To participate in the social.coop instance of Mastodon you must agree to this code of conduct.
Member's behavior in [social.coop spaces] is expected to be in alignment with the International Cooperative Alliance's (ICA) Statement on Co-operative Values [insert link]:
Co-operatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, co-operative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others.
The ICA Statement on Values will serve as the reference point for the [social coop CWG] and its functions in any instance when Social Coop's own Code of Conduct seems insufficient, unclear, or lacking in guidance.
I. Collaborative Culture
I will, for the health and longevity of the community, help to create a friendly and welcoming experience for others, regardless of gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, appearance, age, race, nationality, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion, education, philosophy, political opinion, lifestyle, standing or duration in this community, or other qualities.
II. Encouraged Behavior
I will be considerate and respectful in my speech and actions, assume good faith, attempt to collaborate before conflict arises and ensure my criticism is constructive when I share it.
I will consider ways of making my content more accessible whenever possible by i.e. adding alt-text to images that I toot.
If I am informed of a complaint about any aspect of my participation in social coop, I will seek to avoid, reduce or even eliminate defensiveness and try to absorb the feedback. If a decision involves some kind of disciplinary action, I will abide by it, up to and including adhering to a cease and desist request to end contact.
If I report a complaint, I expect that principles aligned with restorative justice (such as redemption, understanding, healing and community) will be in the foreground of how the [CWG] approaches individuals involved and that these principles will guide the [CWG's] attempts at redress. I will seek to avoid, reduce or eliminate self-righteousness and support the process of reconciliation as much as possible without absorbing additional harm.
I understand that humor is a necessary and important part of relationships and community. However some forms of humor occur at the expense of individuals or groups and may be experienced as offensive. I will be attentive to possible interpretations of my jokes and understand that by exercising humor I may increase my chances of being reported for a violation.
III. Usage Rights and Privacy
I will give credit for the content I post and show recognition of the contributions of others.
I know or will find out how I can set visibility of my content: how to write it for one or more users, visible to my followers or visible to all.
Mastodon is federated and has many servers. I know that even though I can limit the visibility of my content, there is no guarantee the content will remain invisible to others.
IV. Content Warnings
I will indicate content warning (CW) whenever I feel it is appropriate, and always when sharing violent or sexually explicit material.
V. Unacceptable Behavior
I will not use violence, threats of violence, or direct violent language against another person, make offensive comments, demeaning jokes or insults against anyone.
I will not share sexually explicit material depicting individuals who appear to be under the age of 18, or post or threaten to post personally identifying information of anyone.
I will not engage in excessively frequent posting/tooting, or promote products not provided by myself, my cooperative, network or community.
If I am offended or uncomfortable I with content I will use the option to block or mute a user or report the incident to the [CWG]. See Reporting Guidelines and Form here [link to guidelines and form].
If I am involved (in any way) with a Code of Conduct proceeding, I will review the Code of Conduct section on Encouraged Behavior for guidance on how to conduct myself during the proceedings and after the decision.
NOTES from Jake on 2.1.5
Steph & Emi:Sorry to hear my version seemed longer. My intent was to condense the content without changing any of the meaning,with a view that the shorter the document, the more likely it is to be readThe ICA statement was Matt Cropp's suggestion on a previous as far as I remember, I just reworded content from 2.1.3re: humour - the way I read the sentence "I will not make offensive comments, jokes or insults against anyone.", 'offensive' applies to comments, jokes and insults – this way is longer and more wordy but definitely more explicit.OK the headers stay! I initially took them out as Manuela had expressed the idea of removing the numeration, but don't feel strongly about them either way.
took Jake's suggestion of the International Cooperative Alliance's Statement on Co-operative Values as a background reference -- that is, as the pre-existing model which members of the CWG will refer to when needed. But we don't have to spell it all out: just give the flavor and transparencydeleted the word "safe" from section I on Collaborative Cultureshifted some statements from where they were to section II on Encouraged Behavior, and expanded them for clarityadded some possible language about humor in the Encouraged Behavior sectionSection V Unacceptable Behavior - added the qualifier "demeaning" to jokes (so that we aren't outlawing all humor, indiscriminately). Deleted the "cease and desist" compliance phrase because I moved it up to Encouraged BehaviorSection VII reporting - revised the 2nd sub-statement to give guidance for people to refer to the Encouraged Behaviors re going through a CoC proceeding.
Honestly Jake - your version seems longer and much more challenging to integrate. Maybe my reaction is simply that it would take me another hour to go through it point by point in a similar was as I did with Manuela's version yesterday! I did read through though, and it feels overwhelming - over the top with trying to control and mandate a very particular, narrow kind of behavior. I think Manuela's version is cleaner, just needs some fine tuning. If others want to keep Jake's version and tweak it instead of course I won't object.
I've tried to take into consideration the below notes.This version is an effort to condense the document further still. If I've removed something you felt was important, it's not necessarily becuase I disagree with you on it. This is a draftI removed the long list of qualities, in the name of brevity. I understand that this is potentially contentious, and will be happy to put it back in if it's missed. Perhaps it could be a footnote.
Clause I -- "friendly, safe, and welcoming" have to be measurable -- "friendly" and "welcoming" are relatively easy to identify and teach; "safe" is not. Clause II -- doesn't account for humorClause IV -- need to prepared to spend lot of time and energy on defining the boundaries of "violence / not violence" and when sex becomes explicit.Clause V -- is it the intention to make all joking undesirable?"cease and desist" is a desired behavior; confusing construction of what not to do - maybe this goes up in the Clause on "Encouraged Behavior"Clause VII -- move 2nd statement to "Encouraged Behavior", replace "decision" with "proceeding"
I marked on Jakes version below where I put which part in this version my writing the Number of the Paragraph behing the I statementsOn I. Collaborative Cuture: alternative words: Inclusivity, Collaboration, Mutuality, Care, Culture, Community, Open ParticipationWould take away the Numeration I.-VII. to make it feel more like a speech friend to friend. At VII. Integrated attributes coming from Restorative Justice: (German) Wiedergutmachung, Verständigung, Heilung und Gemeinschaft stehen dabei im Vordergrund)Last two paragraphs at "III. Usage Rights and Privacy" are form 11t, are they applicable for social.coop as well? I am concerned about the third paragraph from a technical / legal point of view. Refrence: Need to check with 11t developer if copying is ok for him and say thanks and know if I needs to be mentioned, I would leave it rather out here, to minimize content.
Statement on Cooperative Values to add: Social.coop has agreed to adhere to the International Cooperative Alliance's Statement on Co-operative Values, with which member behavior in social.coop spaces is expected to be in alignment:"Co-operatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, co-operative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others."MOTTO"perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away.“ Saint Exupéry
Steph's notes added after the Zoom call on July 30:
on the Terms (11t inspired): https://pad.disroot.org/p/iu2xUqmgI6# (why do we need to say 11t inspired? I mean, we should give credit, but as a footnote,as a reference) To participate in the social.coop instance of Mastodon you must agree to this code of conduct [https://pad.disroot.org/p/iu2xUqmgI6#]Clause I -- "friendly, safe, and welcoming" have to be measurable -- "friendly" and "welcoming" are relatively easy to identify and teach; "safe" is not. Clause II -- doesn't account for humorClause IV -- need to prepared to spend lot of time and energy on defining the boundaries of "violence / not violence" and when sex becomes explicit.Clause V -- is it the intention to make all joking undesirable?"cease and desist" is a desired behavior; confusing construction of what not to do - maybe this goes up in the Clause on "Encouraged Behavior"Clause VII -- move 2nd statement to "Encouraged Behavior", replace "decision" with "proceeding"on the Reporting Guidelines: https://pad.disroot.org/p/iA1MGxaLAq#items 1-3 do not address the types of expertise needed by members of the CWG. It appears to assume all members of the CWG will be assessed/selected by the same criteria and expected (?) to do the same work. A problem with this is that it doesn't take into account the likely (?) areas which will need the most attention (e.g., comment 188.8.131.52 on Clause IV above). Maybe this is covered in the document (https://www.loomio.org/d/9ebf1Fyl/-standing-jury-for-reviewing-reports-etc-) about the Standing Jury?Flowchart - this map outlines two levels or aspects of process but doesn't necessarily (perhaps should explicitly not) dictate rate of response to the reporter and others involved...the basic thrust of the flowchart is accountability to the reporter/the community in terms of reportsfast-moving issues requiring lots of engagement and energy have distinct, reasonable markers for reports (that may, worst case scenario) become evidence for journalists or lawyers, etc. Meaning some cushion for getting the reports written well and also a clear reference point as to when the community and the general public can expect communication (we can choose not to reply sooner).Issues over some threshold of severity may require much more timely interactions and responsiveness -- this flowchart should not be used as a guideline to justify a delayed response to anything urgentReporting sectionask that whoever makes a report not take matters into their own hands, but maintain confidentiality and let the process unfoldno negative repercussions on reporters is good, although excessive reports found not to be violations might become a problemWhat happens after you file a report?Do we need to have someone reply personally to all reports within 24 hours no matter the severity? I'm imagining the workload. Like, is this going to need to be someone's fulltime job?! Suggest we do a serious research project with data collection and analysis on all the reports we receive. Are there any stats already out there? Like, typical % of complaints per volume of users? And any breakdowns of type? the "official response' timeline is in contradiction with the timeline provided by the flowchart. Decide when/what and how soon as standard practice; reports are only ever made at the lowest level of participation (least number of people) at each stage, but they should happen to/with the relevant parties, shouldn't they? A report can be made without including full disclosure of all known everything, right? Maybe something about reports will involve what can be shared, limited while still under investigation or some such...the statement about this is more of a procedural detail, not a top-level announcement Reconsideration might need to involve a mix of previous and new adjudicatorssome of the "points for discussion" are echoed aboveStanding Jury: https://www.loomio.org/d/9ebf1Fyl/-standing-jury-for-reviewing-reports-etc-Ah, this is being posed as an alternative to the CWG. In my mind, the CWG has members with diverse roles, i.e., some members of whom will be Standing Jurors and others having different roles, functions. See 0.2.1 above. (For instance, perhaps there are a handful of people who review the complaints as they come in....one person at a time, but constantly in rotation so that we have 24/7 coverage. That person's job is to assess severity and rate of response required: normal, expedited, elevated urgency, and perhaps even 'less than' normal, for someone who is a repeat complainer, or a topic that has been decided multiple times, etc. There are different timeline paths within the standard flow depending on the particulars of each complaint. Other members of the CWG are assigned to various categories. Maybe there are always 3 people assigned to anything deemed sexually explicit. Does this same team also handle threats of violence or is that a different team? Etc.emi do's comment (https://www.loomio.org/d/9ebf1Fyl/-standing-jury-for-reviewing-reports-etc-/5) mentions a place where people can access the decisions. Decision reporting can be done separately from the process. (Another role for a dedicated someone(s) on the CWG?)re the selection process / criteria for Standing Jury - is this being considered a test for how folks will get onto the CWG? Is serving on the CWG something that all members ought to do at some point? Or members at a certain level? Lots of issues involved, I know, but could be a way of building in a kind of robustness and fresh perspectives while also spreading knowledge about the norms?Jake's comment (https://www.loomio.org/d/9ebf1Fyl/-standing-jury-for-reviewing-reports-etc-/26) is an example of what I had in mind above 2.2.3, 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 - an interpersonal conflict may not be any kind of violation at all, just an uncomfortable exchange among folks who are different. This should be vetted at the time of reception and channeled differently than violations. or, if it isn't obvious, it should be sent to a team who can ferret out the decision on an intercultural or some other kind of intersection of difference that 'just is' versus a violation of the CoC.Melody's comment (https://www.loomio.org/d/9ebf1Fyl/-standing-jury-for-reviewing-reports-etc-/34) seems in line with how I read the Standing Jury as a part of the CWG. Her language is an "anti-abuse team...that could confidentially accept and act on reports" - only I'm thinking this is a sub-group of the CWG which would handle complaints that are vetted to be in specific categories such as harassment, overly-explicit or inappropriate sexuality, etcAaron Wolf mentioned "restorative justice" - we may want to explicitly use this phrase somewhere? (I can't get the direct link, it's in the poll Matthew Cropp started "Should juror election be run by public or secret ballot?" Aaron's full comment: "Broadly, I want to see process respect the ideas of Restorative Justice which means those who feel offended/wronged are part of the resolution process, though they must be tempered by impartial others…"Simon Grant (Cetis LPP) makes a relevant point: "a "jury" is not at all where I would start. It might be useful, but only as a last resort. What I believe we need here is people skilled at picking up the pieces of a torn relationship and putting the community back together" I agree - and, this is contingent on the type of (perceived) infraction. we need different kinds of responses that are streamlined through what looks like a single funnel but actually is subdivided in meaningful ways (Simon's comment is in Matt's CWG proposal "Standing Jury Formation Proposal"More Simon Grant language: "a standing group of people who are skilled at dealing with emotional and sometime irrational behaviour (as we probably all fall into from time to time) and bringing people round to apology, restoration and re-integration."the deeper / longer document I did not look at :)