Re: Chairing and a CoC committee

Hi Jacopo,

First of all, let it my immense appreciation of your efforts be known to the public as well.

On the topic of the CoC, let me—from experience—share what I’ve found to be an insurmountable obstacle: it doesn’t account for problematic behaviors that are in literal alignment with the text, but not in spirit. Multiple preconditions to the enforcement of Article 14 involve a judgement of people’s intents, such as determining whether they are “disingenuous” and “attempting to derail”. There are no objective measures to establish those, and hence the behaviors continue, together with the now increased degree of discussion inherent to granting the benefit of the doubt.

My feeling is that, for some vocal individuals within W3C Community Groups, the desire to discuss perpetually and the satisfaction from doing so dwarves any willingness to arrive at a working solution. But I can only guess, for lack of objective measures.

I don’t think any CoC can solve the problems in a CG such as those we’re seeing here. My only hope is actual Working Groups, as they have strongly increased stake to favor solutions over discussions. As such, we tend to see less discussion for the sake of personal gratification following from continued participation therein. And, if all else fails, there’s simply an end date.

From what I’ve seen, I do not carry any hope that all vocal participants in this CG favor solutions over discussions. Can’t fix what aims to be broken.

Respectfully,

Ruben
(definitely silent, unknown if majority)

>  • From: Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>
>     • Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 14:46:40 +0200
>     • To: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
>     • Message-Id: <A73E3B11-08D6-4E65-BFD9-4E6BEAF3BEB5@scazzosi.com>
> Hi all,
> 
> In my resignation thread [1] I indicated participation from the silent majority as a prerequisite for me to continue chairing. I’ve since had the pleasure of discussing how to move forward with a dozen or so of you, listening to your feedback and learning from your previous experiences.
> 
> Doing so helped me look at things in a different light: it is somewhat silly, perhaps, to ask for further participation from the silent majority without first addressing the reasons that got most of you to become passive followers of an ever-shrinking conversation.
> 
> This group is governed by the W3C CoC [2] (what used to be the CEPC until not too long ago), which enumerates common types of unacceptable behavior under the aptly-named section “Unacceptable Behavior”. That list covers all of the behavioral issues I’ve seen in this group, which are mostly modeled by behavior number 14 - "Sustained disruption of discussion”.
> 
> So, what’s missing if we already have a well-fitting CoC? What is missing is a way to enforce the CoC and take action in case of reiterated displays of unacceptable behavior. Obviously, I can’t be chair, editor _and_ CoC enforcer. That kind of conflict of interest would be so massive that it would generate its own gravitational force. It’s already somewhat unorthodox for me to both chair and edit.
> 
> However, I’d be happy to continue chairing and editing if the group were to elect a "CoC Committee" of two people tasked with enforcing the CoC. While I would rather stay completely out of it due to the above, I would be ok with being one of the two members in case the group were unable to agree on two different candidates.
> 
> What do you think? Would you like to be a part of the CoC? Is there anyone that you believe would fit particularly well in that role?
> 
> In conclusion, thank you once again to all of you who have taken the time to chat with me, whether synchronously or asynchronously. Such a treasure of information, experience, fairness and fun.
> 
> Best,
> Jacopo.
> 
> [1]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2024Mar/0016.html

> [2]: https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct

Received on Friday, 5 April 2024 13:40:11 UTC