Talk:Code of Conduct/Archive 4

Disruption of work
Maybe disruption of work should be a little more defined. Taking things very literally, people (legitimately) -1'ing my patches disrupts my work, but that's obviously not the type of disruption meant here. Bawolff (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I based that on "sustained disruption of talks or other events" at Friendly space policy; I've rephrased to make it more clear (and a little more narrow for now). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Added a heading. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate
Again, as the WMF Harassing Policy for physical spaces, this implicitly reverses the burden of proof for non-listed harassment and creates first and second class victims. I don't want to support any such discrimination, much less assume any liability for the results, so if this or a similar policy is enacted, it should point out who is responsible for it and that conforming to it does not condone behaviour complying with this policy. --Tim&#160;Landscheidt 01:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Where do you draw the conclusion that this creates two classes of victims? It's quite clear that the list is not exclusive; whether or not it's listed, if it's harassment, it's forbidden.  I think not listing an examples of harassment and simply saying "Do not harass contributors or users." is far too vague.  I'm very open to suggestions of concrete things that are missing from the list, though.  The document already notes the Community Advocacy team's existing role in this area, and the final document will have more clarity as to who to contact.


 * You cite a pre-existing policy (I think you're referring to Friendly space policy, which this is partly based on). That has a similar phrase, "Harassment includes but is not limited to".  Do you recall any harassment that occurred but could not be dealt with due to not explicitly being listed? Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This needs some more thought
I very much like this policy but:


 * 1) I feel like it could afford to be a lot more explicit. One source of influence (which also draws a lot from the Ada and CoC elements) is the jQuery Coc (COI: I've provided some comments to it). It's very clear about the things that are not okay, and more importantly it's very clear about the processes around the escalation paths, which this isn't.
 * 2) Community Advocacy is absolutely the wrong entity to be handling requests here; they are awesome but do not trend towards a technical background. Why aren't the Engineering Community team handling this? This is quite literally their job - building a healthy community.
 * 3) Who drafted this and does that group include members of groups traditionally marginalised within technical environments? If not, why not? Asking people to comment publicly is all well and good but it ignores how toxic these venues can get. We could lose a lot of incredibly useful submissions based around lived experiences by not including those groups early in the drafting process. Ironholds (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I particularly agree with points 1 and 2. One of the things I like about the Contributor Covenant's version (which I think we should fork and modify for this; writing an effective CoC is hard, and we should take advantage of existing work!) is the specificity: methods of contribution, spaces the policy applies to (particularly "in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community"), unacceptable behavior, means of reporting, and consequences for violations.


 * I think that CA is a great resource to escalate to for really bad violations (think assaults at conferences, doxxing, etc.), but I think that we need people who are familiar with technical workflows and the normal structure of technical discussion to take point on this. Harassment thrives on plausible deniability, and someone who's not familiar with the normal operation of the space in question won't be as effective at identifying it and handling it effectively. Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is still a draft, and I encourage people to keep editing it, including using other CoC's as inspiration (or maybe rebasing it; see below), and including being explicit about what is not permitted. I'm in communication with both the Community Advocacy and Engineering Community teams, and the exact roles (if any) for each are still being worked out.  The document does not currently say that CA will be the go-to contact person for this (hence the ?); it just states their pre-existing authority, partly so it won't be misinterpreted as taking that away.


 * I'll let the drafters speak for themselves if they choose (partly because I don't want to imply this is their ideal draft). The drafters included at least one participant from a traditionally marginalized group, but more input to the draft (from everyone) is needed.  I'm not just asking for comments, but actual edits to the draft. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Two questions

 * 1) Why is this needed? (What generally comes up now as problems, how do existing channels fail, and how will this resolve that?)
 * 2) Whose consensus will it come down to in order to actually approve, enforce, and modify this?

Thanks. -— Isarra ༆ 18:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm very curious about the answers to these two questions as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Re Question 1: This is a pretty good writeup: https://adainitiative.org/what-we-do/conference-policies/ Greg (WMF) (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is needed because harassment is a common problem in technical communities, and unfortunately, we are not uniformly an exception to that. Saying existing channels "failed" completely is overstating it, but they have not performed as well as they would have with a clear, binding policy.  This will provide a clear and explicit (albeit not 100% complete) list of forbidden behavior, and make clear how it is dealt with (understanding this may be a multi-step process in some cases).  We are still determining how this will become binding policy and who will participate in enforcing it. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it would be great if we could develop policies based on case studies of where things have failed before (Especially case studies of where we have failed) as opposed to more generic bad things can happen. Bawolff (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Why wait for something bad to happen to call it out instead of saying "these kinds of things are bad, don't do them here". Greg (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We already have that. See DICK. -— Isarra ༆ 02:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * this is a pretty succinct response to why "don't be a jerk" isn't enough to create a friendly atmosphere - the fact that the guidance you're linking to (which is just that; guidance. It isn't even enforceable) opens with a big picture of Wikipetan is...well, it somewhat undermines the point here. Ironholds (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Don't be a dick' pretty thoroughly addresses the examples given. -— Isarra ༆ 18:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we even have the capacity to thoroughly identify where things have failed (discouraging contributors is usually not a very obvious phenomenon, because the persons getting discouraged leave, and no one is left to talk about it), so it's probably easier to build on the work of other communities which did that kind of investigation and came up with guidelines. It seems unlikely that the MediaWiki developer community would be so fundamentally different from the Ubuntu or Gnome or Python community that we somehow need completely different rules.
 * That said, I can share a case study, although I don't think it's the worst or most important type of harassment. During the second half of 2014, I have been triaging feedback on mw:Extension talk:Media Viewer/About, which some people have decided to use as a channel for venting over their dislike of deployment governance. You can get a picture of it just by skimming the page, although some of the meanest comments have been reverted.
 * I have eleven years of experience with the Wikimedia movement, much of it in some community leadership role; I have been advocate for a few fairly controversial initiatives. I generally consider myself to have thick skin. Even so, the experience was quite alienating. It did significantly influence my opinion of the Wikimedia community in the negative direction (even though most of the comments are anonymous, and anyway treating a handful of self-selected commenters as representative of a large community is totally unjustified, but that's just how human brains work), and it took me a while to recover from that. I'm fairly sure that if this would have been someone's first and defining large-scale interaction with editors, they would have quickly come to the conclusion that the community is a problem that needs to be fixed, not a partner to work with. I also wonder how encouraging the tone of that page was for someone who actually went there with the intent to report a bug or have a reasonable discussion. From what I have seen (from a distance), the feedback pages of other large-scale initiatives do not fare much better. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But that's not development, that's other projects' responses to development. How would this help with that? -— Isarra ༆ 18:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)y
 * At the very least it means don't come over here to development feedback pages and behave horribly towards others because to do so on your local project would likely get you into trouble there. As mentioned several times, there is no civility policy here which allows for enfettered nastiness and rage, often drowning out the important ideas and criticism related to the product itself rather than the ephemeral debates. This is extraordinarily unhealthy to the development process. I hope you can see how it helps in that context. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Tgr's comments, particularly using the Media Viewer feedback page as an example of how such an uncivil environment is detrimental to software development as well as the humans behind it. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Sure, but it would be great if we could develop policies based on case studies of where things have failed before". I'm not going to call out specific people for specific incidents here in public, but if you want proof such incidents have occurred, feel free to email me privately.  However, I'm sure there are incidents I don't know about as well.  Isarra: DICK is not binding; it's not even a guideline, just an essay. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Normal practice is indeed to discuss such things in public. This is a public project. Why change this now when it's most important? -— Isarra ༆ 01:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess, the biggest question I have along the why is it needed lines, is why (concretely) is the friendly space policy not enough, and what is the intended relationship between this policy and that one. Bawolff (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This. -— Isarra ༆ 02:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not an author, just a random supporter of the ideas behind this policy, but; my feeling would be that the friendly spaces policy is very deliberately highly general, because it's designed to be cross-applicable to a lot of spaces, and is centred on "real-world" spaces. It does its job very well! BUt one of the costs of this is that it is not tremendously detailed; it does not set out (except in broad strokes) what is problematic, and it does not factor in tech-specific forms of microaggression or macroaggression. Another is that it does not provide any enforcement mechanisms for these kinds of online spaces. By having a code of conduct for technical spaces, both are addressed; we can be pretty specific in what we call out that isn't applicable to other spaces, and have an enforcement mechanism that is centred on technical spaces. Ironholds (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bawolff, if by friendly spaces policy you are referring to Friendly space policy, I don't really understand your question. That policy is quite clearly about acceptable behavior at IRL events, focuses on face-to-face interaction, and its enforcement relies on the organizational structure that such events have (but most online spaces don't).
 * Are you saying you don't see the need for having a policy on behavior in online spaces? Or are you saying that the friendly space policy is or could be usable in online spaces? How? --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * For my own part, you're right - I really don't see the need here. My experience with mw and wikimedia development as a whole has been such that these areas have overall come across as far more civil than most 'content' projects I've interacted with, and yet the latter tended to have policies out the wazoo. If anything these policies seemed to be giving some users more leeway for being giant asswads.
 * But maybe there is something here, and if so, it should be clearly documented so it can be properly addressed - because then maybe it would actually work, unlike the ones on other projects. -— Isarra ༆ 18:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the main problem with the content policies is that (they/some of them) have such policies, but don't actually enforce them (there are probably aspects that those policies are missing too, but enforcement is the biggest issue). This draft policy tries to be specific about enforcement. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Content projects tend to rely either on enforcement by consensus or enforcement by a large group of people none of whom are really responsible for it. Those methods work well for enforcing rules against unpopular violators; they don't work very well on popular ones. Verbal aggression from friends and vested contributors is regularly overlooked. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In the case of technical spaces, the 'vested contributors' are often WMF staff. -— Isarra ༆ 01:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The main reason Friendly space policy (FSP) is not enough is that it not apply online at all. FSP is purely for in-person events ("Wikimedia Foundation events" to use its terminology).  The relationship is that, for in-person technical events, you would have to comply with both of them. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe this policy should focus on online issues, and FSP should focus on in-person issues. E.g. Stuff about unwanted photographs (An in-person issue) would be in the FSP, and this policy would be about things that commonly come up online. With the understanding that if you're at a tech event, both policies apply. Bawolff (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite based on Contributor Covenant?
suggested above to use Contributor Covenant's Code of Conduct as a starting point instead. I'm willing to do that. What do people think? Let's make this decision quickly (a week?), so we know what we're basing the draft on. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I do like it. --Brion Vibber (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I just read  and I like it as well. It seems like a much better starting point. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good idea. We will need to modify it to take our specific processes, spaces, community standards, and ways to report a violation into account--specificity in these areas is one of the best practices for codes of conduct that are effective in practice--but it's a solid base to start from. Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's also room for a separate set of guidelines on what respectful, productive, collaborative technical work looks like in practice, and would like to see momentum on this policy carry over to those guidelines as well. Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I like it as well. It's more focused and specific. wctaiwan (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * +1 here - the original proposal was a good start, but it seems like a better idea to build on something that has already gotten a lot of feedback from a wide variety of sources. —Luis (WMF) (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * +1 for the same reason as Luis. Something that's widely used just carries more weight.  I think in general people who misbehave don't stop to carefully read codes of conduct.  The more likely potential violators are to have encountered other communities that effectively defend themselves with the same policy, the better. Milimetric (WMF) (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * +1 ^ YuviPanda (WMF) (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

What about this: --Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  publishes a first version based on Contributor Covenant's Code of Conduct at Code of conduct for technical spaces with a  template at the top and a disclaimer saying that this is a proposal under discussion.
 * 2) All the better if Talk:Code of conduct for technical spaces has Flow enabled. It allows for better subscription to specific topics and for marking topics as Done (cc ).
 * 3) We keep this page & talk page here for background with disclaimers on top pointing to the current draft and discussions. Once we are confident that anything valuable has been moved to the new pages, we archive these pages here.


 * It could also be someone else--I care much more about getting something effective and workable together than who does it. Otherwise, fine by me. Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus to rebase on Contributor Covenant (as looks likely) I plan to do so after at least a week from my post above. I will start with a clean copy of Contributor Covenant.  Various people have ideas on how to update the draft from there, so I expect quick changes after we have the new baseline.  I do not see any reason to start a new page at Code of conduct for technical spaces.  We can just update the draft here, which is a more appropriate title since it's still a draft.  If someone wants to request Flow, I suggest starting a new section about that.  Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and uploaded a clean copy. We can start refining it now.  We should pull things we're agreed on from the old version, and some people have ideas for text to add to this base. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

recomendations
Change :Be catalytic – Tell what they should do instead. Occasionally this may be encouraging and motivating, better than a dense list of "rules". to: Be catalytic – Recommend what they could do instead. Occasionally this may be encouraging and motivating, better than a dense list of "rules" Jadeslair (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the suggestion. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Creeping bureaucracy
Stop it, just stop it. Everyone has been complaining for years of the ever-expanding bureaucracy and mass of rules in Wikipedia(s), which frighten new contributors. Yet new policies and side-processes keep being proposed everywhere, as in this example. I don't see any benefit in this document and I hope the proposal will be withdrawn as soon as possible to save us the burden of discussing it. --Nemo 16:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of withdrawing the policy. The Wikimedia technical community is not part of Wikipedia.  It's true that English Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Civility and No personal attacks, but we don't.  There is no binding policy in this area for any online Wikimedia technical space.  So far from having a "mass of rules" in this area, we have essentially none. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. This policy guarantees WMF control of volunteer discussion spaces (including spaces that are not operated by the WMF). This gives arbitrary control and is a potential censorship tool for employees or contractors to the WMF. There is no protection for a volunteer who might have fair cause to be raising critical or "non-positive" issues in a "technical space", there is no protection for whistle-blowers, there is no appropriate system of appeal, natural justice or governance for arbitrary actions taken under this code of conduct which may well be taken for debatable reasons of tone, misjudged jokes or confusion about who happens to be an employee using a non-employee account and is being mistaken for an unpaid volunteer (which happens all the time).

My reading of this policy is that it makes it possible for a WMF employee to choose to ban me forever from all the projects I am committed to as an unpaid volunteer, overruling community created project policies, for unknown reasons that may not even be provided to me so that I can correct any error, challenge them as a Joe Job attack, or ask for fair independent review. That makes it completely set against our values of putting the volunteer at the center of our projects. The idea that all Wikimedians should start officially reporting anyone "not being productive" I honestly find scary.

There is a need to do more about real harassment, this CoC confuses arbitrary allegations of "disruption" or being "non-positive" with harassment, and seems to make no attempt to ensure volunteers can appeal to elected volunteer peers for fair assessment of complex allegations of being thought by some to be disruptive, but not a criminal case that should be taken to the police if there is evidence to present, rather than unprovable allegations. --Fæ (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My reading of this policy is that it makes it possible for a WMF employee to choose to ban me forever from all the projects I am committed to as an unpaid volunteer - If we're talking about you personally, I'm not sure I see what you mean. Most of your activity is on commons, which unless I misunderstand severely, is quite out of scope of this policy. Maybe this policy applies to tool labs (Does it? Its not entirely clear on that point), which would probably affect you more significantly. It would apply to in-person events, but people could already be banned without much appeal from such events anyways, so this is not much new on that front. (On the more general point though, I agree, fairness in enforcement is an important issue that is being hand-waved). Bawolff (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And I just re-read the policy. Since my last reading the line "The Community Advocacy team also has the authority to investigate behavioral issues and recommend WMF global bans for individuals." has been added. So I guess I see where your coming from more. Bawolff (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You may need to read the policy again. The CA team has always had that power - this policy does nothing about that. What it does is set out behavioural guidelines for technical spaces. Your objection to the policy around it chilling volunteers ignores an important line from the actual policy; "a healthy amount of constructive criticism and vibrant debate helps to improve our software and is encouraged". This is nothing to do with critiquing software changes in the sense of the community giving feedback on new extensions or features; this is to do with how people behave on phabricator, on gerrit, on wikitech-l, and making sure we have a welcoming community. I agree, for what it's worth, that "not being productive" is a bit vague, and probably needs fixing up. Ironholds (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The CA team does not have the power to ban users from #mediawiki, #pywikibot, etc. Legoktm (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wctaiwan} has removed "not being productive". I think they're right we don't need it.  It is from Bug management/Phabricator etiquette and I think the intention was/is to refer to cases where interpersonal problems or edit-warring were negatively affecting productivity, but it's true there are a lot of other causes of non-productivity, so it doesn't fit the policy as well as I would like. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no protection for a volunteer who might have fair cause to be raising critical or "non-positive" issues in a "technical space", there is no protection for whistle-blowers. The policy doesn't do anything to threaten these forms of contribution.  If you have ideas about an explicit appeal process, please make suggestions.  Ultimately, though, any WMF employee is responsible to their manager and eventually the board.  I doubt managers and the board would allow the kind of abuse by employees you're hypothesizing.  The part about "seek to make our technical spaces a respectful and positive" is a preamble.  As Bawolff noted, this policy does not apply to Commons (except maybe software development there, e.g. Common.js and gadget development). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hang on, so this Code does apply to Commons then as you have listed examples? Specifically as I have published some of my bot code on Commons, and I use commons to discuss technical issues of batch uploads, then those discussions are now retrospectively controlled by this Code. If this is the case then there needs to be a Commons policy proposal. --Fæ (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I said 'maybe'. This is still just a draft, and the draft does not mention Commons.  I'll let other people weigh in on whether they would like to explicitly cover on-wiki code workspaces (like gadgets, etc.) (outside of MediaWiki.org)  Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope the scope of the Code can be made completely unambiguous. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am strongly opposed to this applying to individual wiki Common.js. I don't think we legitimately have the authority to make policy for non-tech wikis or any of their pages. If someone from a content wiki comes to mw.org asking for help, or a channel like #wikimedia-dev, then this policy should apply, but pages on individual wikis should be the province of that wiki (Or something agreed upon at meta). Bawolff (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus seems to be against it, and the current document already reflects that the virtual list is complete (there is no 'including but not limited' in the list of virtual spaces), so Common.js on other wikis (and similar things) is not included. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's utterly ridiculous that its inclusion was ever considered even remotely possible by anyone. --Nemo 07:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * i agree with nemo on the first sentence: stop it. why? the terms of use require clearly: "civility" elaborating it, including measures "We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms." the discussion above shows imo only one thing: we have so many rules that even employees of the WMF have difficulties to know and understand them. the best is, the rules are nowadays written using so complicated language that we need a "human readable summary". if not humans, i am asking myself who else it could apply to and who else would read then the "real text". monkeys? computers? trees? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Other examples from industry
There's a nice code of conduct from the Electron project here that has a prominent link in the project's readme. Niedzielski (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, The TODO code of conduct actively puts marginalized people in harm’s way. (...) This Code of Conduct is essentially legalese to protect the corporations and their cis straight white men contributors from accusations of sexual discrimination, racial discrimination, and with the recent EEOC ruling, homophobic and transphobic discrimination. - https://modelviewculture.com/news/todo-group-and-open-source-codes-of-conduct Valhallasw (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That blog post falls very far from the standards of constructive and respectful communication it supposedly promotes, and is full of falsehoods (for example, check the pull request it links to and compare the actual discussion with the way it's characterized in the post). I don't think it should be taken seriously. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Another resource which helps explain why codes of conduct can help, is https://adainitiative.org/2014/02/howto-design-a-code-of-conduct-for-your-community/ . Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Safe spaces, incivility, and passive aggression
It seems that there's general agreement that a lot of outright "in your face" harassment on gender/sexuality/racial/religious/etc grounds is to be avoided -- which makes me happy to hear -- but it doesn't surprise me that there are more negative reactions over the idea of disruption being a problem than .... any other reaction at all.

This doesn't surprise me because passive-agressive dismissive incivility is absolutely rampant in our community [our community == everyone involved in Wiki*edia, yes if you are reading this it includes you], as well as many other FOSS and FOSS-like projects. I know I'm a part of that civility problem too, and try to avoid it but don't always succeed.

I really like the idea of a positive code of conduct that prescribes respect, civility, and a mindfulness that we're working on tools for people to use... Being actually productive is important, and with our communications channels it's easy to get sidetracked into bikeshedding, "well-actually"ing, "RTFM"ing, and accusations of who's the most disruptive.

The most radical act isn't pointing out others' failings, it's admitting that you're part of the problem, and that changing is required. I know I need to change for the better, and I hope you all will join on that journey. --Brion Vibber (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was a fan of the safe space policy going into effect for developer events, and that has since been extended first to Wikimania, then other Wikimedia events, and now recipients of WMF grants. With the board, Lila, CA, and others stating that looking into ways to address community collegiality is a priority for this year - this seems like a logical effort for the developer community. I agree it is not perfect, but I have yet to see an online community policy that was. ;) I endorse the idea of proceeding with refinements based on this page's discussion - but not delaying things for months and months in an attempt to achieve a perfection that will likely never come. However, Brion is correct that we must all also own up to our own role in this problem - and yes - there is a problem. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 02:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I can admit that sometimes I have gotten more heated than I should have.  None of us are perfect.  Hopefully, this serves as a reminder for us to stay respectful. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

A tangent on wording; almost anything written online can be interpreted as passive aggressive. This is especially true in an international and multilingual context. For example written British English (at least for anyone educated before the 1980s) leans to self-effacing to be polite, this careful politeness in an online modern or Americanocentric context is easily interpreted as slyness, sarcasm, or passive aggressive. A general rule of thumb should be to double-check, as sometimes simple good faith and echoing back your reading in plain English, will quickly diffuse what might appear to someone from a different cultural background to be passive aggressive or annoyingly sarcastic. --Fæ (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary section
The part about the Community Advocacy team and global bans should just be removed (or alternatively replaced with language like "the Global Ban Policy also applies to technical spaces"), to avoid any potential confusion that the code of conduct makes a different set of standards for global bans than what is in the policy. The language of the particular section is also pretty unfortunate and reads like "the CA team will be policing technical spaces and getting anyone who violates the above globally banned", IMO. wctaiwan (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The meta:WMF Global Ban Policy only includes extreme situations, and the WMF refuse to talk about those situations.
 * That will be appropriate for some 'Code of conduct' issues, however it seems like the 'reasons people will be banned' aspect of this CoC policy is intentionally more inclusive of incivility and bad behaviour than the Global Ban Policy, however the CoC is limited to parts of 'Wikimedia' that are 'paid work' spaces for people, esp. WMF staff.
 * I do worry that this CoC will mean 'the editing community' feels 'mediawiki.org' and other technical spaces has a more pro-WMF banning policy than meta or content wikis, and therefore withdraw from participating in these spaces. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope that it's the opposite, and people see that codes of conduct are not something to be afraid of, but just reinforcement of good practices. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with that wording. I'll put it up and we'll see how it goes. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Role of the document
I feel like this code of conduct is trying to be a set of guidelines for best social practices (no off-topic comments, discuss things in the open) and a set of binding rules (no harassment) simultaneously, with no clear delineation. This should be addressed either by structuring things differently and making it clear which things would lead to consequences, or just splitting it into a binding policy and a non-binding set of guidelines. The binding parts would also need to be concrete (in defining unacceptable behaviour) to be enforceable.

In what's been defined so far, I think the part about rejecting patches should just be removed—given the precedent of some developers being very determined to push through features against consensus, people really shouldn't be punished for rejecting patches, provided they do so without personal attacks and such. (Also, please don't use words like "catalytic".) wctaiwan (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All of it is meant to be binding with the possible exception of the first sentence, which is kind of a preamble laying the groundwork. I feel like "Communicate about technology in public where possible" is relevant to the document, even though it's kind of non-actionable due to "where possible", because this is an important part of the MediaWiki ethos.  "Comments should be made with the intention of constructively contributing to our technologies." is actionable; it means e.g. comments that are purely unconstructive attacks are not appropriate.  I would expect this would not be enforced for one-off insignificant off-topic comments, but only to deal with major disruption.  It doesn't say patches can't be rejected; a lot of patches need to be rejected, for valid reasons (product, technical, or both).  It just says "consistent and unwarranted rejection of patches" (emphasis added) is not appropriate. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't think it should be a policy that communication happens in the open (the foundation may wish to mandate that for WMF developers, but this shouldn't be binding on volunteer developers). Unconstructive attacks may be actionable, but as written it's too vague and too broad (e.g. foundation PMs may argue that debating whether a feature is wanted at all is "unconstructive"). "Unwarranted" also leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
 * I'm not fundamentally opposed to covering both best practices and actionable misconduct on the same page (e.g. first list the goals of a CoC and document best practices, and then list what is considered actionable), but I think the latter needs to be concrete and separate for it to be enforceable at all. wctaiwan (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Not to mention the fact that banning someone from one or more MediaWiki forums (the only real enforcement available for these rules) would presumably make them more likely to communicate with others privately. Yaron Koren (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the only enforcement mechanism given. It explicitly makes clear that in some cases, just talking to them is the best way to go, and in other cases, issuing a formal warning may help.  Even in the case of bans, there are different types given. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider a warning to be enforcement, but that might just be a semantic issue. Yaron Koren (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mandate solely public communication for anyone, WMF or otherwise. It just expresses that you should default to make it public (then consider the alternative, where appropriate), rather than go the other way. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyway, as I said above, while I think the "Communicate about technology in public where possible" line is relevant, it's not really actionable due to 'where possible'. I don't have my heart set on keeping it. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) My concern is less about the specifics and more about the enforceability of a code of conduct that is deliberately designed not to be specific. You mention the role of discretion below. I'm fine with, say, discretion as to whether to give someone another chance, or whether something constitutes a pattern of disruptive behaviour, but as it is there isn't enough clarity when it comes to the line between best practices and actual rules. wctaiwan (talk) 04:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Krenair put back "We also pledge to communicate about MediaWiki/Wikimedia technology in public where possible" and made it even stronger. I don't have a strong preference on the first part (though I respect the fact that it was removed before, and understand why), but I think "All written non-security-related discussion about changes to MediaWiki core and extensions and skins which are deployed to Wikimedia sites or included in the MediaWiki tarball releases must be public." is way too strong and I've removed it.  Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what a "pledge" means in the context of a code of conduct. Actually, I have no idea what "we pledge" means here at all - most people aren't pledging anything, so it just sounds like false information. Yaron Koren (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As much as I agree with the importance of public communication, I'd rather keep the CoC within the core goal of "making participation in Wikimedia technical projects a respectful and harassment-free experience for everyone". Someone not communicating publicly will not automatically incur in disrespect or harassment. I would leave it out.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Quim. We should keep this document tightly focused on identifying prohibited forms of harassment, rather than general good practices. I added a part about the Wikimedia mission because I think it strengthens the case that prohibiting harassment is core to our values, but on the other hand I think communicating in public is a different principle and should be discussed elsewhere.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * +1. I think that a separate document on positive ways that we communicate respect for each other and for the movement (somewhat like the positive portions of the Phabricator etiquette) is a very good idea and that this would fit well in there, but I agree that it would be better to focus this on our core goal. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, in that case I'll go ahead and remove it.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"including but not limited to"
As "technical spaces" could be almost anything, for example bug requests are discussed on email lists, main noticeboards on Wikipedia and Commons, etc. this is a potential bear trap. The list needs to be specific, and the communities it encompasses need to unambiguously agree with it and have the opportunity to discuss it and amend it. --Fæ (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We could consider removing "including but not limited to" from the 'virtual' section. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the presumption that unpaid volunteers are allowed to amend this draft in advance of whatever official WMF authorization you have in mind, I have been bold and made the change (diff). --Fæ (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've asked people to help edit and work on the draft repeatedly, so it's not really a presumption. While I'm okay with removing it from 'virtual' (we could add any missing spaces we notice), removing it from the 'examples of harassment' is much more problematic.  It's easy for someone to claim their abusive behavior is technically not listed.  Common sense as to what constitutes harassment is still sometimes necessary.  This is a necessary list, but not a complete one.  I also think it should be next to 'physical'; however, there are possible alternatives there.  I also think "Wikimedia-controlled" is overly narrow (#wikimedia-dev is definitely a Wikimedia technical space, but is it Wikimedia-controlled despite being hosted by Freenode servers?). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By definition, #wikimedia-dev will become Wikimedia controlled if this policy is made part of its channel notice, as will any other channel that opts in per the IRC discussion below. In this way there is no need to include an open-ended wording in this policy that may be read as all channels where wikip/media is in the channel name (as any of them might discuss technical matters and have technical staff participating), as we can state it in a more specific way which avoids that reading. --Fæ (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

IRC
IRC is not operated by Wikimedia and has independent and long established harassment policies. If the IRC harassment policy is to be effectively superseded by this Code, then it needs to be presented to the IRC community and the channels that it applies to need to be spelled out. As it stands it is not clear if this applies to all IRC private messaging, if it only applies to an agreed set of "technical" IRC channels (which should then have this Code linked in the channel notices), or whether it applies to all self-identified Wikimedians whenever they are using an IRC channel. The text currently reads in a way that denies the possibility of anonymity on IRC, which appears to run counter to Freenode's IRC policies. --Fæ (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The fact Freenode has a policy on harassment doesn't preclude use from having more specific guidelines. Harassment of women on IRC is well documented, so it's clear existing guidelines don't achieve the intended effect. I agree it would be good for the policy to be announced in the topic -- not for would-be harassers, but for people who are at risk for being harassed. They need to know we will not accept harassment. Valhallasw (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Threatening WMF global bans for those accused of being in some vaguely defined way "non-positive" or disruptive is not an improvement on Freenode's harassment policy nor on existing community agreed policies for conduct enforced by trusted unpaid volunteers. This Code unnecessarily relies on a process with no possibility of appeal, nor any requirement for evidence to be examined by the accused or their elected peers. It puts an unaccountable faceless harassment police force of WMF employees at the centre of our community, rather than the WMF published strategy of putting the volunteer at the centre.
 * Just to be absolutely clear, the concept of a code of conduct I have no objection to whatsoever. Nor do I object to more being done about harassment (and not just harassment of women). However this code attempts to define "technical spaces" as almost everything where I might write about technical issues, then jumps into a solution of global bans which are completely unnecessary when there are plenty of volunteer driven systems available. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The point about the global ban policy has been rephrased. It's hard to see how it could apply to non-Wikimedia IRC channels ("self-identified Wikimedians whenever they are using an IRC channel") when it explicitly limits itself to "Wikimedia's technical spaces"; I don't know how e.g. the emacs channel could be considered "Wikimedia's technical spaces". Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No IRC channel is actually "Wikimedia's" as they are not run by Wikimedia, yet this policy asserts its authority on those spaces; if by "Wikimedia's" we means any channel with "wikimedia" in it, then that applies to #wikipedia-en and #wikimedia-commons whenever anyone wishes to assert that there was a technical discussion in those places.
 * Apart from presuming that "technical spaces" means any technical discussion anywhere, there is no definition so it is not limited. Unless the is accurate qualification of the scope of the Code, it seems fair to presume that users will apply it to all of the technical spaces mentioned where they may want to escalate a dispute, and it will therefore have the authority to bypass all local policies (as the ultimate sanction of a global ban is how it will be enforced). --Fæ (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For the IRC channel issue, what about the idea of having each channel's topic say whether this code of conduct applied there? Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am an op on a couple of IRC channels and have set notices for a few. I agree that channels should be encouraged to opt-in to conduct policies beyond Freenode's standard. It is tricky to assess whether the specific community that are IRC users have a consensus for policies like this, rather than a few individuals who happen to be participating that week. Some channels benefit from highly specific behavioural guidelines, for example #wikimedia-lgbt has had a friendly "PG-13" language warning in its notice, which was added not long after it started, to encourage participants to stay friendly for potential minors. I guess discussion with channel participants a couple of times would probably be the way to go, or if there was an appetite to discuss it for a particular Wikimedia channel, a vote could run on a related wiki. However I suggest that in many cases we can encourage the more widely applied safe space guidelines as sufficient, and these have proved pretty uncontentious since their original creation (I think the version we put together at the UK chapter after some issues with real life events was the starting point back in 2012). --Fæ (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which safe space guidelines are you referring to? Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Primarily https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy though specific ones exist for some projects, such as Friendly_space_policies and https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Participation_policy which already apply to related spaces. --Fæ (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Friendly space policy only applies to in-person events, not online. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, though some do specifically apply to virtual spaces, the distinction being slightly arbitrary as wiki-events invariably have significant virtual components and virtual participants for all related activities before, during and after physical events. Strangely enough, the harassment cases that spring to mind in relation to complaints in relation to friendly space policies, have involved virtual world actions such as deriding photographs online from events and outing participants online post-event. --Fæ (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, This closes a major loophole in which Wikimedia IRC channels, notably #wikimedia-commons were used in most inappropriate way. Fae is very well aware of that, if not part if the issue, so it is not surprising that he opposes this policy. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't smear me with false allegations to make a point. I flatly and absolutely deny your snide claims about what I know, and heavy hints to make others believe I have some sort of evil motivation to scare me off asking basic questions about this proposed governance related policy. Please focus on the issues, rather than taking discussions off on a tangent through maligning participants. If you have evidence of harassment to present, please, please do present it in the correct forum where I would be happy to be held to account and answer any question based on evidence, rather than poisoning this discussion in an unhelpful and unpleasantly disruptive way. --Fæ (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What I find very interesting in this discussion is the notion that what pertains to the wiki, doesn't apply to IRC. This would further infer that on wiki status would not carry over to IRC, yet, virtually all of the IRC Ops are admins on Wiki, they frequently threaten people with bans from various IRC channels for either on Wiki justifications or for not doing what they, as admins/ops, say. Its also not uncommon for links to on Wiki essays and guidelines to be used as justifications for blocks or bans on IRC. So what this appears to me to be is a classic case of picking and choosing when to apply a policy or rule and when not too. For example, if an editor does something an admin doesn't like, the admin on the IRC channel can block the other person without cause or justification and the WMF won't get involved. This being the case, the WMF really just doesn't appear to care about blatant IRC disruptions caused by Ops/Admins like Yann who frequently block or ban editors from the channel for what they want. This is unfortunate and disappointing to me but not entirely surprising given the WMF's history of lack of control over admins and the abusive environment they enable to turning their backs on editors. Reguyla (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know the history of all the IRC issues being discussed here, so don't misunderstand me as taking sides. But I do completely agree that the Wikimedia IRC technical community is intertwined with the rest of the Wikimedia technical community (including MediaWiki.org). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe that #wikimedia-commons as an irc channel is definitely out of scope of this. This is not the place to discuss etiquette guidelines for the entirety of the Wikimedia movement. If people want to do that, they should try their luck at meta. Bawolff (talk)

Without going into the specifics over whether WMF has reach over IRC channels, let me say that many channel operators, especially in the channels concerned, are not willing to ban someone unless they see clear evidence of actual wrongdoing in the channel. So even if WMF can do this, on a day-to-day basis, the existing operators may not be willing to enforce it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We can agree that inappropriate behavior is equally inappropriate on-wiki, on-Phab, on-IRC, etc. Freenode's policies define the basic rules of Freenode. Our CoC cannot enter in conflict with such policies, but can build on top of them. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/Channels#MediaWiki_and_technical should define which IRC channels are used as collaboration channels by the Wikimedia tech community (if the list is out of date, it can be updated). I don't think that an IRC channel related to the Wikimedia tech community can opt-out of a CoC or any other policy if it has been approved for all the tech community, just like I don't think a specific Phabricator project or a specific mailing list can opt-out either. In the "Enforcement" section I'm proposing that the first level of handling of complaints should be the own admins/maintainers of the spaces) affected by the complaint. If you agree with this idea, this would mean that a complaint about a situation in #wikimedia-foobartech would be handled first by the own channel operators. If the ops don't feel like solving the complaint alone or if the person claiming doesn't think that these ops will solve their problem, then a second level would take the issue (and that second level may or may not be formed by WMF employees, that is to be decided).--Qgil-WMF (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement
I understand that this page is currently a draft. I'm curious when the enforcement-related question marks will be filled in. Specifically:


 * Alternatively, contact ? directly about the issue.
 * In the case of persistent disregard of these guidelines or if you are uncomfortable contacting the person directly, contact ? on Wikimedia IRC or send an email to ? and ask them to look into it.

If this proposed code of conduct is implemented, who will be responsible for handling complaints and how will this person or group do so across IRC, Phabricator, Gerrit, mailing lists, the wikis, etc.?

Assuming action is taken by this person or group, such as instituting a temporary or permanent ban of an individual, what will the appeal process be? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I very much support moving forward and making progress towards putting this Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces into place. Thank you very much for spending the time and energy to create it and the time and energy to discuss, change and defend it - however I have the same questions as MZ has written out above (specifically about enforcement). It would also be good to know the difference between actions that would result in a temporary ban vrs ones that would result in a permanent ban and why. It is very clear at in-person events when people have willingly opted into the Friendly Space Policy (they must agree to the policy to register), decisions about enforcement are up to the event organizers and (more or less) fully left to their discretion. We have removed people breaking these policies from events in the past without issue. In this case if we don't have clear and **agreed upon** steps to take in order to enforce this we will run into issues. In case people have not seen what has been going on here, you should check it out: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Friendly_space_expectations It seems to be working well and very reasonable, but I think they had a slightly less complex problem to solve. Rfarrand (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an open issue. As far as "It would also be good to know the difference between actions that would result in a temporary ban vrs ones that would result in a permanent ban and why.", I think there is a role for discretion in this policy as well.  It's hard to set a precise per-determined penalty for every grade of violation of every type of forbidden conduct listed. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the central and hardest question. Who exactly [has to/gets to] decide (A) what is "over the line", (B) what the outcome is in each instance?
 * The Ada CoC just says "Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported by opening an issue or contacting one or more of the project maintainers." - Who is that, in our case? Who gets that burden/power/responsibility/role/unpleasant-chore? Who do we turn to, trust, and expect effort and investigation from?
 * Speculation: They can't be staff-only, because that would raise concerns about COI issues when the reporter/reported is a staff-member (and by god do some of the staff get verbally abused a lot, by anonymous and non-). They should be privacy-minded/discretion-trained/perhaps-even-NDA'd people, because they might be sent private evidence. They should be empathic and understanding of cultural and linguistic diversity. They should include experienced mediators/communicators, because they'll need to deliver warnings and decide on consequences, in a way that doesn't make the instance worse, nor fragment the communities. Constituting a proper group to review and respond is the critical factor in adopting any such plan that will work. –Quiddity (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the points of contact and enforcement can be organized at two levels. The first level is formed by the administrators or maintainers of the space where the problem happens. All our technical spaces have individuals with permissions to ban a user, and that responsibility is acquired through experience and merit. This might not be as simple in practice, but as a principle I think it works. The second level should be used as escalation point if the first level is no good fit for addressing the problem for whatever reason. The simplest option would be to pick a related WMF team (Community Advocacy or Engineering Community being logical candidates). If this simplest option is seen as problematic for being in practice restricted to WMF employees (I personally don't think this is a problem, but such concern has been raised by some people) then a small committee could be formed with 3-5 people chosen among the admins and maintainers active in the first level.
 * The point here is not who exactly can be point of contact and enforcement, because we have enough qualified people with enough community trust to be in this role. The point here is to assure that there is people officially appointed to this role with community backing. This way a person willing to report knows where to go with confidence and trust, and a person being eventually warned or banned knows that the person warning / banning is doing that in a community role, not on a personal motivation.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * At the beginning of this thread it was asked "what will the appeal process be?" I cannot see this being addressed yet. Until there is a credible agreed appeal process to assure the community that our shared values of transparency and accountability are being addressed, this will remain controversial, regardless of whatever procedure is devised (presumably this process remains the choice of WMF executives, unless there is a shift to putting this in the hands of elected volunteers?) for appointing community prefects/collegiality monitors or whatever they are going to be called who are granted special banning powers. --Fæ (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , I have created a section to discuss the appeal process specifically. There is nothing in this CoC and its application that "remains the choice of WMF executives". In my proposal just above I'm not considering anyone "who are granted special banning powers". The Wikimedia tech community already has users that have these permissions ("administrators and maintainers" for simplicity). Even if we decide that we have a second level of enforcement (say a WMF team, an elected committee, etc) this should not grant to its members any "special banning powers". When such group would reach to a conclusion, they would ask the admins/maintainers of the affected space(s) to execute the ban. Note that this distribution of power would be an intrinsic appeal process in itself, because it will be effective only when there is enough consensus between the acting parts. All we agree that the last thing this CoC and Wikimedia tech community needs is a single person or a single entity with superpowers able to take executive shortcuts. In the way this proposal started and develops, I'm not seeing any risk of falling in this situation. If you have concerns, let's address them in the writing and implementation of this CoC.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for setting up the section. With regard to your statement "nothing in this CoC and its application that "remains the choice of WMF executives"", I did not make this up, in fact the statement "Following approval from executive or legal staff, individuals who meet the criteria may be banned from all Wikimedia spaces, including technical ones" was added by Mdennis (WMF) on 7 Aug and eventually edited out by Mattflaschen-WMF on 11 Aug. Presumably this statement about global bans is entirely accurate, and while global bans remain an option then "executive or legal staff" will be part of how this policy will be implemented and interpreted. --Fæ (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, understood. I take the mention to the Global Ban Policy only as a reminder that it exists. This CoC and its handling should be compatible with that policy but independent from it. If someone in the Wikimedia tech scope is getting more points to receive a global ban, it would not be based on infractions against this CoC but on the criteria of the Global Ban Policy itself, and that would be handled according to the process of that policy.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The interrelationship needs to be spelt out in the escalation process. As you infer, it would be best to avoid giving the impression that this policy is part of policies or legal documents controlling office locks and global bans, so the changes to this draft in the last week to move away from that hard line stance are a distinct improvement. This is the first time I have read "points" being part of the system. It would be a good step towards transparency if any system like this were made public and volunteers could ask about their own status if they are in doubt, and ask for review or start an appeal, rather than this being like expecting repercussions for asking about black ops. --Fæ (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Getting more points" was just a casual expression written by this non-native English speaker. I think the process we need should be as transparent as possible taking into account privacy considerations (I can see how many times a three party private conversation can be more effective solving a problem than a fully public and transparent claim/appeal process). In any case, I don't think we need anything like Point system (driving) here. :) I'll pay more attention to my casual phrasing in this discussion. And let me insist, we are designing a Code of Conduct to improve community health that must go through community approval, not a toolkit to recreate a police state.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement in new draft
The enforcement and reporting are now way more detailed, which is both a good and a bad thing. It's good because there's less ambiguity, but that much text may distract from the rest of the document. Also, since it comes from multiple sources, there are consistency and redundancy issues to work out. We may want to separate it out to a subpage (both as a break-out page if the overall Code of Conduct is approved, and for discussion now). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (((Comments have been moved to "Right to appeal"))).--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The current section Enforcement contains two lists of "possible responses: that, well, look too similar. Wouldn't it be better to consolidate a single list, and then have a new section "Appeal" with the details of the appeal process?--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which two lists are you referring to? The "For a simple case" is for actions a single member can take on their own.  The "Possible responses to a reported breach of the Code of Conduct may include" is a list of things the full committee can do.  I've tried to clarify this. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"Unwanted photography"
Clearly this needs clarification. In the U.S., for example, it is entirely legal to photograph any person in a public place at any time. My main work here is for the Commons. I don't normally ask in advance before taking photos in public, nor do most U.S. contributors to Commons. Are we, or are we not, saying that if that person is a participant in a WMF project that they may now have a veto on having their photo taken and posted here? If, for example, that person is giving a speech, do they now (unlike anyone else) have a right to say that someone cannot photograph them during that speech? What if they were one of the many people bicycling naked in the Fremont Solstice Parade and decided they didn't like a photo someone took of them? Would they then have special recourse unlike anyone else in the parade? I don't think that's what we mean to say, but perhaps it is. If so I strenuously object; if not, there needs to be some clarification as to what is meant by "unwanted photography." - Jmabel (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Certainly clarification is needed as the policy is open ended and non-specific at the moment.
 * Keep in mind that conferences are not necessarily public places and physical meetings might be in many countries, so there are several ways of interpreting personality rights and the nature of intrusion or reasonable expectations for privacy even when photographs are taken in a public place (I'm thinking of UK law here, rather than US law). This is where the policy would be much better split so that hard and enforced policy elements are clearly distinguished from best practice guidelines for participants. I doubt that anyone intends to create a policy which removes a citizen's right to free speech or the rights of journalists or "citizen journalists" to report events by threatening anyone that breaks it with punitive, publicly humiliating and permanent global bans. --Fæ (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Jmabel -- actually, Commons has been generally receptive on several occasions to requests for deletion of such photographs (don't remember any from Fremont Solstice Parade, but do remember one from Burning Man) as a matter of "courtesy deletion" (though the photographed person doesn't have a strict right to demand deletion). AnonMoos (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The code of conduct says "unwanted photography", it doesn't say "photography without permission". It also doesn't say anything about publishing photographs (or a "special recourse")—thus personality rights are irrelevant to the discussion, as is Commons, as is the example about the Fremont Solstice Parade. As to your example of someone giving a speech, I think it is totally reasonable for someone to request that they not be photographed while giving a speech. For example, what if they are a Chinese citizen and speaking out against the Chinese government? In such a situation, repeatedly ignoring their request would be rightfully considered harassment, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jmabel requested clarification. If someone asks for photographs to avoided for a talk, we respect their wishes as a courtesy; this already happens. However making threats of global bans will not stop "unwanted" photographs of a notable person being taken by journalists or anonymous tweeters if a conference is in a public place, or has public access. Neither should anyone in fear for their safety be given an impression that a code of conduct for technical spaces makes it acceptable to take more risk. Were I organizing a conference I would consider it unethical to have the event used in a way that creates serious unnecessary risk of harm, such as future imprisonment by their government, for any attendee. --Fæ (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * First, we need to distinguish between community policy and government law. There is no law in the U.S. against written personal attacks (unless they are libel), but the English Wikipedia still has a No personal attacks policy.  The primary goal of provisions like the unwanted photography one is to ensure people don't completely ignore the photography subject's intentions.   If you just didn't know about their preference, I don't think that would be considered a violation.  As far as WMF major public figures, I don't know any of them that have such a preference.  If they did, and people felt that it interfered with e.g. documenting major speeches at WMF technical events, the right remedy would be to ask them to reconsider their preference.
 * I'm not sure how an unrelated public bicycle parade could possibly be considered a Wikimedia technical space. It's not based on who the person is; it's based on the space.  So if you see Brion Vibber at some unrelated conference, you should follow their policy, not this one.  And if you see him at the grocery store, it's between you and him (of course, being respectful is always good). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So the issue is "unwanted photography" in the technical space, not "unwanted photography" of someone you might have interacted with in such a space? Because that is certainly not clear here. Also, "unwanted" is still hopelessly vague, especially if the sanction is a global ban. If it means "taking photographs of someone who has clearly and explicitly said not to take them" it should say so. If it means a photographer can get in trouble because someone decides the expression on their face doesn't flatter them, that is a very different thing. And, no, that's not just a hypothetical: things like that are by far the main reason for requests for courtesy deletions. I'm all for courtesy deletions, but not for sanctions against a photographer for taking (nowhere here does it even say publishing) pictures. - Jmabel (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think unwanted photography should be defined as taking photographs where the subject has either asked that their picture not be taken, or has a sticker saying no photos (Or I guess if the photographer is doing something creepy like specifically trying to sneak photos of someone). Bawolff (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased this line. 'Clearly inappropriate' is intended to mean basically what Bawolff described as creepy.  Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The document says "follow this policy in Wikimedia's technical spaces", not "follow this policy anywhere you see a MediaWiki software engineer or bug-reporter". Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Encouraging others to behave badly
I was wondering if it would be worth adding the following bullet point under the "Do not harass contributors or users" section: Personally, I think that encouraging harassing behavior is also a form of harassment. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Encouraging others to do any of the above.


 * Is encouraging someone to do X the same as doing X? If so, I've won a bunch of professional sports games... Yaron Koren (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, encouraging someone to do X is rarely the same as doing X. But occasionally it is. For example, encouraging someone to commit a crime is often committing a crime. Kaldari (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What is and is not regarded as a crime in various jurisdictions is not a meaningful metric, as completely ridiculous things find their way into legal codes all the time. As for the matter at hand, encouraging people to harass others is not inherently harassment. Don't call it what it isn't, just call it what it is - something that is also problematic, and should not be done. -— Isarra ༆ 01:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What's a specific example of this? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with adding that. To address Isarra's point, rather than putting it in the "Examples of harassment" list, it could be a separate line item afterwards, saying "Do not encourage people to harass or personally attack others" or something like that. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Need clarification on the scope
I'm watching this discussion since someone posted a link in Commons' village pump. At first, I didn't see anything concerning to my activities there (my main project) and wonder how it affects a Commoner. Now I saw more Commoners raising concerns here. So I re-read the draft. It has two parts of scope; physical and virtual. "Physical" is noway relevant to Commons or any other WM projects as we are not physically meeting any. In "virtual", I see only "MediaWiki.org, Phabricator, Gerrit, technical mailing lists, technical IRC channels, and Etherpad". No other WM project like Commons is mentioned. My understanding is also a WM project like MediaWiki has no control over such projects. General policies like Global ban must be defined in Meta. So I wonder from where these concerns are coming?

I can understand MW has the right to block somebody if s/he misbehaved to a volunteer here on/off-mediawiki. But off wiki activities need investigations by some higher authorities like Arbcom. Commons doesn't such a setup and many people make benefit from it. But it is a "common" problem and not relevant here.

I also see "global ban policy" is mentioned in the draft. It only means people who apply global ban can consider the reasons which result a block here too, while considering a GB against a user. It is quite logical and I see nothing particular in it.

Am I correct? Let me correct; if I'm wrong. J ee 02:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this is basically right. Some of the prior questions and comments were when it said, "virtual (including but not limited to MediaWiki.org, Phabricator, Gerrit, technical mailing lists, technical IRC channels, and Etherpad)".  Now it says, "virtual (MediaWiki.org, Phabricator, Gerrit, technical mailing lists, technical IRC channels, and Etherpad)" (no "but not limited to", so no ambiguity about which web sites (or parts of them) it applies to).  If there are problems in virtual technical spaces that are not listed here, the policy could be amended after further discussion. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mattflaschen for the clarification. Tgr's suggestion below is also very good. It is other project's responsibility to monitor their lists and IRC channels. J ee 04:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that technical mailing lists are the ones listed under Mailing_lists/Overview, and technical IRC channels are the ones listed under IRC/Channels? Those lists seem fairly comprehensive (and if not, they should probably be fixed anyway). --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure a lot is missing from both those lists. Bawolff (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but it is easier and better to update those pages than let people guess. The rebased text says "This is a code of conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces." I think we should spell out those spaces, right there after a colon or somewhere below. The list: mediawiki.org, wikitech.wikimedia.org, wikimedia.phabricator.org, gerrit.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia technical mailing lists, and Wikimedia technical IRC channels. Is the intention to keep this CoC for online spaces only, since events are already covered by the Friendly Space policy? If so, that should be explained as well, for context (now it's in the See also, I think it should be integrated to the text).--Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's explicitly for physical spaces as well ("Project spaces can be both physical, such as hackathons and other technical gatherings"), and has been since the beginning of the draft (though the wording has evolved). As far as IRC, I'm not sure whether it's better to use the topic (which can be controlled by the channel) or a Meta list that anyone can edit. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Bug management/Phabricator etiquette
If this code of conduct is adopted, what will happen to Bug management/Phabricator etiquette? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Parts of the CoC might cover and hence supersede parts of the Phabricator etiquette, while other parts of the Phabricator etiquette are so Phabricator-only specific (e.g. status and priority fields) that they could remain and simply extend the CoC. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

"Sexual imagery or verbiage in public technical spaces"
I believe this example has been expressed oddly; possibly "verbiage" is used differently in modern British English compared to American English. Was the intent to say that sexual imagery and sexual texts are harassment, or was it actually intended that "verbiage" of any kind can be interpreted harassment? This reads as if writing a long complaint could now be called harassment just for being long-winded.
 * The adjective is meant to apply to both nouns. In other words, it's equivalent to "sexual imagery or sexual verbiage".  If someone else finds this confusing, we could change it to that. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As a secondary issue, the example concerns me as "sexual imagery" is vague wording, and in practice has been clearly interpreted on the English Wikipedia to include "sexuality", hence material like LGBT event photographs and historic material which might include partial nudity, such as 19th century ethnographic photographs. I understand what is probably intended, something like nudity or sexual photographs which are likely to cause offence when presented inappropriately. Could someone rephrase this so that the example is unlikely to be a cause of arbitrary future contention if we are discussing technical issues with topics like Wiki Loves Pride events or linking to categories for media in a medical education/history project and could include photographs or diagrams with partial nudity, such as the images from the Wellcome Library or diagrams from Cancer Research? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is intended to be a code of conduct for technical spaces; it doesn't affect how Wikipedia chooses to cover e.g. 19th century ethnography. I think people will understand that if you are in the process of working on a technical problem, and incidentally have to link to an image or category with nudity, that would not be a violation (but it might be worth adding a NSFW on the bug report or whatever). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Right to appeal
The right to appeal has been mentioned in several places. As a general principle, of course anybody being accused of breaching the CoC must have the right to appeal. The first ones having to excel at Conduct are the ones using it to file a complaint and the ones using it to enforce it on someone. The exact implementation of the appeal process can be defined only after the processes for starting and handling a complaint has been defined, though. For instance, complaints filed privately probably will have an appeal process that is equally private, unless one of the parts wants to bring the issue to the public. Let's agree first on how to file a complaint and how to handle it?

Let me add that the root of the questions about an appeal process seem to be based on the assumption or fear that this CoC and its enforcement will be authoritative and unfair by nature. If this is the concern, then let's focus on this concern in the first place. This CoC and its application in the Wikimedia technical spaces can only become a reality if the Wikimedia technical community embraces it and maintains it. If there is anything suspicious and unfair in this CoC, it will not be approved, it will not become a policy.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (((moved from "Enforcement in new draft"))) Also, "Only permanent resolutions (such as bans) may be appealed" (proposal in the current draft) should be clarified. Is it intended that only permanent actions (e.g. lifetime ban) can be appealed, or any ban (possibly temporary)?  This should also clarify how the reporter's appeal rights are (un)affected. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's intended that only permanent actions can be appealed, but that the reporter's appeal/feedback rights are unaffected. I'm not terribly attached to this; I'd also be ok with something like "actions with effects that last for longer than three months" as well. The things I'd like to see balanced are not wasting the committee's time with specious appeals (such that the second step to any given action taken becomes "deal with the inevitable appeal") and allowing the flexibility to deal with genuine mistakes, particularly cases where the violator is using the CoC enforcement mechanisms as a way to further harassment of their target and the committee does not initially recognize that. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think three months is a good compromise. I've added that. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think this sounds odd: "Only resolutions (such as bans) that last 3 months or longer may be appealed by the reported offender." I think everybody should have the right to appeal, and the Committee should have the tools to avoid that this right is being abused in bad faith. For instance: "Resolutions may be appealed. For simple cases, the committee may decide to start the enforcement during the appealing process to avoid an artificial obstruction to the process. In more complex cases implying a ban of three months or more, the enforcement must wait until the appeal has been resolved."--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It feels like something is missing in the current draft -- notifying or talking to the reported offender. If I'm reading this correctly, it looks like the Code of Conduct Committee reviews the report and makes a decision, and the only time the reported offender is mentioned is the line about being able to appeal a 3+ month long ban. Sometimes the evidence is entirely public and easy to corroborate, and sometimes it's not. When it's not, you probably want to talk to the person and see what they have to say about it. Maybe that's obvious and doesn't need to be in the policy? DannyH (WMF) (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, it has to be done carefully.  You don't want a scenario like:
 * Someone feels they are being harassed, and reports it.
 * The Committee contacts the alleged offender to get their side of the story, naming the reporter (who did not expect to be named).
 * The Committee ends up taking only minor action (or none at all).
 * The offender retaliates against the reporter for the report.


 * The jQuery CoC is ambiguous on this front. The Reporting page says, "All reports will be kept confidential. In some cases we may determine that a public statement will need to be made. If that's the case, the identities of all victims and reporters will remain confidential unless those individuals instruct us otherwise.", but the Enforcement Manual says, "The committee is empowered to act on the jQuery Foundation's behalf in contacting any individuals involved to get a more complete account of events."  Contacting those individuals could itself be a breach of confidentiality.  I added a sentence that tries to balance these concerns (needing the facts and avoiding revealing information against the reporter's wishes). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if enforcement begins during the appeal process, your proposal does not do anything to deter people from appealing every single case (no matter how minor the penalty). We have to consider ECT's time. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ECT's time is a factor I'm considering, trust me. I worry more about people complaining for having no right to appeal than about people trying to game the process. It is likely that the latter will put themselves in evidence with little community support. As for the former... they have a chance to drag more time and energy from all of us and, who knows, maybe even for a good reason because everybody can make mistakes, a committee too. (Note: I'd rather leave this discussion about appealing later, as proposed at ).--Qgil-WMF (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Matt -- I agree with the need to strike a balance between involving the reported offender and not violating the reporter's confidentiality. That's a good point, and I think your changes to that section make a lot of sense. DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

First line of enforcement
I would like to float an alternative proposal for first line enforcement. I suggest that there should be a small group (probably either 3 or 5) of people from our technical community (both volunteers and staff, based on their involvement in the tech community). There would be an OTRS or mailing list address pointing to that group. I think the steps would be something like that:


 * 1) Someone emails e.g. techcoc@wikimedia.org, or contacts one of the members on IRC.  If it's OTRS, I think the email could auto-create a ticket, and maybe for IRC it could be created manually from the web interface?
 * 2) For a simple case (e.g. first offense, minor harassment in a single space), a single member could:
 * 3) * Defer to the space itself (e.g. MediaWiki.org admins in the case of an incident on MediaWiki.org, or event organizers for a hackathon), if they seem best-equipped to handle it.
 * 4) * Issue a public or private warning directly.
 * 5) * Decide to take no action (logging why and notifying the reporter)
 * 6) For a more complicated case (e.g. repeat offense, when a ban looks like like it will be required, or where there is cross-space harassment), the initial responder could ask other members of the group for feedback, and can also bring in people from the spaces involved (e.g. if it happens on both MediaWiki.org and IRC, bring in involved admins and IRC contacts).
 * 7) In case of even more complicated or urgent matters, or if the group is unable to reach a decision (e.g. the minority in the group objects to the decision), it can be escalated.
 * 8) After the initial outcome (which would always be logged, even if it's just 'deferred to XYZ' or 'no action taken'), the reporter should be notified.
 * 9) The reporter always will be notified of the initial outcome, and has the right to appeal (see separate discussion).
 * 10) If public action is taken on the basis of the CoC (whether by the group or by local maintainers of the space), the alleged offender also has the right to appeal.
 * 11) Appeals would be taken to the same group that the committee could choose to escalate to (which group is under discussion).

Part of the goal here is the person who feels harassed does not need to look up different policies and points of contact depending which space it happened in. They can always contact the same email (or IRC). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I suggest that all participants in the first-level group be required to be identified to the WMF. Exactly how the group is formed could be determined if people otherwise support this proposal. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good start. I think that the Engineering Community Team is a logical group for the second level response. I'd like to see this group made up of WMF staff, technical volunteers, and one representative from ECT, since ECT has considerable knowledge about community structures and dynamics. I think that an email ought to be a sufficient place to report to--IRC is likely to be more complicated to monitor, and I don't think it's necessary as long as emailed reports get a prompt response. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong preference to keep an IRC point of contact. People might still informally report stuff there, but the email can be the definitive way. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Some notes and suggestions:
 * Anonymizing reports are terribly important here. Specially when it comes to sexual harassment. we need more explicit statements on this to ensure people to feel more comfortable. I think CA can help us.
 * Yes, this should be addressed in the draft. Maybe, in case of private harassment, not allowing release of the victim/reporter's name (even in the course of a public apology) without the reporter's consent.  In the case of public harassment (at least where it is not/can not be oversighted), the victim/reporter is already known, and since it happened publicly it can sometimes be important to speak out. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In lots of cases people already made contact with local maintainer of space (e.g. someone harassed me in mediawiki.org and initially I will contact admins of mediawiki.org but in some cases they don't handle it well. Lack of experience from admins, influential friends, being "too" valuable, etc.) So we need to determine a way to handle such cases.
 * Yes, this is a good argument for having a central point of contact (techcoc), plus an appeal process in case even that fails. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Punishment vs. protecting the system: Imagine I offended someone in pywikibot code review. What is the best action? Do you think I should be banned for a while or I should be stripped off from my owner rights or both? this states "Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct may be permanently removed from the project team." Should we have something like this?
 * We have language about this from Contributor Covenant now. Not sure how much we'll tweak this; we will probably need a Wikimedia-specific enforcement section at any rate. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Removal of comments: you didn't define anything about this. e.g. the CoC says: "Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct. By adopting this Code of Conduct, project maintainers commit themselves to fairly and consistently applying these principles to every aspect of managing this project." Ladsgroup (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Body size
We don't have anything related to body size, or this falls under physical appearance? It is important to me since I was born with a medical condition that makes me super skinny and I was called names a lot in school and people told me horrible things that continues today, It never happened in mediawiki space but I can imagine the possibility Ladsgroup (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are only examples in this CoC. Harassment may be alleged for whatever someone believes is harassment which easily includes appearance, medical conditions or the perception of these (this is how the police explained their approach to me in the UK, i.e. it's not their job to interpret what is or is not harassment, they take seriously any complaint and document it for further action). --Fæ (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a reason it says, "Examples of harassment include but are not limited to"; it's meant to cover the most common issues, but it recognizes it might miss something. Let's go ahead and add body size, though, just for clarity. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed "personal appearance, body size" to "physical appearance" as this seemed less awkward. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

this edit removed the explicit mention of body size, instead amalgamating it into "physical appearance".

While I understand the tendency towards brevity and efficiency, I think this is worth calling out. Body size makes a regular appearance in both tropes about engineers and harassment of people within technical spaces, with a frequency that most forms of "physical appearance"-based harassment do not. One of the things we are trying to do with this document is recognise that vagueness and catch-all terms in codes of conduct or behavioural guidelines tend to serve to provide wiggle-room when there is a violation, and that specificity is key to ensuring both that users are aware of what they are not permitted to do, and that community groups have a clear guideline to enforce that they can move on with confidence. With that in mind, and given the prominence of physical size as a trope and tool for harassment, calling it out seems perfectly sensible to me. Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially given that Ladsgroup brought this up as well. I've put it back. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess this makes at least the third case of attempting to address an unproven problem. Ladsgroup specifically stated that body size-related harassment had never happened in Wikimedia technical spaces to him. Similarly, there's no evidence of people encouraging other people to harass (Kaldari's suggestion above) or unwarranted rejection of patches (also discussed above). There seems to be a worrying amount of tilting at windmills here. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If it didn't happen before that doesn't mean it won't happen and it doesn't mean it is not worth addressing in the CoC Ladsgroup (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Would you tell a country where there had never been a bank robbery that there shouldn't be a law against it, since it's an "unproven problem"? Of course not, since everyone knows it happens in other places.  Similarly, we know these problems happen in other similar places. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you able to name such a country? --Nemo 06:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As a general principle, I think it is better to be more explicit than implicit describing the types of harassment we want to address in this CoC. The first goal of this document is to prevent problems, and a good measure to prevent problems is to spell them out. Let's not get stuck in these details, a good enough list is a good enough list. If these lists need one item more or one item less, having this discussion will be a lot simpler when the CoC is approved rather than now that we have many fronts open.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

From the perspective of a maintainer
In other sections, others have already clarified why a code of conduct is a good idea from the perspective of potential contributors and victims, but I'd also like to share the perspective of a maintainer. On the Pywikibot mailing list, we have had our fair share of behavior that is not OK, but I've always been reluctant to actually put the users on moderate, or to ban them from the mailing list altogether. Why? I wasn't sure whether that was the right thing to do, and I was afraid of the backlash that would probably follow.

Having an explicit policy makes policing behavior also much easier. From one side, it's much easier to say 'hey, you are violating the code of conduct', and from the other side, having the policy means we //have to// intervene. It's much easier to act on a previously agreed policy than acting off the cuff. Let's make clear rules, and let's use them to make this environment more fun to work in. Valhallasw (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Mailing list etiquettes already exist. --Nemo 07:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Mailing lists/Guidelines? I added this link to See also.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticize ideas, not people
I am not a fan of that phrasing. First, there is not all that much difference between "your idea is stupid" and "you are stupid". There is an unfortunate misconception in certain circles of the community that the second is a personal attack but the first is fine, and we should not reinforce that. Second, publicly challenging improper behavior can be an important part of upkeeping community norms and socializing newcomers, and the "consequences" part explicitly suggests it as a first step of enforcement, but it would be itself a violation under this rule. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we can drop this now that we've rebased onto Contributor Covenant. They instead use different language with the same purpose, mainly "Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include [...] derogatory comments or personal attacks [...]". Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior
In the beginning of the "unacceptable behavior" section, the phrase "unacceptable behavior" (which I just changed to "Behavior that is unacceptable") linked to the Terms of Use. What exactly are we trying to communicate with the link? That we consider all the behavior mentioned to be harassment and therefore prohibited by the terms? If so, we should make that statement explicit (and check that it's legally okay too, although I'm not sure the WMF legal team could give us an opinion).—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That was taken from meta:Grants:Friendly Space Expectations. My reading was that it is a reminder that harassment is already legally prohibited for Wikimedia-hosted projects, rather than a statement on the specific behavior listed here. If it's confusing, I'm fine with removing it. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The link is inappropriate, in my opinion. I already removed it once. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved the link to the "See also" section as that seemed reasonable. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good place for it, especially as this applies to spaces outside of WMF resources. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarify "outside of WMF resources"? --Nemo 07:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The technical IRC channels, for example; the WMF doesn't "own" those. Ironholds (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Harassment
In the "Unacceptable behavior" section, we start of by saying that unacceptable behavior includes a variety of things, one of which is harassment. We then continue by saying harassment includes a whole list of things, which includes all the other unacceptable behaviors we listed in the first place. How about we simplify this by saying the following?

All forms of harassment are unacceptable in Wikimedia technical spaces, both online and in person. This includes but is not limited to the following behaviors: —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate or unwanted communication, including on-wiki messages, private or public IRC messages, email, texts, and chats.
 * Sustained disruption of discussion, talks or work, for example by personal attacks, constant interruption, trolling or consistent and unwarranted rejection of patches.


 * I see what you mean. I think it's important to state that we do not want our technical spaces to include "sexual language or imagery, derogatory comments or personal attacks, trolling, public or private harassment, insults", regardless of whether they rise to the level of harassment or not--even if these things are drive-by one-off comments, they make technical spaces less welcoming for many people. How about mentioning that harassment can include any of the above and removing them from the list of potentially harassing behaviors instead? --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Take a look now--I think this version is clearer. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The edit summary re-adding "rejection of patches" seems to go out of its way to point out that it's happening elsewhere. I don't know of this ever being a problem in Gerrit or Phabricator or Special:CodeReview. Why should this be included? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it's a good thing to build processes around problems we have seen in similar spaces with similar dynamics and similar base populations so that we have a way of handling them if and when they happen. This question or something very likes it comes up a lot, particularly in regards to codes of conduct; "why do we need to protect X? I've never seen X happen". And the answer is that if X does happen in communities similar to ours it's hubris to believe it couldn't happen here, and we should protect against that - and that the lack of the appearance of X, when there is no process for X, can also be indicative that the lack of process caused an absence of any ability to productively surface it. Or to put it another way, a problem without reporting looks the same as no problem at all. Ironholds (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This sounds very much like you're trying to prove a negative. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. Again, this happens very commonly in communities very like ours; I'm not trying to prove a negative, I'm trying to avoid the hubris of assuming we should not ward against things we have seen appear in similar spaces. If it was entirely a thought experiment it would be potentially problematic because then we're just adding stuff in an unfounded way, but by definition worrying about things identified in near-identical entities is not unfounded, it is very well founded. Ironholds (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit lost in this discussion. Are you proposing a specific change in the "Unacceptable behavior" section?--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Strings attached
I removed this text about trying to coerce users into apologizing through threats and intimidation. Ironholds seemed to want a discussion about it. Perhaps it's a cultural difference, but it seems/seemed pretty obvious to me that this type of behavior is inappropriate and I don't think we should be encouraging it. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't what it says. What it says is "The group may, if it chooses, attach "strings" to this request: for example, the group may ask a violator to apologize in order to retain their membership on a mailing list or their Phabricator privileges." That's not "threats or intimidation"; it's saying that in order for you to retain the privileges that you have after violating the behavioural standards that the group has, you must demonstrate that you understand that you violated these standards and that doing so was wrong. This is pretty fair, to me (I'm not sure what cultural difference there is here; yes, I'm a European, but I've also been living in the United States for quite a while now) - such a demonstration serves as evidence that misbehaviour will not occur again. It's also pretty standard; looking just at enwiki, almost every discussion around unblocks and unbans requires some assurance that the person who was sanctioned understands what they did wrong. Requiring that understanding to continue is...precisely what we do, we're just shuffling the order here. Ironholds (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is from the jQuery enforcement manual. I think realistically this is something that is already done in certain situations informally (and not just in tech communities); they just chose to spell it out. Without this, either it could still happen informally, or the only option is to directly ban them in a case where the string option would be considered. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also don't see any problem with requiring users to apologize as a condition of their remaining part of the community. The whole point of this code is to provide a mechanism for coercing toxic users to either change their behavior or leave the community. We can certainly argue about what makes a user toxic or how the mechanism should work, but it seems pretty obvious to me that a reasonable degree of coercion is the whole point.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Trolling
I removed trolling as it seems to be problematic to define. I wouldn't want to see rickrolling to be considered a violation of this document, for example. I've also heard some people reclaim and embrace the term trolling as a positive behavior/attribute/skill. If someone wants to re-insert this, I think it first warrants discussion and perhaps a clearer definition. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]". I think that firmly falls within the set of behavior we don't want to see. In addition, it is noted explicitly in the Contributor Convenant, so I think it makes more sense to place it back while the subject is being discussed. As for Rick Rolling: I think that generally is also counterproductive, and thus something we don't want in our technical spaces either. Valhallasw (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Trolling is defined in Wikimedia terms at Manual:Glossary and What is a troll?, and in case of doubt Internet troll is also an interesting read. I think in most cases it is a behavior simple to recognize. "consistent and unwarranted rejection of patches" is not an equivalent of trolling but a much more narrower case, therefore I think that we should bring "trolling" back instead.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and let me say that people reclaiming trolling as "a positive behavior/attribute/skill" have no place here. Ironholds (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Valhallasw. There was unanimous consent to start from the Contributor Covenant.  While we have made changes from there, 'trolling' is one of the few things the concise Contributor Covenant addresses, which shows they view it as important.  I agree it is important to forbid, and I see no reason to remove it from our versions.  Rick-rolling is a prank, not trolling.  While pranks can waste time (which is why I try to restrict mine to April Fool's), pranking is not the same thing as trolling. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for re-adding it, Matt. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Trolling is not defined anywhere and has never proved useful as an explicit charge to make to anyone, hence I support the removal of its mention. What is a troll? is a mere essay for a reason. --Nemo 06:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The question is, are the behaviors identified as "trolling" already mentioned in clear terms (making the addition of "trolling" redundant) or is "trolling" covering other behaviors that are still not mentioned? I would be fine removing that single word, but only if the behaviors we want to address are well covered in the CoC. Currently we have:
 * Inappropriate or unwanted communication
 * Sustained disruption
 * Offensive, derogatory, or discriminatory comments
 * deliberate intimidation
 * derogatory comments
 * personal attacks
 * Anything missing?--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Substantive v Procedural
The draft is a confusing mix of Substantive law and Procedural law.


 * Substantive law declares which types of conduct lead to which types of penalty;
 * Procedural law defines how cases are handled.

Please place the procedural law into a separate paragraph. That paragraph should define:


 * the judicial body (e.g. committee membership and powers);
 * how cases are to be filed (e.g. identify the parties, state the facts, state which substantive law was breached, request remedy);
 * the rules of evidence (e.g. original documents and testimony is admissible; hear-say is inadmissible);
 * how cases are adjudicated (e.g. read charges, determine facts, determine applicable substantive law, decide penalty);
 * how decisions are announced (e.g. three brief paragraphs: findings of fact, findings of law, and penalty).

Procedural law is about the judicial system. If the work load grows, it may become necessary to have many such committees. Procedural law is our guarantee that the substantive law is applied in a uniform manner across many cases and many committees.

Uniform handling of cases is an important component of fairness. Moreover, public perception of uniform handling of cases contributes to public perception of fairness. Wp mirror (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed they should be split into different sections but they should be considered part of the same document, jurisprudence aside. This is not intended to be a legal system and should not be read as a legal document; as you say, fairness is important, and uniform handling and transparency are important parts of that fairness, but speaking as a former lawyer another element of fairness is to ensure that justice is efficient. Replicating a legal system down to the level of specifying the determination of "applicable substantive law" and every single possible type of evidence that is and is not acceptable does not necessarily help with this. Ironholds (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * An example might help. Procedural law, for many not-for-profit organizations, includes a reference to RONR 10th ed, Chap XX Disciplinary Procedures. The draft contains no such reference. Procedural law for the Conduct Committee should be gathered into one or more paragraphs, and thought through. Otherwise, committee members will find themselves having to improvise when they receive their first few cases. Improvisation leads to an aggrieved party claiming that committee members act in an arbitrary and capricious manner, which in turn injures the public perception of fairness and shrinks to pool of volunteers willing to serve on the committee. Wp mirror (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In short, should we create a section "Code of Conduct Committee" and move there the details about its creation, membership, second level...?--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's fine to create separate (sub)sections for that. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never seen a reference to Robert's Rules (which are incredibly US-centric) in any code of conduct for this sort of community. Could you point me to an example of a code of conduct for a technical or online community that contains such a reference? Quim: yes, I am reading this as a request to create a dedicated section about the entity tasked with enforcing it, and endorse that request (although Code of Conduct Committee may not be the best name, since it leaves ambiguous whether that is an enforcement body or an amending body or or or). Ironholds (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What part of the substantive six-step process do you feel is unclear? I agree the committee may have to choose certain non-substantive manners themselves (e.g. do they meet by private chat room, or telephone, who takes notes?) but the substantive matters should be addressed here in the policy. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone object to my starting a page called "Conduct Committee Charter/Draft". The idea is this: There should be two pages: I would be happy to provide a first draft to get the conversation going. The outline would look like this: Wp mirror (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Code of conduct for technical spaces/Draft - contains substantive law (definitions of unacceptable behavior, penalties);
 * Conduct Committee Charter/Draft - contains procedural law (committee structure, membership, responsibilities, procedures).
 * Purpose of Conduct Committee
 * Membership and selection
 * Responsibilities
 * Procedures and process
 * They should not be separate pages, they should be the same page, as I thought we'd all agreed on. I am loathe to set more than the high-level elements of the appeals process due to the potential (in fact, the certainty) that we would get bogged down in that debate. The committee should determine, within the restrictions of the code of conduct, their own policy (and transparently document it). Ironholds (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ironholds on both points. The committee will quickly gain a sense of what is effective in practice; let's provide a reasonable blueprint and clear goals here and let them do their job. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do object to drafting a new charter from scratch. There are already important procedural aspects in the main document.  The key procedural questions should be described in the Code, but I do not support drafting our own very-detailed procedure in a vacuum.  Many of the procedural elements (including resolutions) are based on https://github.com/jquery/jquery.org/blob/master/pages/conduct/reporting.md and https://github.com/jquery/jquery.org/blob/master/pages/conduct/enforcement-manual.md .  This in turn is based on https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/reporting/ and https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/enforcement-manual/ .  The key insight here is that we are benefiting from the procedural experience of real organizations (Django, and the others they adapted from, such as PyCon) that have dealt with these problems.  Making our own elaborate procedural system based on Roberts Rules of Order, but without practical experience with dealing with this, will lead to an unwieldy procedure that does not solve the problem.
 * As already noted, I expect the committee to answer some non-substantive procedural questions on their own. It is also possible they will ask for some substantive procedural changes, in which case they may request to amend the CoC.  But in either case, we'll be benefiting from practical experience in this kind of committee, which we can't if we draft our own based on Robert's Rules of Order. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Membership of the committee and ECT's role
The CoC doesn't explain how the committee is formed and how are their members renewed. Following with 's comment on Substantive v Procedural (thank you, I learned something), I'm not sure whether such information should be included in the CoC itself or in an attached document, but we need to define it.

Then, as ECT member I would like to understand what is the role the community wants us to have here. Especially when it comes to escalations, public statements and very ugly cases in general, I think it is useful to have a speaker paid for doing their job, saving some stress to those volunteering in the committee. However, I don't see the need of ECT to be involved in the regular work of the committee. If they would want our help, they could simply "escalate", as defined by the CoC. I think having a committee of equal members chosen through the same process by their own merits would give this team more credibility, independence, and strength.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is there a presumption that the appeal body must be the ECT? An elected group such as Stewards or Oversighters, positions of trust open to both unpaid volunteers and appointed WMF employees, would be in-line with putting the volunteer at the centre. --Fæ (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither the Stewards nor the Oversighters necessarily have technical accumen, and this duty is not something they've volunteered to take on. One of the things to make sure of here is that the people doing the job are deeply knowledgeable about technical spaces and discussions and thus capable of recognising tech-specific forms of harassment for what they are.
 * Quim: it would probably be included in the document. The jQuery CoC, for example (which got passed today!) sets out this sort of thing very specifically, which I think works well. Ironholds (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If I understand right, you're saying ECT does not necessarily need a reserved spot on the first-line committee, as the document currently lays out. Is that correct?  I agree we will have to specify how the committee is formed, either in this document or a sub-document.  I have added a note to this effect. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that we will need to specify more about the committee. I think that ECT should have a reserved spot for several reasons: ECT's job is community expertise, and there is substantial gathered knowledge and resources on that team, including easy consultation with other community teams; all-volunteer committees are vulnerable to gaps in institutional memory (and as tough a time as we have with our technical documentation and continuity of project knowledge, we need a way to ensure this doesn't happen here!); and CoC response and enforcement is a difficult and sometimes draining position, and having at least one person whose job this is part of should mean the committee has more support and structure. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * for what is worth ECT also wants to be sure that the role this CoC gives to us is the role the community wants us to have. Any big social problem in the tech community has been and will continue to be a problem that we ECT need to help solving, with or without CoC. How exactly should we involved, you tell us. A pragmatic approach would be to define the process to form the committee (leaving the hypothetical ECT seat out for now) and to know the opinion of those interested to be part of it. At the end, these are the people that need to work comfortably with us.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that I did not mention ECT's participation in the committee, only the nature of the appeal process. I would think it natural that some ECT members would volunteer to be part of the proposed committee, and if they end up going through a community election I doubt they would be likely to fail to get in considering the case. See below for my follow up on the choice of appeal body. --Fæ (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that having an appointed and immutable ECT member in that first-line would set a default point of gravity that would influence how the committee operates. Also, this permanent seat would not help in cases where pro/anti WMF attitudes are part of the problem (not an unusual situation). Having all the members of this first-line appointed equally through a community-driven process would make this first-line stronger in many ways. Whenever the committee members feel that they need ECT's help (or help from anyone else at the WMF), we would be there to support them and to call anyone else that needs to be involved. No less, no more.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me make a specific proposal for the committee membership, to prompt some discussion.


 * 1) Once we form consensus to enact the code of conduct, we (the people interested enough in this issue to be discussing it here) discuss amongst ourselves and nominate a slate of five trusted community members. I also think one seat should always be reserved for a member of the ECT, to help provide capacity and institutional memory, but if Quim doesn't think that's a good idea I don't think I can force him :)
 * 2) That slate gets ratified by the same process we used to enact the code.
 * 3) People serve on the committee as long as they want (unless they're forcibly removed). When a member leaves, the other members simply use their judgment to replace the departing member with another trusted community member. The code will explicitly mandate that they focus on keeping a wide variety of perspectives on the committee—which primarily means gender and geographic diversity—and that at the very most 2 (3?) members can be employed by the WMF.
 * 4) At any point, the community could use the same process used to enact the code to form a consensus to replace a committee member (this would essentially be a constructive vote of no confidence, requiring consensus on a replacement to remove someone). This means that as long as the committee does a good job (which, given that it's composed of trusted community members, I expect it almost always will), the rest of the community doesn't have to spend any time worrying about it.

Unanswered questions:
 * Should there be other mechanisms for removing a committee member? I imagine this would come up very rarely, so a community-wide discussion would be sufficient, but perhaps 4 members of the committee could vote to remove the fifth, or the ECT could step in to remove people.
 * What kind of process do we use for the community-wide discussions necessary to enact the code, select the first set of members, and remove them if needed?

My main objective here is a lightweight process. There's no need to institute the equivalent of enwiki's ArbCom elections when we will likely have far less conflict to deal with here. Also, I move that the committee be called the Conduct Committee, so we can call it ConCom for short :)—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The question of why the appeal body must be the ECT is actually still floating here. There have been no solid reasons put forward as to why no alternatives are possible, or more desirable. --Fæ (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For what is worth, I don't think ECT or whoever is at the "second-line" should be the automatic appeal body. The first-line is in charge of receiving reports, and also appeals. If the committee or the person(s) appealing think that the first-line is no good fit in a specific case, then they can go to the second-line.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have difficulty comparing your reply against what is currently written in the draft document. It might be helpful to stick to the same use of words. --Fæ (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, this is because we are all discussing and drafting, still with different opinions. We will get there. What is your take?--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To use the same terminology as the document, in a "case where the committee disagrees with the above initial response", the Committee already has the right to revisit a decision by a single Committee member. I don't think there should be a general right to appeal to the Committee again.  However, I will broaden the 'objection' stage to reflect that the alleged offender can also object. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ironholds answered the question about why ECT above ("Neither the Stewards nor the Oversighters necessarily have technical accumen, and this duty is not something they've volunteered to take on. [...]"). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this proposal for membership. My primary concern is very simple; you are assuming that people confident and certain enough to publicly comment in this discussion are adequately representative of the community, its concerns, and the nuances around problematic behaviour - and the members of the community who have left due to the inadequacy of existing codes of conduct, where they exist, and/or people who have not joined yet. That does not seem in any way a safe assumption to make. If we limit the pool of candidates and how they are evaluated to the people on this talk page we end up with a pool of people acceptable to the existing community - the existing community that in some elements is still discussing whether a code of conduct is even necessary much less what it looks like. This repeated idea that those who turn up represent the full gamut of opinions, or the opinions worth listening to, is problematic, and the assumption that the pool of people discussing it represents the pool of people who care about it is inaccurate (I know several people who have strong opinions here but are not comfortable commenting publicly) and honestly rather offensive. People not commenting do not "not care", they are in some cases simply not comfortable, and that should be something that causes us to re-evaluate how we hold these discussions, not dismiss factoring them in. Ironholds (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What Ironholds said. I've personally heard from a fair handful of people who've been intentionally avoiding these discussions for reasons that include discomfort and lack of trust that their opinions will be thought to matter. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ironholds, Fhocutt (WMF): My thought behind that idea (and maybe this is naive) is that it's not incredibly hard to find people who would do a good job in the role of a ConCom member. It's certainly not something I would entrust to anybody off the street, and it certainly requires sensitivity and empathy for the type of people we want to include with this code. But I think there are enough good options that even an unrepresentative discussion would come up with pretty good choices. For example, I think that both of you would do a great job—and despite the limitations of this discussion, you're already here.
 * That said, it's still a fair criticism, and it seems like the provision for private comments in Matt's plan would give people who are not comfortable discussing this in public a chance to make their voice heard. The only problem is that private comments means the ultimate decision on committee membership has to be entrusted to a third party—in this case, ECT. I don't think that would be a bad outcome, since I trust them and think they would make good choices—and since they are ultimately accountable to the community through the Board of Trustees. However, the Wikimedia ideal is fairly direct community semi-democracy and I would be disappointed if we couldn't find a way to make that work in this case.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I just reread what I wrote and saw where I put "the people interested enough in this issue to be discussing it here". You're right—that's misguided. There are many reasons why someone might be interested yet not be commenting here.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And actually, to modify my comment again, I've actually thought of some ways to make anonymous comments compatible with discussion-based consensus decision making (see ). I also don't think giving ECT the ultimate authority to approve the people initially selected by the community would be bad—this isn't very different from the CA team having ultimate control of the global ban process, which I don't find concerning.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the proposal that 4 members could vote to oust the fifth. That would meant they could do that to prevent that 5th member from escalating (which the current draft explicitly says a minority could) the issue.  I also think the idea of the community ousting members at any time risks politicizing it (think 'recall election').  I need more time to think about the rest. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, on reflection, recall discussions do seem like a bad idea.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also object to the idea of limiting the number of WMF employees to 2/5. I do think there should be non-WMF members, but I don't think you've made a case for why most (at least 3/5) members should be required to be non-WMF at all times. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree on both counts. Recall elections get nasty easily, and if we're instituting quotas I don't think that WMF/non-WMF should be the only characteristic we filter on. Let's not open that up. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree on the formation of any such committee. Existing Wikimedia projects processes should be used, such as sysops and stewards. --Nemo 06:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Existing Wikimedia projects processes have failed pretty thoroughly in this regard. As you yourself noted earlier, wikis which have behavioral policies are even more toxic then the Wikimedia tech space. Replicating that failure one more time does not seem like a worthwhile endeavor. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of said processes being attempted for the cases presented and in the only cases I remember of blocks etc. in the MediaWiki community our processes worked perfectly. --Nemo 07:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Existing Wikimedia projects processes are designed to be effective on specific tools, and they don't attempt to be cross-tools. There are no stewards specific to "Wikimedia technical spaces", and it will be interesting to ask them what they think about enforcing a CoC in places like Phabricator, Gerrit, etc. I do think some stewards could be very capable committee members, though. As for sysops, only mediawiki.org has close to 200 users with that role. We cannot expect such group to deal efficiently with delicate situations privately. So no, I don't think the existing Wikimedia processes you are referring to have been effective to address the problems this CoC aims to address, and I don't think they are designed for this task.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Another membership proposal
I'd like to propose a self-perpetuating committee, boot-strapped by the Engineering Community Team (ECT).
 * 1) We open up self-nominations (if you think someone would be a great candidate, you can ask them to self-nominate).  These self-nominees can make a statement up front.
 * 2) People would then comment on nominations, both publicly and by emailing ECT (as they prefer).
 * 3) ECT consults with Community Advocacy on the candidates.  The past behavior of the candidates should be in the spirit of the Code of Conduct.
 * 4) The ECT will then select five candidates, considering their involvement in the community, background, and experience that would inform their Committee work (if any; this is not a hard requirement).
 * 5) Every 6 months, the Committee will vote on a new Committee to replace it (Nominations are opened one month before this month; re-nominating yourself is allowed).  Majority approval (3/5) of the overall slate is required, but unanimity is encouraged if possible.  Re-selections are possible, but no one can be on the Committee for more than 12 consecutive months, unless the Committee unanimously agrees that an exception to this is necessary because suitable new candidates are not available.
 * 6) ECT can remove Committee members, but this should be only be exercised in case of severe problems.

It is required that the Committee can never be 100% WMF staff, and it's encouraged to choose various affiliations.

I think the main benefit here is that the Committee will have some knowledge about the community, and problems we face, so they can use that to help inform their decisions on the next Committee. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

COI
How the committee is formed interests me little, as I don't think we should have a committee (see above). As someone who has shared the responsibility of approving a code of ethics in an organisation way larger than our technical community, I recall that the main concern is generally conflict of interest, which must be avoided at any rate to prevent complete discredit of the policy.

Whoever decides on forceful enforcement (e.g. a block of a contributor) is disposing of movement resources (e.g. volunteer developer time), which also reminds us of Guidelines on potential conflicts of interest. For instance I would be uncomfortable if a WMIT (Wikimedia Italia) employee or contractor happened to "judge" a case involving another WMIT employee or contractor, as any outcome clearly implies (financial) interest: promoting the employer's interest affects renewal of a contract, vacating a job currently taken by an involved party affects employment opportunities in the organisation. --Nemo 07:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Conflicts of interest are usual in community affairs, and there are ways to deal with it. Committee members have the same chances to have COI than stewards, sysops, WMF employees, and just any humans involved. Promoting diversity of affiliations in the committee and allowing committee members to disclose COI and step aside in specific cases should be enough to control this problem reasonably. Nothing new.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Conduct Committee v Legal Counsel
The draft mixes two classes of unacceptable behavior that must be handled differently.


 * Unacceptable behavior
 * Class 1 - violence, threats of violence, intimidation, stalking, inappropriate touching;
 * Class 2 - inappropriate communication, sustained disruption, offensive comments, unwanted photography, outing.

In many jurisdictions, class 1 behavior is a crime, and must be handled by the authorities. Not to inform the authorities would make one an accessory. Only class 2 behavior is properly handled by a WMF Conduct Committee.

Wp mirror (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Procedure
 * Class 1 - inform law enforcement, inform WMF Legal Counsel;
 * Class 2 - report to technical space moderator, file case with WMF Conduct Committee.
 * Penalty
 * Class 1 - WMF Legal Counsel recommends: ban, suspension without pay pending investigation, termination;
 * Class 2 - WMF Conduct committee issues: warning, timeout, suspension, ban.


 * 'Class 1' behavior can be handled by the authorities, but it is up to the victim to decide whether to report it to the authorities or not. The WMF and the conduct committee must not report what happened to the authorities, unless explicitly asked to do so by the victim.
 * There is no need to distinguish the two classes for this code of conduct; our (civil) response to a criminal act is seperate from a potential criminal investigation. Valhallasw (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Valhallasw. I'd also say that your argument very nicely demonstrates one of the problems with this kind of distinction; some of the acts you have categorised as "class 1" are not crimes in some places, but are in others, or have totally different standards in different jurisdictions. I absolutely agree that in the case of situations where we believe a crime has been committed, counsel should be notified. I disagree that the need to provide that notification precludes civil enforcement in addition (and would argue there are going to be cases where filing legal reports, straight off the bat, is not in the interests of the victim). This seems like an area where counsel should be consulted if there are legitimately worries that not reporting constitutes making the Wikimedia Foundation (or the committee, or anyone else involved in the reporting chain) an accessory. Ironholds (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing in this document discourages reporting to the authorities (and that is exactly as it should be). However, I think it is still worth reporting to the conduct committee as well (remember, the authorities may not be able to take legal action, but that doesn't mean we want that person in our community).  There is also a clear statement, "If you believe anyone is in physical danger, please notify appropriate law enforcement first and email emergency@undefinedwikimedia.org", which is an additional way the WMF could be informed about such serious matters.  Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The draft states that one of the penalties is "public reprimand". This does create a need to distinguish the two classes. For a class 1 case, if the Conduct Committee issues a public reprimand, the following charges could be filed against the members:
 * Libel. If the Conduct Committee got the facts wrong (e.g. deceived by a vengeful X), the announcement could ruin the reputation of the reprimanded party, who would in turn seek remedy.
 * Accessory. If the Conduct Committee got the facts right, but did not inform the authorities, the announcement would alert the authorities, who would in turn want to question the members (what do you know, how long have you known about it, why did you not notify the authorities).

For a class 2 case, these concerns do not arise.

From time-to-time, the Conduct Committee will get the facts wrong. Why? No rules of evidence. The committee can not insist upon sworn testimony. The committee will sometimes have to rely upon hear-say. If we wish to claim that no distinction exists between the two classes, then perhaps we should choose penalties less likely to cause blowback. Wp mirror (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you are introducing a distinction that is not found in the actual draft, and these questions are best handled by actual lawyers. Ironholds (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If the proposed Conduct Committee issues public reprimands, then we should expect that, sooner or later, actual lawyers will get involved. Shall we ask WMF Legal Counsel to look over the draft before this happens? Wp mirror (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Physical contact
MzMcBride removed the parenthetical in "Inappropriate or unwanted attention, touching, or physical contact (sexual or otherwise)" with the rationale that it felt "awkward and unnecessary". To kick off a discussion about that:

Sexual versus non-sexual touching has different levels of acceptability within western society (speaking very broadly, there). Sexual contact is seen as obviously inappropriate for professional spaces, and non-sexual totally fine if both parties are comfortable with it. This split in characterisation should be called out when we're talking about how to handle unwanted contact. Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the key point is that unwanted or inappropriate touching is prohibited either way (sexual or otherwise). I agree it's worth calling out, since sexual harassment is one of the problems this is trying to address.  I've put it back. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which split in characterization should be called out? I don't follow what you're saying. I also still don't see the need to parenthetically clarify that physical contact can be "sexual or otherwise." --MZMcBride (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This area seems more than slightly over-egged, possibly this is a cultural gap of some sort between Europe and the US. If I were at a lunch at a Wikimedia sponsored hackerthon, and a fellow volunteer started choking on their chicken sandwich, I would like to avoid feeling so awkward about potential embarrassing claims of inappropriate touching, that I never tried to slap their back or attempt abdominal thrusts to clear their airways before they lose conciousness. At the moment I'm thinking that I would step back and wait until someone else helped out, especially if the person choking were half my age (which is quite likely). --Fæ (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In the event that somebody was choking to death would your read genuinely be that the Heimlich was unwanted? Ironholds (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is unhelpful hypothetical argument. I'll respond to this one direct question, but I prefer to avoid getting into replying to more of this type.
 * The way the draft is being extended in ways that only relate to thought experiments, rather than case history for our community, is of concern and especially the emphasis on "touching" as a reason to apply this policy. My feelings on this are from the last few years of targeted sexual and sexuality related abuse/vandalism on and off the Wikimedia projects (one of these attacks was on my Commons talk page in the last 24 hours, and has been deleted from the page history). This past does make me concerned about the risks of socializing at physical Wikimedia events, and has made me concerned about practicalities of things like sharing rooms when I attended Wikimedia events.
 * If I take your comment literally, then there is plenty of precedent and I note that preferred description is "abdominal thrusts" as other terms can be confusing or controversial depending on what you read. --Fæ (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur the choking example was unhelpful and I'm glad we're in agreement on that. You seem to be making a false distinction, here; that there are "thought experiments" and "things we have seen in our community" and nothing in-between. What we are talking about is not thought-experiments that could never happen, or could happen but never do happen; we are talking about things that absolutely happen in communities incredibly similar to ours in terms of focus, demographics and process. It is hubris for us to take the position that because instances of this have not been reported - in an environment similar to those where it has, and an environment lacking an existing enforcement mechanism in many ways - they cannot, or will not, happen.
 * I am deeply sorry for your past experiences of harassment in this community, along those axes or along any other axes. Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * With regard to "axes", sarcastic apologies that are deliberate personal attacks are just as unhelpful. We should all expect better behaviour of WMF employees if the Wikimedia community is to provide them with special trust and authority. --Fæ (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That was not sarcastic, nor do I see where it was a personal attack. I was genuinely saying that I am sorry for your experiences. I apologise if what I wrote was badly written or ambiguous and so came off as an attack in any way; I will endeavour to be more precise before hitting save. Ironholds (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now realised the ambiguity might be around "axes"; I meant it in the sense of "the plural of axis" not "the plural of axe". Apologies for the ambiguity :(. All data visualisation and no play makes.... Ironholds (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The precedent you cited is from Weekly World News, a fictional tabloid publication. I'm sorry about any harassment you've received on any of the projects.  This draft code of conduct does address communication ("Inappropriate or unwanted communication", "Offensive, derogatory, or discriminatory comments", etc.), not just touching, in the covered spaces. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection of Conduct Committee members
A volunteer serving on the Conduct Committee must consider the possibility that an aggrieved party will sue for libel. To attract qualified volunteers to serve on this committee, one should consider how best to protect them. The main methods are:
 * D&O Liability Insurance. Many not-for-profit organizations purchase a D&O policy that extends coverage to chapter members and volunteers. It is not clear if the WMF has such coverage. Nothing relevant appears when one searches wikimediafoundation.org.
 * Limited disclosure. To take away the grounds for a libel suit, many not-for-profit organizations follow RONR 10th ed, Chap XX Disciplinary Procedures, §61: "If (after trial) a member is expelled, the society has the right to disclose the fact that he is no longer a member—circulating it only to the extent required for the protection of the society or, possibly, of other organizations. Neither the society nor any of its members have the right to make public the charge of which an expelled member has been found guilty, or to reveal any other details connected with the case. To make any of the facts public may constitute libel."

For the protection of Conduct Committee members, please: Wp mirror (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * procure D&O liability insurance, and post the terms on your site;
 * specify, in the procedural law for the Conduct Committee, how to report the outcome of cases; and
 * reconsider the "public reprimand" penalty clause stated in the draft.
 * The Wikimedia projects are not organised as a society of members. Again, these concerns are best surfaced to and handled by counsel, not pseudorandom members of our technical community (I include me in that). Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What open source code of conduct committee offers D&O insurance to all members (both staff and volunteer)? Unless you can show a significant number of them do, I don't think it's reasonable to pursue this.  I also can not think of any cases where someone has successfully sued an open source project or related organization for libel after being banned from participating or reprimanded.  Can you? Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have in mind the following libel cases: The last three are sometimes called cyberlibel cases. Consider the following: As to D&O Liability Insurance: The need for coverage is real. This is why potential committee members need to see a copy of the policy. The WMF Chief of Finance and Administration is only one e-mail away. Shall we ask him? Wp mirror (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Zenger (1735) - ruled that truth is a defense against libel charge;
 * Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. (1991) - ruled that carrier/distributor not liable for libelous posting;
 * Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. (1995) - ruled that publisher is liable for libelous posting;
 * Zeran v. America Online, Inc. (1996) - ruled that Communications Decency Act (1996) protects on-line service providers.
 * If the proposed Conduct Committee got its facts wrong and publicly reprimanded someone for a crime he did not commit, Zenger (1735) would not apply, and WMF General Counsel would seek another defense.
 * If WMF General Counsel disavows the Conduct Committee, then Cubby (1991) might be a defense. But then the Conduct Committee would not have authority to enforce the Code of Conduct.
 * If the WMF Board of Trustees acknowledges the Conduct Committee (e.g. if the Conduct Committee reports to the Board of Trustees, like say the Affiliations Committee does), then Stratton (1995) might apply and WMF would be liable.
 * members of the WMF Board of Trustees are indemnified (see Bylaws Article VIII - INDEMNIFICATION);
 * the WMF Chief of Finance and Administration is responsible for purchasing the coverage (see seventh bullet under ADMINISTRATION).
 * If coverage is not provided, qualified volunteers might be hard to find, and even WMF employees would be prudent to hesitate.
 * If WMF employees are covered, but not volunteers, then committee membership should be restricted to employees.
 * If WMF General Counsel needs to be able to disavow the Conduct Committee, then WMF employees must be excluded from the committee.
 * I asked some specific questions, with the goal of comparing to similar situations (open source or at least similarly-minded organizations with code of conduct enforcement). None of the libel cases you mentioned show that a good-faith ban or reprimand can lead to a successful libel suit.  I am not convinced libel suits are a real problem other communities have faced in connection with their codes of conduct.
 * Similarly, you have not shown that D&O insurance is something other similar committees have had. It's not always affordable or realistic to buy more and more insurance, and it certainly doesn't seem to be legally required (or you would cite an example of a community that had bought it). Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Example: The Association for Computing Machinery is a publisher, has chapters and special interest groups that also publish, hosts public speaking events, and has on-line communities. The ACM also has a code of ethics, breach of which may result in termination of membership (see section 4.2). When I was a member, the ACM had a D&O Liability Insurance policy that extended coverage to all its chapter members and volunteers worldwide. As an officer of one its chapters, I had a copy of the policy. When the conduct of one of our members created a legal liability, we initiated a disciplinary process. We followed RONR 10th ed., as stated in our Bylaws. Charges were drafted, the board went into executive session, and we do not disclose the facts of the case.

Following RONR plus D&O coverage is why libel is not a problem for the ACM. The ACM is not unique in this respect. Indeed, the formula is widely used in the not-for-profit world. Public reprimands for breach of professional ethics are issued by governments and governing boards (e.g. legal, medical). Non-profits, however, quietly dismiss an unethical member.

D&O premiums are low. Cost is not the issue. Nor is having a list of court cases. Getting people with executive experience to serve is the issue. This is why WMF trustees are indemnified. They would not serve otherwise. Wp mirror (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We should definitely check this with WMF Legal before it takes effect. There may be other approaches to dealing with any potential liability arising from participation on this committee. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing
By the way, this whole discussion seems dominated from the start by a cherry-picked pre-determined very small subset of the community, which convened in external places and then started this concerted effort. In our wiki culture, this smells of so-called canvassing, which by definition makes a discussion and decision invalid and void. --Nemo 06:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This proposal, just like most proposals in our community, was started publicly by some people who cared about this topic, and others equally interested have been involved since then. Nobody has been sherry-picking anybody, and nothing has been pre-determined. Trust me, I have been following this process and its collateral discussions and initiatives since T87773 (2015-01-28), both in public spaces and in the casual private conversations where I have been CCed.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I learned of it from wikitech-l (2015-08-07) which is one of the technical spaces that would be covered by the proposed Code of Conduct. If anyone is aware of a technical space not notified, we should remedy that now. Wp mirror (talk)
 * Basically what Matt said; I heard about this from the Wikitech thread and to my knowledge it started on a phab task and with a public meeting at Wikimania. That's about as far from canvassing as you could get. Ironholds (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I learned about this from the same Wikitech thread as Ironholds and Wp mirror.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Next steps
We need a bit of organization. Even when the discussion is being shared basically by just a few people, it is becoming harder to follow and get involved productively (even more for volunteers with little time available). The goal of this exercise is to draft a proposal of an enforceable Code of Conduct to be approved by the Wikimedia technical community. We can slice the drafting in modules, allowing for a lighter process of discussion and consensus:
 * 1) Intro + Principles + Unacceptable behavior define the scope of this CoC, and have an intrinsic value. If those of us active in this Talk page now focus on these points, we should be able to reach a level of agreement good enough to send a proposal to wikitech-l.
 * 2) A new section "Committee" (that I will create now unless someone is faster) comprising all the details about this committee will need some more iterations. We can work on it while the community has time to discuss the points above. Hopefully by the time that the points above are stable and clear, we could share our proposal about the committee to wikitech-l.
 * 3) With the previous points on its way for agreement, Reporting, Appealing, and Enforcement should be relatively simpler to deal with, as they are mostly a matter of process. Once we have a draft we are happy with, we would share it with wikitech-l, adding that this is the last chunk of the CoC and we are seeking general consensus for the approval of the entire document.
 * 4) The CoC would become official as soon as it is approved. Then we would proceed to the creation of the committee.

The trick here is that the most active contributors to this discussion would focus on the topics that need more urgent approval, leaving he rest for later. Sporadic contributors can comment anywhere, of course.

There have been some comments about a self-selection (for a lack of a better word?) of people participating in this draft, in this discussion page, and in the related threads in wikitech-l. In order to help capturing a wider range of opinions, we could offer an email alias i.e. coc-discussion@wikimedia.org that would relay emails to, say, three identified people that will commit to treat this feedback with confidentiality and channel the contributions received to the public discussion. Three is big enough to be reliable (a single person might miss an email, be away, etc) and small enough to maintain personal trust.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I really like this proposal. One implication it has, though, is for the approval process; the problem with a consensus-driven approach is that it is very hard to identify the trend of agreement or disagreement when confidential feedback or disapproval or approval is being factored in. What are your plans for dealing with that? Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I like this staged approach, although I share Ironholds' concerns about how to make consensus (or its lack) apparent. I do think that offering the opportunity for anonymized input is important in this discussion. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I also like this plan—it isolates what seems to be the hardest part of the discussion: the composition of the Committee. Ironholds: I think there are two routes we could take to deal with confidential feedback:


 * 1) Have the trusted parties channel it into the discussion, but have it impact the discussion by (hopefully) affecting the positions of the people taking part directly.
 * 2) Allow people to send their positions anonymously to the trusted parties, and have those parties paraphrase it, confirm that the senders haven't !voted publicly in the discussion and have some basic level of involvement in the Wikimedia technical community (I don't think this should be high—for example, a preexisting Phab account should be sufficient, even if it hasn't commented), and add it to the discussion on the same level as an identified comment.

I lean towards 2, personally.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Governance
jQuery's Code of Conduct Committee is a creature of the jQuery Foundation's Board of Directors: This is documented in their Enforcement Manual. This is documented in their Reporting Guide.
 * the board appoints and reviews the committee members;
 * the committee is empowered to speak on the foundation's behalf to contact witnesses and to stop ongoing situations;
 * the committee reports the outcome of each case to the board;
 * deadlocked cases are escalated to the board; and
 * public statements are issued by the board, never the committee.
 * appeals go to the jQuery Foundation's President and Executive Director.

No equivalent language appears in the draft Code of Conduct under consideration here. These are issues of governance; and they need to be addressed. Is there any reason why the proposed Conduct Committee should not be a creature of the WMF Board of Trustees? Wp mirror (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Time, existing org structure, and lack of technical background, mostly. The jQuery Foundation is very different from the WMF and the two organizations and their boards focus on different tasks. This proposed committee's purpose (to promote and maintain a healthy technical community) is well within the Engineering Community Team's purview and skillset and I think it is a more natural fit. --Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)