Diversity

*** This page is structured to show a number of options for building a Code of Conduct / Diversity statement, in order to help the OSGeo community agree on the best version. It is currently [March 2015] a work in progress.***

Goals for Code of Conduct / Diversity Statement

• Be applicable for: In person events such as CONFERENCES, code sprints, and related social events; as well as VIRTUAL FORUMS, such as email, IRC, wikis, etc.
• Recognise that OSGeo has a DIVERSE community. (From Draft OSGeo Diversity Statement, and others)
• Set expectation that people should act RESPECTFULLY toward each other. It is ok to respectfully disagree with people's technical ideas without attacking them personally. (From Draft OSGeo Diversity Statement, and others)
• Make it clear that we don't condone HARASSMENT or offensive behaviour, and make it clear what that is. (From O'Reilly Code of Conduct and GeekGirls Anti-Harrassment Policy)
• Outline a process for IDENTIFYING, REPORTING and ADDRESSING incidents which can be referenced by those dealing with incidents. Dealing with incidents is often a hostile situation, and having a process to reference can greatly help the people doing the hard job of mediating. (Derived from Tweaking the Moral UI)
• Identify the ROLE of the person, or group of people responsible for ensuring the process will be followed.
• Include an escalation process for dealing with both minor and major issues. (From Draft OSGeo Conference Committee Code of Conduct)
• Couch in positive, non-threatening language. (See QGIS Diversity Statement and Code of Conduct)
• Recognise that not all participants will be native (English?) speakers and native speakers should adjust language chosen to make it easier for all participants to contribute. Eg: Try to avoid using slang. (From OGC Principles of Conduct)
• Be concise. Concise words get read more. (See QGIS Diversity Statement)

Questions

Question: Title?

Should this statement be called a "Diversity Statement" or a "Code of Conduct" or should we create two documents? A Diversity Statement and Code of Conduct could have different purposes. Having one document makes it easier to reference from OSGeo projects or events.

Votes

"Diversity Statement"

"Code of Conduct"

1. Cameron Shorter: While I like the concept of the word "Diversity", I think it is currently confusing in "Diversity Statement" as a heading. "Diversity" is broad in meaning, and can mean Diversity in software choice, food selection, processes followed, etc, etc. We should select a heading relevant to what is being described - which is an expectation of "behaviour" or "conduct". "Code of Conduct", "Principles of Conduct" better describe what should be covered. I feel it is better to have just one document (which has a brief introduction, which expands in content, as it is easier to reference one document from external projects and events.
2. Eli Adam: To me this is more about behavior or conduct so I vote for "Code of Conduct". Separating into two different documents with two different aims and names might be cleaner and make what to call it irrelevant.
3. Camille Acey: I am in favor of the Code of Conduct being a separate doc that outlines expectations, behaviours, and also NEXT STEPS (such as incident reporting, decision making, possible consequences, etc.). I do, however, like the acknowledgement at the start that the community is diverse across many different spectrums.

Two documents: "Diversity Statement" as well as a "Code of Conduct"

Question: Identify discriminated groups?

Many versions of the Code of Conduct identify a range of discriminated groups: race, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, national origin, ethnicity, religion. The QGIS Diversity statement simplifies to: "The QGIS Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone. No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we welcome you." Which is better?

Votes

"List discriminated groups"

"QGIS version - "No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we welcome you"

1. Cameron Shorter

Question: Do we note need to support non-native language speakers?

The OGC Principles of Conduct acknowledges that we should speak clearly and avoid slang to make it easier for non-native (English) speakers. Should this be included?

Votes

Include language statement

1. Cameron Shorter

Don't include language statement

Exemplar Sources

OGC Principles of Conduct

Source

http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/policies/conduct

Vintage

2007

Derived from

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3184 , Vintage: 2001

Comments

• PRO: (cameronshorter) Recognises the need to be inclusive, by making allowances for people who are not speaking in their native language.
• PRO: (cameronshorter) Encourages people to debate and potentially disagree on ideas, without attacking people personally.
• CON: (cameronshorter) Too verbose.

Geek Feminism Template Anti Harassment Policy

Source

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment_policy

Vintage

2010

Comments

• PRO: (cameronshorter) Provides customisable version.
• PRO: (cameronshorter) Provides short/medium/long version
• PRO: (cameronshorter) Contains internal guidance for conference staff on how to handle harassment reports
• CON: (cameronshorter) Focuses only on sexual harassment, doesn't cover other topics such non-native speakers, be respectful (in general, to all).
• CON: (cameronshorter) Language of some later CoC statements are less confrontational

FOSS4G 2015 NA and FOSS4G 2015 Code of Conduct

Source

https://2015.foss4g-na.org/code-conduct, downloaded 24 March 2015, derived from others, like: http://jsconf.com/codeofconduct.html and http://confcodeofconduct.com/

Similar Source

http://2015.foss4g.org/about/codeofconduct

Vintage

2012

Comments

• PRO: (cameronshorter) Starts with a tick-box version which can be used during registration of an event.
• CON: (cameronshorter) Language has interpreted by some as confrontational, and could be interpreted as implying assumption of guilt.
• CON: (cameronshorter) It would be better if this statement could be made shorter.

O'Reilly Code of Conduct

Source

http://www.oreilly.com/conferences/code-of-conduct.html, downloaded 24 March 2015

Vintage

2012

Comments

• CON: (cameronshorter) This is missing a description of graduated escalation process, and how a report would be handled.
• PRO: (cameronshorter) It makes good use of positive language

QGIS Diversity Statement

Source

http://qgis.org/en/site/getinvolved/governance/codeofconduct/diversitystatement.html

Second Source

https://qgis2015.wordpress.com

Comments

• PRO: (cameronshorter) States acceptance of diversity without singling out all the possible variants of diversity (race, religion, gender, ...)
• PRO: (cameronshorter) Concise.
• CON: (cameronshorter) Doesn't cover other Code of Conduct items, such as what is/is not acceptable.

QGIS Code of Conduct

Source

http://qgis.org/en/site/getinvolved/governance/codeofconduct/codeofconduct.html

Derived from

Django Code of Conduct and Speak Up Code of Conduct.

Based on SpeakUp CoC and https://www.djangoproject.com/conduct/

Vintage

2012/2013

Comments

• PRO: (cameronshorter) Written in positive language
• CON: (cameronshorter) Too verbose

Debian diversity statement

Source

https://www.debian.org/intro/diversity

Vintage

April 2014

Comments

Debian Code of Conduct

Vintage

April 2014

Source

https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct

Comments

• PRO: (johanvdw) I added these Debian references because I like the style which is used in the code of conduct for Debian: short bold bullet point with some more information afterwards (like the qgis version).;
• PRO (johanvdw) I also think the second item "assume good faith" is a very important one, which is missing from the current proposal.
• PRO (cameronshorter) I like the "try to be concise" - which is a form of respect to others.
• PRO (cameronshorter) This contains a graduated escalation process providing guidance on dealing with both minor and major issues.
• PRO (cameronshorter) This contains a version number, such which can be referenced as a point in time, and such that we can identify when to upgrade to a newer version of a Code Of Conduct.
• CON (cameronshorter) This focuses on online communications and doesn't address issues at face-to-face events as well.

Apache Code of Conduct

Source

https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html, retrieved April 2015

Apache contains a separate Anti Harassment Policy, derived from the Geek Feminism Anti Harassment Policy.

Source

https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/anti-harassment.html

Vintage

December 2014

Comments

• PRO: This addresses a few more use cases not covered by Debian, such as Don't share private emails in a public forum.
• CON: This CoC is missing a version number, such that is can be referenced by version.
• CON: States that English is the primary language - OSGeo has forums in other languages.

Draft OSGeo Board Diversity Statement

Source

http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=Diversity&oldid=82976

Original Briefer Source

http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=Diversity&oldid=81445

Comments

Draft OSGeo Conference Committee Code of Conduct

Source

http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/conference_dev/2015-January/002851.html, 16 January 2015

Comments

Further References

• Tweaking the Moral UI by CHRISTINA WODTKE, http://alistapart.com/article/tweaking-the-moral-ui, downloaded 24 March 2015

OSGeo Code of Conduct

Version: <X.X>

Date: <Month, Year>

Introduction

This code of conduct governs how we behave in any OSGeo forum or event and whenever we will be judged by our actions. We expect it to be honored by everyone who participates in the OSGeo community formally or informally, or claims any affiliation with the OSGeo Foundation.

It applies to in-person events (such as conferences), IRC, public and private mailing lists, the issue tracker, the wiki, blogs, Twitter, and any other forums which the community uses for communication.

This code is not exhaustive or complete. It serves to distill our common understanding of a collaborative, shared environment and goals. We expect it to be followed in spirit as much as in the letter, so that it can enrich all of us and the technical communities in which we participate.

Diversity Statement

OSGeo welcomes and encourages participation by everyone. We are committed to being a community that everyone feels good about joining. Although we may not be able to satisfy everyone, we will always work to treat everyone well. No matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we welcome you.

Specific Guidelines

We strive to:

Be open.

We invite anyone to participate in our community. We preferably use public methods of communication for project-related messages, unless discussing something sensitive. This applies to messages for help or project-related support, too; not only is a public support request much more likely to result in an answer to a question, it also makes sure that any inadvertent mistakes made by people answering will be more easily detected and corrected.

Be empathetic, welcoming, friendly, and patient.

We work together to resolve conflict, assume good intentions, and do our best to act in an empathetic fashion. We may all experience some frustration from time to time, but we do not allow frustration to turn into a personal attack. A community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. We should be respectful when dealing with other community members as well as with people outside our community.

Be collaborative.

Our work will be used by other people, and in turn we will depend on the work of others. When we make something for the benefit of OSGeo, we are willing to explain to others how it works, so that they can build on the work to make it even better. Any decision we make will affect users and colleagues, and we take those consequences seriously when making decisions.

Be inquisitive.

Nobody knows everything! Asking questions early avoids many problems later, so questions are encouraged, though they may be directed to the appropriate forum. Those who are asked should be responsive and helpful, within the context of our shared goal of improving OSGeo.

Be careful in the words that we choose.

Whether we are participating as professionals or volunteers, we value professionalism in all interactions, and take responsibility for our own speech. Be kind to others. Do not insult or put down other participants.

Be concise.

Keep in mind that what you write once will be read by hundreds of persons. Writing a short email means people can understand the conversation as efficiently as possible. Short emails should always strive to be empathetic, welcoming, friendly and patient. When a long explanation is necessary, consider adding a summary.

Try to bring new ideas to a conversation so that each mail adds something unique to the thread, keeping in mind that the rest of the thread still contains the other messages with arguments that have already been made.

Try to stay on topic, especially in discussions that are already fairly large.

Step down considerately.

Members of every project come and go. When somebody leaves or disengages from the project they should tell people they are leaving and take the proper steps to ensure that others can pick up where they left off. In doing so, they should remain respectful of those who continue to participate in the project and should not misrepresent the project's goals or achievements. Likewise, community members should respect any individual's choice to leave the project.

Anti-Harassment

Harassment and other exclusionary behaviour are not acceptable. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Personal insults or discriminatory jokes and language, especially those using racist or sexist terms.
• Offensive comments, excessive or unnecessary profanity.
• Intimidation, violent threats or demands.
• Sustained disruption of sessions or events.
• Stalking, harassing photography or recording.
• Unwelcome physical contact or sexual attention.
• Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you to stop, then stop.
• Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally identifying information ("doxing").
• Sharing private content, such as emails sent privately or non-publicly, or unlogged forums such as IRC channel history.
• Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behaviour.

Reporting Guidelines

If you believe someone is breaking this code of conduct, you may reply to them, and point out this code of conduct. Such messages may be in public or in private, whatever is most appropriate. Assume good faith; it is more likely that participants are unaware of their bad behaviour than that they intentionally try to degrade the quality of the discussion. Should there be difficulties in dealing with the situation, you may report your concerns to event staff, forum leader, or OSGeo Board. Serious or persistent offenders may be expelled from the event or forum by event organisors, or forum leaders.