Re: Maintaining healthy and constructive discourse in the CG (Was Re: Choosing community-owned code to run on our community server.)

čt 28. 9. 2023 v 15:28 odesílatel Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> napsal:

> (Chair hat on)
>
> Hi all, having read this thread:
>
> I believe it is always useful to remind ourselves of the expected and
> unacceptable behaviours as per Positive Work Environment at W3C: Code of
> Ethics and Professional Conduct [1] and Solid Code of Conduct [2].
>
> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/cepc-20200716/#expected-behavior :
>
>  >Treat each other with respect, professionalism, fairness, and
> sensitivity to our many differences and strengths, including in
> situations of high pressure and urgency.
>
> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/cepc-20200716/#unacceptablebehavior :
>
>  >W3C strictly prohibits discrimination, intimidation, harassment, and
> bullying of any kind and on any basis.
>
> In the CG, we need to strive to having a healthy and constructive
> conversation at all times towards projects, individuals, and
> organisations. We need to maintain positive energy in our discourse
> despite the challenges we are facing or ahead of us down the road.
>
> I believe the tone in this thread is no longer constructive, so it may
> be best to continue the conversations elsewhere, with a different
> disposition. Personal issues between individuals or organisations should
> be handled in private. If there's a need for Code of Conduct committee
> to intervene or mediate in a conflict between two or more individuals or
> organisations, there are ways to get the enforcement committee involved,
> both on the W3C and Solid Project level [3][4].
>
> The Solid Technical Reports lists CG's Work Items [5]. As it stands, the
> services and tools mentioned predominantly in this thread are not part
> of that list. Similarly, it is not covered by the CG Charter [6].
> Furthermore, from the point of the CG, there are no reference
> implementations.
>
> The CG does not proclaim an official implementation of anything. We
> first and foremost work towards enabling the technical (and social)
> space and definitions that would be necessary to have interoperable
> classes of products. That aside, and without getting sidetracked here,
> the CG can pursue having reference implementations that conforms to
> Solid QA [7], as we well as our expectations for professional and
> constructive behaviour. I suggest we visit this point in a separate
> thread/call [8].
>
> Works that are technically or procedurally outside of CG's purview may
> have their own CoC and enforcement committee. Hence, the CG, and
> possibly even the Solid Project, may not be the place to settle conflict
> or make decisions on behalf of anyone. It is both important and useful
> to reach out to most appropriate bodies to review the situation.
>
> On a related note, the Contributing Guide summarises expected ways to
> communicate both within and outside of the CG [9], including expressing
> individual views and speaking on behalf of a group. Generally, acting in
> good faith in accordance with the CG.
>
> We can and should strive to better align with works that are in the
> spirit of the Solid project, and genuinely abide to the CoC.
>
> All that said, it is important that we keep an open dialogue, and so I'd
> like to invite all to join a general discussion within the context of
> the CG, and with the intention to not get tangled on specific
> situations, individuals or organisations. Easier said, I know.
>
> It looks like it is going to be a great day today!
>

Thank you for sharing the code of conduct guidelines. While I appreciate
the effort to maintain a constructive environment, I feel the response may
not fully capture the complexities of the situation at hand.

   1.

   *Lack of Specifics*: While the code of conduct is essential, further
   guidance may be needed to address the concerns raised in the community.
   2.

   *Venue for Discussion*: Recommending a change in discussion venue could
   be seen as shifting the focus away from the issue rather than directly
   addressing it.
   3.

   *Clarity*: While procedural elements are important, they might not
   provide a clear path forward for those directly affected.
   4.

   *Path for Resolution*: The message mentions potential involvement of
   enforcement committees but lacks specific details, which could be helpful
   for community members seeking guidance.
   5.

   *Emotional Impact*: A more empathetic tone might be more reassuring for
   those who feel affected by the concerns raised.
   6.

   *Accountability*: The community likely looks to its leadership for a
   sense of accountability, which seems to be missing in the response.
   7.

   *Open Dialogue*: The importance of maintaining an open dialogue is
   mentioned, but the message could inadvertently stifle current discussions
   around important issues.
   8.

   *Tone*: The optimistic ending, while generally positive, may not align
   well with the gravity of the concerns raised.



>
> -Sarven
> https://carven.ca/#i
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/
> [2] https://github.com/solid/process/blob/main/code-of-conduct.md
> [3]
> https://github.com/solid/process/blob/main/code-of-conduct.md#enforcement
> [4] https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/
> [5] https://solidproject.org/TR/#work-items
> [6] https://www.w3.org/community/solid/charter/
> [7] https://solidproject.org/ED/qa
> [8] https://github.com/solid/specification/discussions/574
> [9]
>
> https://github.com/solid/specification/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#communication
>
>