Code of Conduct and Reporting Guidelines RC1 -- membership vote.

Hey, @mattnoyes I agree with everything @meltheadorable said about the Reporting Guidelines and I strongly think that regardless of the passing of the proposal the Reporting Guideline shouldn't be used.

Hi Fabián, in that case wouldn't it make more sense to disagree with the current proposal and urge others to disagree? People can change their votes. You could even block -- which seems to me like a terrible idea, but it is an option and it lowers the threshold needed to reject the proposal.

I think the CoC should pass and be reformed. But the Reporting Guidelines are counterproductive. (Specially now)

This way it will only be a 2 day limbo for the reporting guideline.

I am persuaded by others' arguments above (especially @meltheadorable and @fabianhjr) that the reporting guide is not workable. I am prepared to support whatever emerges as the most effective path for addressing the situation, including changing my vote on this proposal to "disagree" or by voting "agree" on the new subproposal to disregard the reporting guidelines should the CoC pass. Can you three find consensus on what you think would be the best path forward, both in terms of better protecting our members ASAP and getting a sustainable process in place for the long haul?

What if only a few people vote to pass the proposal to disregard the reporting guidelines, but a larger number of people voted to approve the CoC and RG?
I think the best way forward is to for people to copy the RG and edit them -- or even scrap and rewrite them -- to create a new version we can vote on. (I plan to start work with whoever wants to help on incorporating the many suggestions that have been made for changes to the CoC so we can propose a new version soon...)

Hi @mattnoyes, in practical terms this is just to debundle the CoC from the reporting guidelines. If there isnt enough quorum we can deal with that down the line.

I have added (", or adopt the CoC otherwise") so that people don't have to agree with the CoC + RG proposal. (And it will be up to them)

@fabianhjr per the proposal the RG and the COC can already be altered by the CWG after this passes. Why not let it pass as is and clean it up and rearrange the RG to be safety first focused rather then conflict resolution given the notes. This can all be done prior to officially publishing them. Creating 11th hour sub-proposals within this proposals is confusing and further clouds matters.

Can be modified without change of intent Wich would happen with the Reporting Guidelines.

FWIW, I have added a pad for editing/rewriting the Reporting Guidelines for the next version. This can be used by people who are eager to revise the version on which we are currently voting, so we can update it quickly. https://www.loomio.org/d/iuqQFGS6/code-of-conduct-rc1-revisions-group

Some really excellent feedback upthread on critical issues that need addressing. WRT to the introduction section of the CoC, would it make sense to add a zero tolerance policy around the specific opinions and behaviors we disavow, make it clear that the policy around these sort of posts is “suspend first and determine later” ... and to make acceptance of this policy a condition of membership? Acceptance should be a required step in the onboarding process (if not the very first step).

Bullet the list so it is unambiguously clear.

It’s also worth considering this as a retroactive statement of affirmation by all existing members. Weed out the people who don’t accept this is what the co-op and instance stands for.

Yes, the idea was to have this be part of the on-boarding process :)

I have this dream that all 50+ of us in the CWG could divide the social.coop members up between all of us and we can all DM the next release candidate of the CoC to members for buy-in/ feedback.

In case you're not experienced with disroot, the etherpad can be edited by anyone who has the link. I think it would be great if you edited your suggested bullet points in the CoC directly so we can see what you mean!
https://pad.disroot.org/p/Social.Coop_Code_of_Conduct_V3.1#

Thanks emi - and sorry if i’m re-hashing ideas that someone else has already suggested. I’m on a family visit with no computer until tomorrow but will be happy to hop on the above link and jot something down later tomorrow or Monday.

Hey Simon, I've already communicated these concerns (as per our discussions) and I think the response was fair (quoted from this discussion which you can refer to above:
"part of the value of a list is it allows people to see if their group is represented, to see if the creators of the code of conduct believe themselves to be capable of enforcing it along those lines, or are at least committing to try. By footnoting the list, what's happened instead is that information is now buried, along with a vague statement that the idea of inclusivity was more important than the commitment to represent those groups' interests ") and from a person who has felt marginalized in social.coop. I believe her experience far outweighs any benefit of theoretical arguments that there might be not including a list.

Hi Simon: your thoughts seem to be coming from a legal perspective (please correct me if I’m wrong). Please permit me to offer a different framework and set of questions for thinking about these issues —

1. What are the shared values of the member-owners of social.coop? Who are we?
2. How do we create an instance that is inclusive and welcoming based on those shared values?
3. Do members “own” their accounts on the instance, or are they granted an account on the instance as part of their membership in the co-op community? What implications does that have on what members post?

Beyond that and relative to your post: what a person knows about different lived experiences is immaterial. What they choose to SAY about those experiences is what matters. If I know certain topics are live wires, a member in good standing will choose their words carefully (or avoid those topics altogether) based on their personal knowledge. (And if they’re AWESOME members, they’ll educate themselves!)

I’m not aware that climate change deniers have an immutable characteristic that would urge their protection.

Thanks for naming these three issues Jeff @jeffhardin
1. I expect us to share many but not all values. Some are more obvious than others. I'm trying to look forward to a situation where values conflict arises. I have a lot of experience of this in the similar (but face-to-face) situation of our cohousing community. It would be useful to clarify what values really are shared, and what values are left to the individual's conscience as a matter of choice.
2. A really good question: and my tentative answer is to acknowledge that there is some pluralism in the values that are not shared, and that we allow each other to have different values, outside of the ones we all agree on.
3. I really like that idea. Perhaps we are trying to weigh up how best to retract that grant of an account, in situations that merit it?

I thoroughly concur with the principle of choosing one's words with care. What does concern me is how people are treated when they don't know that certain topics are live wires. And live wires do of course differ between different people. Ideally, I'd like to get to know the live wires that everyone has here, and that requires time, patience and forbearance.

Members of different religions are often considered to be worthy of protection, and that is not an immutable characteristic as far as I'm aware. All I'm saying is that there really isn't a hard and fast dividing line. So who decides, and how? I am not often drawn to a legal perspective, but here is one of the few occasions when I think it may be helpful.

@asimong , I can't seem to message you privately on loomio, but have sent you a direct message on social.coop. Because I"m not sure if you've left social.coop, I am posting here.

I don't think this is a helpful discussion to be having in this space at the moment, especially based on the feedback that others have made with respect to this type of long winded discussion that sidelines the concerns of those who have expressed that they are feeling marginalized.

@emido have received and responded on social.coop -- much better. Thanks!

[PSA] I deleted Simon's comments as per his request.

@fabianhjr @meltheadorable - Can you take a look at the revised CoC and RG drafts? I have tried to make the suggested changes. Please see what you think of the way I have tried to address them. And feel free to make other changes. I am just trying to keep the process going so we can quickly adopt revised policies/procedures.