[cabfpub] Informal discussion of Code of Conduct Ballot

[Virginia Fournier]

Hi Jeremy,

I think the words used are pretty clear, and they are used in other SDO Codes of Conduct without any confusion, problem or issue.  If you’d like to propose specific words that you’d suggest we use instead, we’d be happy to consider them and determine if they are any more clear.

We should keep in mind that these are common sense, plain English terms.  It is troubling that people are picking at words like “demeaning” and “inappropriate.”  Do Forum members need to reserve the right to engage in certain types of demeaning and inappropriate conduct?  

It’s not about stifling conversation.  It’s about treating fellow Forum members with professionalism and respect.  I don’t understand why there is resistance to that.


Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>






On May 1, 2017, at 5:55 PM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com> wrote:

Suggestions:
 
(b)  Refrain from conduct __within the Forum__ such as:  
Directly insulting or demeaning another person
[JR] This seems vague. Some people take things as demeaning when they are not meant to be demeaning.  I think this could be used to stifle conversation. We’ve had accusations that conduct has been insulting/demeaning on the forum. Would you say it’s risen to that level? I support the principle, but would like clarity so we don’t get end up mixing persons with ideas eventually.
Touching another person in a physically inappropriate way. 
Deliberately intimidating, stalking or following (online or in person) another person.
[JR] Following online? Like on twitter? 
Inappropriately disrupting official Forum events, including meetings, talks, and presentations.
[JR] Inappropriately is too vague. Are we trying to change a specific behavior at the CAB Forum? Could we clarify what this means? 
Spamming, trolling, flaming, baiting, and other attention-stealing behavior.
[JR] Baiting/flaming are too similar to criticism of the idea. Can we add clarity? 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170501/f304c843/attachment-0002.html>