Answered Questions and Feedback Responses

Question/feedback:

Can we add “When you give promises to people, keep them.” as a basic rule?

Answer from the Ombudsperson Group:

Thank you for the suggestion. We believe promises can be hard to keep in certain life situations. Also, volunteer contributors have no contractual obligations. That doesn't mean promises have no value (on the contrary, they should be highly valued), but it is a tough rule if you consider the words of the Applicability and Scope section: “The Basic Rules are binding and should always be followed. Going against them will have consequences.”

Question/feedback:

You have for sure best intention here:
“Even when acting with the best intentions, please understand that others might judge a situation differently to you. Stop when asked to. That’s your warning. You shouldn’t need more.“

But it's misguiding. I could say: I judge quite some parts of the coc of being way too strictly harmony driven - suppressing needed discourse and challenging others were needed to claim the responsibility that is needed for a healthy, grown-up community!

Using your coc against you: I’d like to ask the group to stop (this coc)! This is your warning. You shouldn’t need more! - Got my point? ;-) Of course, I don't want you to stop not do I want to warn you. Maybe a little on this “forcing harmony at any price thingie” of yours.

Less rules, more principles.
Less harmony at any price, more healthy discourse, more responsibility, more diversity.

Thanks for your efforts!

Answer from the Ombudsperson Group:

Thank you for your feedback. Our intention is that the Code of Conduct should help discussions stay productive and fruitful. Even heated discussions can be fruitful. The Code of Conduct draws the line at things like personal attacks and harassment. We believe it is possible to disagree deeply with other people, but still maintain a constructive dialogue.

Question/feedback:

In the second paragraph, I would change "Please consider that this code also gives you the responsibility to behave respectfully towards everyone." to "Please consider, though, that this code also confers upon you the responsibility to behave respectfully towards everyone."

Like, sure, everyone is a free individual - but by abiding by the CoC you need to be aware that you are expected to act within certain guidelines. I consider this to be less of a gift of responsibility and more of an obligation of responsibility.

Answer from the Ombudsperson Group:

Your differentiation between a gift and an obligation makes sense. To keep it short and sweet and align it with the updated Basic Rule #1, we will change the last sentence in the second paragraph of the preface to “However, you also have the responsibility to treat people with respect.”

Question/feedback:

"It means that you think about what you say before you say it and consider the results of your actions. Could it hurt someone emotionally or physically?"

- How can something someone says hurt someone physically? This is physically not possible
- "hurt someone emotionally" - when code is criticized, people can get "hurt emotionally", especially if their "belief" is that they write the best code. So no negative code reviews anymore, just in case someone "could" be hurt emotionally?

Answer from the Ombudsperson Group:

Thank you for the feedback. We will change the sentence “Could it hurt someone emotionally or physically?” in the FAQ to “Can it hurt someone?”. 

Negative code reviews are of course still possible. Constructive criticism and feedback are encouraged. A “-1” should neither be made without reason nor perceived as an insult or attack.

Question/feedback:

I‘d exchange “respect” with “decency” and “courtesy”.
Reasoning:
In a lot of cultures respect is earned by actions.
Respect should be given based on a persons actions and I think guess treating people courteously and with decency is the original meaning of the sentence.

Answer from the Ombudsperson Group:

Thank you for the feedback. You have a good point, and we wanted to give you a good answer. To do so, we had to ask for some advice and give it some good thought.

We will change “Behave respectfully to all community members” to “Treat all community members with respect”. Even if respect is earned by actions, the code of conduct says that all community members should extend respect first, regardless of whether the person has earned it or not. That means we should assume good intent. This also the meaning explained in the FAQ.

In English the word respect is a broad and widely accepted term. It is hard to find a word that is entirely unambiguous. Decency and courtesy are not less open to misinterpretation. By swapping the adverb respectfully with the noun respect, we hope the sentence becomes clearer than it was.

Question/feedback:

This means you cannot hug people anymore without checking first. While I understand the rule it is a bit unfortunate because it will lead to less warmth in human contact in the long run. You can check first if touching (hugs, shaking hand etc.) is ok, but I assume most people will not bother to do this and refrain from touching in general.

Answer from the Ombudsperson Group:

Thank you for the feedback. We believe human warmth can be expressed in many ways, and hugging is definitely one of them. Physical closeness usually requires some kind of existing connection, just as you probably wouldn't hug a random person on the street without some kind of prior interaction.

A consent can be non-verbal. If you approach someone with arms wide open and they open their arms in return, they are consenting to a hug. If they keep their arms down, their are not up for a hug right now.

Question/feedback:

l like "condone" isn't a strong enough word. "We don't condone" is often used as a weasel-word (at least in the US) to mean "I don't approve of, but I am not going to do anything about it." I recommend strengthening it to "we do not tolerate".

Answer from the Ombudsperson Group:

Thank you for the feedback. We will change “We don't condone” in Basic Rule #4 to “We do not tolerate”.

Question/feedback:

I support the clause saying everyone has a responsibility to discourage and stop inappropriate behavior. But that is not at all implied in the wording of the original statement from the "short version." If that's the intended difference between points 3 and 4, that needs to be better stated. As is, it seems like it comes out of nowhere in the FAQ part.

Answer from the Ombudsperson Group:

You are quite right. The FAQ entry doesn't entirely represent the meaning of the rule. We will change the end of the FAQ entry to say “… this rule covers more serious situations. While trolls are better left alone, those bystanders who feel safe to do so might consider intervening to stop ongoing harassment or unwanted sexual attention”.

Question/feedback:

Why should I only respect the time of volunteers? Shouldn't I be mindful of the time of everyone? Just because someone is paid to do a job, doesn't mean I need to unnecessarily waste their time.

Answer from the Ombudsperson Group:

You are right that everyone should be mindful of other people's time. However, when speaking about the same task, volunteer time has a very different quality to paid time. Example: Repeatedly asking urgent questions and expecting immediate answers from volunteer community members would violate this section in the Code of Conduct. Doing the same with paid support would be a matter for your terms of service agreement.

Question/feedback:

This is good. However, you should be respectful of someone's time even when they're paid in what they're doing, or in some cases someone may be spending a mix of paid and unpaid time. Everyone has the same hours in the day, and they're all valuable. Just be respectful of people's time, period.

Answer from the Ombudsperson Group:

It is great to hear that you like the proposal. Thank you. We have answered a similar question regarding respect for time above.

Question/feedback:

This should also apply for the creation of issues on forge.
 

Answer from the Ombudsperson Group:

Thank you for the feedback. We will shorten General advice #5 to "Be positive and give constructive feedback."

Question/feedback:

"constructive feedback" is unfortunately not something everyone understands. I would create an extra bullet point for this and explain it (instead of lumping it in "be positive").

Also, if you can agree on this, "constructive feedback" has IMHO some more elements.
In addition to the ones you already wrote:

1. DO NOT GENERALIZE negative feedback and be SPECIFIC: not "your suggestions are (always) irrelevant", but e.g. "you made a number of suggestion this year. Though some were very good and have been implemented, you might take some time to search if an issue already exists before you post."
2. explain why, instead of, "your issue is unhelpful", "your issue is a duplicate of #123."

One thing I noticed when people give positive feedback in the TYPO3 community: It is often very general and not specific. Specific feedback (positive and negative) is more helpful IMHO.

Answer from the Ombudsperson Group:

Giving constructive feedback is indeed no easy task. We try to keep the code of conduct short, so we won't add it all in there, but we think it is an excellent as a FAQ item, and you have given us a very good starting point. Thank you!

Question/feedback:

Would the ranting which happened on twitter some weeks ago already be against the code of conduct and when does defeating the product and the loved community end and trolling begin?

Answer from the Ombudsperson Group:

(We think you mean defending, rather than defeating, so we're basing the answer on that.)

We can't comment on individual cases, and since this case happened in the past, it isn't covered by this code of conduct. In a potential future case where someone attacks TYPO3 or the community, it will be the defender’s job to be in accordance with the code of conduct, just as much as anybody else. Defending the product or community should never be done by demeaning or attacking other people. Only argue facts. For example, using bad words about someone will neither further the conversation nor defend the product. Saying “what you're saying is wrong because X, Y, Z” is the way to handle it. If the other party doesn't drop the topic, you drop the topic. Say: “I don't think we are getting anywhere with this discussion. I won't make any further replies.”

Question/feedback:

I very much like the requirement that both parties have a right to be heard. That's a critically important component often left out of many CoCs in the name of "protecting victims."

However, there is no mention of anonymity either way. That's... a touchy issue, depending on the situation and what the infraction is. I know some people feel reporter-anonymity is critical and necessary to protect victims, but conversely anonymity means the accused is unable to fully respond and defend themselves if appropriate. There should probably be some mention one way or another to avoid that becoming an issue in-the-moment.

Even if it's just "the need for anonymity will be judged case by case by the ombuds-team" or something like that, it should probably get a mention somehow so that it doesn't become a meta-fight later.

Answer from the Ombudsperson Group:

Thank you for your feedback. We will definitely allow anonymous reports of incidents. It is important to note that a reporter doesn't have to be a party in the case or know all the facts for certain. We define a party in the case as anyone directly involved in the code of conduct violation. If the violation wasn't directed at anyone in particular, a single person might be the only party.

The exact review process is not a part of the code of conduct. However, all good incident responders will first gather information from witnesses before judging if the case is a violation. Only if and when the case is judged to be a violation will the violating party be contacted and interviewed. Allowing everyone to be heard is a necessary step in a fair incident review process.

Everyone has the right to privacy. The identity of parties and witnesses involved in a review will be kept secret. In some cases, violators' names will be given out to third parties on a need-to-know basis, under a non-disclosure agreement. For example, event organizers may be given the name of anyone who is denied access to events.

Question/feedback:

I am concerned that the CoC can be used to shut down people who are a little socially awkward or who have unwanted views whatsoever. Is there an appeal process so that people who have violated the CoC can get their record cleared? Do you give people a second chance (after visible improvement and insight)? I would rather see it as a tool for guidance and nudging towards better behaviour rather than a punishment tool, without giving people room to improve and grow.

Answer from the Ombudsperson Group:

We share your concern, so preventing this has been a large part of our disucssions. Let's take them point by point:

• Getting a clean record and a second chance: All decisions can be appealed to the TYPO3 Association board (Due Process and Right to Appeal). Reactions are always time-limited. There will be no permanent exclusions, etc. (Reactions to Violations)
• Using the code of conduct to shut down people: This should never happen. Everyone have “the right to [their] own personal views and values” (Preface), though TYPO3 is not a political arena and though you can have any view or and value, you don't have to say everything you think.
• A tool for guidance and nudging towards better behavior: The person who is suspected of having violated the Code of Conduct has a right to be heard during the review process (Due Process and Right to Appeal). A good review process means trying to include the reported person in a way that is positive for everyone. The type of reaction will depend on the type of violation, but are supposed to start at “a formal warning” (Reactions to Violations).