Universal Code of Conduct/Annual review/EG review 2025

Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

This page is dedicated to collect and discuss potential changes to the UCoC enforcement guidelines. 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.

Remove the U4CBC section (and any mentions of it elsewhere). From U4C discussion. Posted by Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Align the Charter and Enforcement Guidelines: no blocks/bans in the past year or no current ones? From U4C discussion. Posted by Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allow for referrals from communities and/or high-level decision making bodies. From U4C discussion. Posted by Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Charter allows for referrals by the Foundation and high-level decision making bodies for systemic failures, but it seems silly to limit referrals to only those categories. The Charter also requires the U4C to at least open an investigation in those referrals. I do not think that is necessary for non-systemic failure referrals. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify if ArbComs must be NDA (sign the ANPDP) in order to be considered high-level decision making bodies. From U4C discussion. Posted by Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was brought up by a different U4C member but just to put the conflict out there more explicitly I will copy their comments anonymously given that I don't think I can publicly reveal for them that they said it "Clarify the consistency under "3.1.2 Enforcement by type of violations" "local governance structure (e.g. ArbCom)" versus "NDA-signed, high-level decision-making body" in the charter." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 Why do you want to remove any mention of the U4CBC ("and any mentions of it elsewhere") ? Is it to erase the memories ? The rules of the U4C have been set up first by this Committee, it did not come from nowhere and it was a collective work that started in Phase 2 drafting committee.

So, in order to be faithful to history, I ask that the mentions of the U4CBC are not removed everywhere, as you demand, but kept at least in following sentences :

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee : "defined in the Charter which was developed by a Building Committee" (keep the link to the U4CBC page).

2. Elections and Terms

2.4. Elections - "For the first election, the U4C Building Committee (U4CBC) will take the place of the U4C."

2.5. Voting Process - "After the first session of the U4C, the U4CBC will be dissolved and the U4C will begin work as soon as possible."

If there is a new version of the Charter, please put the corresponding dates and write the sentences at the past. Waltercolor (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Waltercolor the charter "details the scope and purpose of the U4C, its selection, membership roles, basic procedures, as well as policies and precedent." It does not record the history of the U4C, the UCoC, or the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines. The U4CBC no longer exists and there is no mechanism for a new U4CBC to exist. Instead the U4CBC's history is archived elsewhere including Universal Code of Conduct/Project and, if this change is proposed an adopted, the edit history of the charter itself. It doesn't also need continue to be int he document itself and keeping lines like "For the first election..." requires someone to know whether or not there has been a first election. The U4C and indeed the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines are novel enough for even highly aware people that we should not cause further confusion by preserving no longer useful information when we have a method to amend. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporate the right to be heard into section 3.3.1 Fairness in process. We need to protect community members from false accusations, and decision-making bodies from incorrect decisions. The right to be heard is an age-old procedural principle that we should follow as well. --Gnom (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnom can you offer specific suggestions for changes to the current wording about right to be heard? Right to be heard was a large piece of feedback from the failed EG to the successful EG. The current wording is intended to be supportive of the right to be heard, while also acknowledging that in certain cases (e.g. long term abuse) it may not be necessary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful direct response, @Barkeep49. Just to be clear, we are both talking about the second paragraph in section 3.3.1 Fairness in process, is that correct? I am more than happy to directly address the relevant language, and propose specific improvements. Gnom (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

References