Code of Conduct
Hubat McJuhes PublicSeen by 23I think we need a code of conduct.
This should either be agreed upon by everyone who
- wants to become a member of the party, OR
- requests writing access to any of our party wide collaboration platforms.
If we decide on any CoC, this should only be valid for a limited time (e.g. 6 months) before a review and a decision for a renewal is required.
Working groups can decide on their own CoC for their interactions within their group as long as this is not in clear violation of the most basic values of the party.
Proposed Code of Conduct
(from: http://piratepad.net/1ZVeCwW4v9 - 11/07/2015)
--- Code of Conduct of the Pirate Party of New Zealand
- to be reviewed and updated no later than 6 (SIX) months from the day it passes consensus
This document uses markdown syntax.
Participation is welcome - help us make this document better! Related Loomio discussion: https://www.loomio.org/d/GX820gfl/code-of-conduct
PPNZ Code of Conduct
We're an ever-improving organisation. Help us make this document better by visiting http://piratepad.net/1ZVeCwW4v9.
Ensuring that the principles of this Code of Conduct are enacted and unheld by all Pirates will be the responsibility of the Hospitality Working Group (HWG), an essential WG which will be defined in the Constitution.
[Comment: Aspects about the HWG to be discussed for the definition of the group through the Constitution:
* the highest purpose of the HWG is 'restorative justice', the repairing of relationships between party members and supporters, with the goal of strengthening the party as an effective network for social and political change.
* membership of the HWG is open to any party member.
* by default, all deliberations of the HWG will take place in a public-facing forum (eg Loomio subgroup, archived mailing list). For matters deemed sensitive, eg involving personal privacy, deliberations will take place in a channel open to any party member (eg Mumble meeting), with an appropriately redacted summary place in the public-facing forum.]
In simple terms:
* Participation is valued
* Help make things better
* Always be civil
* If something is not right, let us know
* Abide by the law
We value your participation
The people are what makes the community and that's why we need you! Help to influence the shape of PPNZ by participating in the community. Whether your interest in participating in discussion, street performing, or simply by donating, we appreciate it all the same.
Improve the community
Before wading into adversarial debates, consider what you can offer the community, whether that is volunteer time, useful knowledge, special skills, morale boosting, or whatever. Start your comments constructive, and positive, and do your best to keep them that way.
Keep it civil
Nothing sabotages a healthy conversation like rudeness:
* Be civil. Don’t post anything that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.
* Keep it clean. Don’t post anything obscene or sexually explicit.
* Respect each other. Don’t harass or grief anyone, impersonate people, or expose their private information.
* Respect our forum. Don’t post spam or otherwise vandalize the forum.
* Argue elegantly. Try to use rational arguments to persuade, rather than to defeat. Above all avoid ad hominem attacks: attack the argument never the person.
These are not concrete terms with precise definitions — avoid even the appearance of any of these things. If you’re unsure, ask yourself how you would feel if your post was featured on the front page of the New Zealand Herald, with your photo next to it.
Raise an issue if something is not right
You owe it to yourself and to others in the community to deal with issues as soon as they happen. If someone is harassing you then let us know so we can swiftly deal with the situation. Do not feed the trolls: they do not deserve the satisfaction.
How we expect to deal with situations
In open-discussion environments, like our Loomio group and the mailing lists, the following process will be followed:
- First violation: Informative warning with quoted sections tagged with which bullying behaviour they exhibit and link to guide.
- Second violation: Sterner warning, with explanation that repeated use of bullying behaviour will result in a temporary suspension.
- Third use: 24hr suspension with message outlining all incidents leading up to the ban.
- Second suspension: Suspension duration extended to a week.
- Third suspension: Duration extended to a month.
- Fourth suspension: Permanent suspension.
People make mistakes, so the violation count resets after 5 days without incident.
For other environments, like personal communications, the same standards apply.
- Public statements or comments that clearly violate the privacy rights of others will in any case be removed from public scope immediately.
**If you are threatened with violence in any way then please feel free to inform any peace officer you may believe can help you. Violent threats are one of the few things that should never be concealed in the name of privacy.
Law-abiding citizens
When acting in relation to PPNZ:
* We respect tikanga, and common law, and follow our own ethical code. When statutory legislation is itself immoral, to obey it is unethical
* We respect the New Zealand Bill of Rights
* We respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
* We respect Pirate principles
As our collaboration platforms can be seen as some sort of permanent conference, I would think that we could also very well derive a much more explicit Code from:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Policy
So that it may look something like this, maybe:
The Pirate Party of New Zealand is dedicated to providing a harassment-free collaboration experience for everyone [, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age or religion [insert any other specific concerns here]]. We do not tolerate harassment of participants in any form. Party members violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the discussion or collaboration platform.
Harassment includes verbal comments that reinforce social structures of domination [related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, [your specific concern here]]; sexual images in public spaces; deliberate intimidation; stalking; following; harassing photography or recording; sustained disruption of talks, discussions or other interactions; inappropriate physical contact; and unwelcome sexual attention. Participants asked to stop any harassing behaviour are expected to comply immediately.
If a participant engages in harassing behaviour, the platforms moderators may take any action they deem appropriate, including warning the offender or expulsion from the discussion, thread, group or platform. If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please contact a member of the moderator team immediately.
There are two aspects to consider:
1 - behaviour inside the Party - personal like trolling and harasment and policy conflict and how these can be resolved
2 - behaviour outside the Party - bringing the party into disrepute by inappropriate behaviour and misrepresenting the party to the public e.g. claiming a policy to be from PPNZ when the party has no or a different position.
@andrewreitemeyer I propose the CoC as a means to ensure that collaborative platforms are a welcoming, safe and encouraging place for everyone to contribute. Hence it is meant to express our expectations for internal communication.
Obviously 'the party mediators' can only act on a party wide accessible discussion. Subgroups have to ensure the quality of their discussions themselves (or not at all), possibly with a path-way of escalating a particular conflict to the party-wide moderators. I find this quite appropriate as a smaller group may very well be discuss sloppier, while on a discussion of wider reach we would like to see more thought-through and matured entries that are easier to read and less distracting.
I have suggested two texts as a starting-point for discussion. I regard each of them standing near to one of the poles of the spectrum of possibilities.
The Code of Conflict is pretty much a friendly way to say: 'This is a place where harsh comments are to be expected, so please take them lightly and don't mid to much.' - which is pretty much refusing having a Code of Conduct. At least it offers a pathway to complain where you really cannot take something lightly. But that might just be about channelling the meta discussion away from the offending discussion that therefore doesn't get distracted.
I would like to advocate for a CoC along the lines of the second suggestion.
A stricter CoC could be intimitating in it's own ways, signalling that every expression of thought would need to be carefully Politically Corrected before offered to the discussion to prevent yourself from being harassed by the moderators aka 'PC-police'.
But we want to be a place where thoughts outside of the box can be discussed freely (as long as being respectful). So we are facing a bit of a balancing act on this side of the spectrum as well.
I believe the second CoC is explicitly enough to provide proper guidance and protection without being too limiting.
What do you think?
I've supported the idea of codes of conduct since my time as Communications Officer. Of the two documents @hubatmcjuhes offers as examples, I like the first one better. Mainly because it's focussed on what we want, as opposed to a long and detailed list of what we don't want. Also because it's shorter, thus more likely to be read, and friendlier, thus modelling the kind of friendly tone we are asking people to use.
I think we have to proceed with a CoC. We cannot do without. I would like to kindly ask for more people commenting to bring this thing forward.
@strypey what geekfeminism is actually suggesting is to have a short form, just quickly lining out what the general expectations and standards are - which also links to a longer, more explicit version that also contain a description of the conflict resolution process.
We also need to discuss our means of action where the CoC is violated. Right now the only action possible is to ask the offending pirate to kindly review the statement and to edit or remove it him/herself. What if the person cannot or doesn't want to respond appropriately in a timely fashion?
I would like to suggest to establish a team of moderators that - after having asked for a timely and cooperative resolution - is able and mandated to remove the offending comment from the discussion and place it (in an de-personalised version) in a dedicated group-private thread for documentation and archiving purposes of such comments.
If someone finds the removal being an unjustified act, this can be discussed in this separate thread without infesting the original discussion. This way we have a record of our precedence cases and how we as a group have been judging questionable cases, without disclosing our 'dark sides' to the public.
Both my suggestions don't seem to appeal?
No other suggestions on the table?
Then I give it another try. Let's make this the motto:
If you wanna be Dick of the day, just go away!
I think the CofC needs to apply to the party as a whole; all online channels which exist in the party's name, and all subgroups including working groups and local groups. Thus, as I said in my previous comment on the topic, it should be short and simple, explaining the kind of behaviour we want to encourage, in a tone that models said behaviour. I will post a suggested text in the 'context box' at the top of the page.
I agree that the CoC must be seen as applicable to all online channels of the party. When I have been suggesting to only focus on the broader discussion group level here I was thinking of the reach of a pro-active team of moderators that act based on a dedicated policy.
This is so that if a small group of activists that might even meet face-to-face regularly sets up their issue specific sub group, they don't need to feel controlled and supervised by the mediator team when actually they can maintain their comfort level easily themselves.
Again, the executive part of the CoC should contain a pathway for members of a subgroup to elevate a conflict to the mediator team where the groups resolution process has failed.
I agree with most of what @hubatmcjuhes says here. Just to clarify though, I don't envision a "mediator team" with special powers, rather that a very general CofC apply party-wide (which boils down to "be excellent to each other"), and that each online discussion space and face-to-face group is responsible for their own moderation, with the CofC as a common reference point.
FYI a previous discussion here about bullying using the internet. Ironically, Andrew McP and I seem to find ourselves on opposite ends of the argument now :)
https://www.loomio.org/d/aDUw8uX9/bullying-using-the-internet
Balance between Freedom of Speech and Harmful Digital Communications
proposal by Andrew McPherson Closed Sat 27 Jun 2015 3:07AM
Nobody in the party seconds this motion, probably due to a complete lack of explanation and discussion and it's ambiguous wording. Being placed in a discussion where this is off-topic might have been contributing to it's failure.
I believe that to balance between freedom of speech and harmful digital communications, we need to have a third party to the discussion move that certain topics are beyond reasonable discourse. They then need to be seconded by another third party, then voted on over a week.
We must of course be careful to consider whether or not the statements in the discussion have evidence to support the positions before deciding if this is a case of trolling.
Results
| Results | Option | Votes | % of votes cast | % of eligible voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree | 1 | 33 | 3 | ||
| Abstain | 2 | 67 | 7 | | |
| Disagree | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Block | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Not voted | 26 | 90 |             |
We need to balance between free speech and censorship. So third parties must be involved in deciding if a discussion is out of bounds.
I'm not exactly sure what's being proposed. What action is to be taken if consensus (or supermajority) is that comment(s) are "harmful digital communication"?
This needs to be made clearer
@andrewmcpherson We are not usually in the habit to put up decisions without having mentioned and discussed the matter beforehand. The actual decision is then seeking confirmation of what appears to be the consensus amongst those having engaged into the discussion.
Please take a look at this draft and make edits (add, update, delete) where you see appropriate. If you disagree with someone else's edit, please discuss it here. http://piratepad.net/1ZVeCwW4v9
@zl4bv can I suggest using the Context Box at the top of this page instead of a PiratePad? EtherPads have their uses but they can be edited by anybody who has the link (publicly visible here), whereas the Context Box can only be edited by members of this Loomio group. [edit: as pointed out by Ben, this is a private discussion, not a public one as I claimed]
I think the first thing we need to test consensus on is this: are there any circumstances where it is desirable for a comment on this Loomio group to be deleted by moderators? Peter, for one, seems to think not (as per his comment in the mediation discussion). [edit: I've misrepresented Peter here, based on his response to my proposal in 'How We Use Loomio', without having read his latest comment there] I think moderators deleting comments under a clearly defined CofC is ok, but that it's more important to make sure the commenter understands why their comments were inappropriate, so they comment more appropriately in future, in which case they may choose to delete their own comment. An ounce of prevention (and in this case relationship building) is worth a pound of cure and all that.
This discussion is visible only to group members, and I haven't had any issues with this approach in the past.
I'm very concerned that Loomio has become our one-tool-fits-all solution: decision-making tool, discussion board (forum), note-taking tool, and now being proposed a document editor. Having too many tools also brings problems as managing them all and organising logins for them all for all users in quite a pain, but I think we could balance between the two extremes better than we are now.
EtherPad is great for writing for documents because, well, it was designed for this purpose but more specifically because it allows multiple people to make edits at the same time as well as providing a history (yes I know Loomio supports description history but EtherPad's history is more accessible). Also, if you're using the rich formatting features of EtherPad then the exporting features are extremely valuable.
I'm also not sure of the purpose of a Membership Rules subgroup with only 6 members. Only subgroup members can comment on discussions or take positions on proposals in that subgroup. Because this discussion affects all party members, I propose that whoever is the admin of the Membership Rules subgroup move this discussion into the main group, so all members can participate.
@strypey I second your motion to move this core discussion to the topmost level. Hence I have moved this topic accordingly. It is still group-private but it is now visible to all group members without further ado.
@zl4bv as you know I have advocated for a suite of tools, or sandwich as I outlined earlier, for a long time.I particularly think that a loomio thread delegating a task to a piratepad is an excellent fit. Particularly because I share @strypey s worries about too many accounts, logins, platforms. A link to a PiartePad in a loomio thread is not establishing a new platform or context. It only adds missing functionality to the loomio platform. Thanks to the TimeLine functionality a nasty visitor could maybe be annoying but actually not really destructive. A risk that we very well can bear at the present point in time.
But this is all more or less off-topic here, so I will proceed here.
@zl4bv I just wanted to make some cosmetic changes to the text you have put up to the piratepad a day ago and maybe let some of the very good ideas of the Discourse folk that you have directed us to float in.
But meanwhile it has changed from a good starting point to pretty much near to EXACTLY IT. Good job man, thank you for that effort.
Unfortunately we have to wait for 4 days until we can decide upon it, but this draft is worth the wait. Cheers.
I propose we adopt the current draft text from Pirate Pad as Code of Conduct v.1
proposal by Danyl Strype Closed Fri 10 Jul 2015 1:37PM
After another more careful look the text is not ready for 1.0. I'd call this RC1. There are some gaps to fill, and a few things that we probably need to discuss.
I propose we adopt as our Code of Conduct v.1 the text in the Context Box at the top of this page, which is the current contents of this link:
http://piratepad.net/1ZVeCwW4v9
Any changes made in the next week before this decision closes, should be cosmetic only, and commented in the discussion for review by other members. Remember we can roll back both the Loomio Context Box and the PiratePad to the last good version after now if needed.
Results
| Results | Option | Votes | % of votes cast | % of eligible voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Abstain | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Disagree | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Block | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Not voted | 27 | 100 | |
I've just tidied up and reordered what was on the PiratePad a bit, and copied the result to the Context Box at the top of this page. What do folks think? I'm guessing there will be a couple of modifications that some people may take issue with, but I'm willing to offer an intellectual defence for them.
Sorry I didn't respond to the proposal in time...
In regards to the outcome:
There are some gaps to fill, and a few things that we probably need to discuss.
Where do you see gaps that need filling, @strypey? Perhaps that would be a good place to start subsequent discussion.
As mentioned in my last comment, @zl4bv see the Context Box at the top of the page, or the PiratePad, for my suggested changes.
I am very happy with the current version and find it near to agreeable as it stands.
I am still a little bit worried that, how we expect to deal with situations, still allows a //troll// to be effective in harming our communication within the framework. But I trust that we deal differently with such a situation when necessary.
After all we will review the CoC after 6 month and do some refining then, if required.
I do feel that it is necessary to mention that we will immediately remove statements that clearly violate the privacy rights of others. I don't find it acceptable that one has to publish three subsequent defamatory comments to be forced into a cool-down mode of 24 hrs, but the defamatory comments are left to be publicly available for the victims lifetime and longer.
Such a clause is important for me to be able to agree.
I have added such a clause to the proposal text in the description box.
BTW: Does someone has an answer to one or more of the following questions:
- Why is this discussion private, shouldn't it be public?
- Did I start this discussion as a private one?
- Is there something like a log of changes to the discussions meta settings?
@hubatmcjuhes yes, I agree it should be public. This can be changed by clicking the settings cog at the far right of the title bar, clicking 'edit discussion', and scrolling down to the bottom where the public/ private radio buttons are.
No, I don't think there's a user-viewable log of changes to discussion settings, although perhaps there would be an auto-message in the comment thread of a discussion if it was changed from public to private or vice versa? Something to discuss with the Loomio devs?
Edit: I just fixed a couple of typos, and added a section describing a Hospitality Working Group who will be responsible for moderation. Thoughts?
I propose we adopt the current draft text from Pirate Pad as Code of Conduct v.1.0
proposal by Danyl Strype Closed Mon 3 Aug 2015 11:08AM
Very few members took a position, but of those who did, there was unanimous consensus.
I propose we adopt as our Code of Conduct v.1 the text in the Context Box at the top of this page, which was the current contents of this link, as of about a week ago:
http://piratepad.net/1ZVeCwW4v9
Any changes made in the next week before this decision closes, should be cosmetic only, and commented in the discussion for review by other members. Remember we can roll back both the Loomio Context Box and the PiratePad to the last good version after now if needed.
Results
| Results | Option | Votes | % of votes cast | % of eligible voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree | 4 | 100 | 14 | | |
| Abstain | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Disagree | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Block | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Not voted | 25 | 86 |  |
provisional agreement subject to avoidance of continual strawman objections of little merit :-)
From the discussion it's clear that this is a first version to be reviewed and refined over the coming time. As such it is awesome. Thanks to everyone who has contributed.
I agree, subject to the removal of the paragraph starting with "If you are threatened with violence in any way...". It is beyond the scope of the document, and makes the party seem more dangerous than it is, or is likely to be.
What we have right now is a good start, but is more of a v0.1 release. It's going to need some more patches before I'd consider the first version "done".
For matters deemed sensitive, eg involving personal privacy, deliberations will take place in a channel open to any party member (eg Mumble meeting), with an appropriately redacted summary place in the public-facing forum.
Do we really want to allow discussions of personal private matters with any member of the party present? Surely it would be suitable to rephrase to have the discussion in a closed environment with only the relevant (or trusted) members present - but keep the statement about reporting any outcome(s) back to the group.
Also, for the 1.0 version perhaps we mandate a review earlier than six months?
In concurrence with @zl4bv as mentioned directly above. I suggest that we have a moderation working group.
It seems that previous comment was covered in the loomio page at the top, not on the piratepad. Apologies.
If you are threatened with violence in any way then please feel free to inform any peace officer you may believe can help you.
I want to change peace officer back to police. Threats aren't something we should treat lightly, and I believe they should be escalated beyond our party.
Violent threats are one of the few things that should never be concealed in the name of privacy.
Not all victims are willing to be public about what they've been subjected to. We should be respectful of this. (- I'm not encouraging people to remain quiet either though)
I did have a death threat by Luke McKee, so I sent all following emails from him to delete automatically.
"I want to change peace officer back to police. Threats aren’t something we should treat lightly"
In my experience police are the people most likely to be making violent threats. I suggested "peace officer" as a compromise, but frankly, I think the whole section could be chopped. I don't think a party CofC should be giving any advice about things that "should be escalated beyond our party", for the same reason it shouldn't give advice about what to do if you're raped by a party member (see recent news); it's not about expected standard of interpersonal behaviour for party members, and it's beyond the scope of the document.
Edit: just to clarify, where it says;
"Violent threats are one of the few things that should never be concealed in the name of privacy."
I assume it refers to the privacy of the person doing the threatening, not the person being threatened.
I agree with @strypey here.
The CoC is to give a clear indication of where we define the fine line between contributions to a free and open discussion that weaves us together on the one hand side and disruptive, irritating, discouraging, alienating, ... inputs that split us apart on the other hand side.
The CoC doesn't need to address any cases of the wide field of clearly inappropriate, even unlawful behaviour.
@andrewreitemeyer
However I think conduct that brings the party in to disrepute should be a part of our code of conduct.
I am not so sure about such a clause. It is very, very vague and one could try to use it to gag a particular discussion in claiming that discussing a particular matter could put the whole party into disrepute. And instead of discussing the original subject you now have a discussion about the persons interested in that subject being valuable members or a liability - which, no matter what the outcome, at least completely disrupts the original discussion. Like kind of a super-ad-hominem attack that forces everyone else to participate in the one way or the other.
@strypey I think for finalising a decision it is consensus that the discussions description box is best to refer to. Also for this concrete proposal it appears that the current version in the discussion box is in much better shape than the PiratePad.
Can I suggest and kindly ask you to close the current decision and put up the same thing again with the only difference being to refer to the version of the description, please?
I would like to agree to that one.
The proposal says:
"I propose we adopt as our Code of Conduct v.1 the text in the Context Box at the top of this page"
The reference to the PiratePad is to establish the origin of the draft (so people can refer to the edit timeline there etc), but I specifically said:
"the current contents of this link, as of about a week ago"
As far as I can see, what you are asking for is what's there.
Sorry, I havn't read carefully enough.
We could derive something from the (controversal) Code Of Conflict of the linux kernel developers comunity:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=b0bc65729070b9cbdbb53ff042984a3c545a0e34