Hi all, I found this in an earlier mail. It is the the new proposed W3C Code of Conduct. Maybe it’s helpful for your work?
Kind regards, Mirjam
Oh, thanks Mirjam, I really like a lot of this, certainly the first half. There are some great examples of what not to do and I love the prioritisation of safety. So sections 1, 2 & 3 read really well to me. Section 4 is a bit weak, imo, but may provide some guidelines for us. Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 ________________________________ From: coc-tf <coc-tf-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Mirjam Kühne <mir@zu-hause.nl> Sent: Tuesday 13 October 2020 08:56 To: coc-tf@ripe.net <coc-tf@ripe.net> Subject: [coc-tf] Fwd: W3C Code of Conduct CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. Hi all, I found this in an earlier mail. It is the the new proposed W3C Code of Conduct. Maybe it’s helpful for your work? https://www.w3.org/2020/05/CEPC<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2020%2F05%2FCEPC&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6e30c8b928364e2b595808d86f4d79d4%7Ccd9e8269dfb648e082538b7baf8d3391%7C0%7C0%7C637381725853521202&sdata=EoKiP8jLwH0r8JAURn%2Fes4PTZTpnVP0vz%2FxKyQo1FhM%3D&reserved=0> Kind regards, Mirjam
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 1:14 AM Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Oh, thanks Mirjam, I really like a lot of this, certainly the first half. There are some great examples of what not to do and I love the prioritisation of safety. So sections 1, 2 & 3 read really well to me.
I agree. I particularly like that they define expected behavior. The need for this was brought up during the discussion of v3. I also like that they link to educational materials. I think we could do that and I expect we could find a better set of materials.
Section 4 is a bit weak, imo, but may provide some guidelines for us.
Agreed. The gap in section 4 is that they don't explain how disputed events are investigated, decisions are made, or appeals are handled. Kind regards, Leo
participants (3)
-
Brian Nisbet -
Leo Vegoda -
Mirjam Kühne