Hi, On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki < steinsplitter-wiki(a)live.com&gt; wrote: "This page is currently a draft." It is not ready yet for a wide call for comments. I'm not even sure that the RfC process is the right one for this. It is open for discussion. I just posted https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dr… I also would like to see more edits from volunteers and other affiliations. Please jump in! Most WMF employees drafting and discussing there are doing so out of their personal interest, with no WMF directive and most likely on their own time. I'm basically the only exception. * It is complicated to understand the policy. This new draft is based on an existing Contributor Covenant used already by several free software projects. See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dr… We keep working on it, and you are welcome to join with ideas and edits. I have the feeling that only a few staffer building this. > Please don't forget to involve the community! See above. The base text has been forked from an external effort shared by many projects. The page is open to edits and comments from anybody. The initiative has been announced and discussed here and in other channels. There is a proposal to offer an email alias to people willing to give feedback but preferring to do it privately. As you see, we are trying to get feedback from a wide variety of profiles. What else can we do to get more people involved? How you like to enforce this policy on irc? In the most effective way. :) What is your question, exactly? There is a lengthy discussion at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dr… What is the committee? A WMF super arbcom? We are discussing the committee right now. It's not a simple question. It needs to be staffed by people willing to be in that role, it needs to have community trust, and it needs to be effective. Your ideas are welcome. See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dr… > Moor transparency would be great, and to write it in simple english so > that non native speakers can get involved. This exercise can be hardly more transparent. The fact that you can find so many open questions, some areas of dense language, and still not so many participants as we all would wish is due precisely to the fact that those interested are working openly in a pure wiki style since edit 1, and in fact since T87773. As a non-native English speaker myself, I'm also interested in making the text simpler and clearer for everybody. This becomes easier as soon as paragraphs enter "testing" or "stable". Some areas are still in "unstable" and even "experimental". :) > Best and with concerns, Please keep converting your concerns into more feedback. Thank you! > > There is some discussion now about how the Code of Conduct Committee > > should be formed. See: > > > > * > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dr… > > > and > > > * > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_conduct_for_technical_spaces/Dr… -- Quim Gil Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil

On 21/08/15 14:39, Oliver Keyes wrote: If nothing else, WMF employees are likely the bulk of technical contributors with the spare time to actually talk meta about this stuff, since they're already spending their paid time making things. Imagine if you were doing all of this in your spare time, would you rather be using your limited time making things, or talking about some ephemeral proposed thing that may not ever even affect you even if it does become real? Having to make that choice could impact matters too. -I