Community BOF ============= This bof is about: - Evaluating current community instruments: do they work, do we need more? - Talking about issues (if they exist) in current community This bof is *not* about: - pointing fingers - detailed explanations of things that have gone wrong - "I don't like you" Please keep things civil Things discussed: ----------------- cultural differences: native speakers may interpret something differently to non-native speakers, seems to happen Let's not use the CoC as a stick to hit. Heat of the discussion should be taking into account when judging words - > Were people involved where the CoC should help them be "protected" People using CoC or DSFG as "wapons" are getting emotional.. where things spiral out of control, on mail-list you don't have a good option to step back without fearing your voice may not be heard Add "tips and tricks" (link) to CoC to resolve the issue (but the "bullied") - only possitive (suggestions) * e.g. continue next day * e.g. tell how you feel * e.g. try to sympathize with the other party * agree that you can't write it now but will come back with a proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_Harvard_Principled_Negotiation CoC applies to sending (and assume good intent as receiver) What to do when you believe you can't assume good intent? - Tell this and continue (once) still trying -> other party can appologize example: IRC script to block the opponent while warning him technical conflicts should not be completely avoided example of good conflict handling: Diversity statement process No conclusion of agreement that it needs to be changed DPL has the power to add a link to the CoC Process for private mediation to figure out why (e.g. breakdown) Notes from Bernelle: DebConf15: 15aug15 Community BOF -- Wouter Verhelst 2015-08-16 11:00..11:45 in Amsterdam Debian used to have a reputation of having a rather harsh community, where flamewars were the normal way of handling conflict. Over the past decade or so, however, things have gradually improved to the point where this is no longer the case. In recent years, we've had two general resolutions in this area: the diversity statement in 2012, and the code of conduct in 2014. Together, they are the Debian community's instruments in ensuring that our project remains a welcoming environment. Are these instruments working? Do we need more of these? Or are we perhaps overreaching in our effort to keep discussion civil, to a point where these in struments are counterproductive? Let's talk about that. Community instruments Code of Conduct: "Voted for it, but what happened afterwards, made me wish I voted against it" A CoC represents a role model, something to strive for. Unfortunately, my impression, is that the CoC was then used as a stick to beat people they don't agree with. People missunderstand the intention behind people's communication. "People fall back to authorities, sometimes malicious, but more often because they are not sure and decide to reject (?) authorities." "If one side sees the CoC as a weapon, then whenever someone else uses it, it is perceived as a weapon. Maybe it is anxiety." "Sometimes when you see the CoC quoted, you know it is only emotion." "Try to perceive this anxiety and respond in a way to calm them down." In most heated discussions there are patterns. In a heated discussion things surface that are not discussed when people are calm. The participants are uncomfortable being there, but see no alternative to being there. In other interactions there are ways to get out, to go calm down. "I care about this, but I don't feel comfortable discussing on these terms." "Sometimes when I feel uncomfortable I get loud, or defensive, and then it gets weird out of pleasantness, people are then patronising, take the moral high ground." The Code of Conduct does not seem to offer ways out of uncomfortable situations. Should this be included? Suggestion: This is a relationship, and maybe needs relationship councelling. Perhaps have simple questions like, "If you say this, I feel that ... " e.g. Once you have a dodgey statement, reply 'If you intended this well, then I will reply as follows. IF the other person replies, I did intend this well, they are alerted to needing to be more sensitive, if not, then end the conversation.' e.g. Ask to continue the conversation the next day. e.g. Have a script to mute a person for 10 minutes on IRC. Should we work on a way to intervene when you see the CoC being used as a stick? Where this occured before, intervening did not help. There are two contradictory principles: 1. CoC, don't do this, dont do that. 2. Assume good intentions. So, perhaps, use the CoC for when you SEND, and when you RECEIVE, always use good intent. IBF principle? "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept" Don't want to prevent bad things from happening, but see the CoC as, hey, sometimes bad things will happen, < acknowledge bad things do happen > the CoC will help us deal with it, will illustrated that we are committed to deal across international boundaries, to help see where people come from differently. Dealing with when the computer is on fire ... When the conversation is heated, when I have already lost trust, then it is a problem. The problem is not the expression, it is the trust that is lost. It is about already feeling marginalised. Need to take this point of conflict, as a point of growth. Was marginalised people involved in writing the CoC? An attempt was made. Did marginalised people feel included? "I don't think these structures work in this type of organisation" What if the conversation is a LARGER HEATED discussion - e.g. System D. For months. Has there been examples where tensions has been resolved where everyone ended happy? Some people just don't have the social skills. If you are looking at a problem, look where they're not, and find out why that is going right. If you can reply to sarcasm and ignoring fling-bait, that also works well, if you can. Communication in lists... tricky. Timezones 'tomorrow' is often not applicable. Splitting the levels - the topic of the conversation, and the meta-conversation, can be useful. Try to agree what is the needs of the person on the other side of the conversation, even if you don't agree with the point the person makes. One can say "I care about the topic but cannot give my best effort right now. Can we schedule another time to discuss". It might be helpful to remember that if people get heated, it is because they care. Might be helpful to add (links to) principles of negotiation to CoC. The CoC etc can be revised over time. E.g. The CoC, with addendum with tools, comments, advice. The DPL can add a further link to the CoC without needing a GR (General Resolution) You don't need to be part of the (DFG??) to be able to write documentation that is useful to the (DFG??) Concept of vexaceous litigation. Complaints are considered in context. Discussion around 'In case of problems - Section 6 of CoC' Conclude that post-kicking out procedure is ok. (Power balances...)