From discussion on hangout today. #14
Conversation
I added a rewritten and more specific version of the text I sent to the mailing list today, as discussed on the hangout. I also tried to address Nathaniel's point about the importance of addressing subtle discrimination, particularly against women. I wasn't sure what to add to the procedure, but I thought at least it was worth emphasizing that we are aware of the problem, and that we intend the procedure to apply.
| very much like to hear from you if you feel you have been treated unfairly, | ||
| and we will use these procedures to make sure that your complaint is heard | ||
| and addressed. | ||
|
|
| or racist language. We will immediately disconnect the originator from Scipy | ||
| communication channels in this case; please see the manual for details. | ||
|
|
||
| In cases that are less extreme, the process for acting on any received code of |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This still qualifies the cases that @njsmith thinks are the most common ones as "extreme". I think the split made here is good but will try to find more neutral language.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It also needs to make clear that which avenue to choose is up to the reporter - it's not the case that anything less than sexist/racist language requires mediation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Of all of these:
- Violent threats or language directed against another person.
- Sexist, racist, or otherwise discriminatory jokes and language.
- Posting sexually explicit or violent material.
- Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally identifying information ("doxing").
- Sharing private content, such as emails sent privately or non-publicly, or unlogged forums such as IRC channel history, without the sender's consent.
- Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms.
- Unwelcome sexual attention.
- Excessive profanity. Please avoid swearwords; people differ greatly in their sensitivity to swearing.
- Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you to stop, then stop.
- Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behaviour.
it's probably only excessive profanity, sharing private content and perhaps repeated harassment that we'd want to see follow the discussion-mediation route.
|
|
||
| We know that it is painfully common for internet communication to start at or | ||
| devolve into obvious and flagrant abuse. We define a clear and severe breach | ||
| as being: personal threats, violent, sexist or racist language. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't want to be too prescriptive here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This whole section is pretty good, I'm just going to make a minor edit to ensure we don't limit "clear and severe breaches" too much. E.g. deliberately posting other people's personally identifying information is also a clear and severe breach.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We do need to be careful not to be too broad or subjective in how these are applied. We would not want to use this route if the person is being annoying or "difficult".
How about removing this separate track, and having this as an action that can be applied as a first step after reporting, at the responder's discretion, but where the discretion is bounded by some rules as to what qualifies? If we do immediately disconnect, then the person has a right to ask for a standard review; we tell them this when we disconnect them, and give them an idea of what arguments they should make in asking for a standard review.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We do need to be careful not to be too broad or subjective in how these are applied. We would not want to use this route if the person is being annoying or "difficult".
Changed it to "We will deal quickly with clear and severe breaches like personal threats, violent, sexist or racist language.". That's clearly very different from "being annoying".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure - as long as it's explicit what we are acting on, it's OK.
| * submitted a substantial issue report. | ||
|
|
||
| If any member sees a communication that qualifies as a personal threat, or | ||
| violent, sexist or racist language, we ask them to contact a member of the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a bit odd, we're already in the "responding to reports" section here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right - maybe it should go elsewhere.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Moving this to the reporting guidelines section of the main CoC doc.
|
Thanks Matthew. Taken over commit in scipy@a55986d and put my edits on top in scipy@12af5ca |
No description provided.