User:Gereon K./CoC

Summary of the final draft discussion of the Code of Conduct for technical spaces

The discussion can be found at Talk:Code of Conduct/Draft/Archive 1 and took place from 30 September 2015 to 15 October 2015.

History and Result
The Wikimedia Foundation has a Code of Conduct as a friendly space policy for staff and board members. However, this does not apply to technical spaces, spaces used for developing Wikimedia projects. Following a suggestion at the Wikimania conference 2015 in Mexico, a Code of Conduct was written. After intense discussions about the draft at different places with different communities, for example at technical sites such as Phabricator and Gerrit, a final discussion on disputed aspects of the draft for a new Code of Conduct was started. The goal was to get consensus for a final version within 1 week.

The initiator of this consensus discussion was the software engineer Matt Flaschen, an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. Unfortunately a consensus could not be reached in this discussion.

The changes to a previous version of the discussed Code of Conduct were supposed to be talked about. Those regarded among others mainly changes in phrasing, addition of neuroatypicality, which is an acceptance of atypical neurological development, an addition of positive expected behavior, flexibility about ways of responding.

During the discussion support of the discussed version was voiced by some, without criticism (mainly employees of the Wikimedia Foundation), while others supported the version but had proposals for changes or a need for clarification. Others disapproved and proposed changes.

Criticism and discussion
All complaints and criticisms were discussed in detail. Some of the questions were explained straight away, for some complaints special sections were created and they were discussed in detail.

The following criticism of the draft was made during the discussion:


 * MZMcBride, an experienced editor of the English language Wikipedia, supported by Nemo_bis, an experienced editor of the Italian language Wikipedia, did not understand who the use of the word “we” in the draft is referring to and proposed explaining words such as “cissexist” by using links to Wikipedia articles.


 * Result: Matt Flaschen explained that using "we" is common and can be found in many similar Codes of Conduct.


 * Neil P. Quinn, an editor of the English language Wikipedia, complained about unclear language regarding the phrase “participate in an authentic and active way” and wrote that a phrase like “refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts” should be more general and not only referring to social justice concepts.


 * Result: The expression “participate in an authentic and active way” was explained by Matt Flaschen, Frances Hocutt (a software engineer of the Wikimedia Foundation). Many participants of the discussion (Neil P. Quinn, Gergő Tisza, Kaldari Yaron Koren and Nemo_bis) were not happy with the answers and still thought that it could be misinterpreted and is not sufficient to carry significant meaning.


 * “Refusal to debate social justice concepts” was explained by Dany Horn, Senior Product Manager at the Wikimedia Foundation, and Matt Flaschen. Gergő Tisza and Stas Malyshev, a software engineer at the Wikimedia Foundation, complained that you would have to be familiar with en:social justice concepts to fully understand the implications. Dany Horn agreed that the term would need further explanation and a phrasing that would be understood by everybody to be effective.


 * Krenair, a Wikidata user and Mediawiki developer, did not accept the inclusion of “Publication of non-harassing Private communication” as an example of harassing without a Non-disclosure agreement.


 * Result: Qgil, an Engineering Community Manager at the Wikimedia Foundation, suggested that Krenair mixed up private communication with confidential information. EpochFail[, an OAuth administrator on Meta, stated that the wording is too broad in its definition. Seth Finkelstein, an editor of the English language Wikipedia, found an example whre this rule might proof problematic. Gergő Tisza agreed that a rephasing should be considered. Qgil-WMF proposed to specify the wording by adding "Publication of private communication when the result exposes the sender to harassment". "Inappropriate or unwanted publication of private communication" was discussed as a compromise. Almost all particpants of the discussion agreed on this compromise, but Krenair was still not convinced.


 * Yaron Koren, a Mediawiki developer, complained that the expression “participate in an authentic way” does not make sense.


 * Yaron Kohen further complained that the statement that the community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged peoples comfort is at the same time superfluous and might even be legally problematic if the answer it suggests would be a “no”.


 * He furthermore complained that the examples of violations given that are excluded from the Code of Conduct are not realistic.


 * Fæ, a Commons uploader and representative of the LGBT user group, was worried that the committee which will judge violations of the Code of Conduct will have a bias towards the Wikimedia Foundation.


 * ThurnerRupert, treasurer of Wikimedia Switzerland, was concerned that the complaints voiced in the discussion were not taken for serious. His concerns were backed by Fæ.