Changes to CoC requirements

[joesepi]

More changes from meeting on 2022-1213
Previous PR changes are included and previous PR should be merged first

[bnb]

RSLGTM both for the previous process (#983 (review)) that's included here and also the addition of nomination taken from Node.js's processes.

[mhdawson]

LGTM

[mcollina]

lgtm

[joesepi]

Suggested change

	Code of Conduct Panel team members are CPC Members who self-nominate or are community
	members nominated by the CPC. CoCP team members must be approved by the CPC and re-confirmed
	every year. If there are no objections after seven days, the nomination is automatically
	accepted. If there are objections to a specific nomination, then a simple majority vote of
	the CPC in favor of the nomination is required.
	The OpenJS Foundation's Code of Conduct team members are comprised of OpenJS staff (as outlined above), CPC Members or community members who self-nominate and are then voted on by CPC Voting Members using ranked choice voting method. Nominations will be open for two weeks. Elections will be open for two weeks and will happen on a yearly basis.

[tobie]

OMG NOT MORE VOTING!!

[tobie]

More seriously, we should use consensus to agree on a panel that we feel is a good fit for the mission and diverse enough. We shouldn't be voting on this, imho.

[ovflowd]

@tobie there is still voting. Maybe the phrasing was just not the best, but there is definitely still voting 🙃

[tobie]

Voting if we don't come to consensus seems OK. It's vaulting by default that's problematic.

[bnb]

FWIW I just want to restate what I shared in today's working session and what I've said before:

I highly recommend that we follow a process where voting isn't necessary, and people who are nominated or self-nominate are selected based off of complete consensus - in effect, zero -1s - from the CPC membership. Whether this is voting membership or full CPC membership, I don't particularly mind. If there are only +1s, the person is added to moderation. One minor addition, if there is a CPC member who wants to vote -1 but does not want to do so publicly, they should be able to reach out to the Chair and share that -1 with a reason, and have the Chair proxy that -1.

I do not believe that we need to have dedicated sessions in CPC meetings for this selection to happen. This has happened in GitHub Issues in Node.js for years now without significant issue (there was one time where someone was on an extended vacation and missed a deadline to -1 when they wanted to -1).

Specifically noting some things from @tobie's suggestion:

As part of their nomination, nominees must agree to abide by the terms of the COC_TEAM_MEMBER_EXPECTATIONS.md. (TODO: pull questions from #985 to write that up.)

IMO this document will be no different than the existing Membership Expectations document. If it's more restrictive, I'd prefer Membership Expectations to be updated to be more restrictive.

Substantiated objections by CPC members for the inclusion of nominees in the Code of Conduct Team (for example for serious violations of the CoC, a documented history of hate speech, etc.), cannot be overruled by a vote.

If there is something else that follows into "etc", I would very clearly define it here. Leaving an open end in a space like this results in gray areas that often get ignored or brushed off, which is not a situation I want us to be in for something as important as moderation.

Also, how do you define Substantiated? If someone's putting out white supremacist or TERF dog whistles but not explicitly saying things, would that be considered substantiated?

There is not a strict number of seats in the Code of Conduct Team. However it is expected that the Code of Conduct Team is composed of at least 5 members (including the ED and Events coordinator), and no more than 12 members total.

I'd like to request that this also include a section about company affiliation to disallow over-representation of single corporate entities.

[tobie]

Thanks for your insightful comments, @bnb, and apologies for missing today's call.

I highly recommend that we follow a process where voting isn't necessary, and people who are nominated or self-nominate are selected based off of complete consensus - in effect, zero -1s - from the CPC membership. Whether this is voting membership or full CPC membership, I don't particularly mind. If there are only +1s, the person is added to moderation. One minor addition, if there is a CPC member who wants to vote -1 but does not want to do so publicly, they should be able to reach out to the Chair and share that -1 with a reason, and have the Chair proxy that -1.

As mentioned earlier, I would prefer that we operated (across the organization in general, not just here) with the intent of forming teams to fulfill clearly stated missions, rather than through self-nomination, approval, or voting, as these create a false sense of democracy while limiting candidates to those who are confortable self-nominating.

Specifically noting some things from @tobie's suggestion:

As part of their nomination, nominees must agree to abide by the terms of the COC_TEAM_MEMBER_EXPECTATIONS.md. (TODO: pull questions from #985 to write that up.)

IMO this document will be no different than the existing Membership Expectations document. If it's more restrictive, I'd prefer Membership Expectations to be updated to be more restrictive.

That's a fair point. +1

Substantiated objections by CPC members for the inclusion of nominees in the Code of Conduct Team (for example for serious violations of the CoC, a documented history of hate speech, etc.), cannot be overruled by a vote.

If there is something else that follows into "etc", I would very clearly define it here. Leaving an open end in a space like this results in gray areas that often get ignored or brushed off, which is not a situation I want us to be in for something as important as moderation.

I understand your point. However, we can't reasonably provide a complete list and examples are useful. So my suggestion here would be to find a list of examples, and be clear about its lack of completeness.

Also, how do you define Substantiated? If someone's putting out white supremacist or TERF dog whistles but not explicitly saying things, would that be considered substantiated?

I should have said "motivated" rather than "substantiated." Would that alleviate your concern?

There is not a strict number of seats in the Code of Conduct Team. However it is expected that the Code of Conduct Team is composed of at least 5 members (including the ED and Events coordinator), and no more than 12 members total.

I'd like to request that this also include a section about company affiliation to disallow over-representation of single corporate entities.

I feel like this is captured in the requirement to "create a diverse and representative group." I'm personally more concerned about project homogeneity than corporate homogeneity for a CoC group (I'd have different concerns for the board, for example). WDYT?

[benjamingr]

limiting candidates to those who are confortable self-nominating.

Are you aware of anyone who wanted to be a moderator and was OK with being nominated but was not willing to self-nominate? I'm asking to learn it sounds very counter-intuitive since it's a role that requires you to have unpleasant conversations and put yourself in the middle of conflict.

[tobie]

My point is only that having a diverse group requires outreach.

[mcollina]

I would not recommend adding people to this group that are not members of one of our projects.

[tobie]

I'm uneasy with this. If the objection is substantiated (e.g. the person has seriously violated the CoC in the past, or is known to hold racist or sexist positions publicly, for example), they can't sit in the CoC team regardless of whether or not they'd be voted in.

Not sure what the best solution is, here. Maybe the existing CoC team could decide whether to confirm or overrule the objection?

[ovflowd]

I can't imagine any of us would +1 a person that did such things you described. It would be an automatic rejection, no?

That's what might be a little bit confusing with the wording. My understanding (as I was in the meeting) is that for someone to be approved it needs everybody from the Voting Members to give +1 if anybody gave a -1 that person would not be accepted until a second round of majority voting.

I think with the voting and +1 we must assume good judgement. I can't imagine we would all agree on adding someone to a CoC team that explicitly violated the CoC or has a known history of public harassment or anything that would violate our CoC

[tobie]

I can't imagine we would all agree […]

Well, simple majority doesn't require all to agree. That's precisely my point.

That's also why I mention a substantiated objection. "I don't like them" isn't substantiated.

[anonrig]

What happens when a consensus is not reached, probably due to the violations @tobie has mentioned?

[ovflowd]

I think if no consensus is reached, the member doesn't get approved? I haven't re-read the text (on a phone rn) but if it's not explicit enough, we should make it.

[tobie]

I think if no consensus is reached, the member doesn't get approved

So that's precisely what I'm asking for, but it's neither what simple majority voting (what is currently proposed in the PR) nor what STV (what is currently proposed in an edit above) does.

[joesepi]

In the Node.js project, where there is no voting on moderation team membership, the requirement is that there are no objections. Perhaps we should merge the two approaches as such: a vote happens, but if there is an objection to any nomination, that person will not be eligible.

[tobie]

I still don't understand why we should be voting in the first place.

[benjamingr]

I like the "moderators self nominate and there must be no objections from the leadership body or bodies that get moderated, recertification once a year" process since:

• It holds moderators to high standards of being relatively objective when elected.
• The leadership body needs to vote to remove moderators during their term but no single member can remove a moderator after elected not during re-certification which helps in cases a leadership body member is themselves involved in a moderation action.

I will say that there have been times where the process didn't work the way I liked - but I am unable to discuss any of it here (except with TSC members) due to privacy/confidentiality.

[ovflowd]

+1 to @benjamingr comment.

[mcollina]

lgtm

[mcollina]

(still lgtm)

[ljharb]

any update on this? We've been in a state where technically no CoC complains are enforceable for a long time now, and it'd be good to finalize this.

[tobie]

Obsoleted by #1135.