<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi Gerv,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks for your comments. Please see my responses below.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Please keep in mind that Mozilla is already operating under substantially similar Codes of Conduct through its participation in W3C and WhatWG. It would be hard to imagine that something would be acceptable under those SDOs, but not for CAB Forum.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Best regards,<br class=""><br class="">Virginia Fournier<br class="">Senior Standards Counsel<br class=""> Apple Inc.<br class="">☏ 669-227-9595<br class="">✉︎ <a href="mailto:vmf@apple.com" class="">vmf@apple.com</a><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""></div><br class="">On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:53 AM, Gervase Markham <<a href="mailto:gerv@mozilla.org" class="">gerv@mozilla.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">Hi Virginia and Tarah,<br class=""><br class="">I have some questions about your proposal.<br class=""><br class="">On 22/04/17 01:56, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">CAB Forum Code of Conduct (the “Code”)<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">...<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">letter and spirit of this Code. This Code applies to all Forum<br class="">activities, such as meetings, teleconferences, mailing lists,<br class="">conferences, and other functions.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Do you propose that it apply to non-business parts of face-to-face<br class="">meetings, such as dinners (official and/or unofficial)?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font color="#009193" class="">VMF: It would apply to all CAB Forum activities. I would assume that would include official dinners, but not unofficial dinners. Is there a reason to be rude, insulting, and unprofessional to other Forum members at unofficial dinners? ;-)</font><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">II. _Moderation_. These are the policies for upholding the Code.<br class=""><br class=""> * The Forum Chair and Vice Chair <b class=""><u class="">may</u></b> moderate all Forum activities.<br class=""> In addition, Working Group Chairs <b class=""><u class="">may</u></b> moderate their Working Group<br class=""> activities.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">What does this mean in practice? Are you proposing that our mailing<br class="">lists move to being moderated in some way?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font color="#009193" class="">VMF: They <u class="">may</u> be. Or they could be self-moderating.</font><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""> * If a participant thinks an action of a moderator was unjustified,<br class=""> the participant should take it up with that moderator, or with a<br class=""> different moderator, in private. Complaints about moderators and<br class=""> actions taken under this Code are not to be aired publicly, as such<br class=""> complaints would not comply with the letter and spirit of this Code. <br class=""></blockquote><br class="">I would find this difficult to agree to. No code of conduct is perfect,<br class="">and no moderator acts entirely above reproach. Raising issues with<br class="">either, in a courteous and professional manner, should not itself be a<br class="">code of conduct violation.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font color="#009193" class="">VMF: Mozilla has already agreed to this as part of the WhatWG Code of Conduct. Why would it not be acceptable here? Members can raise the issue with the moderator - but they can’t go on the public mailing list, for example, and bad mouth the moderator, and complain about how they didn’t really violate the Code of Conduct, etc. to stir up some bile. </font><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""> * Don't just aim to be technically unimpeachable, try to be your best<br class=""> self. In particular, avoid engaging in offensive or sensitive<br class=""> issues, particularly if they're off-topic; this all too often leads<br class=""> to unnecessary arguments, hurt feelings, and damaged trust; worse,<br class=""> it can drive people away from the Forum entirely.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Or, depending on how they are discussed and handled, they can lead to a<br class="">deepening of relationship. A robust discussion as to the merits or<br class="">otherwise of President Trump, for example, might be considered by some<br class="">to be a sensitive issue - and yet such a thing, over dinner at a CAB<br class="">Forum face-to-face between consenting adults, seems like an entirely<br class="">reasonable thing. I think that the Code should not seek to police the<br class="">issues discussed, only behaviour undertaken.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font color="#009193" class="">VMF: This is also in the WhatWG Code of Conduct. I think again the key is in the plain English meaning of the words. It’s ok to argue with someone on the <u class="">ideological</u> level, but not attack or insult the person on an <u class="">individual</u> level. Compare: “I understand you support Trump. What do you see as the pros/cons of Trump as President?" vs “You support Trump? LOL! Why?? You could only support Trump if you’re a brainless, blithering idiot! I hope you get eliminated from the gene pool before you have kids!” Very different approaches. I think it’s clear that the proposed Code of Conduct intends to kick the discussions and activities up to a more reasonable, professional, respectful, and conciliatory level. I’m not sure how anyone could object to that. </font><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""> * If someone takes issue with something you said or did, resist the<br class=""> urge to be defensive. Just stop doing what it was they complained<br class=""> about and apologize. Even if you feel you were misinterpreted or<br class=""> unfairly accused, <br class=""></blockquote><br class="">I prefer only to apologise when the apology is genuine. I hope I'm not<br class="">alone in that; anything else is a recipe for insincerity, which does not<br class="">breed good relationships. As a matter of courtesy, if someone objects to<br class="">something you are doing, one would generally stop while investigating<br class="">what the problem is, but requiring an apology in all circumstances is,<br class="">to my mind, going too far.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font color="#009193" class="">VMF: This is also in the WhatWG Code of Conduct. However, if others also feel strongly about not apologizing, we can consider modifying this language. The axioms I’ve heard are “when in doubt, apologize,” and “apologize early and often.” But I get that other people have different views.</font><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""> * Violations of the Code on the part of a Member representative may<br class=""> ultimately result in the representative being asked to leave a<br class=""> meeting, be removed from a mailing list, be suspended from some or<br class=""> all Forum activities, or the Member may be asked to remove the<br class=""> representative from further involvement with the Forum and/or<br class=""> replace such representative with another qualified individual from<br class=""> Member’s organization. <br class=""></blockquote><br class="">How is the applicability of such sanctions to be determined, and by whom?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font color="#009193" class="">VMF: To be determined collectively by the Chair, Vice-Chair, and appropriate violating Member executive. We’ll add this to the provision. It would NOT go to a Forum vote.</font><br class=""><br class="">Gerv<br class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>