Return to Code of Conduct

As @matthewcropp noted, "Five folks have stepped up as willing to coordinate moving the process forward: @wolftune, @mattnoyes, @robertbenjamin, @nev, and @stephaniejokent" - all social.coop members are welcome to participate.

Shall we set a target date for completion? Any suggestions?

Possibly might we spend a moment on what the process might be to bringing the revised version of the CoC (and hopefully Reporting & Enforcement Guidelines) through the feedback, editing, and re-submission? This might better inform us as to what a good staged timeline to completion might be.

Previously the process (from where I had visibility) was Video Conference Call, Coordinator Draft, open period of comments (with editing suggestions), Video Conference Call, Coordinator wrap up edits based on general sense of notes consensus, submit to working group for final look, submit proposal to Main Group for vote.

I am curious if there are ideas out there for alternative routes that would allow for the high degree of feedback, consensus building, while still somewhat efficiently pushing forward the documents towards completion and submission.

For example @meltheadorable mentioned some reservations about using Video Conference calls? Are there other options to provide the same type of feedback?

One thing we could look at to start the process might be to do some Polls with comments on the level of acceptance for each sections of the CoC similar to what Matt is doing for the Jury idea.

In any case interested in what @stephaniejokent and @nev may suggest from a coordination point of view as they weren't as active in previous rounds of CoC edits?

I might be able to support the process design, as this is my profession, even though I am less experienced in online-process-design. I can imagine to help thinking through the process with the coordinators here in a call, in case it feels to you it could be helpful.

"Previously the process (from where I had visibility) was Video Conference Call, Coordinator Draft, open period of comments (with editing suggestions), Video Conference Call, Coordinator wrap up edits based on general sense of notes consensus, submit to working group for final look, submit proposal to Main Group for vote."

[sorry, don't know how to "quote" things on loomio well so just copied and pasted from @robertbenjamin's post]

I think this sounds right, though I don't remember the step towards the end: "submit to working group for final look" before submitting proposal to main group. Did that happen and I just missed it? I recall there being a video call and then just seeing the CoC given to the main group. But I may not have caught that other step.

I think the idea of polls on acceptance of parts of the CoC might work, particularly since some comments may be made and then on a synchronous call the group decides not to take some of them on board...but it may turn out that those issues were quite important for a lot of people not just the one that made the comment.

I agree that the video calls can be a problem just because of time zones and who can make the calls. Whatever we can do to increase our capacity to get a sense of the level of support from the working group will help (not just the level of support from those who made comments or could make the call; some may have seen comments on the doc that they agreed with and didn't speak up because, well, the comment has already been made).

I also think it would be useful to see a summary of the issues with the current draft that came up in previous discussion, and which prompted the revision.

Any suggestions of how that could be best accomplished? Maybe pull quotes from every Disagree/Block vote (without names) and put in one doc for review? IS that something you might want to take on?

Sure I could do that. Do you mean from this loomio thread? https://www.loomio.org/d/o1nThK68/code-of-conduct are there other places where people talked about it that would be good to pull from? Unfortunately I didn't participate in the video calls, and my sense was that most of the discussion happened there.

On second thought, not having been involved in any of the conversations I don't think it's really my place to characterize them.

Yes sticky widget but maybe there a way to compile direct quotes that pertain to disagreement on the previous draft without characterizing them. Might save some energy for members not wanting to rehash what they said and give a clearer picture of why the Proposal did not pass but by no means a must have as the it should be an open inclusive participation process from here to ratifying the next version.