Re: BBC Code of Conduct

Following this I have added an issue to add more detail to the reporting section: https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/56

[Improve details of reporting sections. · Issue #56 · w3c/PWETF
It is very important that the section on reporting has clear procedures with explicit contact details for people to contact. The person making the report may be distressed and parsing an external d...](https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/56)

Ada

On July 5, 2019 at 14:51 GMT, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

Thank you for that Ada,

I’m sure the BBC, like any large organisation, is not perfect and does sometimes unwittingly fall short of the standards it sets itself. Just to be clear though, it very clearly is not ok in the BBC to promote transphobic (or any other) hate. I don’t know anyone in the BBC who would think that is acceptable. And yes, it would be okay for staff members to raise it.

> if you are proposing an entirely different approach, one like this BBC document

I am not proposing that; actually I took pains to explain that it was not my intention. I did not mean to suggest that the differences I called out were all examples of something either better or worse. I leave that judgement to the reader. You made really good points in response to the individual bullets.

> I did not participate in the PWETF until recently but I am sure the editors already did their research on existing codes of conducts

Yes I am aware that alternative codes of conduct were looked at. Adding another source for inspiration shouldn’t be ruled out especially when there is new published work, whether that new work serves as a good or a bad example, or indeed a combination of both.

Kind regards,

Nigel

From: Ada Rose Cannon <ada@ada.is>
Date: Friday, 5 July 2019 at 15:27
To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, "public-pwe@w3.org" <public-pwe@w3.org>
Subject: Re: BBC Code of Conduct

I apologise for picking on the BBC at the beginning, but they are a good example of an organisation which tries to good in many areas but often fails trans people and unfortunately as a queer British person I encounter issues with most frequently. Other examples of organisations failing in the same way rarely come from organisations which try to 'do good' like the BBC does.

My point behind the example is to put to rest the idea that generalised non-specific rules are better. That, whilst the majority of people working at the BBC are excellent people, because of the output of the BBC the cultural values of the organisation will vary from person to person within the organisation.

A person who would uncritically accept all the output of the organisation would inadvertently violate a vague code of conduct without understanding what they went wrong, because they view themselves as a good person and being 'gender critical' is part of that and they cannot see why it would be wrong.

Ada

On July 5, 2019 at 12:42 GMT, Ada Rose Cannon <ada@ada.is> wrote:

I have several issues with this docment after reading the PDF:

Much of the document is a typical HR company values document. The section on conduct is buried in the middle and is essentially. "Be nice don't bully" which is unenforceable. The vague nature gives power to HR to let things slide when they would be inconvenient to the organisation or to enforce against people who cause trouble.

I should outline clear unacceptable behaviors. We need people who take part in the communities to read it and know what is unacceptable and what is okay. To both feel protected by the document and give a guide for engaging with others.

For example the BBC regularly promotes transphobic hate, it is unclear whether internally this would be protected speech or whether it would be okay for staff members to raise it since it is making an uncomfortable work environment.

I did not participate in the PWETF until recently but I am sure the editors already did their research on existing codes of conducts before integrating them into the current document it seems that you do not see the value in the current work if you are proposing an entirely different approach, one like this BBC document.

Regarding the points you would like included I will answer each one individually:

- It is mission- and value-led, and therefore adapted to be specific to the BBC; there’s some sort of traceability from “what the BBC is forâ€