Collect Feedback & Update COC Policies

[bensternthal]

This issue is intended to track collecting feedback on the COC process and implementing/documenting improvements.

@mcollina @ctcpip

[IntisarUddin]

@bensternthal , is anyone working on this?
I would like to help. Please tell me how to do it. Thanks in advance.

[bmuenzenmeyer]

I've been a member of the Node.js Moderation team since July 2024. It's given me perspective on one OpenJS project and how to maintain a high degree of safety and respect for all contributors; even in instances where we miss the mark. I found this issue and took a blizzardy afternoon to finally share some thoughts.

I'm happy to work with the CPC in any capacity. These observations are mine alone and do not reflect the views of the Moderation team or any other OpenJS Foundation project. They aim to provide feedback constructively and I've taken pains not to reference specific incidents or individuals.

Context, As I Understand It

• The Node.js Moderation team is the deferred entity responsible for handling reports of violations of the Node.js Code of Conduct (CoC). Delegated responsibilities are outlined here.

• CPC CoC

• Node.js CoC

• Node.js Moderation Policy

In most cases, the Node.js moderation team monitors GitHub issue and pull request communications, as well as Slack and Discord. These are not the only forums, however, as the improvements will explore below.

Improvements To Explore

• Delegated project Codes of Conduct should make explicit mention of the superseding CPC CoC.

  • Example: The Node.js CoC does not mention CPC, Cross Project Council, or OpenJS Foundation. The Moderation Policy now does, however.

• Do projects needs their own CoC at all? Perhaps only reporting is different, citing the deferred responsibility.

  • The introduction of Contributor Covenant 3 might be a good time to re-evaluate.
  • Could cross-linking be further leveraged to have a single source of examples?
  • Claude suggested a very minimal diff when you get to substance.

• More policies and definitions MUST be defined. For example, in both CPC and some project CoCs,

  • the word serious is used to delineate a warning from a temporary ban, but it's not defined. This leaves it open to interpretation by moderation staff, or worse, indecision and inconsistent enforcement.
  • the CoC incident response process has been in need of update since February 2024.
  • the scope and process for private comms should be clarified throughout the organization. more comments below

• Clarify applicability and procedures during PRIVATE communications.

  • Do CoC and moderation policies have scope in PRIVATE communications at all? Today moderation policies have clear scope and enforcement guidelines for written communication, and when representing publicly.

  This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces, and also applies when an individual is officially representing the community in public spaces. Examples of representing our community include using an official e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event.

  • This creates a CoC and Moderation policy gap that can lead to a lack of clarity. It changes the very nature of "moderator" to "judge." Let's discuss three options:

    • 1. Yes, private comms are in scope, so long as they have a system of record (Slack DMs, channels, online recordings, emails).
    • 2. Yes, private comms are in scope, and moderation staff is empowered as an investigative authority, even when not present. This would require a policy update to clarify the authority of moderation staff in private communications.
      • What is the investigative process?
        • Is there an interview process? Are all parties interviewed? The accused? Moderation policy does mentions intent but not universally.
      • What is the evidentiary threshold for action?
        • Credible accusation?
        • Preponderance of evidence?
        • Beyond a reasonable doubt?
          This is not meant to be interpreted as quibbling. Without clarity here in incident response, the moderation staff itself is left to interpret circumstances and witness testimony. In some observed cases, not all witnesses or moderation staff agreed on basic facts, let alone intent, and they likely have no process to drive toward consensus and resolution. Above all, we should codify:
          • believing accusers, even biasing toward them in the absence of consensus or evidence, while still respecting the accused and their right to appeal.
          • incident response that is swift and not drawn out
    • 3. No, private comms are out of scope, and moderation staff has no authority in private communications. Make that clear in policy documents or implement option 1 or 2 instead.

[ljharb]

I would assume b always applies (and always has applied). While it'd be great to define written thresholds and criteria, I think moderator judgement is sufficient absent that documentation.