The statement by the Board that "The Board is committed to making our communities safer" is very welcome. Perhaps the Board will turn its attention to the process for developing the *Code of conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces* which has been under discussion in draft form at [ https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct/Draft] since *July 2015* and is still not agreed. The Board was asked to involve itself in this discussion in August 2015 [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_not…] but the only response was from one member whose view then was "It makes me feel sad to see that Board involvement is asked for. This is exactly the place where I thing the affected community should deliberate, find a consensus, agree on wording and implement such a policy. A code of conduct only works if it is backed up by those who have to follow it. A top-down-manner is not the best idea to create this ownership feeling." [ https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft&…]1870425]. I am glad to see that the Board's position is now very different. It is worth the Board's while considering why this initiative has stalled. In my view, apart from the Board's regrettable lack of interest in it at the time, this process has been over-managed and overwhelmed by a small group of developers almost all of whom are members of the WMF staff and who have chosen to run this process as as if it were a WMF project rather than a community initiative, and who chose to take various parts of the discussion to other venues without notification or the possibility of effective community-wide involvement. One significant obstacle to an effective and timely completion of this process has been the ineffective handling of a contract with two consultants to advise on the form that the process should take (see the extended discussions at [ https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft/Archive_2] at "Done, down or defunct?" and [ https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft] at "Advice provided by consultants Valerie Aurora and Ashe Dryden"). It appears that the consultants were paid out of WMF (ie donors') funds but did not engage widely with the community, and their report, if any, has never been made public. (Indeed, I have no reason to believe that a formal report was ever presented -- certainly none has ever been published.) As a completely independent question, the Board may wish to assure thmselves that this consultancy was properly tendered and procured; that it was effectively managed; and that the contracted-for outputs were satisfactorily delivered. This less-than-effective process delayed rather than accelerated the completion of the Code. A second and major obstacle, which in my view has delayed the drafting process for over a year, is an intransigent attitude on the part of WMF Legal towards a requirement that persons operating this Code to handle situations involving members of the WMF staff should be under an absolute obligation to notify the WMF of the details of any complait irrespective of the wishes of the other parties for privacy, the legal requirements for confidentiality applicable in the relevant jurisdictions and the personal or professional ethical positions of the people handling these potentially very sensitive incidents. Astonishingly, a Legal Counsel for the WMF has recently issued a determination [ https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft&…] which appears to forbid the community at large to discuss the issue further. This intransigence is quite incomprehensible and is certainly quite destructive of the community engagement that is required to deliver this Code initially or to make it a workable document. It seems very likely that the obllgation being imposed is unworkable in itself, that the community will not endorse any Code that formally creates two classes of participant with two distinct levels of protection and treatment, and that formally instituting a two-tier community is a matter that the Board might wish to consider as a specific, important and urgent question of policy. It is a matter of considerable surprise that with this Code not yet in place, with no clear timeline for delivery ever proposed, the Board have been informed [https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?curid=24446] that this Code is due to be completed in a specific timeframe and that there will be a budget of around $25K per annum required to train the Committee who will oversee it. Is the Board quite confident that the Code will be completed at that (or indeed any) time, and more importantly, that when put to the community, it will command their acceptance? Since the Board quite rightly regard this area as a matter of importance, perhaps they will review the status of this project, take the steps necessary to bring to to an effective conclusion acceptable to the Community as a whole, ensure that approriate lessons are learnt from the unsatisfactory history -- and engage the Commuity fully in their deliberations and in the communication of their conclusions. "Rogol"