[IAEP] Improving our Code of Conduct (was: Re: Code of Conduct Motion to add Anti-harassment policy - Sugar Labs)

Sebastian Silva sebastian at fuentelibre.org
Tue Oct 3 22:41:19 EDT 2017


I had asked that we discuss changes to our Code of Conduct in a wiki
page <https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Conduct> I have worked
on, where I put the result of a lot of research.

The time I spent, back in January, on this document, is because I myself
felt not only harassed but threatened. It came as a realization then,
that perhaps more people have had similar experiences and have abandoned
Sugar Labs because they were less tenacious than others. Hopefully
you'll find the references I put there (beyond geek feminism)
interesting. They represent a broad spectrum of approaches to making a
community more welcoming.

I found our current Code of Conduct
<https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Legal/Code_of_Conduct> was not
sufficient because (1) it is vague and difficult to evaluate when it's
been infringed. Cultures vary widely with regard to what is
/considerate/, /respectful/, /collaborative/, and /flexible/. It would
be much better if specific acceptable or not acceptable behaviors were
listed. (2) There is no defined procedure on how to report a problem and
what the expected outcome, timeline, or response could be. (3) There's
no defined solution or action such as warning or temporarily moderating
a person to signal bad behavior.

James, you insist on victimizing yourself and have a confrontational
form of writing. Perhaps I'm misreading you. Please improve your tone. I
have only seen vague complaints on the alleged dispute (/"rate of
posting and Wiki editing"/, and /"use of many paths to achieve your

If all of this is because I had the audacity to merge an icon, I feel
your attitude is disproportionate, unfair and itself sufficient for a
complaint. Trying to flag my github profile seems particularly
aggressive and harmful, considering the market use of such profiles.

The trademarked icon has already been reinstated in master branch, but
my valid concern (that neither Sugar Labs nor downstream distributors
have permission to use it), has not been resolved. I raised the same
question openly in 2016, and you responded with sarcasm
I don't think this is acceptable.

At the moment I don't support Laura's motion because I think it's
necessary to write something more specific for Sugar Labs, taking into
consideration the other references listed in the page at the least.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20171003/af3636e8/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the IAEP mailing list