Alanna Burke [5:01 PM] :zero: Welcome to this meeting to discuss Drupal Community Governance! This is one of a series of meetings we are holding in this channel to connect people who are interested in governance with each other, provide a forum for people to share their thoughts, and empower the community to determine the next steps. Additional background can be found at: https://www.drupal.org/association/blog/evolving-community-governance-survey-results-and-a-call-to-action Drupal.org Evolving Community Governance - Survey Results and a Call to Action October 23, 2017: Additional meetings have been scheduled in Slack and IRC. Please consult the schedule for more details. These results and analysis were initially presented at the DrupalCon Vienna community summit on September 25, 2017. Sep 25th at 12:19 PM
[5:01] :one: This meeting is text-only. There is no audio or video component.
[5:01] :two: :sparkles: This meeting is for female-identifying participants only! ✨ Everyone is more than welcome to observe, of course, but as we wrap up this month of meetings, I want to make sure that the women of the Drupal community get to speak up. 💁
[5:01] :three: The entire slack transcript will be recorded and available after this meeting. Threads not included. This means that we’ll be copying and pasting the chat, including usernames, and pasting it into a gist (or other format) to be linked at the bottom of the scheduling google doc - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jDNAoZtU4S6hrAA6BlS3Fhx6Js4pWLvrRBNDr_0ySA8/edit?ts=59ce7f2c#
[5:01]
:four: Instead of voting, I’m going to use the same format @sugaroverflow used last week:
• No voting at the end
• Use emoji reactions or speak up to express your agreement/feelings
• I strongly recommend using :heavy_plus_sign: :heavy_plus_sign:
• I will attempt to condense the chat into notes later tonight or tomorrow.
[5:01] :five: :sparkles: Please remember that this is a Drupal space, and is also subject to the Drupal Code of Conduct: :sparkles: https://www.drupal.org/dcoc Drupal.org Drupal Code of Conduct As our community grows, it is imperative that we preserve the things that got us here; namely, keeping Drupal a fun, welcoming, challenging, and fair place to play. The Drupal Code of Conduct (DCOC) states our shared ideals with respect to conduct. Think of this as coding standards for people. It is an expression of our ideals, not a rulebook. It is a way to communicate our existing values to the entire community. This code of conduct is based on the one developed by Ubuntu, with the addition of Show more… Aug 27th, 2010 at 10:11 AM
[5:01] :six: If you feel uncomfortable sharing publicly in this space, you can DM me during or after the meeting!
Alanna Burke [5:02 PM] :candy: If you’re participating in this meeting, please respond to this thread with your name, anything about yourself/your background in Drupal and the community, and your favorite candy!:candy: (edited) +2 7 replies Last reply today at 5:10 PM View thread
Alanna Burke [5:07 PM] It sounds like one of the major takeaways from these chats has been that the Drupal community needs a values statement. Here are the notes from @sugaroverflow’s last meeting (thank you for that - so much easier than reading a transcript!) Thoughts on this?
[5:08] https://gist.github.com/sugaroverflow/a136b796dc290489d910b184078b980a
Lyndsey Jackson [5:10 PM] I hope we all aren't holding back to let the other speak 😉😊
Heather Rodriguez [5:10 PM] Cannot express how important that is, and if I could give a million likes, I would.
[5:10] It's exhausting to keep rehashing governance without it, frankly.
Lyndsey Jackson [5:11 PM] Agree. Top level value and vision is important. Then you can see right from start if something is for you or not
Rachel Lawson [5:12 PM] Okay, how about this for a question: how do we sell any changes and clarifications to the vision statement to an incredibly diverse community?
[5:13] Diverse both in the type of people and their geographic spread
Nikki Stevens [5:13 PM] @rachel_norfolk I wonder if we could frame it in a way that doesn’t involve getting people “on board” for including everyone.
Rachel Lawson [5:13 PM] Go on...
Nikki Stevens [5:13 PM] Because no one made an effort to “sell” marginalized people on their exclusion.
[5:13] It was just “how it was”
[5:14] And I wonder if we can also make this new version just “how it is.”
[5:14] Bottom line. Full stop.
[5:14] I’d rather have people have to justify why including everyone actively harms them, rather than see leaders having to justify why it’s good.
Alanna Burke [5:14 PM] One thing I’ve been concerned about in previous conversations is how concerned some folks seem to be with including even those whose behavior might not merit it, who might not deserve that second, third, fourth chance, etc - so I would agree with Nikki here!
Lyndsey Jackson [5:15 PM] As a community that had grown and evolved overtime that has outgrown the organic way it developed and now needs vision and structure to move forward and stay relevant (to people, business, governments etc)
Rachel Lawson
[5:16 PM]
Heh - I feel like I’ve heard those words before
[5:16] And I totally agree
Alanna Burke [5:17 PM] One question i have - do we define solely what we DO want in the community, with the idea that we want only that (ie, inclusivity, diversity, kindness), or do we also need statements of what we don’t want? ideally i’d think a CoC would cover that in part, if not in full, but in this large a community, i don’t feel that it does.
Rachel Lawson [5:19 PM] I’m a fan of the vision being positive and a CoC talking about how to remove things that are incompatible with that vision
Heather Rodriguez [5:19 PM] I think we want to say what we DON'T want right there-- let me pull up the geekfeminism wiki
Alanna Burke [5:19 PM] Ideally, i would love that, too! I’m just curious as to what others think, given that we do have issues in the community. is it better to just crystal clear?
Heather Rodriguez [5:19 PM] https://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ Geek Feminism Blog Annalee Code of Conduct Quick Version The Geek Feminism (GF) community is dedicated to providing a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, or religion. We do not tolerate harassment of participants in any form. This code of conduct applies to all Geek Feminism sponsored spaces, including our blog, mailing lists, and wiki, as well as any other spaces that Geek Feminism hosts, both online and off. Anyone Show more…
[5:20] I personally like that it's so crystal clear what constitutes an offense.
Alanna Burke [5:20 PM] There are some great things here we could add to our CoC - also, their use of an Anti Abuse team makes me wonder if that’s the kind of thing we need to work with the CWG
Lyndsey Jackson [5:21 PM] Some in this community don't do ambiguity well. +1 for crystal clear.
Alanna Burke [5:23 PM] How does this tie in with our values statement?
Tara King [5:23 PM] I also think it would be useful to have some kind of mechanism for changing and improving the governance systems we put in place.
[5:23] Rather than requiring a giant community explosion, what if we could keep our values/governance systems/CoC/etc up-to-date and easy to improve?
Alanna Burke [5:24 PM] That’s a great idea.
Lyndsey Jackson [5:24 PM] I was in a governance chat on the weekend with a people from Asia Pacific, English as second (or 4th) etc language and building emerging communities. Clarity and expectations people can share and explain was really important
Rachel Lawson [5:24 PM] I’d be really uncomfortable trying to uphold some of the things in that link. To be honest, I’d probably find myself having breached some of the things in that link
Alanna Burke [5:25 PM] I don’t know that we need every single thing, but I think it’s really great and something to strive towards.
Tara King [5:25 PM] Also, having done something on that list is not the same as continuing to do it once it’s added to a CoC.
[5:26] I’m sure I’ve given someone a non-consensual digital hug (as an example) because I never thought that might make someone uncomfortable.
Heather Rodriguez [5:26 PM] That's true. The hugging bit, I think I definitely have sent "hugs" because I assume people would want it.
Tara King [5:26 PM] But seeing it there and having it codified would change that for me.
Heather Rodriguez [5:26 PM] me too. Just as when I saw @rubyji and @drnikki ask about DMing, I realized I needed to do that too!
Alanna Burke [5:27 PM] I think that’s the key - codifying as much as we can so that there is as little misunderstanding as possible for anyone in the community.
Rachel Lawson [5:27 PM] The trouble with explicit cocs is they allow no level of interpretation. It means they can be used maliciously. And there is nothing to stop that
Alanna Burke [5:27 PM] I’m not sure i agree with that as a blanket statement - i think we can work to make our CoC better
Nikki Stevens [5:28 PM] Well, lots of things can be used maliciously. I’ don’t think that’s good enough reason to avoid it.
Rachel Lawson [5:29 PM] Yes but currently we can interpret things and avoid that
Tara King [5:29 PM] The thing I see in the GF CoC (haven’t read it all) that I think gets a bit tricky is the use of the word “Deliberate”. I favor dealing with impact over intent.
[5:30] Re: interpretation I hear what you’re saying @rachel_norfolk. Interpretation can also be stretched to allow behaviors that maybe shouldn’t be, because the person is a big contributor, or your friend, or whatever.
[5:30] Sorry, also, to clarify, the “your friend” is not meant as “@rachel_norfolk’s friend”.
Alanna Burke [5:31 PM] How could we be both very specific in our CoC and not allow it to be stretched, abused, or interpreted differently for different people? This is a huge question, just tossing it out there for ideas!
Rachel Lawson [5:31 PM] I understand. And I couldn’t comment anyway
Heather Rodriguez [5:31 PM] I also just don't feel like most people are going to go to nuclear on something that may be a first offense and is not necessarily intentional. I think we do cut each other slack all the time, but being able to point to a behavior and say, fyi, we don't do that here
Alanna Burke [5:32 PM] I’m a fan of the tiered responses that were developed for DD&I (and i didn’t come up with that part so it’s not personal!). I think it’s really helpful.
Heather Rodriguez [5:32 PM] @alannaburke perhaps we should link for the record?
Tara King [5:32 PM] @alannaburke can you outline those?
Alanna Burke [5:33 PM] Sure, give me a sec to pull it up!
Tara King [5:33 PM] @hrodrig jinx. 🙂
Alanna Burke [5:33 PM] here you go:
Tier One Response
User is welcomed in the channel, asked to read some scroll back, and given a link to participation guidelines.
Tier Two Response
User is gently reminded in channel to keep posts on topic, and/or of participation guidelines.
Tier Three Response
User is PM'd by available Moderator to explain the problem(s) with their posts and given suggestions of what to do differently.
Tier Four Response
If behavior continues, User is kicked for no less than 24 hours from the Drupal Slack.
[5:33]
Intentionally disruptive individuals get kicked from the channel in question, not tiered.
Example: User makes threats, statements intending to cause personal harm, etc.
User is reported, with screenshots or transcript from the archive, to the Drupal Community Working Group, and banned from the Channel until Moderators and the banned person can meet to discuss channel behavior.
[5:34] (These live here: https://github.com/drupaldiversity/administration/wiki/Drupal-Diversity-&-Inclusion-Participation-&-Moderation-Guidelines#moderation-guidelines) GitHub drupaldiversity/administration administration - Tasks, meeting notes, documents-in-progress, policies, etc.
Tara King [5:35 PM] I (perhaps cynically) wonder if it’s impossible for a CoC to be interpreted identically for different people. I also wonder if it’s reasonable for us to want that, thinking of the cartoon that was linked from @sugaroverflow’s meeting.
Lyndsey Jackson [5:36 PM] I do wonder about "we don't do that in here" where "in here" is. Because only a small fraction engage in this slack
Heather Rodriguez [5:36 PM] in this context, the community
[5:36] anyone who agrees to a CoC
Lyndsey Jackson [5:37 PM] And how do they agree? Via a d.o. profile? Or on download of Drupal?
Heather Rodriguez [5:39 PM] all the above?
[5:39] any engaging with the Drupal community space is an agreement to follow Drupal community guidelines, IMO
Nikki Stevens [5:39 PM] I feel like implementation details can be worked out later. It’s not unreasonable to say “people agree to the CoC”
Rachel Lawson [5:39 PM] No need to agree to the CoC to download drupal, only to create an account
Nikki Stevens [5:39 PM] and we can work that out later
Alanna Burke [5:41 PM] Just to recap (we have 20 min left, FYI), it sounds like we have agreement that we need a clear value statement, and a very clear CoC, which should include as much as we possibly can (look at examples like Geek Feminism) to be clear so there is no question what is not allowed. Implementation details to be worked out later. It is also important that the CoC not be worded in a way that it can be applied differently to different people.
Nikki Stevens [5:42 PM] I think that’s fair. If I personally violate an element of a CoC (including the geek feminism one) I’d expect to be handled just like someone I reported would.
Alanna Burke [5:42 PM] Same! I’d be mortified if anything else were the case.
Rachel Lawson [5:42 PM] I’m not in agreement with liking the GF CoC but otherwise happy
Alanna Burke [5:42 PM] Can i ask what bothers you about it?
Rachel Lawson [5:43 PM] The specificity
Heather Rodriguez [5:43 PM] And to be clear, I think we should also articulate the consequences, which should be tiered just like moderation guidelines. If someone gives you a digital hug for example, that's not exactly the same as unwelcome sexual attention, etc
[5:44] Expulsion should be the most extreme consequence and used appropriately.
Nikki Stevens [5:44 PM] totally. it sounds like people agree on tiered consequences appropriate for the action.
Lyndsey Jackson [5:47 PM] It feels like any proposed specific values will also need a clear statement on why it's necessary: How is not having one affecting Drupal; How have individuals and Drupal been adversely affected. What do we need to stop. The purpose. If that's clear we can get agreement on the need and then the specifics negotiated
Tara King [5:48 PM] I’m trying to understanding your objection @rachel_norfolk and not quite getting there. One thing that came to mind: Is it this specific list or just the fact that it is very specific that it is objectionable?
Alanna Burke [5:48 PM] @ok_lyndsey I’m on board with this but also wonder if the values statement should be sort of self-addressing in this way and answer these questions?
Rachel Lawson [5:49 PM] That it is a specific list. The actual items worry me less
[5:50] Partly because it is very difficult to create a list that doesn’t leave cracks for people to exploit (I’ve previously used the example of golf club rule books being huge) and partly because it is difficult to create a list that is appropriate in many different communities worldwide.
Heather Rodriguez [5:51 PM] I don't understand the problem behind naming activities as violations. For example, "stalking or following", "threats of violence", "unwelcome sexual attention"...
[5:51] those don't seem terribly ambiguous.
Alanna Burke [5:51 PM] I don’t think that should keep us from specificity. I think it’s very easy to say “include but is not limited to” and list out things that happen often
[5:51] the more specific we can be about educating people on what harassment is (as it’s increasingly clear that people, mostly men, don’t know), the more we can prevent it.
Heather Rodriguez [5:52 PM] right, there are always new ways for people to behave like assholes, so we shouldn't limit our imaginations 😉
Lyndsey Jackson [5:53 PM] Another thing that was raised previously was looking to other communities WordPress and salesforce were an example for how they respond. As a way to frame a conversation, ie looking outward, it may help
Alanna Burke [5:53 PM] Meaning, look at their CoC, values, etc?
Lyndsey Jackson [5:54 PM] @hrodrig that makes me thing of the Drupal forum profanity filter - learned a few things that day!
Alanna Burke [5:55 PM] We have 5 minutes left! Is there anything else anyone wanted to bring up that hasn’t been talked about yet?
Lyndsey Jackson [5:55 PM] Yes exactly @alannaburke and talk to them and see where gaps are/strengths are. The issues Drupal faces is shared by a lot of other open source communities - we are just so big that it's amplified
Alanna Burke [5:56 PM] I think that would be a great thing to form a team to do.
Tara King [5:56 PM] I said it earlier but I’d like to reiterate that building flexibility and resilience into our governance models seems like a really good idea to me. I don’t know how to do it, but I think if we can assume that change will be needed from the get go, we’ll be in a better starting place.
Alanna Burke [5:56 PM] Yes! I missed that in my recap but I already have it in my notes.
Tara King [5:57 PM] I also want to say I’ve really appreciated this space and would like to have more of it. 🙂
Nikki Stevens [5:57 PM] :heart: Yes, super helpful. Would love to help other women get involved
Heather Rodriguez [5:58 PM] We are a community that practices agile development, so why not extend the process to include our governance 🙂
Lyndsey Jackson [5:58 PM] Ohh nice framing @hrodrig
Heather Rodriguez [5:59 PM] Thanks!
Alanna Burke [6:00 PM] Thank all of you for coming - and out of curiosity, men, if you were lurking, can you pop some kind of man emoji on this post?
[6:00] That wraps up our official discussion, and I’ll put this in the transcript and have notes up later or tomorrow. Feel free to keep chatting and please stay involved in governance going forward!
Nikki Stevens [6:01 PM] Thanks for doing this @alannaburke!!!
Lyndsey Jackson [6:01 PM] Great session. Thanks @alannaburke!
Heather Rodriguez [6:01 PM] Thanks @alannaburke!!!!!
Alanna Burke [6:01 PM] You are so welcome! I really wanted to make sure our voices got heard.