anything more complex will descent in arguments about trivia, The discussion on this list shows exactly how this will happen. It was obvious this would happen from the first post on the topic. S On 30 October 2015 at 10:38, Imifos <imifos@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm a bit shocked by the pattern here… All resistance against the idea of a Code of Conduct is formulated by mockery, disrespect and/or sarcasm.

On 30 October 2015 at 11:25, Christophe Vandeplas <christophe@vandeplas.com> wrote:

...

It's funny how some subjects become a repeatable story a few months before FOSDEM .

I've spend many years into organising FOSDEM, and I must say that during this time, I've have learned very interesting things about human behavior.

In the end from what I learned, (but then again I'm not organiser anymore), the best thing will probably be to print the whole Belgian legislation into the FOSDEM Brochure. Fortunately we can exclude the European one, as all EU laws need to be transcribed into local law as I understood.

This Code is definitely more complete than an ad-hoc Code of Conduct written by geeks that are far away from the reality and don't have the experience.

Kind regards Christophe

PS: if the irony is unclear: Let's also publish a FOSDEM driving-rules for the conference ground. I guess that this will definitely clear things out in addition to the Belgian driving rules....

On 29 October 2015 at 23:03, Tom Marble <tmarble@info9.net> wrote:

...

FOSDEM Organizers:

FOSDEM is a fantastic conference and the only thing I can think of that would make it better is publishing a Code of Conduct:

http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2015/02/01/the-fosdem-conundrum/

https://twitter.com/fosdem/status/561885201383821312

Will the FOSDEM 2016 edition have a CoC?

--Tom

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

-- 4096R/EA75174B Steve Mynott <steve.mynott@gmail.com>

Am 30/10/15 um 13:18 schrieb Dave Neary:

* "Call 112" is *not* an appropriate response to most of the incidents that can be reported (racist or sexist behaviour, for example, or forms of harrassment that do not break the law). A code of conduct arms organisers with a process to follow, and gives attendees a clear avenue to appeal to if there are serious issues

Well, if s.th. does not break any law, "just" some lines of text which is not accepted by the vast majority of participants, the CoC itself becomes a harassment tool as no one will be able to go any court trying to proof, that he/she did not do anything wrong. And this possibility is the central idea that makes our society a constitutional state, no our laws in the first place. Nevertheless, I think most people have good intentions when they are trying to setup a CoC... just... daily life is so much more complex than what most CoCs are able to cover, and they should not end as additional "laws" just to make people "feel better". The law as we know it, stands above any kind of "feelings". Best... Achim

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Imifos <imifos@gmail.com> wrote:

We are not speaking about a law, but about a "code of honor".

Indeed, yet honorable people need no code, and dishonorable ones treat codes like toys to break. Fair and effective enforcement is a *very* difficult task. Let's say I accuse someone of breaking the code, just to get them into trouble?

When you break the law, there is not even a question of what to do...

It takes knowledge to know what is criminal behavior, what the police will accept, what counts as valid evidence, and what will eventually be prosecuted. Few people enjoy spending hours writing a process verbal.

This is about respect, awareness, open-mind, self-reflection and "making a statement of support".

We already have all that at FOSDEM and I don't think this would solve the problems cited from last year... would it?

A "team" would negotiate, calm down, set things clear between people, try to re-construct respect, pay the involved people a hot milk, and in "extreme" cases ask the organisers to kick someone out... abuse should be prevented by educated and civilised behaviour and common sense.

I'm sorry to be negative here, yet I must remind you of the venue. There are no gates or ID checks at FOSDEM. I don't think it's practical to suggest we implement them. There is no security service to patrol the ground. There are no cameras to face detect offenders. "Kicking someone out" sounds easy, it is not. (Even if you could guarantee you were acting fairly.) -Pieter

Do you understand what you just wrote? On 30 October 2015 at 12:37, Sanel Zukan <sanelz@gmail.com> wrote:

Imifos <imifos@gmail.com> writes:

...

I'm a bit shocked by the pattern here… All resistance against the idea of a Code of Conduct is formulated by mockery, disrespect and/or sarcasm.

Because the idea of a Code of Conduct on a conference like FOSDEM (where we preach free software _like free speech_) is not only ridiculous, but abysmal. Beside, no one gave you sarcastic response, but realistic - it is up to you how will decipher it.

My 2c.

...

On 30 October 2015 at 11:25, Christophe Vandeplas < christophe@vandeplas.com> wrote:

...

It's funny how some subjects become a repeatable story a few months before FOSDEM .

I've spend many years into organising FOSDEM, and I must say that during this time, I've have learned very interesting things about human behavior.

In the end from what I learned, (but then again I'm not organiser anymore), the best thing will probably be to print the whole Belgian legislation into the FOSDEM Brochure. Fortunately we can exclude the European one, as all EU laws need to be transcribed into local law as I understood.

This Code is definitely more complete than an ad-hoc Code of Conduct written by geeks that are far away from the reality and don't have the experience.

Kind regards Christophe

PS: if the irony is unclear: Let's also publish a FOSDEM driving-rules for the conference ground. I guess that this will definitely clear things out in addition to the Belgian driving rules....

On 29 October 2015 at 23:03, Tom Marble <tmarble@info9.net> wrote:

...

FOSDEM Organizers:

FOSDEM is a fantastic conference and the only thing I can think of that would make it better is publishing a Code of Conduct:

http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2015/02/01/the-fosdem-conundrum/

https://twitter.com/fosdem/status/561885201383821312

Will the FOSDEM 2016 edition have a CoC?

--Tom

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

Wow, I can't believe I just read this. I was already extremely disappointed by the way this thread was going, but this is some really out there BS. It's 2015, there have been countless reports, blog posts, discussions for *years* about the problems that happen in tech conferences and events. For years we've all been working towards making the tech industry more inclusive and diverse, promoting dialog and creating safe spaces for everyone. This includes codes of conduct both online and offline, because they are an extremely important piece in making sure everyone is welcome and safe and allowed to practice that freedom that you just boasted so dearly about. As a member of the majority, you face no obstacles in that regard, so you walk around with blinders about how everyone else feels when they're in a tech environment. I assume this is why you just wrote what you wrote, and why most other people in this thread are also writing all this "just be nice to each other" BS. Ignorance is bliss. This is not a question of "Why". It's a question of "When". If you're asking why, especially in shocked, appaled or sarcastic tones, you seriously should take it upon yourselves to rethink your attitude towards other people and maybe realize that being an unempathetic asshole might work well when you're chugging beers with your mates, but doesn't really help towards making the tech environment a place where everybody can feel safe and supported. You want to know why a code of conduct is needed? Because of you, that's why. andreia gaita -------------------- blog.worldofcoding.com andreiagaita.net github.com/shana On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Sanel Zukan <sanelz@gmail.com> wrote:

Imifos <imifos@gmail.com> writes:

...

I'm a bit shocked by the pattern here… All resistance against the idea of a Code of Conduct is formulated by mockery, disrespect and/or sarcasm.

Because the idea of a Code of Conduct on a conference like FOSDEM (where we preach free software _like free speech_) is not only ridiculous, but abysmal. Beside, no one gave you sarcastic response, but realistic - it is up to you how will decipher it.

My 2c.

...

On 30 October 2015 at 11:25, Christophe Vandeplas < christophe@vandeplas.com> wrote:

...

It's funny how some subjects become a repeatable story a few months before FOSDEM .

I've spend many years into organising FOSDEM, and I must say that during this time, I've have learned very interesting things about human behavior.

In the end from what I learned, (but then again I'm not organiser anymore), the best thing will probably be to print the whole Belgian legislation into the FOSDEM Brochure. Fortunately we can exclude the European one, as all EU laws need to be transcribed into local law as I understood.

This Code is definitely more complete than an ad-hoc Code of Conduct written by geeks that are far away from the reality and don't have the experience.

Kind regards Christophe

PS: if the irony is unclear: Let's also publish a FOSDEM driving-rules for the conference ground. I guess that this will definitely clear things out in addition to the Belgian driving rules....

On 29 October 2015 at 23:03, Tom Marble <tmarble@info9.net> wrote:

...

FOSDEM Organizers:

FOSDEM is a fantastic conference and the only thing I can think of that would make it better is publishing a Code of Conduct:

http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2015/02/01/the-fosdem-conundrum/

https://twitter.com/fosdem/status/561885201383821312

Will the FOSDEM 2016 edition have a CoC?

--Tom

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

---

FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

On 30/10/15 13:06, Andreia Gaita wrote:

Wow, I can't believe I just read this. I was already extremely disappointed by the way this thread was going, but this is some really out there BS.

It's 2015, there have been countless reports, blog posts, discussions for *years* about the problems that happen in tech conferences and events. For years we've all been working towards making the tech industry more inclusive and diverse, promoting dialog and creating safe spaces for everyone. This includes codes of conduct both online and offline, because they are an extremely important piece in making sure everyone is welcome and safe and allowed to practice that freedom that you just boasted so dearly about.

As a member of the majority, you face no obstacles in that regard, so you walk around with blinders about how everyone else feels when they're in a tech environment. I assume this is why you just wrote what you wrote, and why most other people in this thread are also writing all this "just be nice to each other" BS. Ignorance is bliss.

This is not a question of "Why". It's a question of "When". If you're asking why, especially in shocked, appaled or sarcastic tones, you seriously should take it upon yourselves to rethink your attitude towards other people and maybe realize that being an unempathetic asshole might work well when you're chugging beers with your mates, but doesn't really help towards making the tech environment a place where everybody can feel safe and supported.

You want to know why a code of conduct is needed? Because of you, that's why.

You have written about people being unempathetic but I feel this conclusion fails to show empathy with the people you are trying to convince. You literally conclude with an "us-and-them" posture. Many people do agree and acknowledge that there are some problems and would probably like to find some improvement, it is just a question of how to go about it. Many of the concerns raised (e.g. who is going to enforce the code) are practical questions that do need to be answered, volunteers already do a lot.

On 30 October 2015 at 13:01, Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com> wrote:

Do we agree that support and intervention during/after incidents is a plausible solution? That we can make a hotline, and staff it, and have a small team with training and experience to deal with trouble, defuse it, and if absolutely necessary, take it to the police?

I would agree. We are going to react in such a situation anyway. Think about it, if I'm volunteering at Infodesk or carrying a bunch of supplies around campus and somebody comes with a complaint like that, I *am* going to listen to them and use my best judgement. Thinking about what to do in such a situation before the conference is IMO an extremely good idea, as is thinking about what to do after. A "hotline" type of informal organisation would be helpful to everybody who finds themselves involved in such a situation. The two issues of support and rules have been conflated unnecessarily. I'd still support a "Be excellent to each other. Everybody is here to have a good time." type of thing posted around because it's true anyway and if it helps people feel better or not behave badly, so much the better. My main interest is better support (to ALL, staff, volunteers, devrooms...) for handling of complaints. Greetings, Emanuil

-Pieter

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> wrote:

...

On 30/10/15 13:06, Andreia Gaita wrote:

...

Wow, I can't believe I just read this. I was already extremely disappointed by the way this thread was going, but this is some really out there BS.

It's 2015, there have been countless reports, blog posts, discussions for *years* about the problems that happen in tech conferences and events. For years we've all been working towards making the tech industry more inclusive and diverse, promoting dialog and creating safe spaces for everyone. This includes codes of conduct both online and offline, because they are an extremely important piece in making sure everyone is welcome and safe and allowed to practice that freedom that you just boasted so dearly about.

As a member of the majority, you face no obstacles in that regard, so you walk around with blinders about how everyone else feels when they're in a tech environment. I assume this is why you just wrote what you wrote, and why most other people in this thread are also writing all this "just be nice to each other" BS. Ignorance is bliss.

This is not a question of "Why". It's a question of "When". If you're asking why, especially in shocked, appaled or sarcastic tones, you seriously should take it upon yourselves to rethink your attitude towards other people and maybe realize that being an unempathetic asshole might work well when you're chugging beers with your mates, but doesn't really help towards making the tech environment a place where everybody can feel safe and supported.

You want to know why a code of conduct is needed? Because of you, that's why.

You have written about people being unempathetic but I feel this conclusion fails to show empathy with the people you are trying to convince. You literally conclude with an "us-and-them" posture.

Many people do agree and acknowledge that there are some problems and would probably like to find some improvement, it is just a question of how to go about it. Many of the concerns raised (e.g. who is going to enforce the code) are practical questions that do need to be answered, volunteers already do a lot. _______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

To put the responsibility of this onto the organizers is not a coherent demand. Disagree. Like it or not, organizers are community leaders; it's

Do we agree also that rules + enforcement are a weak to implausible solution? Abusive people do not care about rules. They enjoy breaking them. Disagree. The community can police itself, but only if it knows what its own policy is. It is up to the community leadership to put

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:01:03PM +0100, Pieter Hintjens wrote: their responsibility. policy in place, and tools for escalation.

Do we agree that support and intervention during/after incidents is a plausible solution? Agree, but not in exclusion of everything else.

-- 1.21 Jiggabytes of memory ought to be enough for anybody.

To put the responsibility of this onto the organizers is not a coherent demand. Disagree. Like it or not, organizers are community leaders; it's

Do we agree also that rules + enforcement are a weak to implausible solution? Abusive people do not care about rules. They enjoy breaking them. Disagree. The community can police itself, but only if it knows what its own policy is. It is up to the community leadership to put

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:01:03PM +0100, Pieter Hintjens wrote: their responsibility. policy in place, and tools for escalation.

Do we agree that support and intervention during/after incidents is a plausible solution? Agree, but not in exclusion of everything else.

-- 1.21 Jiggabytes of memory ought to be enough for anybody.

On 30/10/15 14:10, Andreia Gaita wrote:

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro <mailto:daniel@pocock.pro>> wrote:

On 30/10/15 13:06, Andreia Gaita wrote: > This is not a question of "Why". It's a question of "When". If you're > asking why, especially in shocked, appaled or sarcastic tones, you > seriously should take it upon yourselves to rethink your attitude > towards other people and maybe realize that being an unempathetic > asshole might work well when you're chugging beers with your mates, but > doesn't really help towards making the tech environment a place where > everybody can feel safe and supported. > > You want to know why a code of conduct is needed? Because of you, that's > why.

You have written about people being unempathetic but I feel this conclusion fails to show empathy with the people you are trying to convince. You literally conclude with an "us-and-them" posture.

Why would I be empathetic towards people that are being sarcastic and dismissive of something that has been clearly shown to be important through countless examples and conversations over the years? Why am I the one required to be empathetic towards people who apparently don't think that this is important because it doesn't happen to them?

Because you obviously care about this and that is the effort that leaders sometimes have to make when they want to change something. Also, because it will show how you would negotiate with people in a real-life conflict situation, listening to both sides and gaining their trust, no matter how you feel about it personally. At no point was I trying to defend any of the more ridiculous things that have been said in this discussion. It is not about showing empathy with such comments but looking behind them to try and work out how to reach the people who made them. Regards, Daniel

On 30 October 2015 at 14:03, Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com> wrote:

If we are going to build infrastructure to help attendees who feel they are in trouble, then we should perhaps look at the wider picture.

We have people coming from around the world to visit FOSDEM. They get into trouble with hotel staff, with taxis, with thieves, with strangers on the street who try to con them, and so on.

I think some level of emergency hotline would be good. It doesn't need to be extensive at first, just a multilingual contact point to which we can add knowledge and experience over time.

I agree this would be useful, but we might need to add to the idea over time (scope it, if you will). If something small is organised successfully we can try more next year.

I'd volunteer except on Saturday, as I'm running a devroom and then there will be beer.

Happy to take Friday evening/night though, also Sunday if that helps.

One of the volunteer app staff admins can probably add it as a task and then we all register for our tasks as usual (+ this one). It would be useful to put down a central meeting point for volunteers interested in this, so that there's a central place reports can come to, and so the volunteer group can organise each day. I'm inclined to suggest the desk at K, the only problem with that being that it can be quite crowded. But it does have a supply room in the back if immediate private conversation is required, and it's close to the staff room for serious reports. Greetings, Emanuil

-Pieter

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro> wrote:

...

On 30/10/15 14:10, Andreia Gaita wrote:

...

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro <mailto:daniel@pocock.pro>> wrote:

On 30/10/15 13:06, Andreia Gaita wrote: > This is not a question of "Why". It's a question of "When". If

you're

...

...

> asking why, especially in shocked, appaled or sarcastic tones, you > seriously should take it upon yourselves to rethink your attitude > towards other people and maybe realize that being an unempathetic > asshole might work well when you're chugging beers with your mates, but > doesn't really help towards making the tech environment a place

where

...

> everybody can feel safe and supported. > > You want to know why a code of conduct is needed? Because of you, that's > why.

You have written about people being unempathetic but I feel this conclusion fails to show empathy with the people you are trying to convince. You literally conclude with an "us-and-them" posture.

Why would I be empathetic towards people that are being sarcastic and dismissive of something that has been clearly shown to be important through countless examples and conversations over the years? Why am I the one required to be empathetic towards people who apparently don't think that this is important because it doesn't happen to them?

Because you obviously care about this and that is the effort that leaders sometimes have to make when they want to change something.

Also, because it will show how you would negotiate with people in a real-life conflict situation, listening to both sides and gaining their trust, no matter how you feel about it personally.

At no point was I trying to defend any of the more ridiculous things that have been said in this discussion. It is not about showing empathy with such comments but looking behind them to try and work out how to reach the people who made them.

Regards,

Daniel _______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

---

FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

Hey all, 

<tldr;>Summary, idea for action at the end</tldr;> 

I'm seeing two explicit camps here. On the one hand, we've got existing volunteers (including staff) that are swamped by loads of work, and when making the cost/benefit (un)conscious analysis end up feeling that they can't take up yet another task. 
On the other hand, there's a group of people that needs to be split up into 2 groups: (1) people who were a victim of (un)intentional harassment and (2) people who step up to protect the people who are in the first group. Both see the need for clarity. 

The clarity is twofold: 
(1) Victims of harassment need to know where they can find help or means to report 
(2) Clarity as to what isn't acceptable in our group. 

So there's the obvious: illegal stuff is not acceptable. And immediately taking legal actions is the way to go if so... (so now we're all gonna call the cops if we see someone smoking pot?) 

First thing a victim needs, is a safe haven, a place to sound their nasty experience and hear someone who acknowledges this story. This does not imply numbly believing all that a person says (as also a victim always starts from a subjective experience and his/her impression is not always in line with the intent of the called offenders). 
What are typical expectations: 
- solve my problem, take corrective actions (eg. thievery) 
- report an issue so this can be fixed (isn't this in the open source spirit?) (eg. non-accessible spaces) 
- report an issue so this won't happen to others in the future 

Typically this kind of psycho-social skillset is something not as present with many developers (just as not that many social workers are great devs, it's a skill too). 
I consider myself skilled in this matter, and would be glad to volunteer to man a help-point for harassment reporting or minority issues (in FOSDEM, females are a minority as are people with a handicap, even more than the traditional ethnical minorities). 

I can imagine there are more (potential) volunteers that would be glad to step up to man this place for time slots during FOSDEM. Possibly in this team not all volunteers will be as skilled (but the same goes for the network team), but I'm convinced that this is a team that can actually grow through the years. 

This volunteer team should have direct access to key staff, and will only do this if they judge this as important/acute. 
Complaints should be stored (anonymized), these volunteers can take notes. Staff can evaluate these statistics after the event (and no longer be surprised about this, now the third year) 

A place where you can talk (and cry) discretely is a good idea. I hope that is something that could be arranged with the ULB. I'd be glad to contact the conseiller en prévention to talk about this topic. Psychosocial concerns is an import topic on corporate safety nowadays... 

The key staff isn't the team that should work on working out procedures - this isn't their skill set + they already work 25 hours per day to have a great FOSDEM... 

Putting my money where my mouth is... I'm willing to help on this. 

Grtz, 
Jurgen. 

>>>>>>> SUMMARY - PROPOSAL FOR ACTION <<<<<<<< 
- Have a room (and phone number?) where someone can report issues. 
- Have a new TASK in the volunteers application. 
- Have an (anonymized) register of complaints. 
- Have a follow-up and procedures. 

----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----

Van: "Emanuil Tolev" <emanuil.tolev@gmail.com> 
Aan: "Pieter Hintjens" <ph@imatix.com> 
Cc: "FOSDEM visitors" <fosdem@lists.fosdem.org> 
Verzonden: Vrijdag 30 oktober 2015 15:25:35 
Onderwerp: Re: [FOSDEM] It's time for a Code of Conduct 

On 30 October 2015 at 14:20, Emanuil Tolev < emanuil.tolev@gmail.com > wrote: 



On 30 October 2015 at 14:03, Pieter Hintjens < ph@imatix.com > wrote: 

It would be useful to put down a central meeting point for volunteers interested in this, so that there's a central place reports can come to, and so the volunteer group can organise each day. I'm inclined to suggest the desk at K, the only problem with that being that it can be quite crowded. But it does have a supply room in the back if immediate private conversation is required, and it's close to the staff room for serious reports. 




Actually apparently there already is a staff member who coordinates this aspect (see other thread by Johan). Now he's mentioned it I do recall being told there was one when I last volunteered. Perhaps we can form a more organised group this year while reporting any incidents to that person, and working on producing simple and short briefs on what to do in after-the-fact situations. A conduct hack! 

<blockquote>


Greetings, 
Emanuil 

<blockquote>

-Pieter 







On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Daniel Pocock < daniel@pocock.pro > wrote: 
> 
> 
> On 30/10/15 14:10, Andreia Gaita wrote: 
>> 
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Daniel Pocock < daniel@pocock.pro 
>> <mailto: daniel@pocock.pro >> wrote: 
>> 
>> 
>> On 30/10/15 13:06, Andreia Gaita wrote: 
>> > This is not a question of "Why". It's a question of "When". If you're 
>> > asking why, especially in shocked, appaled or sarcastic tones, you 
>> > seriously should take it upon yourselves to rethink your attitude 
>> > towards other people and maybe realize that being an unempathetic 
>> > asshole might work well when you're chugging beers with your 
>> mates, but 
>> > doesn't really help towards making the tech environment a place where 
>> > everybody can feel safe and supported. 
>> > 
>> > You want to know why a code of conduct is needed? Because of you, 
>> that's 
>> > why. 
>> 
>> You have written about people being unempathetic but I feel this 
>> conclusion fails to show empathy with the people you are trying to 
>> convince. You literally conclude with an "us-and-them" posture. 
>> 
>> 
>> Why would I be empathetic towards people that are being sarcastic and 
>> dismissive of something that has been clearly shown to be important 
>> through countless examples and conversations over the years? Why am I 
>> the one required to be empathetic towards people who apparently don't 
>> think that this is important because it doesn't happen to them? 
>> 
> 
> Because you obviously care about this and that is the effort that 
> leaders sometimes have to make when they want to change something. 
> 
> Also, because it will show how you would negotiate with people in a 
> real-life conflict situation, listening to both sides and gaining their 
> trust, no matter how you feel about it personally. 
> 
> At no point was I trying to defend any of the more ridiculous things 
> that have been said in this discussion. It is not about showing empathy 
> with such comments but looking behind them to try and work out how to 
> reach the people who made them. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Daniel 
> _______________________________________________ 
> FOSDEM mailing list 
> FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org 
> https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem 
_______________________________________________ 
FOSDEM mailing list 
FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org 
https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem 

</blockquote>



</blockquote>



_______________________________________________ 
FOSDEM mailing list 
FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org 
https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem 

Excellent, count me in. Can we fix a meeting on Friday evening?
On 30 Oct 2015 15:48, <jurgen.gaeremyn@telenet.be> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> <tldr;>Summary, idea for action at the end</tldr;>
>
> I'm seeing two explicit camps here. On the one hand, we've got existing
> volunteers (including staff) that are swamped by loads of work, and when
> making the cost/benefit (un)conscious analysis end up feeling that they
> can't take up yet another task.
> On the other hand, there's a group of people that needs to be split up
> into 2 groups: (1) people who were a victim of (un)intentional harassment
> and (2) people who step up to protect the people who are in the first
> group. Both see the need for clarity.
>
> The clarity is twofold:
> (1) Victims of harassment need to know where they can find help or means
> to report
> (2) Clarity as to what isn't acceptable in our group.
>
> So there's the obvious: illegal stuff is not acceptable. And immediately
> taking legal actions is the way to go if so... (so now we're all gonna call
> the cops if we see someone smoking pot?)
>
> First thing a victim needs, is a safe haven, a place to sound their nasty
> experience and hear someone who acknowledges this story. This does not
> imply numbly believing all that a person says (as also a victim always
> starts from a subjective experience and his/her impression is not always in
> line with the intent of the called offenders).
> What are typical expectations:
> - solve my problem, take corrective actions (eg. thievery)
> - report an issue so this can be fixed (isn't this in the open source
> spirit?) (eg. non-accessible spaces)
> - report an issue so this won't happen to others in the future
>
> Typically this kind of psycho-social skillset is something not as present
> with many developers (just as not that many social workers are great devs,
> it's a skill too).
> I consider myself skilled in this matter, and would be glad to volunteer
> to man a help-point for harassment reporting or minority issues (in FOSDEM,
> females are a minority as are people with a handicap, even more than the
> traditional ethnical minorities).
>
> I can imagine there are more (potential) volunteers that would be glad to
> step up to man this place for time slots during FOSDEM. Possibly in this
> team not all volunteers will be as skilled (but the same goes for the
> network team), but I'm convinced that this is a team that can actually grow
> through the years.
>
> This volunteer team should have direct access to key staff, and will only
> do this if they judge this as important/acute.
> Complaints should be stored (anonymized), these volunteers can take notes.
> Staff can evaluate these statistics after the event (and no longer be
> surprised about this, now the third year)
>
> A place where you can talk (and cry) discretely is a good idea. I hope
> that is something that could be arranged with the ULB. I'd be glad to
> contact the conseiller en prévention to talk about this topic. Psychosocial
> concerns is an import topic on corporate safety nowadays...
>
> The key staff isn't the team that should work on working out procedures -
> this isn't their skill set + they already work 25 hours per day to have a
> great FOSDEM...
>
> Putting my money where my mouth is... I'm willing to help on this.
>
> Grtz,
> Jurgen.
>
> >>>>>>> SUMMARY - PROPOSAL FOR ACTION <<<<<<<<
> - Have a room (and phone number?) where someone can report issues.
> - Have a new TASK in the volunteers application.
> - Have an (anonymized) register of complaints.
> - Have a follow-up and procedures.
>
> ------------------------------
> *Van: *"Emanuil Tolev" <emanuil.tolev@gmail.com>
> *Aan: *"Pieter Hintjens" <ph@imatix.com>
> *Cc: *"FOSDEM visitors" <fosdem@lists.fosdem.org>
> *Verzonden: *Vrijdag 30 oktober 2015 15:25:35
> *Onderwerp: *Re: [FOSDEM] It's time for a Code of Conduct
>
> On 30 October 2015 at 14:20, Emanuil Tolev <emanuil.tolev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 30 October 2015 at 14:03, Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com> wrote:
>>
>> It would be useful to put down a central meeting point for volunteers
>> interested in this, so that there's a central place reports can come to,
>> and so the volunteer group can organise each day. I'm inclined to suggest
>> the desk at K, the only problem with that being that it can be quite
>> crowded. But it does have a supply room in the back if immediate private
>> conversation is required, and it's close to the staff room for serious
>> reports.
>>
>
> Actually apparently there already is a staff member who coordinates this
> aspect (see other thread by Johan). Now he's mentioned it I do recall being
> told there was one when I last volunteered. Perhaps we can form a more
> organised group this year while reporting any incidents to that person, and
> working on producing simple and short briefs on what to do in
> after-the-fact situations. A conduct hack!
>
>
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Emanuil
>>
>>>
>>> -Pieter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 30/10/15 14:10, Andreia Gaita wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro
>>> >> <mailto:daniel@pocock.pro>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>     On 30/10/15 13:06, Andreia Gaita wrote:
>>> >>     > This is not a question of "Why". It's a question of "When". If
>>> you're
>>> >>     > asking why, especially in shocked, appaled or sarcastic tones,
>>> you
>>> >>     > seriously should take it upon yourselves to rethink your
>>> attitude
>>> >>     > towards other people and maybe realize that being an
>>> unempathetic
>>> >>     > asshole might work well when you're chugging beers with your
>>> >>     mates, but
>>> >>     > doesn't really help towards making the tech environment a place
>>> where
>>> >>     > everybody can feel safe and supported.
>>> >>     >
>>> >>     > You want to know why a code of conduct is needed? Because of
>>> you,
>>> >>     that's
>>> >>     > why.
>>> >>
>>> >>     You have written about people being unempathetic but I feel this
>>> >>     conclusion fails to show empathy with the people you are trying to
>>> >>     convince.  You literally conclude with an "us-and-them" posture.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Why would I be empathetic towards people that are being sarcastic and
>>> >> dismissive of something that has been clearly shown to be important
>>> >> through countless examples and conversations over the years? Why am I
>>> >> the one required to be empathetic towards people who apparently don't
>>> >> think that this is important because it doesn't happen to them?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Because you obviously care about this and that is the effort that
>>> > leaders sometimes have to make when they want to change something.
>>> >
>>> > Also, because it will show how you would negotiate with people in a
>>> > real-life conflict situation, listening to both sides and gaining their
>>> > trust, no matter how you feel about it personally.
>>> >
>>> > At no point was I trying to defend any of the more ridiculous things
>>> > that have been said in this discussion.  It is not about showing
>>> empathy
>>> > with such comments but looking behind them to try and work out how to
>>> > reach the people who made them.
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> >
>>> > Daniel
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > FOSDEM mailing list
>>> > FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org
>>> > https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FOSDEM mailing list
>>> FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org
>>> https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FOSDEM mailing list
> FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org
> https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FOSDEM mailing list
> FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org
> https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem
>

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:37:09PM +0100, Sanel Zukan wrote:

Imifos <imifos@gmail.com> writes:

...

I'm a bit shocked by the pattern here
 All resistance against the idea of a Code of Conduct is formulated by mockery, disrespect and/or sarcasm.

Because the idea of a Code of Conduct on a conference like FOSDEM (where we preach free software _like free speech_) is not only ridiculous, but abysmal. IMHO it's abysmal that no such steps have been taken already, *especially* at a conference like FOSDEM.

People seem to be objecting to the perceived curtailing of freedom at a place that's got "free" in their name. Problem with freedom is, it's either for everyone or it isn't freedom at all. If you make one group of people feel unfree, because they're not safe to express themselves in the same way everyone else is, then you don't have freedom. So FOSDEM *especially* should implement a code of conduct & have staff on hand for dealing with incidents. -- 1.21 Jiggabytes of memory ought to be enough for anybody.

As I didn't include it at the end, after reading that account of 2015, I'm +1 on working on one at least. We'll see if we can come up with something good for our conf, it might take some time. After reading it, I can second http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-harassment_policy_resources as an impartial and a well-distilled source of information. A lot of time and experience seems to have gone into that page. On 30 October 2015 at 11:58, Emanuil Tolev <emanuil.tolev@gmail.com> wrote:

On 30 October 2015 at 10:38, Imifos <imifos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I'm a bit shocked by the pattern here… All resistance against the idea of a Code of Conduct is formulated by mockery, disrespect and/or sarcasm.

FOSDEM is a unique conference in its efficiency and the amount of conversations that it enables with only 40-70 people (incl. volunteers). This is only possible because it's pretty self-organising, and I think people are grossly overestimating the tiny amount of control that staff / volunteers have. If you see something bad, call out the person doing it. If you see something criminal, call the police and tell staff. There is nothing more than that that staff and volunteers can do (we can't ban anyone!), so you have the same powers!

However... I find the statement in http://skade.me/blog/2015/fosdem-2015.html that "FOSDEM Is an Unsafe Space" disturbing. I had written a longer email for a -1 as it would IMO create false expectations (that volunteers and staff have power to deal with these incidents where they don't). I still think that's true, but I also think we should try to do something about it, I do want us to be able to deal with this.

If some volunteers or staff members have had a lot of experience organising conferences and has ideally dealt with such an issue first-hand, their experience should be distilled into some very brief and clear guidance. If we want to call this Code of Conduct, why not? This can then be disseminated to staff, volunteers, speakers, devroom organisers and attendees (via the site and brochures). I understand it's going to be ineffective in the last group, but that's no excuse not to do it for the first 4. I think it will have a positive effect there by preparing people to *deal* with such situations.

We're all focussing on using a Code for preventing bad behaviour in this email thread and reacting to the perceived slight of freedom. What about how to deal with such behaviour? I'd find talking, discussing, keeping this at the front of your mind as you volunteer, to be a lot more valuable than "rules not to break", and that stuff is also part of typical good Code. You may say "*I* know what to do" but others may well find it useful.

We've got to think carefully about how such a situation would play out in practice with the busy staff and volunteers though. If we tell people "this is how you report a problem" and then drop the ball completely when it happens because we're overloaded, that's almost worse than not having a Code in the first place. I can say that I would personally be happy to stop serving people at the Infodesk or drop out of the 2-3 strong moderating team in a room for a bit if somebody reports excessive behaviour to me.

Greetings, Emanuil

...

On 30 October 2015 at 11:25, Christophe Vandeplas < christophe@vandeplas.com> wrote:

...

It's funny how some subjects become a repeatable story a few months before FOSDEM .

I've spend many years into organising FOSDEM, and I must say that during this time, I've have learned very interesting things about human behavior.

In the end from what I learned, (but then again I'm not organiser anymore), the best thing will probably be to print the whole Belgian legislation into the FOSDEM Brochure. Fortunately we can exclude the European one, as all EU laws need to be transcribed into local law as I understood.

This Code is definitely more complete than an ad-hoc Code of Conduct written by geeks that are far away from the reality and don't have the experience.

Kind regards Christophe

PS: if the irony is unclear: Let's also publish a FOSDEM driving-rules for the conference ground. I guess that this will definitely clear things out in addition to the Belgian driving rules....

On 29 October 2015 at 23:03, Tom Marble <tmarble@info9.net> wrote:

...

FOSDEM Organizers:

FOSDEM is a fantastic conference and the only thing I can think of that would make it better is publishing a Code of Conduct:

http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2015/02/01/the-fosdem-conundrum/

https://twitter.com/fosdem/status/561885201383821312

Will the FOSDEM 2016 edition have a CoC?

--Tom

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

Asking for upfront consensus here is not going to work. Nor do you need it. Those who wish a COC and the (non trivial) infrastructure to implement it should make that happen. Simply form a FOSDEM COC committee, come to agreement on your text, publish it. Then form a group of volunteers who will station areas on the campus. Hand each visitor a copy of the COC. Make sure your staff are present full time, and do not drink any beer. You can find plenty of safe spaces. It should be easy to document any incidents, and provide support in case of need to file criminal complaints. None of this needs agreement from the FOSDEM organizers, does it. You're not asking them for any resources, time, or formal spaces. -Pieter Hintjens On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

...

Op 30 okt. 2015 om 11:25 heeft Christophe Vandeplas <christophe@vandeplas.com> het volgende geschreven:

It's funny how some subjects become a repeatable story a few months before FOSDEM .

That is easily explained: there are needs that aren't being addressed.

A CoC is a way some people hope to address those needs. Other people express doubts that adding a paper statement will have any, or the wished, effect.

Fosdem is about freedom and openness. Being open to everyone who wants to participate can conflict with freedom to express yourself and the organization creates its own balance in that.

When looking at the participation, I can see why people feel the need for more inclusiveness. If minorities say they don't feel welcome, and fear harassment, ignoring those feelings and the underlying needs achieves nothing.

While we cannot meet all needs, we can acknowledge them as valid needs and explain the chosen balance and policy.

Stephan Eggermont

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

I think the support for victims of abuse is far more important than writing down rules. In any case, if no law is broken, there is little the organizers, or anyone, can do. And if a law is broken, the important steps are documentation and reporting to the police. Something as simple as "Call/text This Number in case of Emergency," stuck up around the place, would be a good start. Or, a leaflet explaining what to do when someone assaults you in any sense. I've a lot of experience documenting and reporting abusive behavior to the Belgian police so if you decide to go this route I'm happy to advise. Safety doesn't come from putting up walls. It comes from providing each visitor with the knowledge and tools to defend themselves. -Pieter On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Imifos <imifos@gmail.com> wrote:

big +1 for this.

There is just one thing:

I would never do such operation without clear support from the organizers. It is important (for me) that I can speak with them having their trust, attention and respect, and not simply being considered a hysterical dump dora. This project has to become a part of FOSDEM, not just "yet another play in the gallery".

A part of this, everything is as simple (and even more) as you said...

Thank you!

On 30 October 2015 at 13:31, Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com> wrote:

...

Asking for upfront consensus here is not going to work.

Nor do you need it. Those who wish a COC and the (non trivial) infrastructure to implement it should make that happen. Simply form a FOSDEM COC committee, come to agreement on your text, publish it. Then form a group of volunteers who will station areas on the campus. Hand each visitor a copy of the COC. Make sure your staff are present full time, and do not drink any beer. You can find plenty of safe spaces. It should be easy to document any incidents, and provide support in case of need to file criminal complaints.

None of this needs agreement from the FOSDEM organizers, does it. You're not asking them for any resources, time, or formal spaces.

-Pieter Hintjens

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:

...

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

...

Op 30 okt. 2015 om 11:25 heeft Christophe Vandeplas <christophe@vandeplas.com> het volgende geschreven:

It's funny how some subjects become a repeatable story a few months before FOSDEM .

That is easily explained: there are needs that aren't being addressed.

A CoC is a way some people hope to address those needs. Other people express doubts that adding a paper statement will have any, or the wished, effect.

Fosdem is about freedom and openness. Being open to everyone who wants to participate can conflict with freedom to express yourself and the organization creates its own balance in that.

When looking at the participation, I can see why people feel the need for more inclusiveness. If minorities say they don't feel welcome, and fear harassment, ignoring those feelings and the underlying needs achieves nothing.

While we cannot meet all needs, we can acknowledge them as valid needs and explain the chosen balance and policy.

Stephan Eggermont

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

Hi, On 10/30/2015 08:50 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:

I think the support for victims of abuse is far more important than writing down rules. In any case, if no law is broken, there is little the organizers, or anyone, can do. And if a law is broken, the important steps are documentation and reporting to the police.

I disagree - there are lots of things the organisers can do, even if laws are not broken - mediation, excluding attendees, public statements of support indicating that incidents are unacceptable. Then there are things that organisers can do when laws are broken - sit with and comfort someone, call the police for them and explain in the local language what has happened, wait with someone while the police are on their way - event organisers are a natural point for contact for a conference attendee, and they should be aware of how they can best address a situation where a law has potentially been broken (if only to be able to judge when it's appropriate to call the police vs medical services vs attempt to mediate directly). Thanks, Dave.

Something as simple as "Call/text This Number in case of Emergency," stuck up around the place, would be a good start.

Or, a leaflet explaining what to do when someone assaults you in any sense.

I've a lot of experience documenting and reporting abusive behavior to the Belgian police so if you decide to go this route I'm happy to advise.

Safety doesn't come from putting up walls. It comes from providing each visitor with the knowledge and tools to defend themselves.

-Pieter

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Imifos <imifos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

big +1 for this.

There is just one thing:

I would never do such operation without clear support from the organizers. It is important (for me) that I can speak with them having their trust, attention and respect, and not simply being considered a hysterical dump dora. This project has to become a part of FOSDEM, not just "yet another play in the gallery".

A part of this, everything is as simple (and even more) as you said...

Thank you!

On 30 October 2015 at 13:31, Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com> wrote:

...

Asking for upfront consensus here is not going to work.

Nor do you need it. Those who wish a COC and the (non trivial) infrastructure to implement it should make that happen. Simply form a FOSDEM COC committee, come to agreement on your text, publish it. Then form a group of volunteers who will station areas on the campus. Hand each visitor a copy of the COC. Make sure your staff are present full time, and do not drink any beer. You can find plenty of safe spaces. It should be easy to document any incidents, and provide support in case of need to file criminal complaints.

None of this needs agreement from the FOSDEM organizers, does it. You're not asking them for any resources, time, or formal spaces.

-Pieter Hintjens

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:

...

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

...

Op 30 okt. 2015 om 11:25 heeft Christophe Vandeplas <christophe@vandeplas.com> het volgende geschreven:

It's funny how some subjects become a repeatable story a few months before FOSDEM .

That is easily explained: there are needs that aren't being addressed.

A CoC is a way some people hope to address those needs. Other people express doubts that adding a paper statement will have any, or the wished, effect.

Fosdem is about freedom and openness. Being open to everyone who wants to participate can conflict with freedom to express yourself and the organization creates its own balance in that.

When looking at the participation, I can see why people feel the need for more inclusiveness. If minorities say they don't feel welcome, and fear harassment, ignoring those feelings and the underlying needs achieves nothing.

While we cannot meet all needs, we can acknowledge them as valid needs and explain the chosen balance and policy.

Stephan Eggermont

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

_______________________________________________ FOSDEM mailing list FOSDEM@lists.fosdem.org https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/fosdem

-- Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338

I think the support for victims of abuse is far more important than writing down rules. Completely agreed. There's only one counter argument, and that is

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 01:50:37PM +0100, Pieter Hintjens wrote: that this kind of thing is a leadership problem. https://www.ted.com/talks/jackson_katz_violence_against_women_it_s_a_men_s_i... explains it quite well, though the title states "it's a men's issue". While true, the IMHO most interesting part is towards the end, where Katz argues that in any organizations, effective leadership defines community behaviour, and in the case of sexism, effectively decides how it's treated. For a conference, without any doubt, the "leadership" is the organization team and the speakers. If they - merely by appearing next to it - endorse a written code of conduct, that sets a tone for the community. As such I'd argue that it's vital a) a code of conduct exist, and b) it's communicated and endorsed by the FOSDEM organizers. *Beyond that* it may not have much tangible benefit, and all other truly worthwhile effort should go towards supporting victims, just as you say. I'd just not want to see the written code of conduct fall by the wayside because it's regarded as largely decorative. It's not. It's the thing anyone can point to when they say "you behave in a way the community does not tolerate". FWIW, I realize I may be replying to this email, but it's not you, Pieter, that I argue with. It's just an argument why a code of conduct is necessary, even if it's "just some text". I hadn't thought of volunteering before, truth be told I wasn't sure I'd attend the next FOSDEM. But if this thing should fail due to lack of volunteers, I'd feel terrible. So if you need someone to help out with responding to incidents, count me in. Jens -- 1.21 Jiggabytes of memory ought to be enough for anybody.

I think the support for victims of abuse is far more important than writing down rules. Completely agreed. There's only one counter argument, and that is

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 01:50:37PM +0100, Pieter Hintjens wrote: that this kind of thing is a leadership problem. https://www.ted.com/talks/jackson_katz_violence_against_women_it_s_a_men_= s_issue explains it quite well, though the title states "it's a men's issue". While true, the IMHO most interesting part is towards the end, where Katz argues that in any organizations, effective leadership defines community behaviour, and in the case of sexism, effectively decides how it's treated. For a conference, without any doubt, the "leadership" is the organization team and the speakers. If they - merely by appearing next to it - endorse a written code of conduct, that sets a tone for the community. As such I'd argue that it's vital a) a code of conduct exist, and b) it's communicated and endorsed by the FOSDEM organizers. *Beyond that* it may not have much tangible benefit, and all other truly worthwhile effort should go towards supporting victims, just as you say. I'd just not want to see the written code of conduct fall by the wayside because it's regarded as largely decorative. It's not. It's the thing anyone can point to when they say "you behave in a way the community does not tolerate". FWIW, I realize I may be replying to this email, but it's not you, Pieter, that I argue with. It's just an argument why a code of conduct is necessary, even if it's "just some text". I hadn't thought of volunteering before, truth be told I wasn't sure I'd attend the next FOSDEM. But if this thing should fail due to lack of volunteers, I'd feel terrible. So if you need someone to help out with responding to incidents, count me in. Jens -- 1.21 Jiggabytes of memory ought to be enough for anybody.