Project Talk:Council/Code of conduct

G.O. is not Resolvable
g.o is not resolvable.... gentoo.org is we should have real emails in this document. i know that g.o stands for gentoo.org, newbies WONT — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 666threesixes666 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated, thanks. --ulm (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Penalization
Might want to remove the section, "Consequences" or any punitive actions. These words tend to be "fighting words", while inciting fear in some. Hence, I wouldn't want to deter people from volunteering. Furthermore, omitting the penalization section endorses the fact we're looking for a peaceful resolution versus more pain. (No matter how much they deserve the penalization, or when you penalize somebody, their rage just increases.)

Probably best just to assume a title of "Code of Conduct", with what we desire of people. (ie. Citing offenders or offending volunteers will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, just doesn't ring well for some odd reason.) Nor have I've seen punitive actions listed within other publicly listed Code of Coducts very often. Most of the time, it's assumed as a reason for denial of service. Sometimes I think I've seen a Federal or State code listed in fine print at the bottom. Some state a "Bill of Rights", or "U.S. patients' bill of rights", in which they encourage peaceful resolution. Most times I think you'll find when somebody is going against the statements within a Code of Conduct, that person is likely also committing criminal acts which could be easily pursued elsewhere. A Code of Conduct is merrily there to remind people to be friendly, or within corporate slang, "play nice" with others. (While civilians "playing nice" with others, the next step in that game is usually physical confrontation, and gets ugly very fast.)

Typically when a volunteer is given a title (ie. Gentoo Developer), they're upheld to this higher standard and inherently take any responsibility for erratic behavior.

Also in order to correctly penalize anybody, there usually needs to be a (unbiased) Judge (or Jury) who can correctly mitigate any possible misconceptions of what actually occurred and what we may may have thought occurred. The corporate world is full of fun & games, and I am fully willing to admit that I do not have the time, nor the will power, to study this part of law or Corporate Law.

The Summary section seems fine, as long as it is not used as justification for censorship. (Albeit, unless that is your goal, or the host of the Gentoo Project's goal.) An example: A hardware product has problems, while volunteers found and documented such problems. A Gentoo Developer associated with hardware manufacturer then deletes the found problems (using their escalated Developer status against the volunteer community), with the intent to silence the problems. Purely an example and not to be misinterpreted as an accusation; as many manufacturers do join distributions for developing their drivers, and people are known to be bias with their decisions. No poor intentions were meant here with this speculative example either, and is a very common step utilized often within the real legal world. (Needed to use an example here, to rationally explain the possible reason somebody would censor information.) ---Roger (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Further clarification, "The Board of Trustees are the elected keepers of the legal entity that is Gentoo within the United States", as such under US law. I think, if somebody is using language that is offencive or provocative, I can pretty much assure you their local State police will gladly take any complaints. Albeit, I have only seen such issues escalate to this level when joining in with much more controversial issues such as Use of Force controversies within public forums or public media forums. With Gentoo related material, usually it's "young kiddie" name-calling type quarrels. And then the older folks tend to get into controversial issues, in order to ensure their paycheck, sometimes unknowingly being bias. Although I'm not a lawyer, likely a lawyer will pretty much state a similar point of view here. Another perspective, some foreign Country's laws might forbid an entity from using such threatening language against it's civilians, preventing or further making Gentoo unpopular within it's Country. Shrugs. Speculation here, but I have seen some Country's laws say some weird things, and am always trying to find middle ground myself. Hopefully I've got you guys going in a good direction, or minimized and focused any questions for the lawyers. ---Roger (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Expert Legal Advice?
I've further slept on this, and realize you guys should probably be drafting this material with somebody whom has legal expertise. I have some professional and working legal knowledge, and can say I see additional concerns with some of the further additional statements made within that Code of Conducts, which are likely not readily seen by people unknowing and would likely cause further concern. So, probably best to converse with somebody who is a lawyer, or at least somebody else having legal expertise other then me as I am not a lawyer.

I find Codes of Conduct, and other moral and ethical values extremely important when they're stated, as they provide guidance within the community. Write them incorrectly, could significantly contribute to future implications. And only merrily writing a good set of Code of Conducts, will not suffice if you do not have well educated people to interpret them. Good luck! ---Roger (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've recently scanned over the page changes, and I like the "Acceptable behavior" section. I still dislike parts of the "Unacceptable behavior" items, as the parts I dislike contain descriptions or terminology that tends to be malleable toward a person or persons perception.  Instead of using the terms trolling or flaming, I would suggest using something similar to "harassing others in order to provoke a fight", provides a good solid legal description for which everybody clearly understands.  The section containing "incite drama or negativity" should probably be more clearly defined to prevent the code of conduct being used against somebody with no negative intent. (ie. Somebody makes a light hearted joke.  And then some sinister person responds that that comment is against the Code of Conduct.)  A more specific description could read, "Posting/participating with the explicit intent of inciting negative drama or negativity."  This would avoid criminalizing somebody trying to explain a difficult situation with lighter or few words.  Including, translating also tends to create misconceptions.  The other two items concerning "judgemental" and "purveying" looks good to me. ---Roger (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Target Audience of Code of Conduct?
Another thought, the target group of Gentoo Code of Conduct seems vague. It seems to deal with Gentoo activity overall. In other words, should clarify the Code of Conduct is a guideline for both volunteers and Gentoo Developers? (Albeit, I'll reiterate for clarification, most Gentoo Developers are still volunteers.) ---Roger (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestions. I fear this is the wrong channel for posting them though, and only few people will read them here. They should be discussed on our mailing lists instead. --ulm (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I edit Wiki quite a bit, and find I can more clearly & safely communicate via a public Wiki in case I mistype or miss phrase something. Even though I already proofread my material two to three times, there's always one more thing that I miss which could be misinterpreted, requiring further clarification.  Anyways, I was considering cross-posting to the Gentoo Wiki mailing address, but figured there would be an increased chance of somebody further interpreting my posts as being harassing instead of just being informative.  I just finally figured, if anybody cares about a "Code of Conduct", the Gentoo designated developers would be checking this page often.  Matter of fact, I just assumed they'd all have the little tick box for the "Watch this page" ticked for the Code of Conduct and Code of Conduct Discussion pages. ;-) ---Roger (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)