Re: Code of Conduct: we need one (… in parallel / in addition to HBR)

[Aaron Wolf]

I don't think a designated neutral enforcement-agent is necessary or 
sufficient.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Aaron

On 7/25/25 9:37, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 9:50 AM Ben Cotton <bcotton at funnelfiasco.com> 
> wrote:
>
>     On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 9:20 PM Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn at ebb.org> wrote:
>     >
>     > I otherwise like the Contributor Covenant.  I just don't think
>     it's a good
>     > idea for various reasons for Richard or me to enforce the CoC,
>     and I note
>     > the Contributor Covenant says that "Community Leaders" are
>     responsible
>     > for enforcement. 🤔
>
>     Can you say more about your concerns here? In my experience, CoC
>     enforcement works best when it comes from people who are leaders in
>     the community because they have (generally) earned the respect of the
>     community*. Having an "outsider" handle enforcement can lead to
>     resentment from the community, and can also mean that the person
>     (ideally people) making decisions lack context of the day-to-day
>     interactions in the project.
>
>     As much as I hate to ask anyone to do CoC enforcement work, because
>     it's unpleasant, I do think you and Richard are the two
>     best-positioned people to do it, perhaps with a third person to
>     provide coverage when one of you is off-grid for a while, etc.
>
>
> I'm not sure I agree with bkuhn on the idea of "a CoC for 
> copyleft-next that designates a specific
> enforcement agent — who is not too closely tied to the project to avoid
> conflict of interest but who cares enough about the project to be 
> responsive
> 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.
>
> However, I'd be curious to learn about projects that have used an 
> outside CoC enforcement agent successfully.
>
> Richard
>
> _______________________________________________
> next mailing list
> next at lists.copyleft.org
> https://lists.copyleft.org/mailman/listinfo/next
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.copyleft.org/pipermail/next/attachments/20250727/a207c84b/attachment.html>