[IAEP] Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs
quozl at laptop.org
Tue Oct 3 19:13:59 EDT 2017
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 12:03:17PM -0500, Laura Vargas wrote:
> 2017-09-27 13:03 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>:
> FWIW, the current Sugar Labs code of conduct is available in the wiki here:
> And translated into Spanish here:
> Spanish link is broke.
Yes, the Spanish translation link is 404.
> @Laura, maybe you could explain why you think the current code of conduct
> is insufficient as regards harassment?
> I think current Code of Conduct is insufficient because there is no
> procedure to follow in case of Harassment.
> Sugar Labs Code of Conduct currently states:
> " The Oversight Board will arbitrate in any dispute over the conduct
> of a member of the community."
> So, what happens in case of Harassment?
> Harassment is not a dispute.
No. Harassment is a conduct. Where harassment occurs, there also
occurs a dispute about conduct.
The code of conduct says I may ask the oversight board to arbitrate
for me, as part of my appreciation of being bullied and harassed.
You would not have known this, because of recusal, but I've not yet
asked the oversight board to arbitrate. It is an option I've yet to
select. I'm keeping the option in reserve, as a last resort, because
I'm trying first to be open about the dispute, and also because it
will cost the oversight board significant time which could be better
spent on more useful matters.
> The Anti-harassment Policy proposed clearly defines what Community
> shall understand as Harassment and what Community member can do
> about it if he/she finds in such situation.
Two parts to your statement; a list of conducts, and response to
- the list of harassing conducts is useful, however they are already
implied in the code of conduct. Should the oversight board wish to
add this list, I've no objection. As I've said before, I can see
how this list may help to protect me.
- the response to harassing conduct needs no change; a community
member like me can already ask the oversight board to arbitrate, and
there's no reason to add yet another team to an already tiny
> Sugar Labs needs to be a place where anyone can speak freely,
> without fear.
However, it will be never possible to be without fear given public
mailing lists and archives that can be searched.
Developers are now talking to me privately because they don't feel
they can speak freely. That's wrong.
> To include a Diversity statement would also help encourage
> participation by everyone.
While a diversity statement would be a welcome addition to the Wiki
canon, it alone would not encourage my participation.
The Ubuntu diversity statement is good.
> Laura V
More information about the IAEP