sugaroverflow/gist:01607fdcb11f8aa60a53e96b2b2ecfa0 Secret

## gistfile1.txt
sugaroverflow [4:00 PM]
:sparkles: :one: Hi, Welcome to this Drupal Community Governance chat! This is one of many meetings that we are holding to connect people who are interested in talking about community governance.

            • If you’re not sure what that means, I encourage you to read:
            `http://bit.ly/drnikki-what-we-talk-about-governance`
            • For more information on what this process is
            `http://bit.ly/DA-community-governance`


[4:00]
:sparkles: :two: About this meeting!
            • We are text-only (with no threads).
            • The entire meeting will be recorded and available afterwards.
            • If you feel uncomfortable sharing publicly in this space, you can DM me
            • This is a Drupal Space and subject to the Drupal Code of Conduct:
            `https://www.drupal.org/dcoc`


sugaroverflow [4:00 PM]
:sparkles: :three: I haven’t been 100% happy with the format of these, so I’m trying something different:
            • 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 a readable format

_This format of discussion can be awkward and it’s not perfect, but it’s our direct line to the top so let’s make the best of it!_ :muscle::skin-tone-3: :smile: (edited)
1 reply 3 days ago View thread


sugaroverflow
[4:00 PM]
:sparkles: :sparkles: :sparkles: :sparkles: :sparkles:  :sparkles: :sparkles: :sparkles: :sparkles: :sparkles: If you’re participating in this meeting, please respond to this thread with your name, how you heard about this meeting (twitter/general/etc), and what you would like to discuss today! (edited)
  +4 10 replies Last reply 3 days ago View thread


cleverington [4:02 PM]
joined #governance.

sugaroverflow
[4:02 PM]
Some things we’ve talked about in previous meetings that we could discuss:
- a formal code of conduct
- a values statement from top leadership

Or anything else that's been on your mind regarding community governance!


beeradb [4:02 PM]
joined #governance.

agentrickard [4:05 PM]
the values statement seems to be the fundemental need


sugaroverflow [4:06 PM]
Agreed! and I think that we shouldn't can't start talking about a framework for the community to have input in governance _until_ we have that values statement. And I want it to come from the top level down.


agentrickard [4:06 PM]
so how do we make that happen?

sugaroverflow [4:07 PM]
So these governance meetings are going to compile some recommendations for leadership

[4:07]
we'll have to include our need for a statement of values in there


[4:08]
I _really_ like the idea of calling it a fundamental need, thank you @agentrickard


mdrummond [4:12 PM]
I think it’s critical that project leadership put out a strong statement of values, yes. I just really want to believe that values statement will have at its heart that we value a community where all are welcome, and most particularly we strongly welcome those who have faced challenges due to their identity. And that we want a community that creates a safe environment centered on inclusiveness, so that the diversity of our community reflects the diversity of the wider world. And by *valuing* inclusiveness that means we are willing to make sacrifices to make sure that value is met.


sugaroverflow [4:12 PM]
Could you elaborate on "willing to make sacrifices to make sure that value is met"?

mdrummond [4:13 PM]
Are we willing to say that we value people being good to each other and not driving others out—either intentionally or unintentionally—through their actions? And that if they do—even if they have made contributions via code or otherwise—that does not outweigh the harm they may be causing?


[4:14]
Are we willing to value inclusiveness to the point where we put actual $$$ towards the sort of things at conferences that allow more people to attend?

sugaroverflow
[4:14 PM]
That reminds me of an earlier discussion about how the CWG or DA have knowledge of problematic community members, but camps do not. If we have a values statement that reflects what we are willing to do to create a safe environment - then we have a sort of _tool_ to enact things to create that safety.


mdrummond [4:17 PM]
In an ideal world I would want to see this sort of values statement come from top leadership without prompting. I’m just concerned that I see Dries put a lot more lot and attention towards bitcoin and voice interfaces than he does to diversity and inclusion. I believe that he’s sympathetic, but it just doesn’t seem to be top of mind from the things he chooses to communicate externally. And we can’t change what he cares about, which is tough.


sugaroverflow
[4:18 PM]
Yes, but I see these discussions as a way to tell him what _we_ care about :smile: so that's progress!


rachel_norfolk [4:18 PM]
Hi - just popped by and spotted the values thing. Maybe something like “Teamwork, innovation, and openness in our community” would be a good high level value that would then have explanation it it and other values as part of its implementation?

sugaroverflow
[4:19 PM]
Hi, thanks for popping in! :slightly_smiling_face:

[4:20]
I think those values are too broad and buzz-word-y. They don't feel real enough to me.

[4:20]
I need stronger words that demonstrate that this is leadership that will protect people in the community who might be at risk, whether that's a woman, or a POC.

mdrummond [4:20 PM]
I think ideally I’d like to see our values statement include more than one-word descriptors. It’s fine to have those as headings as long as there is more that elaborates on those.

rachel_norfolk
[4:20 PM]
As it happens, it’s one of our current value statement.

[4:21]
See https://www.drupal.org/about/mission-and-principles
Drupal.org
Mission and principles
Drupal's community believes in open source, innovation, globalism, and collaboration. Its mission: to build the best open source content management framework.
Nov 3rd, 2015 at 7:27 AM


sugaroverflow
[4:21 PM]
It's a good value to have, but I feel that it's not sufficient.


mdrummond [4:24 PM]
I’ve read some things recently that have pointed out exactly what @sugaroverflow said. The term diversity is too wishy washy, in that diversity can end up meaning anything. Are we willing to step up for women? LGBTQIA+ folk? Are we willing to work to break down white male supremacy in our community?


sugaroverflow
[4:25 PM]
(If you're just dropping in, please scroll up to the chat intro - thank you!)

mdrummond [4:26 PM]
“Teamwork, innovation, and openness in our community” to me says very little about valuing and protecting a wider range of people. Openness can just be transparency like posting meeting minutes, teamwork can just be working together in positive or negative ways.


sugaroverflow
[4:27 PM]
This also goes back to bad actors in our community. We're constantly dealing with drama on a reactionary basis because we don't have a set of strong values.


agentrickard [4:27 PM]
so what I hear is that there is at least one missing element from the core values, and we should add something else (at the least)


rachel_norfolk
[4:29 PM]
Yes. It is something to start with and improve though. That is an easier “sell” to those you are asking to produce something


agentrickard [4:30 PM]
e.g. Tolerance of differences, respect for each other, and something something something


heyrocker
[4:31 PM]
I read something very powerful recently about how we should replace the terms Diversity and Inclusion with Equity and Justice


rachel_norfolk [4:31 PM]
Which are all methods for achieving good teamwork. Maybe it’s not a new set to values that are needed but a proposed explanation of how we agree they are achieved.

agentrickard [4:32 PM]
well, that's something else I wanted to get to: what are the elements we need for a governance plan/policy?


[4:32]
Have we documented those yet?

mdrummond [4:32 PM]
I’ve been on a board where we’ve worked with a consultant on long-term planning at a retreat. Getting leaders in a room to work through a process to generate strong mission statements and values is an achievable thing. It takes time and money, but it is an achievable, doable thing. I do not think that is too big an ask for our leaders to take some time to get together and think about this, put their attention and intention towards it.


rachel_norfolk [4:32 PM]
We want diversity because it’s actually better for us all and better for the project. Not just because it is a thing
 4 replies Last reply 3 days ago View thread

mdrummond [4:33 PM]
I’d be careful with the language of “tolerance of differences.” I’ve seen a number of people talk about how tolerating something has a tone of “Well, that’s not our preference, but I guess we’ll tolerate it.”


heyrocker [4:33 PM]
I also want it because it is morally right


[4:33]
and that’s the kind of value I’d like to see in the values statement

davidhernandez [4:35 PM]
I like where this equity and justice thing is going.

agentrickard [4:35 PM]
@mdrummond we can finesse the language. I think it's important we at least draft some addition or change to what exists


heyrocker [4:35 PM]
I’m sure most of us have seen the equality vs equity comic


sugaroverflow
[4:36 PM]
@heyrocker link please (for those who have not and archival purposes) (edited)


heyrocker [4:36 PM]
I can’t find it now :disappointed:


agentrickard [4:37 PM]
I'd like to table this for a minute and get back to the question of "what do we want in a governance policy" -- 1 strong statement of values. Got it.


rachel_norfolk [4:37 PM]
I’ve not seen it

heyrocker
[4:37 PM]
oh you mean for the comic

[4:37]
hang on

agentrickard [4:37 PM]
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://everydayfeminism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Untitled1-300x225.png&imgrefurl=https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/equality-is-not-enough/&h=225&w=300&tbnid=C-d4N3IiyePJEM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=213&usg=__Q1evf7sOTLqZH_ex92JoWFD_j80=&vet=10ahUKEwiouq2J1JHXAhVBeCYKHcyMB74Q9QEIKjAA..i&docid=n2SwHjar-nviqM&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiouq2J1JHXAhVBeCYKHcyMB74Q9QEIKjAA

[4:37]
wow

sugaroverflow
[4:38 PM]
thanks! here's the equality vs equity comic referenced:
https://everydayfeminism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Untitled1-300x225.png (120kB)


agentrickard [4:38 PM]
source -- https://outfront.org/strategicplan
outfront.org
Strategic Plan | OutFront Minnesota
We are leading Minnesota toward LGBT equality through a combination of public policy, legal and individual advocacy, and education that is unmatched by any other organization.


heyrocker
[4:38 PM]
There have been many versions but this is the one im most familiar with


[4:38]
http://culturalorganizing.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/IISC_EqualityEquity.jpg (195kB)


[4:39]
It has gone through some iterations

rachel_norfolk [4:39 PM]
Ah! I know what you are talking about now

davidhernandez
[4:39 PM]
the most recent ive seen in this one. https://i.redd.it/tn3468quc48y.jpg (90kB)


sugaroverflow [4:40 PM]
how do we want to see this applied to our community?

heyrocker
[4:40 PM]
I think that we need to define that equity is a value we want to see achieved


[4:40]
That we want to see systemic barriers to participation removed


davidhernandez
[4:41 PM]
would help to also define those barriers


rachel_norfolk [4:41 PM]
I think we need to go even more basic than that and define what Drupal means by systemic barriers. Don’t assume _anything_


davidhernandez
[4:41 PM]
yes

heyrocker [4:41 PM]
Oh I agree

[4:41]
I’m just saying in concept

[4:41]
This is the kind of thing I would like to see in a values statement

heyrocker
[4:41 PM]
I don’t see “Teamwork” as a value
4 replies Last reply 3 days ago View thread

heyrocker [4:41 PM]
I want to know what our moral code is


acrosman
[4:42 PM]
Example barriers might be useful, I would expect any attempt to define _all_ the barriers will fall short.  If for no other reason than some barriers aren't clear until others have been removed. (edited)


rachel_norfolk [4:42 PM]
Interesting. I absolutely would see working as a team as a strong value

heyrocker
[4:42 PM]
If we have one, we may decide we don’t. I would disagree with such a decision but nobody is doing this for just me.

davidhernandez [4:43 PM]
teamwork can be a vague thing. plenty of people have been criticized for "not being a team player" when identifying problems.

[4:44]
and it implies a goal is more important than the individual (sometimes)

mdrummond [4:45 PM]
I think inevitably people end up working together when you put a bunch of people on a project. The question is *how* people work together. What is it about the way people end up working together do we care about? How do we want teams on an individual to interact with each other? Getting at that is where the value is.


dsnopek [4:46 PM]
joined #governance.


sugaroverflow [4:47 PM]
I'd like to re-surface @agentrickard’s question from earlier:
>What do we want in a governance policy?
• a statement of values
• ....? (edited)

agentrickard [4:48 PM]
* a conflict resolution process

[4:49]
* a decision communication process

mdrummond [4:49 PM]
1) Define the leaders and groups that uphold those values, 2) Define the code of conduct that ensures those values are maintained, 3) Define the consequences for not meeting those values through code of conduct violations.


agentrickard [4:49 PM]
that's a very narrow slice of governance

[4:50]
important, but narrow

mdrummond [4:50 PM]
It’s the missing slice.

sugaroverflow
[4:50 PM]
>a conflict resolution process
Do we feel that our current one (reporting to the CWG) is lacking? What more would you like them to do or handle?

agentrickard [4:51 PM]
there is a lot of question about what happens once something gets to the CWG
1 reply 3 days ago View thread

agentrickard [4:51 PM]
and a lot of informal passing of information that goes with it

davidhernandez [4:51 PM]
a conflict of interest policy

 2 replies Last reply 3 days ago View thread

mdrummond [4:53 PM]
I think the concept of conflict resolution is sometimes appropriate, but not always. Focusing on mediation between two parties who have a difference of opinion is one thing. I don’t think that mental model is probably appropriate when there is a big power differential between individuals or when the issue is problematic actions one person did towards one person or multiple people or actions that affected an entire community.


sugaroverflow [4:53 PM]
>a decision communication process
Do we want to see decisions communicated better top down? Or this about having input in the decisions?

agentrickard [4:54 PM]
@mdrummond that's a great point. What process is that? Adjudication? Arbitration?

[4:55]
And how do we tell the differece between the two cases?

[4:55]
@sugaroverflow y point about decision communication was standards for what people can expect to be communicated, how, and when

mdrummond [4:55 PM]
I think adjudication strikes me as the more appropriate word of those two.

agentrickard [4:56 PM]
that's where things will get messy, but it's really important to have

[4:56]
so there's an implied "conflict / conduct assessment" practice here too

rachel_norfolk
[4:56 PM]
Between what entities do you want to see better comms, @sugaroverflow ?
1 reply 3 days ago View thread

agentrickard [4:58 PM]
my initial reason for listing that wasn't necessarily that we have bad communication but that our communication processes are not well-known or well-defined. (Do we have something like "Security Wednesday" for the CWG?


rachel_norfolk
[4:59 PM]
No, we don’t. But it sounds like you have an interesting model the cwg should look at?

agentrickard [4:59 PM]
i don't

[4:59]
i'm saying that we _need_ one

davidhernandez [5:00 PM]
the meeting notes are made public and tweeted out now. ive found that nice

agentrickard [5:00 PM]
e.g. "Here's the monthly docket of cases the CWG has handled"


rachel_norfolk [5:00 PM]
What’s the Security Wednesday thing?


agentrickard [5:00 PM]
every Wednesday at a scheduled time is when code security announcements are made

rachel_norfolk [5:00 PM]
Oh yes - the cwg publish weekly reports. And tweet link

agentrickard [5:00 PM]
(I did not know that)

rachel_norfolk [5:01 PM]
From @ drupalcommunity

[5:01]
And it’s on a Tuesday

davidhernandez [5:01 PM]
again, one place where communication happens or can be discovered, would help.


rachel_norfolk
[5:01 PM]
I believe things are afoot in that direction


sugaroverflow [5:02 PM]
We're reaching the end of the scheduled time for this chat :slightly_smiling_face: but I want to make sure everyone has been able to speak their mind. Is there anything else we want to bring up (on transcript)?

agentrickard [5:02 PM]
we also need documentation of who handles what kind of issues

rachel_norfolk [5:02 PM]
Yes

agentrickard [5:05 PM]
the security team might not be a bad model

sugaroverflow [5:08 PM]
:sparkles: I'm ending this governance chat transcript here, but feel free to keep discussing!

I'd like to thank everyone for attending and discussing. If we want to improve our community, we have to first show up and have these discussions.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this meeting, there isn't going to be a list of statements to vote on. Instead, I'll be posting a condensed version of our chat sometime tonight/early tomorrow if you'd like to review. The entire transcript will also be posted.
	sugaroverflow [4:00 PM]
	:sparkles: :one: Hi, Welcome to this Drupal Community Governance chat! This is one of many meetings that we are holding to connect people who are interested in talking about community governance.

	• If you’re not sure what that means, I encourage you to read:
	`http://bit.ly/drnikki-what-we-talk-about-governance`
	• For more information on what this process is
	`http://bit.ly/DA-community-governance`


	[4:00]
	:sparkles: :two: About this meeting!
	• We are text-only (with no threads).
	• The entire meeting will be recorded and available afterwards.
	• If you feel uncomfortable sharing publicly in this space, you can DM me
	• This is a Drupal Space and subject to the Drupal Code of Conduct:
	`https://www.drupal.org/dcoc`


	sugaroverflow [4:00 PM]
	:sparkles: :three: I haven’t been 100% happy with the format of these, so I’m trying something different:
	• 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 a readable format

	_This format of discussion can be awkward and it’s not perfect, but it’s our direct line to the top so let’s make the best of it!_ :muscle::skin-tone-3: :smile: (edited)
	1 reply 3 days ago View thread


	sugaroverflow
	[4:00 PM]
	:sparkles: :sparkles: :sparkles: :sparkles: :sparkles: :sparkles: :sparkles: :sparkles: :sparkles: :sparkles: If you’re participating in this meeting, please respond to this thread with your name, how you heard about this meeting (twitter/general/etc), and what you would like to discuss today! (edited)
	+4 10 replies Last reply 3 days ago View thread


	cleverington [4:02 PM]
	joined #governance.

	sugaroverflow
	[4:02 PM]
	Some things we’ve talked about in previous meetings that we could discuss:
	- a formal code of conduct
	- a values statement from top leadership

	Or anything else that's been on your mind regarding community governance!


	beeradb [4:02 PM]
	joined #governance.

	agentrickard [4:05 PM]
	the values statement seems to be the fundemental need


	sugaroverflow [4:06 PM]
	Agreed! and I think that we shouldn't can't start talking about a framework for the community to have input in governance _until_ we have that values statement. And I want it to come from the top level down.


	agentrickard [4:06 PM]
	so how do we make that happen?

	sugaroverflow [4:07 PM]
	So these governance meetings are going to compile some recommendations for leadership

	[4:07]
	we'll have to include our need for a statement of values in there


	[4:08]
	I _really_ like the idea of calling it a fundamental need, thank you @agentrickard


	mdrummond [4:12 PM]
	I think it’s critical that project leadership put out a strong statement of values, yes. I just really want to believe that values statement will have at its heart that we value a community where all are welcome, and most particularly we strongly welcome those who have faced challenges due to their identity. And that we want a community that creates a safe environment centered on inclusiveness, so that the diversity of our community reflects the diversity of the wider world. And by valuing inclusiveness that means we are willing to make sacrifices to make sure that value is met.



	sugaroverflow [4:12 PM]
	Could you elaborate on "willing to make sacrifices to make sure that value is met"?

	mdrummond [4:13 PM]
	Are we willing to say that we value people being good to each other and not driving others out—either intentionally or unintentionally—through their actions? And that if they do—even if they have made contributions via code or otherwise—that does not outweigh the harm they may be causing?



	[4:14]
	Are we willing to value inclusiveness to the point where we put actual $$$ towards the sort of things at conferences that allow more people to attend?

	sugaroverflow
	[4:14 PM]
	That reminds me of an earlier discussion about how the CWG or DA have knowledge of problematic community members, but camps do not. If we have a values statement that reflects what we are willing to do to create a safe environment - then we have a sort of _tool_ to enact things to create that safety.


	mdrummond [4:17 PM]
	In an ideal world I would want to see this sort of values statement come from top leadership without prompting. I’m just concerned that I see Dries put a lot more lot and attention towards bitcoin and voice interfaces than he does to diversity and inclusion. I believe that he’s sympathetic, but it just doesn’t seem to be top of mind from the things he chooses to communicate externally. And we can’t change what he cares about, which is tough.


	sugaroverflow
	[4:18 PM]
	Yes, but I see these discussions as a way to tell him what _we_ care about :smile: so that's progress!


	rachel_norfolk [4:18 PM]
	Hi - just popped by and spotted the values thing. Maybe something like “Teamwork, innovation, and openness in our community” would be a good high level value that would then have explanation it it and other values as part of its implementation?

	sugaroverflow
	[4:19 PM]
	Hi, thanks for popping in! :slightly_smiling_face:

	[4:20]
	I think those values are too broad and buzz-word-y. They don't feel real enough to me.

	[4:20]
	I need stronger words that demonstrate that this is leadership that will protect people in the community who might be at risk, whether that's a woman, or a POC.

	mdrummond [4:20 PM]
	I think ideally I’d like to see our values statement include more than one-word descriptors. It’s fine to have those as headings as long as there is more that elaborates on those.

	rachel_norfolk
	[4:20 PM]
	As it happens, it’s one of our current value statement.

	[4:21]
	See https://www.drupal.org/about/mission-and-principles
	Drupal.org
	Mission and principles
	Drupal's community believes in open source, innovation, globalism, and collaboration. Its mission: to build the best open source content management framework.
	Nov 3rd, 2015 at 7:27 AM


	sugaroverflow
	[4:21 PM]
	It's a good value to have, but I feel that it's not sufficient.


	mdrummond [4:24 PM]
	I’ve read some things recently that have pointed out exactly what @sugaroverflow said. The term diversity is too wishy washy, in that diversity can end up meaning anything. Are we willing to step up for women? LGBTQIA+ folk? Are we willing to work to break down white male supremacy in our community?



	sugaroverflow
	[4:25 PM]
	(If you're just dropping in, please scroll up to the chat intro - thank you!)

	mdrummond [4:26 PM]
	“Teamwork, innovation, and openness in our community” to me says very little about valuing and protecting a wider range of people. Openness can just be transparency like posting meeting minutes, teamwork can just be working together in positive or negative ways.


	sugaroverflow
	[4:27 PM]
	This also goes back to bad actors in our community. We're constantly dealing with drama on a reactionary basis because we don't have a set of strong values.


	agentrickard [4:27 PM]
	so what I hear is that there is at least one missing element from the core values, and we should add something else (at the least)


	rachel_norfolk
	[4:29 PM]
	Yes. It is something to start with and improve though. That is an easier “sell” to those you are asking to produce something


	agentrickard [4:30 PM]
	e.g. Tolerance of differences, respect for each other, and something something something


	heyrocker
	[4:31 PM]
	I read something very powerful recently about how we should replace the terms Diversity and Inclusion with Equity and Justice


	rachel_norfolk [4:31 PM]
	Which are all methods for achieving good teamwork. Maybe it’s not a new set to values that are needed but a proposed explanation of how we agree they are achieved.

	agentrickard [4:32 PM]
	well, that's something else I wanted to get to: what are the elements we need for a governance plan/policy?


	[4:32]
	Have we documented those yet?

	mdrummond [4:32 PM]
	I’ve been on a board where we’ve worked with a consultant on long-term planning at a retreat. Getting leaders in a room to work through a process to generate strong mission statements and values is an achievable thing. It takes time and money, but it is an achievable, doable thing. I do not think that is too big an ask for our leaders to take some time to get together and think about this, put their attention and intention towards it.


	rachel_norfolk [4:32 PM]
	We want diversity because it’s actually better for us all and better for the project. Not just because it is a thing
	4 replies Last reply 3 days ago View thread

	mdrummond [4:33 PM]
	I’d be careful with the language of “tolerance of differences.” I’ve seen a number of people talk about how tolerating something has a tone of “Well, that’s not our preference, but I guess we’ll tolerate it.”


	heyrocker [4:33 PM]
	I also want it because it is morally right


	[4:33]
	and that’s the kind of value I’d like to see in the values statement

	davidhernandez [4:35 PM]
	I like where this equity and justice thing is going.

	agentrickard [4:35 PM]
	@mdrummond we can finesse the language. I think it's important we at least draft some addition or change to what exists


	heyrocker [4:35 PM]
	I’m sure most of us have seen the equality vs equity comic


	sugaroverflow
	[4:36 PM]
	@heyrocker link please (for those who have not and archival purposes) (edited)


	heyrocker [4:36 PM]
	I can’t find it now :disappointed:


	agentrickard [4:37 PM]
	I'd like to table this for a minute and get back to the question of "what do we want in a governance policy" -- 1 strong statement of values. Got it.


	rachel_norfolk [4:37 PM]
	I’ve not seen it

	heyrocker
	[4:37 PM]
	oh you mean for the comic

	[4:37]
	hang on

	agentrickard [4:37 PM]
	https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://everydayfeminism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Untitled1-300x225.png&imgrefurl=https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/equality-is-not-enough/&h=225&w=300&tbnid=C-d4N3IiyePJEM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=213&usg=__Q1evf7sOTLqZH_ex92JoWFD_j80=&vet=10ahUKEwiouq2J1JHXAhVBeCYKHcyMB74Q9QEIKjAA..i&docid=n2SwHjar-nviqM&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiouq2J1JHXAhVBeCYKHcyMB74Q9QEIKjAA

	[4:37]
	wow

	sugaroverflow
	[4:38 PM]
	thanks! here's the equality vs equity comic referenced:
	https://everydayfeminism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Untitled1-300x225.png (120kB)


	agentrickard [4:38 PM]
	source -- https://outfront.org/strategicplan
	outfront.org
	Strategic Plan \| OutFront Minnesota
	We are leading Minnesota toward LGBT equality through a combination of public policy, legal and individual advocacy, and education that is unmatched by any other organization.



	heyrocker
	[4:38 PM]
	There have been many versions but this is the one im most familiar with


	[4:38]
	http://culturalorganizing.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/IISC_EqualityEquity.jpg (195kB)



	[4:39]
	It has gone through some iterations

	rachel_norfolk [4:39 PM]
	Ah! I know what you are talking about now

	davidhernandez
	[4:39 PM]
	the most recent ive seen in this one. https://i.redd.it/tn3468quc48y.jpg (90kB)


	sugaroverflow [4:40 PM]
	how do we want to see this applied to our community?

	heyrocker
	[4:40 PM]
	I think that we need to define that equity is a value we want to see achieved


	[4:40]
	That we want to see systemic barriers to participation removed


	davidhernandez
	[4:41 PM]
	would help to also define those barriers



	rachel_norfolk [4:41 PM]
	I think we need to go even more basic than that and define what Drupal means by systemic barriers. Don’t assume _anything_


	davidhernandez
	[4:41 PM]
	yes

	heyrocker [4:41 PM]
	Oh I agree

	[4:41]
	I’m just saying in concept

	[4:41]
	This is the kind of thing I would like to see in a values statement

	heyrocker
	[4:41 PM]
	I don’t see “Teamwork” as a value
	4 replies Last reply 3 days ago View thread

	heyrocker [4:41 PM]
	I want to know what our moral code is


	acrosman
	[4:42 PM]
	Example barriers might be useful, I would expect any attempt to define _all_ the barriers will fall short. If for no other reason than some barriers aren't clear until others have been removed. (edited)


	rachel_norfolk [4:42 PM]
	Interesting. I absolutely would see working as a team as a strong value

	heyrocker
	[4:42 PM]
	If we have one, we may decide we don’t. I would disagree with such a decision but nobody is doing this for just me.

	davidhernandez [4:43 PM]
	teamwork can be a vague thing. plenty of people have been criticized for "not being a team player" when identifying problems.

	[4:44]
	and it implies a goal is more important than the individual (sometimes)

	mdrummond [4:45 PM]
	I think inevitably people end up working together when you put a bunch of people on a project. The question is how people work together. What is it about the way people end up working together do we care about? How do we want teams on an individual to interact with each other? Getting at that is where the value is.


	dsnopek [4:46 PM]
	joined #governance.


	sugaroverflow [4:47 PM]
	I'd like to re-surface @agentrickard’s question from earlier:
	>What do we want in a governance policy?
	• a statement of values
	• ....? (edited)

	agentrickard [4:48 PM]
	* a conflict resolution process

	[4:49]
	* a decision communication process

	mdrummond [4:49 PM]
	1) Define the leaders and groups that uphold those values, 2) Define the code of conduct that ensures those values are maintained, 3) Define the consequences for not meeting those values through code of conduct violations.


	agentrickard [4:49 PM]
	that's a very narrow slice of governance

	[4:50]
	important, but narrow

	mdrummond [4:50 PM]
	It’s the missing slice.

	sugaroverflow
	[4:50 PM]
	>a conflict resolution process
	Do we feel that our current one (reporting to the CWG) is lacking? What more would you like them to do or handle?

	agentrickard [4:51 PM]
	there is a lot of question about what happens once something gets to the CWG
	1 reply 3 days ago View thread

	agentrickard [4:51 PM]
	and a lot of informal passing of information that goes with it

	davidhernandez [4:51 PM]
	a conflict of interest policy

	2 replies Last reply 3 days ago View thread

	mdrummond [4:53 PM]
	I think the concept of conflict resolution is sometimes appropriate, but not always. Focusing on mediation between two parties who have a difference of opinion is one thing. I don’t think that mental model is probably appropriate when there is a big power differential between individuals or when the issue is problematic actions one person did towards one person or multiple people or actions that affected an entire community.


	sugaroverflow [4:53 PM]
	>a decision communication process
	Do we want to see decisions communicated better top down? Or this about having input in the decisions?

	agentrickard [4:54 PM]
	@mdrummond that's a great point. What process is that? Adjudication? Arbitration?

	[4:55]
	And how do we tell the differece between the two cases?

	[4:55]
	@sugaroverflow y point about decision communication was standards for what people can expect to be communicated, how, and when

	mdrummond [4:55 PM]
	I think adjudication strikes me as the more appropriate word of those two.

	agentrickard [4:56 PM]
	that's where things will get messy, but it's really important to have

	[4:56]
	so there's an implied "conflict / conduct assessment" practice here too

	rachel_norfolk
	[4:56 PM]
	Between what entities do you want to see better comms, @sugaroverflow ?
	1 reply 3 days ago View thread

	agentrickard [4:58 PM]
	my initial reason for listing that wasn't necessarily that we have bad communication but that our communication processes are not well-known or well-defined. (Do we have something like "Security Wednesday" for the CWG?


	rachel_norfolk
	[4:59 PM]
	No, we don’t. But it sounds like you have an interesting model the cwg should look at?

	agentrickard [4:59 PM]
	i don't

	[4:59]
	i'm saying that we _need_ one

	davidhernandez [5:00 PM]
	the meeting notes are made public and tweeted out now. ive found that nice

	agentrickard [5:00 PM]
	e.g. "Here's the monthly docket of cases the CWG has handled"


	rachel_norfolk [5:00 PM]
	What’s the Security Wednesday thing?


	agentrickard [5:00 PM]
	every Wednesday at a scheduled time is when code security announcements are made

	rachel_norfolk [5:00 PM]
	Oh yes - the cwg publish weekly reports. And tweet link

	agentrickard [5:00 PM]
	(I did not know that)

	rachel_norfolk [5:01 PM]
	From @ drupalcommunity

	[5:01]
	And it’s on a Tuesday

	davidhernandez [5:01 PM]
	again, one place where communication happens or can be discovered, would help.


	rachel_norfolk
	[5:01 PM]
	I believe things are afoot in that direction


	sugaroverflow [5:02 PM]
	We're reaching the end of the scheduled time for this chat :slightly_smiling_face: but I want to make sure everyone has been able to speak their mind. Is there anything else we want to bring up (on transcript)?

	agentrickard [5:02 PM]
	we also need documentation of who handles what kind of issues

	rachel_norfolk [5:02 PM]
	Yes

	agentrickard [5:05 PM]
	the security team might not be a bad model

	sugaroverflow [5:08 PM]
	:sparkles: I'm ending this governance chat transcript here, but feel free to keep discussing!

	I'd like to thank everyone for attending and discussing. If we want to improve our community, we have to first show up and have these discussions.

	As I mentioned at the beginning of this meeting, there isn't going to be a list of statements to vote on. Instead, I'll be posting a condensed version of our chat sometime tonight/early tomorrow if you'd like to review. The entire transcript will also be posted.