OBOFoundry
Formally registering the COC committee
Summary of OFOC mailing list:
- We have a code of conduct (COC): https://obofoundry.org/docs/COC.html
- We don't have the COC team documented anywhere. These should be documented in the usual way in roles, but we also need to list members, I think, as a separate group in operations
- The COC team should be diverse (min 5 members?), and each team member should be individually contactable by community members (@mellybelly says:
The main considerations are that it should contain several diverse people so that community members can choose to consult with someone they are most comfortable with, and that the committee must have a confidential process for reconciling issues and the authority to do so.) - There should be at least a basic SOP that is concerned with documenting confidentiality (not revealing the source of the complaints), and modus operandi when a complaint is received.
cc @bpeters42, @hoganwr who helped jump-starting the discussion again
This all sounds good. I suggest identifying appropriate examples to follow, rather than inventing the process from scratch.
The Open Bioinformatics Foundation has some similarities to the OBO Foundry in that it has a small group of people running it (a Board, in the case of the OBF) but it encompasses a large, ever-changing, loosely-affiliated community of projects and people. You can see the OBF CoC here: https://github.com/OBF/obf-docs/tree/master/code-of-conduct
The Carpentries Code of Conduct (and associated processes) is also a good example: https://docs.carpentries.org/topic_folders/policies/code-of-conduct.html
But this really seems like something the Governance Committee should be handling -- they should assemble a proposed SOP and response team and the OBO Operations Committee can approve.
Someone correct me, but I thought this code of conduct page (that we now have on the website) was generated by the governance committee?
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 10:44 AM Nomi Harris @.***> wrote:
This all sounds good. I suggest identifying appropriate examples to follow, rather than inventing the process from scratch.
The Open Bioinformatics Foundation has some similarities to the OBO Foundry in that it has a small group of people running it (a Board, in the case of the OBF) but it encompasses a large, ever-changing, loosely-affiliated community of projects and people. You can see the OBF CoC here: https://github.com/OBF/obf-docs/tree/master/code-of-conduct
The Carpentries Code of Conduct (and associated processes) is also a good example: https://docs.carpentries.org/topic_folders/policies/code-of-conduct.html
But this really seems like something the Governance Committee should be handling -- they should assemble a proposed SOP and response team and the OBO Operations Committee can approve.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/issues/2361#issuecomment-1535168314, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADJX2IVA26HAPTPKYDM3V2LXEPTIFANCNFSM6AAAAAAXWCNDTA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
-- Bjoern Peters Professor La Jolla Institute for Immunology 9420 Athena Circle La Jolla, CA 92037, USA Tel: 858/752-6914 Fax: 858/752-6987 http://www.liai.org/pages/faculty-peters
@nlharris my memory agrees with @bpeters42 memory - we don't only want to vote the coc team in - the coc is already there, created by the governance team. Of course if you have a resource that describes the concrete sop for a coc team member that we could copy for sure!
The above comment says this will be closed when PR #2387 is merged, but the meeting notes from last time say
COC committee will meet in June/July to review current documentation and to identify the COC process
Hi all, apologies I was not available for the meeting. I authored the COC with input from the community prior to the governance task team being formed. I would strongly urge there to be a call for nominations on OBO-discuss for these roles and not simply take all volunteers. The original idea - and one used successfully in many other contexts - is to have a small and diverse group of contacts that can carefully support and navigate any issues that anyone in the community might have. I would also argue that it be best to not have any of these ~3 COC committee members be active OBO-ops committee members, as some of the challenges that we have collected are about how the OBO community is functioning, and these folks will not come forward if it is viewed as insider trading, so to speak. We will make a more specific recommendation as part of the Governance task force documents that will be presented in Sept.
Also suggest that all policies for review or requests like this be sent to obo-discuss as an SOP, not everyone looks at every github tickets frequently.
I am not in favor of Melissa's suggestion. It took us a year or so to get some understanding of what the governance group is doing vs. the OBO operations group, and to resolve the embarrassing gaps caused by putting references to committees out that didn't exist. Putting everything into obo-discuss land and restarting the forming process for COC seems like a step back, and will create another round of FUD, and again paralyze our work. I am certain that is not Melissa's intention, and I want to stress that this is only my personal opinion. And I would be happy to be convinced that I am wrong. But I do think this suggestion needs to be discussed rather than just accepted.
For the CoC, Alex, Nico and I discussed how to address the concern that a topic raised is in concerning one of the CoC members. We decided to provide our personal emails, so that concerns can be raised with one of us, if the concern involves another CoC member. I think it is appropriate to have OBO Ops people on the committee, as we are familiar with ongoing activities and other OBO folks.As Bjoern said, it has taken some time to get this started, I would like us to proceed now that the committee has been formed. Cheers,LynnSent from my iPhoneOn Jul 13, 2023, at 12:17 PM, bpeters42 @.***> wrote: I am not in favor of Melissa's suggestion. It took us a year or so to get some understanding of what the governance group is doing vs. the OBO operations group, and to resolve the embarrassing gaps caused by putting references to committees out that didn't exist. Putting everything into obo-discuss land and restarting the forming process for COC seems like a step back, and will create another round of FUD, and again paralyze our work. I am certain that is not Melissa's intention, and I want to stress that this is only my personal opinion. And I would be happy to be convinced that I am wrong. But I do think this suggestion needs to be discussed rather than just accepted.
—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: @.***>
Operations Committee looks forward to discussing this in September with Governance Committee session.
Here are the notes from September: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qhLFQL5IzTMUIBOtxJ5AqaEHcOCOQgNeXfvAb5O5P0A/edit#heading=h.c5u4usqddmaz
I don't see anything pertaining to CoC specifically
There are two references to CoC in the 9/19/23 notes, but they are not very informative.
The problem is this:
- We have formally registered the COC committee
- @mellybelly thinks we went against the spirit of the proposal (COC should have been recruited from neutral people outside OBO Ops)
I personally cant spend time now to reconcile these two positions, I am happy to relinquish my role in COC and give it to some other volunteer - whatever you (the grand OBO community) decides!