User:Josve05a/2017/Progress/Summary

Background
A code of conduct is a set of guidelines which directs the behavior of all community members during their participation in that community.

The Wikimedia community does not currently have a code of conduct. However, Code of Conduct/Draft is a draft document hosted on MediaWiki.org. The goal with this document, as described in T90908, is to create such a document for Wikimedia Foundation's tech spaces, and "once the draft is solid then [WMF] will seek wide explicit support" by the comunity.

started a follow up discussion after a previous discussion that regarding edits made in the draft document, asking if there was conensus for these new changes moving forward in creating this document.

Wikimedia Foundation and the community
Wikimeida Foundation (WMF) maintains multiple project (mostly wikis), with global and vast communities on each of them. WMF are not content creators on these projects, merly maintainers of the softwares, the servers etc. Each of thee projects ha their own policies and rules which they themself make up, maintain and police. There are a few broad global policies created and set by the Wikimedia Foundation, such as the privacy policy and the Term of Use.

In this case, a global policy document is being drafted by employees of the WMF, alongside members of the community, in order to reach a conensus based policy which all projects and communities can feel they have agreed to, rather than one which the WMF have imposed on their autonomy.

Consensus
Most votes on WMF projects are not votes, but rather consensus seeking discussions, where arguments weighs heavier than a show of support or disaproval.

Main changes in the document
"*Slight change to the scope paragraph in intro
 * Rephrasing of the principles
 * Addition of neuroatypicality
 * Addition of positive expected behavior
 * Flexibility about how project maintainers can respond
 * Slight change to "Unacceptable behavior"
 * Addition of explanatory section that explains things the Committee will not consider violations, and how they will take the context of *Incidents into account."

For

 * "giving project administrators discretion about how to handle situations while still noting they have a responsibility, and prohibiting the publication of non-harassing private communications"
 * The addition of "Expected Behavior and Unexpected Behavior sections"

Against

 * "dropping the examples of work"
 * "no clear owner"
 * "unacceptable behavior section [is a bit] vaguely phrased"

The necessity about the document at all
The user and  brought up (again; see footnote 1) the lack of cvolonteer editor input, and that 2-5 volonteer editors are not enough to build comunity consensus, and that almost exclusively all commenters have been paid employees, or otherwise under contract, with the WMF.

Qustions

 * "which IRC channels and mailing lists are counted as "technical""