Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Revised enforcement guidelines/Conversation hours

All signups on same sheet[edit]

Hi @RamzyM (WMF) and BPipal (WMF): - all the sign-up sheets for the three sessions are linking to the sign-up sheet for the 1st session.

I'd have just fixed directly, but translation tags are scary :D Nosebagbear (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: fixed, thanks for the ping :) RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16 September conversation hours[edit]

@Aliyu shaba, Gnangarra, SCP-2000, Nosebagbear, and Reke: the Zoom meeting link has been posted on the landing page -- looking forward to see you in a few hours! Cheers, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3 October conversation hours[edit]

Hello @Gnangarra, @Nosebagbear, @Dumuzid, @DerHexer, @Joycewikiwiki, @Kiraface, @Anna Torres (WMAR).
The Zoom meeting link has been posted on the landing page. Looking forward to seeing you all on Monday!
Kind regards, BPipal (WMF) (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had a bad day and couldn't attend. —DerHexer (Talk) 18:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that @DerHexer. However, the Movement Strategy Forum has a discussion thread dedicated to the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines. We are also posting the summary of notes couple of days after each meeting. On top of that, you'll also be able to read the summaries on Meta.
Take care and kind regards, BPipal (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding questions from the conversation hours[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,
(a courtesy ping to all Conversation Hours attendees: @Aliyu shaba, Gnangarra, SCP-2000, Nosebagbear, Reke, DaSupremo, DerHexer, Fanchb29, Hassan Hassoon, Nehaoua, Dumuzid, Joycewikiwiki, Kiraface, Anna Torres (WMAR), and Tiputini:)

Thank you for your participation in the three conversation hours sessions about the revised Enforcement Guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct. The UCoC project team appreciates you all taking the time to come to the call and ask questions. Here are some answers from the conversation hours that we were not able to get to ahead of the meeting ending. Some of these questions do not have clear answers at present; they will be considered by the Revisions Committee as they review community input on the revised Enforcement Guidelines. The Committee will reconvene in the second week of October 2022, and the UCoC project team will support them in providing updates as they continue their work.

We invite you to discuss these answers with Wikimedians around the world at the Movement Strategy Forum, an inclusive collaborative space for multilingual conversations. Join with your Wikimedia account and share your thoughts in your language.

a. If someone needs to obtain relevant information for in-depth reporting/ research/ report after the incident is dealt with, can they only obtain partial information from the person concerned, but cannot obtain complete information from U4C?
b. If the person reporting wants to disclose the information, and the person being reported does not want to disclose the information for privacy reasons, what should be done in this case? Will the person who becomes the reported person also have to be dealt with for violating the usage guidelines?
c. More clarity on which contractors need to sign off and which should be banned, is needed.
d. Local project variability - how will training handle levels of customization without becoming too big/complicated and how are we going to prevent it from being ultra vague.
Who will be required to take the training and what are the criteria to identify them? and how to make sure they are eligible to enforce the policy?
These questions/points will be considered by the Revisions Committee as they review community input on the revised Enforcement Guidelines. They will start work again in the second week of October, and the UCoC project team will support them in providing updates as they continue their work.
a. In the last case on [X] Wikipedia, the whole incident can be traced back to [X]. These small conflicts or incidents had no obvious evidence at the beginning but eventually accumulated into a situation where the Foundation had to intervene. But if a similar situation occurs in the future, this also means that if the whole situation is to be explained, it will become a large amount of information to be compiled and provided to U4C. Is there a way to reduce such time-consuming labor costs?
b. How much support is there going to be available to support appeals and building a case when it can be in multiple languages over 10 years time period i.e. the zh.wikipedia issues
The Enforcement Guidelines currently provide for the formation of a U4C Building Committee, which will have to consider questions like these as they form the structure for the U4C. How to support large, complicated cases, covering long periods of time, will have to be a major consideration.
a. We all probably know that grants are often given inappropriately sized, or end up not providing any lasting benefit. The revised UCOC statement "will provide financial support to local communities and Wikimedia affiliates wishing to provide training at their community level to implement the training".
b. Should equal authority be given to require that follow-up training is effective and that the training actually spent the requested funds, not just the original funding details of the grant application?
At this stage, details of grants support for UCoC training is dependent upon the final form of the training recommendations in the Enforcement Guidelines. Unfortunately, that means that the specifics of training support have not been outlined at this point. The specifics will have to be worked out through talking to affiliate and community groups, and working with the funding best practices that are in place at that time.
Are we going to be able to ask anyone to let us know if our current conduct policies would be in compliance *before* needing to vote on the UCOC? With that interpretation being binding after it is signed?
To clarify, the upcoming vote is specifically on the Enforcement Guidelines for the UCoC. The UCoC was ratified by the Board of Trustees in February of 2021. Community discussions on local policy compliance are already taking place on some projects, such as the French Wikipedia. Compatibility between local policies and global policies, for instance for privacy-related issues and copyright compliance, are always ongoing conversations in our movement, and take time and collaboration to resolve.
What if a local community/project is in majority against UCOC? Why will it be applied to it just because the global vote was for it?
The UCoC, per the Board of Trustees, is meant to be a baseline, or minimum standard, for local policy to follow. If a project, or members of a project, find certain parts of the policy objectionable, or difficult to implement into their local policies, these issues should be discussed in the context of future improvements to the policy. Just as with other global policies, such as the Terms of Use or the Privacy Policy, the UCoC applies to the Wikimedia projects as a whole. But it is not written in stone, and will evolve over time.
Could you provide more detail into recruitment of the committee members so far? How come there aren’t any Arab speakers in the revisions committee?
We host open calls on meta as well as mailing lists to engage interested community members in the UCoC process, and from there, we look to create committees with diverse experience both within the movement and within policy creation. We don’t specifically target any particular region, and the UCoC project team puts significant effort in finding folks that represent our global movement to create a diverse committee. Arabic language expertise was represented in the UCoC Policy committee, but as with all communities, we cannot guarantee that all languages and communities would be represented on every committee.

On behalf of the UCoC Project team,
RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Je résume ici quand même le message que j'ai indiqué sur le forum :

Je suis quand même très gêné par la manière de communiquer de la fondation, voir de meta (les comités principalement), uniquement en anglais, sans n'avoir à priori d'autre moyen que l'anglais pour discuter avec les contributeurs quand un contributeur non anglophone tente d'échanger avec elle directement (je remercie quand même les facilitateurs qui font un travail non négligeable dans la transcription des échanges).

Parler dans sa communication d'inclusion sans dans le même temps inclure d'autres locuteurs que les anglophones dans les instances méta n'est pas un signe d'inclusion. Cela me parait même être un signe pouvant paraitre comme étant un signe de rejet. Fanchb29 (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]