[diversity-talk] OSM code of conduct: starting points

[Serge Wroclawski]

I think the right way forward is to focus on directed efforts, rather
than try to have a single, unified code of conduct at the start.

This is for a few reasons:

1. I tried to create a CoC from the top down in 2010. It didn't work.
People don't like top down things imposed upon them.

2. There is no central "OSM Community" but rather several communities
and several ways of interacting and communicating, and any code of
conduct needs to respect that. If there's one central unifying
document- that won't work.

3. The mailing list code of conduct is still in an experimental phase.
It will undoubtely need additions, corrections, etc. It's better to
make something small and flexible now than try to set it up in stone
and try to fix.

- Serge


On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Dan S <danstowell+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Both Jo and Kathleen recently suggested ways forward for us, and they
> both placed "code of conduct" as their first suggestion. (Jo also said
> "diversity statement".) So I'd like to ask if we can collectively
> decide on a good starting point for developing a code of conduct. I
> hope it's OK to start a thread specifically for this.
>
> Here I'll aggregate the starting points suggested from Jo and Kathleen's emails:
>
> * Puppet community guidelines:
> https://docs.puppetlabs.com/community/community_guidelines.html
>
> * QGIS code of conduct plus diversity statement:
> http://www.qgis.org/en/site/getinvolved/governance/codeofconduct/codeofconduct.html
> http://www.qgis.org/en/site/getinvolved/governance/codeofconduct/diversitystatement.html
>
> * Draft OSM code of conduct (drafted in 2010):
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_Code_of_Conduct_%28Draft%29
>
> * HOT OSM code of conduct:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Lo7o9YuOCdH94XCFcK-HsH5Ja4fPnpVl7GioKg_4Ht8/edit
>
> * Recommendations from Geekfeminism:
> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct
>
> Plus I may have missed out suggestions from others!
>
>
> My immediate reactions:
>
> I don't think the HOT one is an appropriate starting point, because
> it's much more related to formal membership and therefore has loads of
> focus on members' and associates' relation to the HOT brand and the
> HOT executive. So if it's OK with everyone I'd like to propose we can
> save our energy by ignoring that one at least for now.
>
> Second, it's good that we have at least a draft osm code of conduct.
> One might want to simply pick that back up again and run with it.
> However, in the light of recent conversations it's entirely possible
> that the osm draft (since it's from 2010) doesn't address the specific
> reasons people are currently requesting a code of conduct. That would
> be a reason to start somewhere else. I simply don't know, though.
>
> It's very hard (IMHO) to get a clear overview, given all the recent
> conversations, plus the conversations from 2010. Hence I'd be grateful
> to hear your perspective, and I hope I haven't missed any obvious
> threads of thought!
>
> Best
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> diversity-talk mailing list
> diversity-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk