Re: Forwarded comment on our Code of Conduct

Hi Ralph, 

Thanks for forwarding this. I know the person wishes to be anonymous, but I hope they know the door is open and we’re happy to chat any time. 

I was wondering if they are aware of the procedures document: https://w3.org/guide/coc-incident-resolution-ombuds.html

I think many of their concerns are addressed there, since it’s more the application of the CoC, not the text itself. We don’t define escalation in the CoC because procedures should by flexible and we can update the other document much more freely as needed. If they have feedback on it, we’re open to it because it needs input. 

As for the CoC itself, having just been through a similar issue where we got vague feedback we couldn’t action, if there are specific parts of the CoC that this person thinks need revision, or topics we are missing, I’m open to hearing about those too, but we need concrete examples. The best case would be having them file issues, but email is fine as well if they want to provide pointers to where they feel we need revision. Their concerns are completely valid, but we can’t amend the CoC without something to work with. 

Please express our thanks for the feedback, and extend the offer to chat if they want, or log issues, but if they prefer anonymity I hope you can be our envoy a little longer :). 

Thanks,
Wendy

> On Nov 20, 2025, at 2:50 PM, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> I received the following reply after forwarding the initial message and am forwarding this anonymously as requested:
> 
>> There is conflict and there is conflict.
>> 
>> This email is about misunderstandings that happen.  
>> 
>> Sometimes it is that and sometimes it is power imbalance and/or rights violations.
>> 
>> They need to be parsed so misunderstandings get addressed fairly to both parties and the more serious complaints have different pathways and protections.
> 
> -Ralph
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2025, at 12:54, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>> The following email was received at our general mail address.  I forward it here in the event that this group wishes to consider any of the writer’s comments.
>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: [redacted]
>>> Subject: Code of Conduct missing addition
>>> Date: November 18, 2025 at 20:33:34 EST
>>> To: contact@w3.org
>>> 
>>> Hey people :)
>>> 
>>> I loved reading through your amazing code of conduct BUT it felt like a nightmare to not read about conflict resolution in a way that enables variation, instead of - it felt like for me reading - forcing peace upon both parties. Thats why I would love to read something like this: 
>>> conflict is not a by product - its bad design.
>>> 
>>> Consideration for point 14 Ode of Conduct.
>>> 
>>> 3. Code of conduct
>>> 3.14. The right to go separate ways — and the understanding that until that time, everything co-created belongs to both sides.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Conflict is rarely a sign of “bad people”; it is often a sign of bad design: systems that do not allow all voices to move freely toward the place where they feel most alive, safe, and true.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sometimes the loudest voices are not “dominating” —
>>> 
>>> they are signaling that something inside them is not yet free.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In a healthy system:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Everyone is allowed to express experiences of suppression.
>>> 
>>> Anyone may state what they need in order to feel safe.
>>> 
>>> We do not frame this as opposition or sides.
>>> 
>>> We treat conflict as information, not as moral failure.
>>> 
>>> We acknowledge that co-creation generates shared responsibility and shared ownership until a clean transition is intentionally designed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Freedom means multiple interpretations of life may coexist —
>>> 
>>> and each person or group retains the right to move toward the most appealing, most resonant interpretation without being punished for it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Designing for collective well-being means building structures where:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Divergence is allowed.
>>> 
>>> Separation does not equal betrayal.
>>> 
>>> Expression of pain is welcomed, not pathologized.
>>> 
>>> And co-created value stays in integrity until a fair, mutual transition can be made.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This is not about winning
>>> 
>>> or being right
>>> 
>>> or silencing discomfort.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It is about designing a social architecture where everyone — including those who struggle, shout, or shake — can move from constraint into freedom.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>