Meeting on January 16th
Attendees
- Allan Day
- Meg Ford
- Rosanna Yuen
- Ben Berg
- Marina Z
Agenda:
- Review plan summary from last meeting
- Review outstanding action items
- Review outstanding action items
- CoC planning topics:
- Who should deal with reports [1]
- Statement on what could happen if you violate the code of conduct
- Instructions how/when to report
[1] Factors to consider here:
- Who are the people responding on the ground?
- Who is allowed to take enforcement actions (legally, different venues, …)? [specific to large events like GUADEC]
- How do we handle information and privacy? Should the Foundation have access to those reports and incidents? Do we need a permanent file, or should it be deleted
- Is enforcement (and privacy) dependent on local laws?
- How does enforcement scale down to small events (hackfests vs conferences)
- What information is anonymously made public or shared with the Foundation directors and organizers of future events? Are any people identified as having caused problems at prior events to the organizers of new events, and if so, what information about the incidents is shared?
Review of previous action items:
- Everyone to fill in new sections that were added to spreadsheet
Notes:
Review plan summary from last meeting
Who should deal with reports
- Ben: What tasks/roles needed when processing reports? What privacy guarantees are needed so reporter can trust organizers?
- Roles:
- emotional support
- - represent their interests - has to include help for an alleged offender!
- Investigate
- Take reports
- Suggestion of enforcement actions?
- Decision on enforcement actions
- Enforcement or delegation to third parties for enforcement (venue security, responsible person at venue, police)
- Write a final report
- emotional support
- Privacy for reporters, involved parties, and alleged offenders
- Ben: Someone might want to report something but not mention names and not ask for enforcement and destroy organization's record
- Allan: There are limits to the types of guarantees we can give, for example in the case of assault.
- Marina: The reporter can withdraw their report, but the person taking the report should not suggest this to the reporter
Allan: Some CoCs state that report can be made to any volunteer
- Ben: Would not trust all volunteers to take report
- Marina: Can ask any volunteer who to talk to to make a report
- Allan: Do we need a list of named individuals who can take reports? How many people are needed?
- Marina: Between 3 - 7 named individuals, combination of conference organizers and support team members, all individuals must be trained.
- Ben: Only one person at GUADEC 2016 was able to kick people out, etc. Bad idea for one person to both take report and deal with enforcement.
- Marina: Good idea to separate the roles. Still need to have the people with enforcement roles publicly identified. All members who will know about report should be publicly known. Some incidents are minor and can be dealt with by support team members without organizers (enforcement staff) being involved.
- Ben: Someone might want to report something but not mention names and not ask for enforcement and destroy organization's record
- Does having more than one role increase the number of people we need to have on the team?
- Marina: If there is an action that is more severe than warning, the group should be involved in the decision.
- Ben: refer to GUADEC 2016
- Allan: Contact details for support team members.
- Ben: Multiple communication methods should be listed for team members. Don't use private email for this. Personal email addresses but not private.
- Nice to have: private email aliases for each support team member
- Ben: Multiple communication methods should be listed for team members. Don't use private email for this. Personal email addresses but not private.
Marina: In future meeting we need to discuss enforcement training. Suggests reading https://frameshiftconsultingdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/conferenceincidentresponseguide.pdf