XSF Discussion - 2021-06-28

  1. Holger

    When using XEP-0413 with MAM, it's unclear to me whether it's (only) about the ordering of pages or (also) the message ordering _within_ the page (goffi?).

  2. goffi

    Hi Holger, it's also the message ordering withing the page. I need to block some time to update this XEP, I have a few modifications to do for a long while on it, following discussions on standard@. If you have comments or remarks, please write them to standard@ so I can take them into account for next update.

  3. Holger

    goffi: Ok, thanks.

  4. Holger

    *If* reverse chronological order is supported, then XEP-0313's `<flip-page/>` would duplicate that functionality, I think. Then again I don't see how to do that with 0413 right now.

  5. Holger

    A quick grep through my standards@ archive didn't come up with that topic, I'll bring it up on the list.

  6. Zash

    XEP-0413 predates the addition of `<flip-page/>` to XEP-0313, right? Seems sensible that 413 may need clarification for that.

  7. goffi

    sure please write this on standard@, I have no time right now to check that.

  8. Holger

    Zash: Yes, which is why I'd think 0313 could avoid the feature, not the other way round.

  9. Holger

    But probably too late anyway(?) ...

  10. pep.

    Hi there. I'm reading 458 (CoC). I'm missing a way for the work team to demote Board members and CoC work team members if necessary. I think it's actually important for the team not to have to go through board to make this kind of decision. It should also probably be specified what happens when the accused and/or the victim are in the CoC work team, or in Board (because it's currently involved in the process)

  11. pep.

    Also, this was a pretty good guide to building CoCs, if one is happy to read a 100 pages. https://files.frameshiftconsulting.com/books/cocguide.pdf

  12. moparisthebest

    not sure a work team should be able to fire an elected board member, isn't that what member voting is for ?

  13. MattJ

    Just because someone is elected doesn't mean they can act however they want for a year :)

  14. pep.

    There needs to be control over the board that isn't the board and that doesn't involve everybody

  15. Menel

    Impeachment. So maybe a general vote.. How do political party's do it?

  16. pep.

    If I know my oppressor is in board and they're gonna be part of the decision I just won't say anything

  17. pep.

    And they will go unchallenged for as long as they're there

  18. Zash

    Is this an actual problem we have right now?

  19. Menel

    Why wouldn't you say anything pep? Even if they have a vote you can turn the public with your words... Its not like you have real live oppression in return if you speak up. The board is not really powerful in any way outside of this server

  20. pep.

    Zash: not that I know of. Just reading the attempt at a CoC

  21. pep.

    Menel: not everybody knows or can speak up for themselves the way you might do

  22. pep.

    Menel: not everybody knows how to or can speak up for themselves the way you might do

  23. Menel

    I can understand your reasoning if it was against the leader of the church that the histpital belongs to where you work.. But this is xmpp

  24. Menel

    I can understand your reasoning if it was against the leader of the church that the hospital belongs to where you work.. But this is xmpp

  25. pep.

    "it's not like you have to live oppression in return if you speak up", maybe you should skim through that document I linked :p

  26. moparisthebest

    I actually haven't looked this up, I assumed the membership could hold an election to kick a board member out anytime they wanted ?

  27. pep.

    Sure, it's yet another online community, that doesn't change anything

  28. moparisthebest

    but if not, maybe that's all that is needed

  29. pep.

    moparisthebest: yeah but that means you'd have to tell everybody what happened, how it happened, probably redo the whole thing that the CoC team did (hearings etc.) just for this vote to happen

  30. moparisthebest

    as opposed to what ? (surely not the CoC work team just silently firing a board member)

  31. pep.

    Not silently obviously, but surely they should have some power and should be able to silence the victim's identity etc.

  32. moparisthebest

    that sounds ominously Kafkaesque

  33. moparisthebest

    hi all, we are firing $board-member for secret reasons because of what they did to a secret victim, thanks!

  34. Zash

    Actually removing them from office without involving the membership does seem a bit too much. Having someone suspended from non-official meetings etc might be enough?

  35. pep.

    moparisthebest: I don't want to be mean (even though that's gonna sound like it), but that sounds like white cishet male talk. "You have an issue? Just come and talk about it it's easy". Now I'm caricaturing but it's easy to put up such document and think you're doing good when actually you're not changing much

  36. moparisthebest

    that's a super sexist, racist, and stereotypical statement imho

  37. pep.

    Not saying I don't appreciate the efforts

  38. moparisthebest

    society discovered hundreds of years ago that "due process" is a thing that is good and should be upheld, and "secret courts" are bad, pretty ridiculous to institute a policy going backwards to try to make an organization more open

  39. pep.

    That was lots of assumptions indeed and I'm sorry about that, but that's what you sounded like to me just now

  40. eta

    pep., calling stuff "white cishet male talk" is very counterproductive; it's more useful to directly address what issues you have with the statement

  41. eta

    like, ad-hominems don't help anyone

  42. eta

    (although I do agree with you partially, it's good to have ways to remove people without it needing to cause a huge fuss for the people being harassed)

  43. pep.

    eta: well that's the thing, some people express themselves better than others (and that again comes from privileges a big chunk of the time..) I'm no good at doing this and yeah that can show up this way. Also why I don't like to do this kind of stuff in public and I prefer smaller committees.

  44. pep.

    I came in peace, I guess I'm going away again. Bye

  45. eta sighs

  46. moparisthebest

    just seems like an awful lot of work to address a problem that's likely never to happen? simply make it possible to remove a board member if needed if there isn't already, and then if it ever happens think about ways to improve the process if needed ?

  47. moparisthebest

    giving some non-elected group the ability to unilaterally without reason fire board members seems crazy excessive and wrong

  48. jubalh


  49. Kev

    There is already the facility to remove a Board member.

  50. Sam

    I tend to agree with pep that having a way to remove a board member w/o it being up to the person being harassed to go before the entire XSF and be grilled about it is a good idea (though I disagree with the suggestion that the conduct team being able to unilaterally replace an elected member is a good idea, though I can't tell if that's actually what was being suggested or if other people just jumped on that and assumed that's what was being suggested).

  51. Sam

    At the least it's probably a good idea to link the process for removing board members from the CoC and possibly letting conduct committee people instigate that process w/o revealing the identify of the person being harrassed (if that's their desire).

  52. Sam

    Where does that even live? If we have bylaws or something I don't think I've ever seen them and I can't find them on the website

  53. Sam

    (that's not strictly true, I found them with a search engine, but I can't find them if I'm already on the website)

  54. Sam

    What about giving the CoC group the ability to call special member meetings for the purposes of holding a vote? Right now it's just the board or 10% of membership, but giving the CoC team that power seems like a good way to start the removal of a rogue board member w/o having to convince 10% of people before you even have a meeting where you can present your facts (or w/o involving the board which is obviously a no-go)

  55. moparisthebest

    "w/o revealing the identify of the person being harrassed (if that's their desire)" this seems dangerous and wrong

  56. moparisthebest

    Otherwise letting them call for a member vote seems fine

  57. Sam

    > this seems dangerous and wrong Why?

  58. moparisthebest

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause that's been a principal back to Roman times at least

  59. moparisthebest

    But especially online it'd be easy to abuse, register fake account, accuse board member of misconduct, done