David's example is, unfortunately, probably a good one to keep in mind.
Regarding enforcement, WMF's traditional approach is that staff discipline is handled on a track that's independent of community enforcement actions, and the WMF in-house actions are almost entirely opaque which is in contrast to the more transparent process of community enforcement. Because staff and community are comingling in these technical spaces, it may be best to have more harmonious and more transparent linkage between community and staff investigations and enforcement procedures. This might require the involvement of WMF Legal and/or HR to sort out how this system will work.
For the purpose of developing enforcement procedures that will apply to staff and to community members in similar if not identical ways, I would like to suggest setting up a working group that includes WMF HR, WMF Legal, WMF technical staff (broadly construed), community technical contributors (broadly construed), and community admins and IRC ops who may be involved in investigations and enforcement of this proposed code of conduct. Enforcement in these circumstances is complicated, and I think that a working group would be best positioned to propose a legally sound solution for consideration by staff and community alike.
Pine On Aug 12, 2015 3:42 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 August 2015 at 23:00, Matthew Flaschen mflaschen@wikimedia.org wrote:
Enforcement is still to-be-determined.
This does need to be sorted out ahead of time. Here's today's horrible example:
http://kovalc.in/2015/08/12/harassers.html
- d.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l