RE: BBC Code of Conduct

Thanks for this interesting discussion.

I want to remind everyone that we keep a list of References and Resources, including several Codes of Conduct in our GitHub Repo [1]. Most of these are used by large, international organizations similar to the W3C (e.g. IETF) or are widely-used templates (e.g. Citizen CoC). There are also several resources about Codes of Conduct.

Please also see minutes of previous meeting [2] (especially the early ones) to see how we decided to approach the revision.

[1] https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/blob/master/ReferencesAndResources.md

[2] https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/wiki/PWE-Minutes

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>

From: Ada Rose Cannon <ada@ada.is>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 6:48 AM
To: nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk; public-pwe@w3.org
Subject: 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


<https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/56>

[Image removed by sender.]
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...

Ada

On July 5, 2019 at 14:51 GMT, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk<mailto: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<mailto:ada@ada.is>>
Date: Friday, 5 July 2019 at 15:27
To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk<mailto:nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>>, "public-pwe@w3.org<mailto:public-pwe@w3.org>" <public-pwe@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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 for” and “what is important to the BBC” to behaviour.
I don't see the value in this personally since creating a culture where people can work and feel safe from Harassment is to me just right thing to do regardless of the organisation, it is why when the Immersive Web working group started I introduced it's own more comprehensive code of conduct. If we really wanted we could loosely tie it to the TAG document: Ethical Web Principals<https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/>

  *   There’s a specific call-out to commitments of people in leadership roles, and everyone.
A section aimed at Chairs to specifically set an example of good behavior could be worth while.

  *   The primary focus on people is about respecting each other, i.e. a positive intent first.
(Covered in the introduction<https://w3c.github.io/PWETF/#introduction>)

  *   There’s an escalation path for when something doesn’t look right.
The reporting section in the existing document could do with a more approachable path rather than redirecting to the reporting process document. In the Immersive Web WG CoC we suggest approaching the Chairs with their contact details if they feel safe to do so.

  *   There’s a distinction between what everyone does as an individual and what the organisation does.
This document should not be concerned with the behaviour of the organisation it is for people. The Ethical Web Principals<https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/> is probably the closest thing that comes to mind for me.

  *   Treating everyone equally is dealt with separately from Saying the right thing.
Equality should not the goal of this document, racism and sexism are structural issues which cannot be resolved with equality, see: Equality is not Enough<https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/equality-is-not-enough/>

  *   Conduct and Relationships are in two separate sections.
The relationship section in that document is not the kind of thing which goes into a code of conduct.In the BBC document it is about behaviour to protect the organisation.

  *   The environment, ethics and spending choices are included.
These sections are for how an employee should work within an organisation, as the majority of the participants are not W3C employees or work in W3C facilities a section on ethical expenses, sustainability and buying and selling goods ethically are not something we should concern ourselves with.

  *   There are onward journeys defined for raising concerns, staying safe, training etc.
I agree with raising concerns, our section on reporting needs work, a key part of a code of conduct is clear reporting procedures. Currently people have to parse a long document to find out how to report. We should have clear guidelines and raising an issue procedures. For the IWWG CoC I have it in the two sections 'If you see a Code of Conduct Violation'<https://immersive-web.github.io/homepage/code-of-conduct.html#ifyouseeacodeofconductviolation> and 'reporting'

  *   The text describing expectations and good/bad behaviour is brief and concise, and puts the onus on individuals to understand what is and isn’t appropriate. It’s so short I can reproduce it here:
I discuss at the top why I think this approach to the code of conduct is too weak. It won't make people from marginalised groups feel safe as it does not say if they are covered which should be the main goal of this document.

My main take away and suggested action from this email is that we improve the reporting section of our existing document.

Ada

Ada

On July 5, 2019 at 11:39 GMT, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk<mailto:nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>> wrote:

Hi all,

As an example of another organisation’s code of conduct, here’s the BBC’s, which was recently published:

https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/policies/codeofconduct (includes a link to the PDF)

Comparing this structurally with the W3C CEPC is instructive:

  *   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 for” and “what is important to the BBC” to behaviour.
  *   There’s a specific call-out to commitments of people in leadership roles, and everyone.
  *   The primary focus on people is about respecting each other, i.e. a positive intent first.
  *   There’s an escalation path for when something doesn’t look right.
  *   There’s a distinction between what everyone does as an individual and what the organisation does.
  *   Treating everyone equally is dealt with separately from Saying the right thing.
  *   Conduct and Relationships are in two separate sections.
  *   The environment, ethics and spending choices are included.
  *   There are onward journeys defined for raising concerns, staying safe, training etc.
  *   The text describing expectations and good/bad behaviour is brief and concise, and puts the onus on individuals to understand what is and isn’t appropriate. It’s so short I can reproduce it here:

We have a duty to reflect the whole of society. The richer our mix of people, the richer our content. That’s one of the reasons why we value difference and diversity so much. It’s also why we make sure everyone has the same chance to succeed.

WHAT WE EXPECT FROM EACH OTHER
• Treat everyone fairly, equally and with respect
• Respect other people’s cultures and beliefs
• Understand what is and isn’t appropriate, to make sure we don’t discriminate against anyone (even accidentally)
• Don’t do anything that could be offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting to anyone else. Never humiliate or hurt people, or spread gossip about them
• Report bullying, harassment or violence if we think we’ve seen it. If someone tells us they’re suffering, we'll help investigate and get to the truth
• Read and follow our policies, as well as any laws and regulations that apply to us.

WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FROM THE BBC
• We’ll do everything we can to make sure all our people treat each other with respect
• Whenever we’re hiring or promoting, we’ll be treated equally and fairly. So decisions will only ever be based on talent, merits and how well someone suits the job – never on who they know or where they’re from
• We’ll be given training to help us grow and develop. We’ll have open conversations about how we’re doing
• Bullying, discrimination, harassment or violence of any kind, whether it’s by or against someone at the BBC, won't be allowed. That includes offensive messages, derogatory remarks and inappropriate comments. Disciplinary action will be taken against anyone who crosses the line, including dismissal for gross misconduct, if it’s serious
• Everyone is encouraged to have a healthy work-life balance. So we might be able to work flexible hours or change our workspace (as long as we can do that).


I’m not trying to suggest this is perfect, or even that it is what W3C should do; I’m sharing it as an interesting comparative example of a large public service-focused organisation specifying a code of conduct written in a different way, and with a broader scope.

To avoid any sense of bias or conflict, I won’t be proposing any changes to W3C’s CEPC based on this, but others could, of course, if they think it’s merited.

Kind regards,

Nigel