Re: Fedora Council policy proposal: Community Publishing Platforms

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=9und
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi Daniel,


On 9/21/20 12:31 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> The draft refers to "Adult content". Talking about the leader of an
> organization having a romantic conflict of interest with the leader of
> another organization is an ethical issue, not a pornographic one.
> Nobody ever made reference to private or physical aspects of their
> relationship.
>


It appears you found an older draft, probably the screenshot in the
ticket. I believe it was Ben Cotton or Till Maas that pointed out the
first draft of this policy tried to define too much. The conclusion I
remember from the Pagure discussion is that this policy should not try
to define what is or is not acceptable behavior. That is within the
scope of the Code of Conduct.

Here is the final proposed draft:


https://pagure.io/fork/jflory7/Fedora-Council/council-docs/blob/6c5ce773170efea07869f355bb4e243944083ed2/f/council/modules/ROOT/pages/policy/community-publishing-platforms.adoc

P.S. – If you use this Firefox add-on, you can render the AsciiDoc in
HTML so it is easier to read:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/asciidoctorjs-live-preview/


> The first link[1] above includes the quote "Our intent is for all Fedora
> community members to have a positive and welcoming experience in all
> community spaces, official and unofficial."
>
> That appears to be a fantasy. No such organization ever existed, unless
> it was an organization of one person. Every organization has to deal
> with some conflict, politics and ethical issues from time to time.
>


I agree the language in the trademark guidelines might be dated today.
It is an old document originally written in 2008 or earlier. In the
current global environment, I think it is easier to acknowledge now that
conflict is inevitable and we should plan for it.

However, this involves revision to the Trademark Guidelines. It might be
valuable to do, but it is out of scope for the Community Publishing
Platforms proposal. It requires participation from Red Hat Legal (as far
as I can tell). It should be driven in a new ticket.


> The ACM's Code of Ethics also states "A computing professional should be
> transparent and provide full disclosure of all pertinent system
> capabilities, limitations, and potential problems to the appropriate
> parties.". When the leader of a voluntary organization has a conflict
> of interest, anybody else making a full disclosure to volunteers appears
> to be acting ethically, even if the person with a conflict of interest
> might not feel that is a "positive and welcoming experience"
>


The right to full disclosure is still permitted under this policy. A
consideration of respectful communication in the act of full disclosure
is also protected (via the Code of Conduct, not through the Community
Publishing Platforms proposal).


--
Cheers,
Justin W. Flory (he/him)
https://jwf.io
TZ=America/New_York