Codes of Conduct revised / consolidated

This list at the top is quite large, so I'm not sure what aspect of the above is supposed to be addressed.

Does the CoC need to be revised? Yes.
Does it need more specificity? Yes.
Do we need a structure for evaluating impact and assigning appropriate consequences? Yes.
Do we need to work on drawing boundaries around what is and what is not a Drupal "space"? Yes.

Seems like each of those is it's own issue.

Also, does the CWG want input on these revisions and increased specificity, structure, etc? I think that would also be better done in separate issues, so drafts could be put forth on each point.

The risk of a more specific Code of Conduct with regard to what behaviours are acceptable and what marks the boundary of a "Drupal space" is significant, in my opinion.

I can easily foresee, having now worked on a number of CWG issues, that if the constraints above were specified then it would be very easy for someone to avoid our areas of "control". They could just read the CoC and then ensure their actions, however unpleasant to the community, can not be touched.

Is that what you want?

I don't know if it has been shared with the group before, but this is a fantastic article that speaks to a common problem with why Codes of Conduct need to have teeth otherwise they can be abused by bad actors: https://thebias.com/2017/09/26/how-good-intent-undermines-diversity-and-...

I am still relatively new to the community here, but I would recommend looking at what happened at StackExchange with their code of conduct changes and poor decisions and communication. Make sure that doesn't happen here.

Relevant and short twitter thread:

One day, I'm going to write a book about why "assuming good intentions" is a deeply rooted privileged stance to have.

It's a very triggering phrase for me and many of BIPOC friends.

It discredits how systems influence people's perception on WHO we consider "good" in society.

Every person who has told me to assume good intentions in my lifetime disproportionately identifies as a white man.

That's a problem.

You as a white man are always given the benefit of the doubt. You're always given the hero role. You're always given the Manager role.

Don't go around telling BIPOC to assume good intentions in a world where white people can't own their biases.

As a community, you can't agree on a simple phrase like "Black lives matter".

I will not assume good intentions until your actions show you're worth that investment.

https://twitter.com/SeanWebflow/status/1313332751244894209

Our code of conduct doesn't include an "assume good intentions" clause, as far as I'm aware??

The reason many people cannot agree on a phrase like "Black lives matter" is because they don't agree with the approach or values of the Black Lives Matter organization with that title, not because they devalue people with dark skin or think their lives don't matter.

It's offensive when people assume that using a different phrase or failing to "toe the line" and just say what everyone else is saying (according to one perspective) means that you hate people or aren't loving them as you should. The fact is that there is an organization with the same name, and they bully people verbally who don't follow them. So it's understandable in my opinion why people wouldn't say "Black lives matter" with that wording.

In addition, making the world a place where everyone assumes bad intentions of "white" people (nobody is actually white-skinned, as we're all shades of melanin/brown), is literally just as harmful and dehumanizing as assuming bad intentions of Black people. If someone truly believes, as the USA was founded on, that "all men are created equal" (according to value of lives, not referring to socioeconomic status), then we don't need to be assuming the intentions of anyone based on their skin color, whether light or dark, as skin color does not change the inherent value of a person.

Again, to be clear, there are Black people who will not say "Black Lives Matter", and it's possible and completely okay for people to not support BLM and still support people who are Black. I don't see calling all cops b******'s as bringing positive change. After all, if anyone took the time to go and meet the police officers in their area, they would find a lot of kind and caring people willing to risk their lives to keep others safe.

@rachel_norfolk: That is true; I felt it was topical.

@solideogloria: I encourage you to listen to the Seeing White podcast to fill in some misunderstandings you appear to have. This isn't the place to continue that discussion, but #ddi-chat is always open.

@solideogloria "Black lives matter" means that the lives of Black people matter as much as any other lives. It means what it says.

The fact that someone on a right-wing website with low editorial standards has found an exceptional story that allows white people to feel better about not feeling comfortable with that simple statement does not mean that the attitude is acceptable among mature adults in a diverse professional setting.