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

Martin Abente Lahaye tch at sugarlabs.org
Wed Oct 4 17:08:12 EDT 2017

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Sebastian Silva <sebastian at fuentelibre.org>

> Hi,
> 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 goals"*).
> 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.
Just didn't just "merged an icon", you ignored all reviewers (actual
reviewers), the reviewing process itself and merged it because you were
upset (and later granted someone else merge privileges just for the minute
it took for this person to merge a previous revert of your commit).

I haven't found yet a culture where that would be considered respectful or
collaborative, so please don't accuse other people of "victimizing"
themselves when there are clear aggressive actions on your part.

> 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
> <http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2016-04-01T19:01:31#i_2864254>.
> 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.
> Regards,
> Sebastian
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20171004/eef8fac8/attachment.html>

More information about the IAEP mailing list