Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee

Please make sure, that the WMF get's back into the community first

It had detached itself quite far from the community in the past, with some very aggressive anti-community measures, the first thing to make this here accepted would be to rebuild trust, that was destroyed by the WMF with its anti-community behaviour.
The worst case af aggressive anti-community behaviour in the past was of course the Superprotect-disaster, were they declared an open and all-out war against the communities over a very buggy unwanted feature, that a small group of devs shoved down the throat of the community without any legitimacy, but with pure might.
Then, of course, was the Fram-desaster, were an admin was banned by some star chamber decision without any merit, that lead to massive disturbances.
And currently the Foundation Brand Project is ignoring all community input to push their private agenda against the community.
The WMF has destroyed much trust from the community by it's anti-communty actions, that need to be rebuild first, or this top-down enterprise will get not accepted as well, as it will be regarded as the next step in this disastrous push away from the community. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 21:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Civility pays

A nice TED talk to watch Why being respectful to your coworkers is good for business (including Wikipedia and sister projects). Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Example: Dirty Dozen and Ten Steps

A while ago I got permission form Robert I. Sutton to use the sections "Dirty Dozen" and "Ten Steps" from his book "No Asshole Rule", so long as it says something like “Reprinted by permission of the author.” The Dirty Dozen are:

1. Insults
2. Violation of personal space
3. Unsolicited touching
4. Threats
5. Sarcasm
6. Flames
7. Humiliation
8. Shaming
9. Interruption
10. Backbiting
11. Glaring
12. Snubbing

@THasan (WMF): The Ten Steps are:

1. Say the rule, write it down, and act on it. But if you can’t or won’t follow the rule, it is better to say nothing at all—avoiding a false claim is the lesser of two evils. You don’t want to be known as a hypocrite and the leader of an organization that is filled with assholes.
2. Assholes will hire other assholes. Keep your resident jerks out of the hiring process, or if you can’t, involve as many “civilized” people in interviews and decisions to offset this predilection of people to hire “jerks like me.”
3. Get rid of assholes fast. Organizations usually wait too long to get rid of certified and incorrigible assholes, and once they do, the reaction is usually, “Why did we wait so long to do that?”
4. Treat certified assholes as incompetent employees. Even if people do other things extraordinary well but persistently demean others, they ought to be treated as incompetent.
5. Power breeds nastiness. Beware that given people—even seemingly nice and sensitive people—even a little power can turn them into big jerks.
6. Embrace the power-performance paradox. Accept that your organization does have and should have a pecking order, but do everything you can to downplay and reduce unnecessary status differences among members. The result will be fewer assholes and, according to the best studies, better performance, too.
7. Manage moments—not just practices, policies, and systems. Effective asshole management means focusing on and changing the little things that you and your people do—and big changes will follow. Reflect on what you do, watch how others respond to you and to one another, and work on “tweaking” what happens as you are interacting with the person in front of you right now.
8. Model and teach constructive confrontation. Develop a culture where people know when to argue and when to stop fighting and, instead, gather more evidence, listen to other people, or stop whining and implement a decision (even if they still disagree with it). When the time is ripe to battle over ideas, follow Karl Weick’s advice: fight as if you are right; listen as if you are wrong.
9. Adopt the one asshole rule. Because people follow rules and norms better when there are rare occasional examples of bad behavior, no asshole rules might be most closely followed in organizations that permit one or two token jerks to hang around. These “reverse role models” remind everyone else of the wrong behavior.
10. The bottom line: link big policies to small decencies. Effective asshole management happens when there is a virtuous, self-reinforcing cycle between the “big” things that organizations do and the little things that happen when people talk to one another and work together.

Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Questions about the consideration of community views

At § Session 5 (permalink) it says “During this [one month review] period, the committee will analyze and discuss the community's comments and ideas to be implemented and reworked into the UCoC for submission to the Board of Trustees.”

1. Has the Drafting Committee yet spent any time considering the community concerns expressed already at Talk:Universal Code of Conduct (2019, 2020, active), and elsewhere?
2. How will this short review period be advertised to the numerous online communities in a timely manner?
3. Will the Committee members be engaging in the discussions or observing silently?
   1. If the latter, how will community contributors know their feedback is being heard (i.e. listened to and correctly interpreted)?
4. Will one month be sufficient time to both gather feedback and act on it? What process will be used to do so? Just weekly real-time meetings?
5. Will the Committee prepare a summary of feedback and advise changes made to the Draft Code as a result of the "community review"? C.f. Summary Table of Movement Conversations 2020; Strategy Finalization Change Log.
6. Will there be any additional rounds of stakeholder input and document refinement before the Code is finalised and presented to the Board of Trustees?

Pinging committee members: Civvì, masti, RachelWex, Sami Mlouhi, SRientjes, Uzoma, Jrogers (WMF), KMpumlwana (WMF), THasan (WMF). Also KVaidla (WMF) and PEarley (WMF).
Unsigned comment added 2020-09-06 02:16 +0:00

@Pelagic: Pings don't work from unsigned comments, so the above pings didn't go through. --Yair rand (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Argh, epic fail on my part. Thanks for noticing, Yair rand —Pelagic (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Pelagic:, the Committee has been following discussions and reviewing feedback throughout the process. They are aware of those discussions, and the many others that were part of the movement strategy process and UCoC consultations. In terms of bringing people into the review process, we are trying to reach as many communities as possible in their own languages, as well as providing translations of the draft so they can review the content. Unfortunately, some communities will have to find out through an English-language post to their project's main discussion location. But we are trying to minimize that number. Notifications are ongoing throughout this week. Committee members are most certainly watching the comments, and it's up to them how much or little they would like to engage on-wiki - they are being provided with summarized "digests" of feedback, and we will do our best to make sure that all feedback, postive and negative, gets to them. Reports after each Committee meeting will reflect what they have seen in terms of comments, and what changes they are looking at making. We will be providing a log/summary of revisions as they are made, much like you suggest with your links to the strategy process. In terms of subsequent rounds of stakeholder engagement, the second phase of the project will involve many. However, the current draft review is the last part of this first phase. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Patrick. I hope the weekly feedback will be sufficiently detailed and specific that the community contributors feel their concerns are being heard and acted on. Has a banner for logged-on users been considered? The village pumps and cafés have limited reach. Pelagic (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pelagic:, the Committee will have three methods to get an understanding of comments so far - simply following the talk pages, as many of them are doing, a spreadsheet logging all comments in all languages, and a "digest" summarizing specific changes that are being heavily discussed. In terms of a banner notice, it is an option, but our priority this week is deliver as many invitations in translated format to local discussion areas. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@PEarley (WMF): I think I meant the feedback to the community from the Committee meetings, not the other way around. Pelagic (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a question

Hi, just informing if this logo would be suitable for the committee page. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Open Letter

Since it has relevance, I thought I would link in the Open Letter by the various ArbComs of the Community, since it includes some (imo, reasonable) desires about the drafting committee Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

diversity - lass uns doch mal hier und jetzt bei WMF anfangen

Ihr schreibt: "They will be selected as much as possible to also represent the diversity of our movement in respect to languages spoken..." - und dieses as much as possible wird exklusiv in English präsentiert. Liebe WMF: Vorbild seid ihr Sicherlich nicht, aber zumindest so tun als ob? Das was ihr tut ist Wasser predigen und Wein trinken. ...Sicherlich ^Post 10:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

And seeing it now; "What skills - cooperating online and in writing in English" - klar. Möglichst viel Diversität in den Sprachen solange die Sprache Englisch ist. ...Sicherlich ^Post 10:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Anglozentrischer Monolinguismus ist schoon immer ein Kennzeichen gewesen von diesem Laden hier, inbesondere die völlig abstruse Dominanz der enWP. What do they know of England, who only England know. Und dann auch noch in hohlen Marketingphrasen daherlabern, dieses Graswurzelunterfangen zur Erstellung einer Enzyklopädie mit einem Unternehmen zu verwechseln. Wir sind kein Business, wir sollten auch unter keinen Umständen eins sein oder werden, wir sind eine altruistische NGO ohne jedes Gewinnstreben, und benötigen keinesfalls noch mehr Geld als jetzt schon da ist. Der Wasserkopf ist jedenfalls viel zu aufgeblasen, und dass die WMF allein dazu da ist, der Graswurzelbewegung zu helfen, und keinerlei Führungskompetenzen an sich hat, versteht von den abgehobenen (WMF)ern auch keiner mehr. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) Hold the election 16:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@User:Sänger Memang pikiran sangat bagus, tetapi saya tidak mengerti. Taylor 49 (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Misschien moet je en tolk op de internet zoeken, om te snappen, wat ik 'er heb gezegd. Het is niet zu moeilijk;) Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) Hold the election 14:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Late participation

Dear Sirs and Madam, I would like to request, if possible, a late entry to the Drafting committee. I was away from Wikimedia activities for a while, so I missed the entry deadline completely. Thanks,--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Felipe da Fonseca, we are very happy to learn about your interest. Unfortunately the drafting committee has been assembled, and they have already met once and started the work of reading and learning from community input. We received other late applications via mail and had to decline them all. There will be another major consultation phase coming up later this year, basically this will be a comprehensive community review of the draft the committee is about to create. I am looking forward to hearing your voice in that conversation! --CSteigenberger (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

CSteigenberger (WMF) Hi, thanks for responding to the request. I prefer to do everything intra-wiki so that none of my intentions are hidden. If there is anything I can help with, even though I'm not officially on the committee, just let me know, I'm available. I do intend to participate more actively in UCoC and other Wikipedia 2030 initiatives.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your understanding and your willingness to engage, if we need anything you could help us with, we will let you know. I am confident you will find many different ways to engage with other parts of the 2030 strategy as well! --CSteigenberger (WMF) (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Timeline Update

Could someone who has more insight than me please update the timeline? It seems as if it doesn't match any longer with what is written here. Also, can we please start to add years to timelines. In less than 2 years it will be hard to understand what has happened when. Alice Wiegand (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Update again please!

A brief update has been provided; moved request for more details to Talk:Universal Code of Conduct. –SJ talk  19:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)