Universal Code of Conduct/Annual review/2026/Charter

Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)

• Coordinating Committee (U4C)
• U4C Announcements
• Training modules
• Cases
• Recurring review
• Elections

This page is dedicated to collect and discuss potential changes to the Charter of the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Everyone is invited to comment or make suggestions on the review subpages.

Proposed changes

Instructions: Please propose any changes as simply as possible and with your signature. You may propose and comment in any language. Longer thoughts or explanations can be included as a reply.

• Shorten Section 3.4 of Charter by removing However, decisions relating to a systemic failure to enforce the UCoC require at least 8 voting members in support.

All future decisions, particularly declarations of systemic failure will still require 5-members minimum and more than 50% of those voting. In the standard case of 8-members (which has largely been the case), this will prevent one inactive member from holding back the remaining 7-active members, while still safeguarding the legitimacy of U4C's trust. I believe root fix is still a larger U4C committee, but this at least cleans up a glaring issue. ~ Shushugah (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Shushugah: My personal opinion is that the U4C should not declare systemic failures unless absolutely necessary. The U4C has a lot of jurisdiction even without the systemic failure piece. The systemic failure piece would allow the U4C to make decisions overriding ArbComs, close projects and etc, and I think the safeguard is necessary. dbeef (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Dbeef I wholly agree that these are exceptional procedures. I fail to see how 8 votes out of 12 members is more cautious than 7 votes out of 8 members. In the former, a 67% vote would indicate a tighter vote than an 87%.

I could imagine adding a 75% quorum for systemic failures as that would prevent both the status quo and new hypothetical scenarios of 8/12 or 7/12 members being sufficient. Shushugah (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

General discussion

These are just my initial ideas. I am thinking about whether it is possible to allow U4C to appoint two more non-voting members for a specific U4C case if it is necessary. Moreover, if the candidates receive 50~60% support in the election, U4C can appoint them as non-voting members, which are determined by whether they can fill gaps in knowledge and experience. And the maximum number of non-voting members can be increased to 6~8. Thanks. SCP-2000 11:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@SCP-2000: My personal opinion is that having more NVMs is a good idea but for the moment I would like the committee to have more voting members before increasing the NVM/VM ratio or setting a fixed minimum number of NVMs in the document. Onboarding new members (voting or not) requires a certain amount of effort which I think would be difficult to manage for temporary/specific case NVMs. --Civvì (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)