Added Reporting and What to do

[TzviyaSiegman]

• section on Reporting
• section "what to do if you make a mistake
• copied with minor edits from https://immersive-web.github.io/homepage/code-of-conduct.html (thanks @AdaRoseCannon)

---

Preview | Diff

[TzviyaSiegman]

suggestion s/violations of code conduct/concerns about the code of conduct

[vlevantovsky]

I don't think this substitution would retain the same meaning. "Violations of code of conduct" is a clear concept describing the case when a specific behavior is not (should not be) tolerated. Conversely, "concerns about the code of conduct" is what we are now discussing, with CEPC being written in such a way that defeats its stated purpose.

[chaals]

I think that "reporting" and "what to do if you made a mistake" should be different sections...

It would be helpful to give more substance to the "reporting" - include directly telling someone about the problem, reporting an apparent pattern of behaviour because there are different implications to a simple atypical mistake, ...

[TzviyaSiegman]

@vlevantovsky I chose to phrase it as "concerns" instead of "violations" because it is gentler language. We want to encourage people with any concerns, even if they think it is not a full-blown "violation" to step forward. What do you think?

[TzviyaSiegman]

Thanks @chaals. I will make some changes.

[TzviyaSiegman]

@chaals "Reporting" is covered in the Procedures doc, which is now at https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/blob/master/PWE.html. Please make comments and propose edits there.

[vlevantovsky]

@TzviyaSiegman, in my initial comment I specifically stated exactly what I think. To my ear, "violations of CEPC" has a very different meaning compared to "concerns about CEPC".
I have long-standing concerns about CEPC, specifically because it is written using a language that defies the stated goals of "treating each other with respect" and "communicating constructively". Saying to anyone "don't be a bully!" is hardly respectful, saying "Never be a bully!" is even more disrespectful since it implies that someone has been a bully all along. At our previous call, when you asked for specific editorial suggestions, I suggested to get rid of, and/or rephrase any statement that starts with "Never ...", which has since been ignored.

[RachelComerford]

@vlevantovsky If I'm reading this accurately (please let me know if I'm misinterpreting) you are expressing two, not necessarily connected concerns here.

1. The move from "violations" to "concerns"
   - I see what you're saying, this is definitely less concrete. While a clear violation of the rules is certainly the easiest to address, the idea here is to leave space for people to come forward to speak even if they are not sure of a hard and fast violation. Having talked to you, I know you feel very comfortable having constructive conversations about difficult topics and often have quite a bit to say about them. You know I can do the same! But not everyone has that comfort level and it's certainly not a requirement for participation so we need to give everyone a path and tools for a constructive conversation. In this case, it's a concern that something is wrong and likely, the seeking of help from an ombuddy for advice or resolution.

2. There are statements in the document that begin with the phrase never which read to you as assuming the audience has already done something wrong.
   - Getting rid of these entirely would be a mistake; they likely address key ideas. To make this more constructive, could you identify the phrases you find problematic and suggest some rephrasing? As I went through it as a potential audience member, there was nothing I felt particularly targeted by, so it would be helpful to have detailed information and suggested remediation from someone who did have those concerns.

[vlevantovsky]

@RachelComerford, reversing the order of topics covered:

1. My biggest concern about CEPC, as written, is what I stated earlier - it's counter-productive and the language we use is neither "respectful" nor "constructive communication". The fact that both I and Ada Rose Cannon took time and effort to completely rewrite it, and that both of us, independently from one another, chose to follow a different path where we wanted to clearly state what behaviors are not tolerated and what behaviors are encouraged (instead of telling people what NOT to do) is quite telling. The essential part of my proposal to get rid of statements starting with "Never" is to replace them with a clear and unambiguous statements defining the behaviors that will not [ever] be tolerated (we discussed it at lengths during the call). Once we have this in place ...
2. Cases where a suspected violation of the CEPC took place would be much easier to identify and pinpoint - it will no longer be subjective (he is a nice guy, he really didn't mean to do what we told him not to do), and it is easier to pinpoint when someone did something that is clearly defined as a prohibited behavior that is not tolerated (one may be a nice guy but if he did do what is clearly not tolerated - it's a violation of the CEPC).

[RachelComerford]

Thanks @vlevantovsky! I'll maintain your order for the sake of clarity for those following.

1. I think it's important that we not speak for others here, so I will set aside responding for @AdaRoseCannon. If she has time, it would be great to hear her thoughts and recommendations for rewrites.

About removing the "never" statements - I don't really see anyone here articulating that this would be an issue. In order to remove them or revise them, someone first needs to call them out individually and suggest rewrites. Now that you've identified something that you find problematic for you - are you willing to contribute to constructing the solution?

2. I have to disagree with you here - anytime there is a report or complaint, it requires investigation whether the complainant is approaching it by saying in their report, "I am 100% confident that this is a violation" or if they are approaching it by saying in their report, "I'm concerned that this is a violation and need help assessing the situation."

Whether we write 'violations of code conduct' or 'concerns about [potential violations of] the code of conduct' won't change that, nor will it make it more or less clear cut if there is an actual violation. Using 'Concerns' merely gives less confident users a platform for exploring their issues.

[vlevantovsky]

@RachelComerford, keeping the same order

1. I did propose a solution, something that was reviewed and contributed to by many members of the Positive Work Environment Task Force (including both co-chairs who contributed their comments and edits). And I do not speak for @AdaRoseCannon here, the version of the Code of Conduct she wrote for Immersive Web group is linked in the header of this very issue we are discussing.
2. I am perfectly fine if we change the language to say "concerns about potential violations of the code of conduct", this is different than "concerns about code of conduct" itself.

[RachelComerford]

Wonderful! so, for (2) perhaps we have a compromise. @TzviyaSiegman are you okay with:

"concerns about potential violations of the code of conduct"?

[RachelComerford]

For concern (1) - I think this needs it's own issue since this issue is a pull request for adding reporting and what to do and we (may?) have found a solution to the issue with that specific topic. I can move this information over to a new issue that doesn't block this PR.

[TzviyaSiegman]

Thanks for the great discussion. Please note that the CEPC as proposed here is not a complete edit. This PR is about the "reporting" and "what to do" sections. There are multiple PRs and more to come. Including too many changes in one PR tends to clutter an issue and create merge conflicts. Please feel free to create a separate PR for the "never" issue which is in the Code section.

[TzviyaSiegman]

Reason for this change: Many members and chairs have requested clearer information in the CEPC about how to respond when there is a CEPC violation. Group chairs who are not yet at the stage of involving an ombuddy have requested guidance, and "if you make a mistake" offers that guidance.

[AdaRoseCannon]

Ah sorry this slipped my notice. I am happy you adapted the Immersive Web CoC. Re. concerns vs violations I think that is sensible. Code of conduct snafus can often be unclear and be different based on the judgement of the witnesses, victim and perpetrator.

[chaals]

LGTM

[nigelmegitt]

s/ombuddy/Ombudperson

I'm pretty sure we discussed the term "ombuddy" but there's no issue open for adopting it, and for consistency we should use same term throughout.

[TzviyaSiegman]

agreed to use ombudsperson in formal documentation