<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I don't think a designated neutral enforcement-agent is necessary
or sufficient.</p>
<p>I think the issue is quite simply that everyone who feels off-put
about anything knows what to do (which is NOT ignore your
feelings) sooner rather than later. And that has to include
knowing how to privately ask for help or perspective. Also,
everyone needs to know that if anyone else is put-off by
something, the poster who led to the reaction will be contacted
*privately* and be supported in figuring out healthy resolution
that comes with presumption of good-will and aim to keep everyone
in good standing.<br>
<br>
In other words, concerned people need to be encouraged to take
action *sooner* but to do so privately. And accused/implicated
people need to trust that they won't have to publicly save-face or
defend themselves and trust that everyone is focused on resolution
and restoration rather than punishment.<br>
<br>
And finally, there can still be the more generic stuff that says
that of course there *is* a mechanism to simply limit or block
people who cause problems and don't participate in good-faith with
restorative process.<br>
<br>
I don't think it matters super much about the CoC otherwise,
Contributor Covenant is acceptable enough — as long as it doesn't
look like it was just plopped on in order to check to
CoC-task-box. I tend to think that using it does *risk* that
impression, so there's *some* value in a more project-specific
CoC.<br>
<br>
The enforcement stuff just needs to be really clear, who to
contact, what will happen, etc. And I think having an alternate
outside person is *fine* if such a person is up for doing it (and
okay, it could be me I suppose)… but it's not as important as just
having an explicit clear process<br>
<br>
Aaron<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/25/25 9:37, Richard Fontana wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGT84B0N7Y5gTzqixHs-pWy+w8v8quj3yEa-s+-wbQ1G4-Lmag@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 9:50 AM Ben Cotton <<a
href="mailto:bcotton@funnelfiasco.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bcotton@funnelfiasco.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On
Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 9:20 PM Bradley M. Kuhn <<a
href="mailto:bkuhn@ebb.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bkuhn@ebb.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> I otherwise like the Contributor Covenant. I just
don't think it's a good<br>
> idea for various reasons for Richard or me to enforce
the CoC, and I note<br>
> the Contributor Covenant says that "Community Leaders"
are responsible<br>
> for enforcement. 🤔<br>
<br>
Can you say more about your concerns here? In my experience,
CoC<br>
enforcement works best when it comes from people who are
leaders in<br>
the community because they have (generally) earned the
respect of the<br>
community*. Having an "outsider" handle enforcement can lead
to<br>
resentment from the community, and can also mean that the
person<br>
(ideally people) making decisions lack context of the
day-to-day<br>
interactions in the project.<br>
<br>
As much as I hate to ask anyone to do CoC enforcement work,
because<br>
it's unpleasant, I do think you and Richard are the two<br>
best-positioned people to do it, perhaps with a third person
to<br>
provide coverage when one of you is off-grid for a while,
etc.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm not sure I agree with bkuhn on the idea of "a CoC for
copyleft-next that designates a specific</div>
enforcement agent — who is not too closely tied to the project
to avoid<br>
conflict of interest but who cares enough about the project to
be responsive<br>
when problems start early", for the reason given by Ben above.
The main concern I have with me and bkuhn enforcing the CoC is
that we need some mechanism to subject ourselves to the CoC
too, which ought to mean enforcement (in that case) by someone
else, though I think that someone else should be drawn from
the copyleft-next community, such as it is.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">However, I'd be
curious to learn about projects that have used an outside CoC
enforcement agent successfully. </div>
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">Richard</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
next mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:next@lists.copyleft.org">next@lists.copyleft.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.copyleft.org/mailman/listinfo/next">https://lists.copyleft.org/mailman/listinfo/next</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>