[FOSDEM] It's time for a Code of Conduct
dneary at redhat.com
Fri Oct 30 13:18:39 CET 2015
On 10/30/2015 07:06 AM, Steve Mynott wrote:
> 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.
I think the article pointed to earlier explains very clearly:
Without speaking to that incident at all:
* Adding a code of conduct does not affect most people (for 90% of
attendees, it's a no-op, thus cost is low)
* For attendees it does affect, the effect is to make them feel more
comfortable at the conference. For a very small number of attendees, the
result is to make them feel less welcome at the conference - in the case
where their behaviour is unacceptable. I'm OK with that.
* Finally, clear processes make it possible for the conference to
effectively deal with incidents which arrive.
* "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
> 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".
John Sullivan pointed to the LibrePlanet code of conduct as a good example.
> 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
Allow me to reassure you - "he was mean to me" is not the type of
complaints that get made here. We can also trust our community to be
discerning about what they report.
> On 30 October 2015 at 10:38, Imifos <imifos at 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 at vandeplas.com>
>>> 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
>>> Kind regards
>>> 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 at 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:
>>>> Will the FOSDEM 2016 edition have a CoC?
>>>> FOSDEM mailing list
>>>> FOSDEM at lists.fosdem.org
>>> FOSDEM mailing list
>>> FOSDEM at lists.fosdem.org
>> FOSDEM mailing list
>> FOSDEM at lists.fosdem.org
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
More information about the FOSDEM