As @matthewcropp noted, "Five folks have stepped up as willing to coordinate moving the process forward: @wolftune, @mattnoyes, @robertbenjamin, @nev, and @stephaniejokent" - all social.coop members are welcome to participate.

Shall we set a target date for completion? Any suggestions?

Possibly might we spend a moment on what the process might be to bringing the revised version of the CoC (and hopefully Reporting & Enforcement Guidelines) through the feedback, editing, and re-submission? This might better inform us as to what a good staged timeline to completion might be.

Previously the process (from where I had visibility) was Video Conference Call, Coordinator Draft, open period of comments (with editing suggestions), Video Conference Call, Coordinator wrap up edits based on general sense of notes consensus, submit to working group for final look, submit proposal to Main Group for vote.

I am curious if there are ideas out there for alternative routes that would allow for the high degree of feedback, consensus building, while still somewhat efficiently pushing forward the documents towards completion and submission.

For example @meltheadorable mentioned some reservations about using Video Conference calls? Are there other options to provide the same type of feedback?

One thing we could look at to start the process might be to do some Polls with comments on the level of acceptance for each sections of the CoC similar to what Matt is doing for the Jury idea.

In any case interested in what @stephaniejokent and @nev may suggest from a coordination point of view as they weren't as active in previous rounds of CoC edits?

I might be able to support the process design, as this is my profession, even though I am less experienced in online-process-design. I can imagine to help thinking through the process with the coordinators here in a call, in case it feels to you it could be helpful.

"Previously the process (from where I had visibility) was Video Conference Call, Coordinator Draft, open period of comments (with editing suggestions), Video Conference Call, Coordinator wrap up edits based on general sense of notes consensus, submit to working group for final look, submit proposal to Main Group for vote."

[sorry, don't know how to "quote" things on loomio well so just copied and pasted from @robertbenjamin's post]

I think this sounds right, though I don't remember the step towards the end: "submit to working group for final look" before submitting proposal to main group. Did that happen and I just missed it? I recall there being a video call and then just seeing the CoC given to the main group. But I may not have caught that other step.

I think the idea of polls on acceptance of parts of the CoC might work, particularly since some comments may be made and then on a synchronous call the group decides not to take some of them on board...but it may turn out that those issues were quite important for a lot of people not just the one that made the comment.

I agree that the video calls can be a problem just because of time zones and who can make the calls. Whatever we can do to increase our capacity to get a sense of the level of support from the working group will help (not just the level of support from those who made comments or could make the call; some may have seen comments on the doc that they agreed with and didn't speak up because, well, the comment has already been made).

I also think it would be useful to see a summary of the issues with the current draft that came up in previous discussion, and which prompted the revision.

Any suggestions of how that could be best accomplished? Maybe pull quotes from every Disagree/Block vote (without names) and put in one doc for review? IS that something you might want to take on?

Sure I could do that. Do you mean from this loomio thread? https://www.loomio.org/d/o1nThK68/code-of-conduct are there other places where people talked about it that would be good to pull from? Unfortunately I didn't participate in the video calls, and my sense was that most of the discussion happened there.

On second thought, not having been involved in any of the conversations I don't think it's really my place to characterize them.

Yes sticky widget but maybe there a way to compile direct quotes that pertain to disagreement on the previous draft without characterizing them. Might save some energy for members not wanting to rehash what they said and give a clearer picture of why the Proposal did not pass but by no means a must have as the it should be an open inclusive participation process from here to ratifying the next version.

Maybe it would help to copy and paste them into the CoC and Reporting Guidelines drafts?

Maybe a stand alone reference doc would be better. That way it doesn't become the sole focus of the revisions. There are many others who weren't part of the previous iterations that may come to weigh in and they should be afforded the ability to interface with the drafts as they stand (or as they progress depending on their timing).

I agree with @edsummers that it would be constructive and "useful to see a summary of the issues with the current draft that came up in previous discussion, and which prompted the revision."

Thanks Ed, for being willing to review and collect those sentiments, suggestions, critiques, etc.

I have served on the Code of Conduct development committee for professional American Sign Language interpreters. Not sure if that'll be particularly relevant; just disclosing. Boundaries are a big deal in terms of respecting autonomy, individuality, cultural differences etc, knowing when to mediate (leave it be for interactants to work through or help with reframing or some other repair strategy), and when discipline is needed (holding the line on the permissability/impermissability of a particular behavior).

Thank you. Seems very relevant and glad to have your contributions to the process.

The thread on Content Warnings may be relevant? https://www.loomio.org/d/d8zrZIVb/content-warnings-anonymous-poll

Also, I see that @mayel mentioned something happening in a thread on Block and Abstain....I can't locate that thread; not sure how it ties in to CoC (except in a general way)...?

Hi all -- where we at? I have a bunch of notes that I gleaned from some previous threads. @edsummers are you gathering something similar?

I'm wondering if the Code should begin with a kind of disclaimer ... e.g.,

"We've sought to anticipate areas of concern and have provided clear guidelines for what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior within social coop/mastodon. We expect that things will arise which we have not foreseen or which we have not yet clarified the boundaries. Please be advised that if you post something deemed questionable and NOT already covered, there will be an open (?) process using your posting as the flashpoint for defining appropriate/inappropriate behavior."

Hi Stephanie -- since I haven't participated in the discussions I didn't feel comfortable trying to characterize them. But I'm glad you have posted them as comments to the doc, that's the perfect place!

Ah, @edsummers I see your additional comment. I disagree, however! We need outside eyeballs on the process and construction, not just insiders :)

I have posted comments to the google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YNXdnDTRz897rXRHoTGwaeoFfZI7-_cwplF2qvy-W8Q/edit#

Also made comments on the Reporting Guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pZTXsGuWNTe5X6z_DytJZTbjOyJUT4HlvPPnfmbuPEw/edit

Hi Stephanie! Great to see your comments. I was talking with Manuela and she suggested setting up a call so we can get back in motion on this. Your comments are helpful for getting us started up again.

Hello -- I'm new to this thread and indeed to the community working group. I'm drawn to this thread through deep interest and experience in governance as well as wellbeing, and their interaction. I would be delighted to see something restorative being put together (or, following Enspiral "transformative") which did not have an "offender" being "punished" with "exclusion" as an end point, but with a healing process that, if at all possible, brought any one who strays back into the fold, with acceptance and some joy. Sure, as a starting point we need quick and decisive actions to prevent harm from proliferating. It's what we do after that, short term and longer term, that matters dearly to me. Simple permanent exclusion heals nothing. What does heal? What brings people back into connection, so that their contribution can again be valued? Or see it another way: what do we imagine as the context of the Code of Conduct?

Yeah, I'm the one that brought up Restorative Justice, a movement I learned about recently but embrace deeply. The details and concepts aren't that simple, but it's far more human than bureaucratic. https://restorativejustice.org/ seems to be the best resource though I don't like their site design (makes it hard to get to the meat of it).

I'd like to see those values fully worked into this (and I don't think any CoC has done that yet).

Aaron, can you be on the call?

@meltheadorable Can you make the phone call?

Ya’all—what’s happening with the phone call? @mattnoyes

Looks like our best time is probably the third slot on June 9th, given that Aaron and Melody are both available and have played important roles in the discussion. If there are no objections today, I will post that outcome. @manuelabosch any possibility of that slot for you?

Hi all. Matt N. and I talked about running this call to develop a proposal for a process on how to bring the CoC to a point to go operational. So it's about figuring out together a good way on how to further work on this. It's not to work on CoC itself!

I propose to structure the call as follows. It's how I usually work with groups to figure out solutions everyone can agree on. I am open to do it differently, too.
Arrival & CHECK-IN Round (10min)
1: RECAP What do we already have achieved? What are the current complex questions? (10min)
2: VISION: Collecting ideas on how run/finish this process best. (20min)
3: FOCUS/TASKS: Sorting, prioritizing the ideas (20min)
4: Discuss STEPS/TIMELINE (25min)
CHECK-OUT (5min)

Would be great if someone could prepare 1: Recap and send it around before the call. Who would like to do that?
I would prepare facilitation as proposed, if I hear no concerns.
We can use this Zoom link https://zoom.us/j/9237018313
For the time of the call: yes, we can go for the third option on Monday 9th, it will be late for me, 11pm, I hope I am still fit enough :-)

6 PM Berlin Time ist it. Great. Just in case here again the Zoom link where we meet: https://zoom.us/j/9237018313

Shouldn't that be JULY 9th? :) Also, 16 UTC seems doable I'll do my best to be home by that time.

June 9th UMT = July 9th UTC (!!)

Stephanie, sorry for the confusion. The call is 50 minutes from now, at 16:00 UTC. Hope you can join.

Code of Conduct chat live now: https://zoom.us/j/9237018313

Sorry I missed the call, lost track of time in morning routine! :slight_frown:

We missed you but will soon be in touch...