Oliver Keyes wrote:
But we /can't/ have one for Wikimedia, you see, because we need to discuss it more. Yes, it's nice that you've come up with a policy, based on those other policies that have helped in those similar areas
- but we need to discuss it more and justify why it should exist.
There's nothing wrong with discussion and justification.
But we are BEYOND "ooh, I don't know whether this is useful ~even in theory~ or not" and the fact that such a discussion is going on is proof positive that we have a problem. Because there are marginalised voices speaking out within our community, and marginalised voices within the wider tech ecosystem, and pretty much all of them agree that yes, this is useful, in theory and in practice.
Who in our community is marginalised and speaking out? A number of people have asked for concrete examples of problems so that a proposed solution can meet the appropriate requirements. This is standard practice in almost any technical community: evaluate the problem(s) and then discuss potential solutions. That's not what seems to be happening here.
A proposed code of conduct like this is quite expensive to implement and enforce/maintain. I personally don't get the sense from reading your replies that you acknowledge the high cost.
This policy is not for you. This policy is not for me. This policy is for the people who are marginalised and shoved aside and lack franchise in our existing processes and ways of interacting.
Can you please be more specific here? Who lacks franchise in our existing processes and ways of interacting? Can you name a specific problem or problems that have come up in the past? How would having this proposed code of conduct have helped? It's reasonable, prior to creating additional bureaucracy, for people to push back and ask whether it's necessary.
MZMcBride