[cabfpub] CAB Forum Draft Code of Conduct
gerv at mozilla.org
Tue Apr 25 06:53:02 MST 2017
Hi Virginia and Tarah,
I have some questions about your proposal.
On 22/04/17 01:56, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote:
> CAB Forum Code of Conduct (the “Code”)
> letter and spirit of this Code. This Code applies to all Forum
> activities, such as meetings, teleconferences, mailing lists,
> conferences, and other functions.
Do you propose that it apply to non-business parts of face-to-face
meetings, such as dinners (official and/or unofficial)?
> II. _Moderation_. These are the policies for upholding the Code.
> * The Forum Chair and Vice Chair may moderate all Forum activities.
> In addition, Working Group Chairs may moderate their Working Group
What does this mean in practice? Are you proposing that our mailing
lists move to being moderated in some way?
> * If a participant thinks an action of a moderator was unjustified,
> the participant should take it up with that moderator, or with a
> different moderator, in private. Complaints about moderators and
> actions taken under this Code are not to be aired publicly, as such
> complaints would not comply with the letter and spirit of this Code.
I would find this difficult to agree to. No code of conduct is perfect,
and no moderator acts entirely above reproach. Raising issues with
either, in a courteous and professional manner, should not itself be a
code of conduct violation.
> * Don't just aim to be technically unimpeachable, try to be your best
> self. In particular, avoid engaging in offensive or sensitive
> issues, particularly if they're off-topic; this all too often leads
> to unnecessary arguments, hurt feelings, and damaged trust; worse,
> it can drive people away from the Forum entirely.
Or, depending on how they are discussed and handled, they can lead to a
deepening of relationship. A robust discussion as to the merits or
otherwise of President Trump, for example, might be considered by some
to be a sensitive issue - and yet such a thing, over dinner at a CAB
Forum face-to-face between consenting adults, seems like an entirely
reasonable thing. I think that the Code should not seek to police the
issues discussed, only behaviour undertaken.
> * If someone takes issue with something you said or did, resist the
> urge to be defensive. Just stop doing what it was they complained
> about and apologize. Even if you feel you were misinterpreted or
> unfairly accused,
I prefer only to apologise when the apology is genuine. I hope I'm not
alone in that; anything else is a recipe for insincerity, which does not
breed good relationships. As a matter of courtesy, if someone objects to
something you are doing, one would generally stop while investigating
what the problem is, but requiring an apology in all circumstances is,
to my mind, going too far.
> * Violations of the Code on the part of a Member representative may
> ultimately result in the representative being asked to leave a
> meeting, be removed from a mailing list, be suspended from some or
> all Forum activities, or the Member may be asked to remove the
> representative from further involvement with the Forum and/or
> replace such representative with another qualified individual from
> Member’s organization.
How is the applicability of such sanctions to be determined, and by whom?
More information about the Public