Talk:IDESG Code of Conduct

Please use this discussion page about the Code of Conduct to aggregate views and questions for later discussion.

Remember, these Codes are for use by our IDESG group as currently is formed, but that these Codes will be used possibly in two years, with a completely different makeup of participants. While we all want to believe we are doing our best, and I believe we are trying, there are people who could use these provisions against good actions. Writing a Constitution is hard to get right, and I would like to see us do the best work we can to contain bad actors and action while still maintaining good actors and work even if it conflicts with a majority view at some point. We want to keep the org moving, but not at the expense of shutting down dissenting views or constructive criticism.
Thank you,

COMMENTS

By Mary Hodder, 2 Dec 2014
With my usability hat on, I have to say that reading the Codes in their current form, I'm concerned about several things noted below.

1. From General Provisions: "All persons are expected to take full responsibility for their contributions and behavior and show each other patience, courtesy, respect, and dignity."

• Bad actors could use the codes against good actors
  • CASE example: If "disrepute" is a matter of interpretation, an behavior can be interpreted negatively as disreputable and therefore a dissenting opinion could be used to remove someone from the organization.

2. From General Provisions: "Comments regarding personalities and/or motives of other participants, or that bring the organization itself into disrepute are not permitted."

• Good actors will be prohibited from calling out bad actors, as they attempt to name negative behavior
  • CASE example: Comments relating to "motive" are prohibited, but if the motive of a bad actor is to manipulate the group into doing something that would benefit their own company or financial interest, addressing that motive is currently prohibited.

3. From Conduct in IDESG online discussion forums and lists: "Comments relating to personalities and motives, slurs, personal insults, and obscenity, or any conduct that is unacceptable under IDESG’s Code of ethics or NSTIC guiding principles is prohibited. Members should also show proper consideration for the privacy of others and for topics that may be considered inflammatory."

• Good actors can be prohibited from sharing conflicting views
  • CASE example: if conflicting views are classified as "insulting" or "inflammatory" to the dominant paradigm because they are bringing up a different view that is currently being considered, differing views could be shut down.
• Bad actors could use the codes against good actors
  • CASE example: profanity is prohibited by the Codes, and yet in the Chair's Call on Dec 2 2014, one Chair used the word, "damned" to express frustration. That Chair is a very good Chair but that person has now broken the rules.

4. From Appeals: "Any two members of an assembly may appeal the chair’s decision by motion prior to moving to the next item of business and in accordance with the provisions of Roberts’ Rules of Order."

• It's not clear when or where this objections would take place as a chair may quickly move on leaving an appellant no chance to appeal.
  

"An appeal to the Chair of Plenary (with regard to a decision of a committee chair) or to the Chair of the Board of Directors (with regard to a decision of the Chair of Plenary or of Management Council) will only be considered if it indicates how the original decision was not taken in accordance with the rules or the provisions of this Code."

• The problem as it stands now is that the Code is flawed.. so negative behaviors could be appealed, yet still be in keeping with the code allowing bad actors to prevail (see above examples). This would mean that either good actors or dissenting views constructively submitted could be shut out under the current document.

................. by Mary Hodder