I'm forking this discussion from the (no subject) thread.
I think it might be a good idea to have some sort of guidance, such as a TCC, for how incivility is handled in technical spaces beyond reporting problems with WMF employees to their WMF managers and/or HR, because not everyone works for WMF, so it might be good to have a way to handle situations when someone who is not a WMF employee causes problems in technical spaces.
However, I'm not sure that I agree that the TCC is "a (draft) community policy, being approved by the community. The community has already approved a large fraction of it. It's not a (draft) WMF policy."
A substantial proportion of the comments on the talk page (and the archives) are from WMF employees, not community members. I realize, Matt, that you have been attempting to recruit broader participation, but it looks like the results have been less than one would have hoped. Given WMF's history of clashing with the community about subjects such as Superprotect, VisualEditor, and ACTRIAL, it seems to me that while WMF participation in discussions such as this is good, the high proportion of WMF representation on the talk page makes the resulting document more likely to reflect the view of WMF and its employees rather than the larger community. So, no, I would not consider this draft to be a community document at this time. The proportion of participation from WMF staff is too high.
However, there are some paths forward: (1) Proceed with this as a policy that applies to WMF staff only, (2) get the WMF Board to approve the document as a policy, or (3) get the document to pass a community RFC, closed by a community steward.
My advice, if WMF wants this TCC to hold weight with the community, is to put a lot of distance between WMF and this document. WMF can support the document's creation, but should not be in a leadership role, and WMF staff should be far less prominent on the talk page. That the lower the proportion of WMF involvement in the creation of this document, the more likely the document is to be viewed in a positive light by the community.
I don't mean to sound like I intend to halt the entire TCC process, but I would advise proceeding with it differently than the talk page suggests has been happening so far.
Regarding the applicability of the proposed policy to IRC, I view the proposed TCC as requiring explicit opt-in from IRC channels through their own internal governance processes. The TCC's assertion that it applies to IRC channels does not, by itself, actually make that happen without explicit opt-in from those channels; similarly, my drafting a policy on English Wikipedia that claims to apply to #wikipedia-en would have no validity without opt-in from #wikipedia-en.
I need to attend to other matters so I won't participate in further discussions on this topic for the near future, but I welcome comments (and differing opinions) from others. To reiterate: I think that there could be benefits from a TCC, but I would suggest (1) softening the WMF's role in the creation of this document and (2) stating that the TCC applies to IRC channels on an opt-in basis.
Pine
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.org wrote: On 11/17/2016 10:30 PM, Pine W wrote:
As a reminder: IRC is governed by Freenode. Channels can have their own rules, and there are widely varying systems of internal governance for Wikimedia IRC channels. I think it's important to note that WMF and the Wikimedia community are guests on Freenode, and I'm uncomfortable with the proposition to extend a WMF policy into IRC channels without explicit consent from the ops of those channels; it seems to me that the TCC would be a per-channel opt-in on IRC, not a WMF blanket standard.
I just wanted to note that this is a (draft) community policy, being approved by the community. The community has already approved a large fraction of it. It's not a (draft) WMF policy.
(It is subject to Legal requirements like some other community policies, but it seems this will only affect a small section.)
Thanks,
Matt Flaschen
Hi there,
A bit of context is needed in this discussion about the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct/Draft.
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 6:45 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
A substantial proportion of the comments on the talk page (and the archives) are from WMF employees, not community members.
The dichotomy WMF employees vs community members is false in Wikimedia technical spaces (and probably beyond, but I'll keep the scope in Wikimedia tech here). Even the roles of WMF employee / volunteer are quite mixed, since the WMF has been hiring prolific technical volunteers during years.
While having WMF usernames administrating or simply editing articles in i.e. English Wikipedia would be basically unthinkable, in Wikimedia technical spaces is sometimes a norm, sometimes a requirement. Look at the admin groups of MediaWiki.org, wikitech.wikimedia.org, Phabricator, Gerrit, many technical mailing lists and IRC channels. Look also at the maintainers of many software projects and Phabricator projects. look as well in the list of people who contribute code, bug reports, and other types of technical contributions.
I realize, Matt, that you have been attempting to recruit broader participation, but it looks like the results have been less than one would have hoped.
The discussion of the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft (which happens in MediaWiki.org, not Phabricator) is probably the process that has been more widely and continuously advertised in Wikimedia technical spaces. It is a good example of a tough and quite exhausting long-term discussion that is likely to drive away many people.
The saddest paradox is that such discussion dynamics work against the main beneficiaries of the CoC: newcomers, minority groups, and other people with weaker defenses against harassment and disrespect. If you look at the participants regularly active in the discussion, you will find that the big majority (regardless affiliation, myself included) fit in a quite narrow and homogeneous profile in terms of gender, academic level, English proficiency, discussion style, color and thickness of skin, stubbornness...
Given WMF's history of clashing with the community about subjects such as
Superprotect, VisualEditor, and ACTRIAL
Can you provide examples of such WMF vs volunteers clashes in Wikimedia technical spaces?
The toughest and most polarized discussions that I recall had WMF and volunteers in both sides. In fact, it is not uncommon to see opposition to "a WMF move" coming from WMF members, in their volunteer or professional roles.
The discussion about this CoC is no exception, and we have seen WMF employees with different opinions and votes at almost every point.
it seems to me that while WMF
participation in discussions such as this is good, the high proportion of WMF representation on the talk page makes the resulting document more likely to reflect the view of WMF and its employees rather than the larger community.
Can you specify where in the draft do you see "the view of WMF and its employees rather than the larger community"?
We have been discussing this draft for more than a year now, and almost every sentence has been reviewed and discussed. My main concern (inspired by other promoters of this Code) has been to reflect the view and the interests of the potential beneficiaries of the CoC. In fact, many of the toughest and longest discussions were not centered around the interests of these existing and potential community members at all.
A bit more context to address other replies to this thread:
Action against harassment and disrespect is already taken in Wikimedia technical spaces, partly thanks to a social pressure that (I dare to say) is less tolerant to such disruptions than many Wikimedia communities, partly thanks to the many admins/maintainers in many different spaces, each of them with different tools to address harassment. A subset of the Technical Communication team https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration/Community_health handles the reports that we receive, and recently we started publishing a metric of cases handled in the Community Engagement quarterly reviews https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement#Quarterly_review_documentation .
All this is happening thanks to the initiative of many individuals with different affiliations (for instance, those who participated in the writing of the Bugzilla (now Phabricator) etiquette https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_management/Phabricator_etiquette). However, it is happening in a quite ad hoc way (i.e. nobody decided that the Technical Collaboration team would handle harassment reports, we just kept receiving them and decided to do something about them).
The Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces should provide a common framework for all the different venues shared by the technical community, and a mechanism to handle reports and enforce the Code (a committee open to all affiliations).
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org