#55 Add a draft of a policy making clear our position on channel-specific bans
Opened 9 days ago by bcotton. Modified 7 hours ago

@@ -12,3 +12,9 @@ 

  Once a ticket notifying us of a code of conduct issue has been filed, the Council will respond with an initial contact message within one week. That will come with a request for response, and further action will come within a week of the Council's initial response.

  

  (Fedora Council IRC meeting, 2018-05-23)

+ 

+ Teams within Fedora have the freedom to decide what is on- and off-topic for their fora (IRC channel, mailing list, Telegram channel, et cetera).

+ Moderators may ban participants for repeatedly engaging in off-topic discussion in contributor channels, however they must file a ticket with the Council_'s https://pagure.io/CoC/issues[Code of Conduct issue tracker] to report the ban.

+ Bans for being off-topic in one channel may not be extended to other channels unless the behavior is displayed in that channel as well.

+ In this case, each ban should be treated as a separate issue with its own ticket.

+ Community members who wish to appeal the ban may file a https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issues[ticket with the Council].

In the Community Blog post, @bcotton added this note:

To be clear, this is not intended for conduct that violates our Code of Conduct.

I think this context is important to make explicit. For example, a situation may occur where a new contributor faces targeted harassment by someone else in the community. The first impression might be that the harasser can only have action taken against them in the channel where the harassment happened and the harasser's participation in the Fedora community is otherwise unaffected. From what I have read, this is not the case, but I suggest making this explicit in the policy so it is not ambiguous.

no initial comment

however they must file a ticket with the Council_'s https://pagure.io/CoC/issues[Code of Conduct issue tracker] to report the ban.

I'd be filing a ticket several times a week if I had to follow this rule. Please don't.
e.g. see recent logs: https://cloud.rhea.dev/s/Te8JEi4pjT9kfWo

...and that is but one community out of many, anyway. The numbers will only keep increasing with the growth. The above is our Discord with 2200 members, then there is also Reddit with nearly 20 000, etc etc...

(I think that these kinds of things should apply only to #fedora-* channels on Freenode.)

@rhea thanks for the feedback. That mirrors comments I've heard out-of-band as well. This is intended to apply beyond IRC (e.g. to mailing lists, Discourse, telegram, etc) but I think it makes sense to draw a distinction between "internal" channels and "external" channels. Do you have any suggestions for wording?

Also, is the Discord an official channel? If not, then this rule would not apply there anyway (though I suppose that needs to be clarified).

@bcotton said:

@rhea thanks for the feedback. That mirrors comments I've heard out-of-band as well. This is intended to apply beyond IRC (e.g. to mailing lists, Discourse, telegram, etc) but I think it makes sense to draw a distinction between "internal" channels and "external" channels. Do you have any suggestions for wording?

Say... "contributor channels" or something along those lines? Anything that a group of contributors use to communicate their work towards Fedora.

Also, is the Discord an official channel? If not, then this rule would not apply there anyway (though I suppose that needs to be clarified).

Discord is as official as Telegram ;)

This currently would not apply in the Telegram group, aiui, therefore it doesn't apply in Discord. Neither is official as I understand our project's definition.

A channel is made official by a team using it as their official communication method. Bot repeaters are treated like users in those channels, so, for example, if Discord bot repeats an official channel, then the Bot can be banned if the Discord admins won't take action to effect the required changes.

rebased onto c16a768

6 days ago

In the Community Blog post, @bcotton added this note:

To be clear, this is not intended for conduct that violates our Code of Conduct.

I think this context is important to make explicit. For example, a situation may occur where a new contributor faces targeted harassment by someone else in the community. The first impression might be that the harasser can only have action taken against them in the channel where the harassment happened and the harasser's participation in the Fedora community is otherwise unaffected. From what I have read, this is not the case, but I suggest making this explicit in the policy so it is not ambiguous.

I am happy with the suggested change for channel-specific bans, but I believe this policy is at risk of not being enforced in practice.

I think Fedora's current code of conduct is an incomplete implementation because there is no documented or transparent process of what happens to a code of conduct complaint. I am surprised to see new policy documents written that reference other policies that do not yet publicly exist. This is currently the face of Fedora's Code of Conduct process:

Homepage of https://pagure.io/coc

This repository is linked from the official Code of Conduct and the description around the reporting procedure is three sentences long. As much as I am aware, this is the only guidance available about how to file a CoC ticket. I filed CoC#243 over a month ago without any responses, which makes me hesitant to trust the current process as timely and responsive.

I believe like this is at risk of not being enforced in practice because there is a missing piece of the Fedora Code of Conduct implementation. This policy addition seems like starting to build the second floor of a building when the foundation is not finished.

My actionable suggestion is to invest more time into the existing CoC report process. I think spelling out the existing process at pagure.io/CoC is necessary for this policy change to be successful.

Metadata