python / pycon-code-of-conduct

pycon code of conduct

PyCon US Code of Conduct

This repository holds the canonical version of the PyCon US Code of Conduct.

No changes are final until approved by the PyCon Chair / Staff and versions in place for a given year will be clearly marked, the website contents on us.pycon.org will clearly state the revision of the documents posted.

pycon-code-of-conduct's Issues

Add a license

Hi Pycon team!

I really love the code of conduct and I was wondering if you'd allow other organisations to re-use this work? Maybe under a CC-BY license?

I'd be happy to add the license via a pull request if that sounds good 😄

Thank you!!

Anonymous feedback: How you can make PyCon welcoming

Possibly the CoC should include a section describing the positive actions attendees can take to make the environment more welcoming?

Broken link in code of conduct

Hi,

In the Procedure for Handling Harassment section of the code of conduct, there is a broken link.
The href for 'Attendee Procedure for incident handling' is relative to the GitHub instead of an absolute one.

I wanted to submit a pull request but stopped myself because I was not sure, this is still in use or not because of no recent activity.

By the way, other resources on the internet are using it as a reference.
I came here from Papers We Love's code of conduct.

Make it clear that the "best judgement" sentance applies to public reporting.

It may be clear to everyone else, but the working in the new note could be misunderstood. In "Attendee Procedure for incident handling.md", it would be good to make it clear that the admonition about reporting on an incident refers to public reporting and does not imply that people should feel like they shouldn't report any incident to the conference staff.

s/Use your best judgment with regard to reporting an incident./Use your best judgment with regard to reporting at large on an incident./

or

s/Use your best judgment with regard to reporting an incident./Use your best judgment with regard to reporting an incident at large./

or

s/Use your best judgment with regard to reporting an incident./Use your best judgment with regard to publicly reporting an incident./

Handling details may be too specific?

I'm adapting the CoC for Boston Python, and therefore reading it much more closely than I have in the past.

Twice it makes an implicit acknowledgement that an incident could involve one of the responders ("In the event of a conflict of interest, ..."). But then later:

After an incident responder takes the report, they will immediately consult with the lead incident responders (Sage Sharp, Ewa Jodlowska, and Ernest W. Durbin III).

This seems to contradict the conflict of interest protection from earlier. I suspect the truth is that this step is more complicated. It should be something like, "unless one of those responders is involved in the incident."

For my own use, I'm inclined to be less specific about the precise steps taken. I think the important things to say here are that the incident will be taken seriously, that the response will be timely, and what the reporter can expect. I don't know if you want to make this section more detailed, or less, or leave it alone.

This ENCOURAGES the same kind of inappropriate behaviour.

There is a major bug in this code. Rather than discouraging inappropriate and bullying behaviour - it actually encourages such behaviour by making them out to be the victims.

Python coders will not be attending this conference if they do not feel safe doing so. Overhearing a joke while listening to other people's private conversations is not a safety issue. But getting fired, publicly demonised, treated like a criminal, or being harassed by conference staff, for making a joke would be a safety issue that would scare people from attending.

The code currently has far too much emphasis on censoring jokes, and on implicitly designating certain groups as automatic victims. Which seems likely to encourage people to threaten other conference attendees over nothing.

"participant doing the harassing"

Step one of reporting is
"Identifying information (name/badge number) of the participant doing the harassing"

Is there a rationale not to use a wording like "of the accused participant"? The first step in dealing with a situation otherwise already contains the verdict (there is someone who harassed).

Explicit Consequences for "Public Shaming"

In addition to:

Public shaming can be counter-productive to building a strong community. PyCon does not condone nor participate in such actions out of respect.

I'd personally like to see consequences spelled out for any individual who feels the need to go beyond the official, private channels for reporting CoC violations This would include posting names, photos, or personal information of alleged offenders publicly on the Internet, or inciting witch hunts against those individuals.

Referring to incidents or offenders in the abstract would be fine, as PyCon itself does in follow-up reports.