Code of Conduct & Reporting Guidelines RC1 Revisions Group

I will copy the lastest Code of Conduct and start a new etherpad doc, posting the link here and in the git.coop wiki.

Posted: https://pad.disroot.org/p/Social.Coop_Code_of_Conduct_V3.1#

I have ported the comments on the proposal thread. Some of the most urgent comments were about the Reporting Guidelines. I am willing to help if someone else takes the lead on those. Ideally someone who has clear ideas of what changes need to be made.

I have taken a first shot at integrating comments. Please feel free to check.

I have also started a disroot pad for the Reporting Guidelines as well, for people who want to revise them. https://git.coop/social.coop/community/docs/wikis/Reporting-Guide-v3.1

I think the link to the disroot pad for reporting guide v3 is not working :(

fixed it, thanks!

As this came up before in a previous thread and there is a lot of activity afoot possibly just to continue iteration on the CoC and RG. I just wanted to offer a few thoughts on the language that was included in the Proposal - "The CWG is empowered to amend the CoC and Reporting Guidelines in ways that don't substantially alter the intent." as well as what the CWG is already empowered to do in setting a Ops Team Policy by the previous passed proposal.

The language read even conservatively gives a tremendous latitude to the CWG to implement changes to both docs with no need to pass them through the entire collective voting machine. Basically as long as they do not run afoul of the already established stances on issues both in the Bylaws and the originally passed version they are really in no danger of altering the intent.

in addition, on the Admin Ops Team proposal the CWG can freely set the policy for the Community Ops Team including diversity mandates.

Having read the new drafts which Matt hist best attempt at incorporating the negative critiques, taken into account all this together I wonder if the best way forward (after getting buy in from the CWG and especially Members who represent marginalized communities) is to establish a DIVERSE Community Ops Team and put the new drafts into play so that moderation can commence and any issues with moderation policies can be exposed.

Basically is the Regeneration Team absolutely necessary to accomplish at least these goals (larger org/structural fixes aside) or is going to fracture the community further?
cc @fabianhjr @mattnoyes @matthewcropp (Not to leave anyone out just to get their attention as they are in front on some of these issues. Last lengthy post on this I promise.)

I like this idea -- create a CWG Ops Team that is diverse and able to represent/facilitate the participation of marginalized people and can be trusted to enact and enforce our new Code of Conduct and Reporting procedures. I also think it is healthy for Social.Coop to recruit a team of people to look at the whole organization and propose changes, for example, to our membership structure and onboarding policies. That Regeneration team could include people from outside Social.Coop, if that is helpful (an idea Melody suggested). Adding @emido @gimcgrew @meltheadorable

Agreed, I believe the team is a necessity and I'm sure it's not going to "fracture the community further". On the contrary, I believe having the R-Team define our policies to enable the best possible support for a diverse membership will make us much, much stronger.

Yeah I support the team as well. Though may differ with some on the scope. Starting to gel on a variation introduced by Matt.

"Maintain operations and continue making improvements. Create DIVERSE Regeneration Team to serve a 6 month term tasked with creating proposals/plan for restructuring SC, up to and including dissolution and re-foundation which will be brought in front of the full membership for adoption.”

The membership would then vote to adopt the plan/proposals or not. After the vote dissenting members would chose to stay or not.

In the meantime improvements could still continue under the current system but concerns of taking away direct governance from the members without a due process would be addressed.

I'm not sure what specifically is being attributed to me here, but I'd like to clarify that while some of the contents of the open letter and "regeneration team" proposals incorporate some things based on my words, the things I said were offered in a very different context , answering a much more specific question, and none of the concrete proposals on the table really reflect my ideas or any proposal I would have considered offering anymore.

Adding @nev @beccicat @taooat @michelekipiel thoughts on the above 3 posts?